Page 8 of 39 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516171833 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 771

Thread: Total War: Warhammer II announced

  1. #141

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Quote Originally Posted by Påsan View Post
    Yeah 600 hours of entertainment for ~600kr inc DLC. Man thats like 1kr per hour played. And while working I earn around 250kr per hour pre tax so those four-ish hours at work WASTED! on just 600 hours play time
    I think what Faith was referring to when he made that comment was that we have an unprecedented amount of detail and imagination (read: money) gone into units and animations... and yet the whole battle experience feels like a flash in the pan. I mean, hats off to the person that can get a reasonable outcome and sit around gawping at the cool graphics.

    Personally, I find it hard enough keeping up with the battle pace even when fully zoomed out and occasionally using the slow-mo speed setting. So yeah, you could say that all those $$$ spent on fancy unit modelling and mo-cap is mostly lost on people like me

  2. #142
    LestaT's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Campus Martius
    Posts
    3,857

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrin View Post
    I think what Faith was referring to when he made that comment was that we have an unprecedented amount of detail and imagination (read: money) gone into units and animations... and yet the whole battle experience feels like a flash in the pan. I mean, hats off to the person that can get a reasonable outcome and sit around gawping at the cool graphics.

    Personally, I find it hard enough keeping up with the battle pace even when fully zoomed out and occasionally using the slow-mo speed setting. So yeah, you could say that all those $$$ spent on fancy unit modelling and mo-cap is mostly lost on people like me
    I find that the longer the campaign goes and the more experience units git then the longer the engagement took place.

    For earlier turns, yes. I don't even close ups since it's fast.

  3. #143

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Quote Originally Posted by LestaT View Post
    I find that the longer the campaign goes and the more experience units git then the longer the engagement took place.

    For earlier turns, yes. I don't even close ups since it's fast.
    Yeah, the situation definitely improves as your units tech up. That usually coincides with fighting massive 40 vs 40 battles in the late game, though, so it's still a bit of a prob for players who aren't so into the twitch side of strategy gaming. I just hope CA decide to offer a more rounded suite of gameplay options in the next historical game. Mods are great, but something built in by the devs would be a load better and I'm guessing that ship has already sailed as far as Warhammer is concerned.

  4. #144
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,061

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    twitch about combined map - https://www.twitch.tv/videos/135116972 (first 10 minutes +/-)

    1) All factions, DLCs in (from W1)
    2) map won´t be shrinked down. Old World is all the same (number region,settlements, AI factions), New World slightly shifted. Some regions on South and West removed...just handful of them, one legendary lord starting position is shifted to new one because of that
    3) Huge map - no theatre of war
    4) no FPS drop, however longer AI end turn (twice as many factions)
    5) Region occupation changed for all factions. Everybody everywhere. Not everywhere is suitable for every faction
    6) Vortex offers new gameplay features, for old world factions too..all new cool stuff for old factions too,not just new ones
    Last edited by Daruwind; April 12, 2017 at 09:52 AM.

  5. #145
    Mhaedros's Avatar Brave Heart Tegan
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    8,575
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Colour me impressed; I didn't think CA would attempt merging the full sized maps, cutting some regions in the south-west makes sense to improve performance (presumably the factions there aren't very important).

    What this really makes me ask though, is how will the third game work?
    Under the patronage of Finlander. Once patron to someone, no longer.
    Content's well good, innit.


  6. #146
    Ngugi's Avatar TATW & Albion Local Mod
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    10,686

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Sweet news

    Kingdom of Lindon preview video out





    DCI: Last Alliance
    - WIP Second Age mod | DCI: Tôl Acharn - mighty Dúnedain Counter Invasions |
    Additional Mercenary Minimod - more mercs; for TATW and DCI | Family Tree minimods - lore improvements | Remade Event Pictures - enhance cultures trough images |
    Favorite TATW compilation: Withwnars Submod Collection
    Patron of Mank, Kiliç Alì, FireFreak111, MIKEGOLF & Arachir Galudirithon, Earl of Memory

  7. #147

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Everyone can conquer anywhere? Really? Thats not good. Other than that pretty good news if they re true (didnt watch the stream).

    Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk


  8. #148

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Quote Originally Posted by Påsan View Post
    I still cant get my head around people not realizing the animation work for one faction in warhammer is more expansive than pretty much the sum of animations in any other TW game.
    That's part of the job when developing a game in a fantasy setting with different races. CA was fully aware of this when they decided to make warhammer their next 3 TW titles. So what?

    And what about all the features they've stripped out? Like the family tree, the seasons, the naval battles, the city battles, the taxes, the mercenaries, the unit formations, the cities that can be fully besieged by all sides instead of just a restricted section of a wall, the moddability of the campaign map, the freedom to create mods in any setting that we want (mods of other fantasy settings are not allowed in warhammer), general's speeches cutscenes and don't even get me started on the stripped out features of the multiplayer: it's the worst it's ever been, a shameful display.

    And what about other issues of TW:W? Like the most dumped down and arcade sieges of the franchise, machine gun towers in sieges, a shocking lack of animations in sieges (the troops that are inside of the walls magically teleport from the walls to the ground and from the ground to the walls, ladders magically appear out of nowhere etc.), totally arcade and extremely fast battles, broken autoresolve, broken economy, worse diplomacy, the AI doesn't know how screening units are supposed to be used and uses them as shock cavalry, suicide - charging generals, same advisor for every faction, units sometime ignore orders, the CAI is totally unaware of attrition, cut content being developed more than half a year before release etc.

    TW:W has its good points of course and I have already mentioned them before in another thread, but how come I don't hear you talking at all about any of these issues? How come you only praise the game and never criticise it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Påsan View Post
    And then they complain about the map being sold in "pieces"
    Grow up dude. Having a different opinion or saying something that you don't like doesn't equal complaining.

    Plus, it's not just the campaign map. The entire game is being sold in pieces. And in many pieces, to be even more exact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Påsan View Post
    like all three games and all the dlcs in one neat 30$ package was the least we should have expected.
    Don't worry, it'll inevitably get there. It's just a matter of time.

    And since you're bringing up prices, TW:W is just one third of the warhammer setting and it already costs 120 Euros to get all the pieces. So if all 3 parts cost more or less the same then we're essentially talking about a single game costing 360 Euros. That's theft. In my country that's the 3/4 of the monthly salary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Påsan View Post
    And getting four new races
    Getting new races is pretty much a given in both expansions and new games in fantasy settings. So what?

    Plus, they're not four. They'll most probably be 2. At least the playable ones (lizardmen and skaven).

    Quote Originally Posted by Påsan View Post
    (not factions, races.
    When they say "races" in warhammer they actually mean "factions", it's the same thing.

    Why do I say that? Look what they did with TW:W. They said "there will be 4 races at release". Well, if we take this literally then they lied as there were only 3 races at release: humans, dwarfs and orcs (the vampires are not a new race, they're tainted humans). So they actually meant 4 playable factions.

    Now look what they're doing with TW:W2. They say again "there will be 4 races at release". And yet they have actually announced 2 races (elves and lizardmen) to be the 3 of the 4, as they've already said that there is one more "race" which is still unannounced. Wait, what? How is this possible? Quite simple, by "races" they actually mean "factions". So high elves, dark elves and lizardmen might be 2 races but they're also 3 of the 4 factions, simple.

    I know that it's very annoying to constantly have to read between the lies to understand what someone actually means, but that's how things are with CA. Deal with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Påsan View Post
    There's at least 8 playable factions in wh2)
    That's a lie. Lords are not factions dude, jeez. That's like saying that Carthage is 3 factions because it has 3 families to choose from LOL. The extend that some people go to to defend and praise everything that CA does is unbelievable.

    CA has confirmed 4 races (which as I explained above means 4 factions) and 8 lords in the game at release.

    Quote Originally Posted by Påsan View Post
    a new map
    Again, pretty standard for both an expansion and a new game in a fantasy setting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Påsan View Post
    and a new story
    What story? We're talking about a TW game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Påsan View Post
    and mechanics is somehow less than what was provided by Attila and does not qualify as a new game.
    Attila does not qualify as a new game, it's an expansion. And CA knows it, that's why it costs about 2 / 3 of the price of Rome 2 and not full price.

    - - - - -

    And a comment about the twitch stream: Al Bickham told us several lies about Rome 2, so why does anyone here even take him seriously? Why would anyone believe a word he says? Even the fact that he still works for CA speaks volumes about CA really.
    Last edited by perifanosEllinas; April 12, 2017 at 05:13 PM.

  9. #149

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    So I'm interested to know what people's thoughts are in terms of how they're going to knit the different map areas together. It sounds from recent release from CA that one big "megamap" is off the cards.

    It seems logical, then, that they'll go for a similar system to the one we saw in Empire - i.e. when your navies are in a disembarkation zone on the side of the map, you have the option of sailing them to a different "theatre of war" and they take x number of turns to get there depending on how far away that is. I'd be happy with seeing the return of that system myself.

  10. #150
    God-Emperor of Mankind's Avatar Apperently I protect
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Malmö, Sweden
    Posts
    21,640

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrin View Post
    So I'm interested to know what people's thoughts are in terms of how they're going to knit the different map areas together. It sounds from recent release from CA that one big "megamap" is off the cards.
    The twitch stream just stated that it will be the mega map with tweaks.

  11. #151
    LestaT's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Campus Martius
    Posts
    3,857

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrin View Post
    So I'm interested to know what people's thoughts are in terms of how they're going to knit the different map areas together. It sounds from recent release from CA that one big "megamap" is off the cards.

    It seems logical, then, that they'll go for a similar system to the one we saw in Empire - i.e. when your navies are in a disembarkation zone on the side of the map, you have the option of sailing them to a different "theatre of war" and they take x number of turns to get there depending on how far away that is. I'd be happy with seeing the return of that system myself.
    It will be about double the size of current map with twice as many factions.

    It'll probably be like Attila.

  12. #152
    ♘Top Hat Zebra's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    That place you go to when the world becomes too much? I'm in the world. I'm why it's too much.
    Posts
    5,652

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Quote Originally Posted by perifanosEllinas View Post

    And what about all the features they've stripped out? Like the family tree, the seasons, the naval battles, the city battles, the taxes, the mercenaries, the unit formations, the cities that can be fully besieged by all sides instead of just a restricted section of a wall, the moddability of the campaign map, the freedom to create mods in any setting that we want (mods of other fantasy settings are not allowed in warhammer), general's speeches cutscenes and don't even get me started on the stripped out features of the multiplayer: it's the worst it's ever been, a shameful display.

    And what about other issues of TW:W? Like the most dumped down and arcade sieges of the franchise, machine gun towers in sieges, a shocking lack of animations in sieges (the troops that are inside of the walls magically teleport from the walls to the ground and from the ground to the walls, ladders magically appear out of nowhere etc.), totally arcade and extremely fast battles, broken autoresolve, broken economy, worse diplomacy, the AI doesn't know how screening units are supposed to be used and uses them as shock cavalry, suicide - charging generals, same advisor for every faction, units sometime ignore orders, the CAI is totally unaware of attrition, cut content being developed more than half a year before release etc.

    TW:W has its good points of course and I have already mentioned them before in another thread, but how come I don't hear you talking at all about any of these issues? How come you only praise the game and never criticise it?
    Let's go over this one by one.

    Family Tree: How would this make sense in Warhammer? Why would it even matter? The game doesn't take place over the course of hundreds of years. Children would never grow up, it would just be pointless fluff for no reason. Sure, I guess I'd like it because I like pointless fluff, but how is this a "Stripped feature" exactly? That's like saying Rome II stripped out guns. Just because something was in a previous game doesn't mean it has to be in all future games.

    Seasons: Again, see above. Seasons would be cool, sure, but it's a lot of work for something that likely wouldn't be balanced in the slightest. How many turns of winter would there be in a game where each turn is, what, a week?

    Naval Battles: I agree I would like naval battles, but I understand why they aren't there. Naval battles were never a big deal in Warhammer, there isn't a lot of fluff about them in the first place, and they would be a ton of work animating so many different types of ships and sea monsters and then trying to balance them.

    City Battles: TWW has city battles. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they are "Stripped content."

    Individual Province taxes: I don't think this has been in Total War for a while. It's an odd choice, but hardly very important. I agree it would be nice to have, but I honestly don't really care.

    Mercenaries: Again, it would be nice to have, but not that important. Besides which, the RoR system is extremely similar.

    Unit Formations: Completely agree on this one, however. There should absolutely be unit formations.

    Fully Surround Sieges: This isn't stripped content, this is a changed design decision. You don't like the change, and that's alright, but they did not strip anything.

    Campaign map mods: Haven't been practical since Medieval 2. There are campaign map mods for Shogun 2, but nobody cares about that modding scene. Besides which, I doubt GW would allow campaign map modding.

    Modding Freedom: Entirely not CA's fault. Blame GW for that one.

    General's speeches: A completely minor and unimportant feature that hasn't been in since Rome 2, and if you mean cutscenes only, then they haven't been in since Shogun 2. Technically there are general's speeches in legendary battles, but I doubt that's what you mean. Honestly, this is a very petty complaint to try and pan a company for. Yes, it's a nice little thing, but not even remotely gamebreaking.

    "Dumbed down" sieges: You already said this. It's your opinion.

    Machine Gun towers: These have literally been here since the first Rome. Are you just learning about these?

    Animations in sieges: Sure, but also, these sieges work the best over any in the series. Units never get stuck on walls, the pathfinding doesn't break every time you issue an order, the AI doesn't all stream into a single breach in your wall as soon as it makes one, the game doesn't run at -4 FPS when the entire enemy army condenses to a single point and creates an entire new universe while trying to fit into a mousehole to get through your wall, etc. The improvements outweigh the minor issues in my opinion.

    Fast battles: They've been in and complained about since Shogun 2. We know. We know. We know. People will not shut up about it, and CA very obviously does not care, and has not cared since March 15, 2011. Every bloody day someone gets on the forum to complain about the fast battles and it's literally not achieved anything at all, just get a damn mod and stop complaining about it, or at least, if you're going to complain, do it to CA and not just to random people on an unofficial modding forum. Nobody here cares.

    Autoresolve: At what point in the history of the Total War franchise has Autoresolve not been broken?

    "Broken" economy: Define exactly what you mean by this?

    "Worse" diplomacy: Worse than what?

    Bad AI/Suicide Generals: Again, at what point in the history of the Total War franchise has the AI been good at anything? What game didn't have suicide generals? So far as I can tell, this has some of the best BAI in any Total War game, and the AI is actually using it's generals relatively effectively in this game, because generals are tanks so the AI finally knows what to do with them.

    Same advisor: Seriously, who cares? I've never even played with the adviser on.

    Units ignoring orders: Never come across this.

    CAI unaware of attrition: You mean like in every Total War game that's had attrition so far?

    "Cut" content: Are you talking about pre-order exclusives? That thing that almost every game released in the past seven years has had? How ing dare they!





    These things are a collection of minor features that don't matter and/or fit in a Warhammer world, good stuff that would be too much work for very little benefit, and pure design decisions that make changes that you don't like. That's why Pasan isn't talking about them. I know it might be hard to believe, but it turns out other people don't share your personal opinions on everything. Weird, right?
    "Rajadharma! The Duty of Kings. Know you: Kingship is a Trust. The King is the most exalted and conscientious servant of the people."

  13. #153
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,061

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Quote Originally Posted by perifanosEllinas View Post
    Plus, it's not just the campaign map. The entire game is being sold in pieces. And in many pieces, to be even more exact.
    You can say the very same about any Total War. How dare they release Empire, Napoleon, Shogun, Rome 2 , Attila at same engine. We had map of Europe in like 4 games and they are just selling copy/paste factions and units. Shame on CA. Booo Booo

    Quote Originally Posted by perifanosEllinas
    And since you're bringing up prices, TW:W is just one third of the warhammer setting and it already costs 120 Euros to get all the pieces. So if all 3 parts cost more or less the same then we're essentially talking about a single game costing 360 Euros. That's theft. In my country that's the 3/4 of the monthly salary.
    If the price is concern for you, why not wait for steam sales? Nobody is forcing you to buy it right now...Just look at Crusaders Kings II and their DLCs. I understand the money threshold is high but when you take into consideration how much time you spend in-game....it´s still like 0,1 EU per hour and with sales you get 50-75% discount.

    Quote Originally Posted by perifanosEllinas
    Getting new races is pretty much a given in both expansions and new games in fantasy settings. So what?

    Plus, they're not four. They'll most probably be 2. At least the playable ones (lizardmen and skaven).

    Now look what they're doing with TW:W2. They say again "there will be 4 races at release". And yet they have actually announced 2 races (elves and lizardmen) to be the 3 of the 4, as they've already said that there is one more "race" which is still unannounced. Wait, what? How is this possible? Quite simple, by "races" they actually mean "factions". So high elves, dark elves and lizardmen might be 2 races but they're also 3 of the 4 factions, simple.
    You are right about races being more factions in this case. BUT. You are not counting High/Dark Elves because we have already Wood Elves? Really? This could work For Avari, Vanyar and Sindar Elves (Tolkien) but in Warhammer these factions are pretty different. Like having Tree Kins vs Hydras, Coldblood cavalry.....They have at most common pike unit (damn developers how they dare to have more factions with similar weapon holding units....)

    Quote Originally Posted by perifanosEllinas
    (the vampires are not a new race, they're tainted humans)
    You can see Empire and Vampires as one race? Really? REALLY? (poor Wraiths, Vargheists, Terrorgheists, Bats, Varghulfs, Dire Wolves, all kinds of ghosts....This is vast generalization Almost Heresy! (call somebody pls Ordo Hereticus!! ))

    EDIT: Actually comparing Empire with Vampires is like saying that Orcs/Goblins in Middle-Earth are Elves as they were creating by dark magic from Elves....But i think you can see my point ;-)

    Quote Originally Posted by perifanosEllinas
    Attila does not qualify as a new game, it's an expansion. And CA knows it, that's why it costs about 2 / 3 of the price of Rome 2 and not full price.
    Napoleon, Fall of the Samurai, Attila....they cost 20, 30, 40 EU and are standalone and all new toys/stuff/features is limited only for these datadiscs, nothing new for original game. So nice prize for Warhammer 2 as datadisc would be also 40 EU? I mean just for Warhammer 2 new map, new factions. Because that´s effectively what´s in there. Map of Europe was in Empire and Napoleon, In Rome 2 and Attila, map of Japan is very much the same in all three Shogun 2 campaigns. Factions diversity is much smaller than in Warhammer... So let me ask a question. How much would you pay for DLC, that will allow you to merge efectively original game and datadisc and play with all the new stuff at much bigger map. 20EU? Well here you go.... 40 + 20 = 60 EU. I love Attila but at the same time hate how Attila left Rome 2 in junk yard, unwanted child :/ That´s why for onc i love this idea about warhammer trilogy. Because CA would be taking into account all three games. Not just caring about the latest one...
    Last edited by Daruwind; April 13, 2017 at 10:57 AM.

  14. #154
    Lord Baal's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Republica de Venezuela
    Posts
    6,393

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    I'll wait and buy the game once is dirt cheap and complete.

    On the family three, while the campaign it's relatively short yes, a grand campaign that would span years would be interesting, kind of a sandbox one. There a family three would be useful.

    Naval battles should be included. No optionse about it. While they are not as prominent it would be SUPER to play with Dwarven and elven vessels, empire ships, sea monsters and all that.

    Also would like to have a tad more of modable game or for they to include mechanics like manpower, supply lines and such. All optional of course, perhaps tied to difficulty or options in the menu.

    Other sad thing is that field battles are not dependent of the position on the map arenymore.
    PROUD TO BE A PESANT. And for the dimwitted, I know how to spell peasant. <== This blue things are links, you click them and magical things (like not ending up like a fool) happens.
    Visit my utterly wall of doom here.
    Do you wanna play SS 6.4 and take your time while at it? Play with my 12 turns per year here.
    Y también quieres jugar Stainless Steel 100% en español? Mira por aca.

  15. #155
    God-Emperor of Mankind's Avatar Apperently I protect
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Malmö, Sweden
    Posts
    21,640

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Baal View Post
    On the family three, while the campaign it's relatively short yes, a grand campaign that would span years would be interesting, kind of a sandbox one. There a family three would be useful.
    Except it doesn't belong here.
    This isn't a historical game, this isn't a "simulator", this is a setting.
    Karl Franz is, always has been and always will be the current emperor of the Empire, Thorgrim is, always has been and always will be the high king of the Dwarfs and so on.
    Warhammer fantasy battles is set during their reigns, not after and not before(even tho players could do historical battles and so on but lore-wise it doesn't matter).
    Almost all of the heroes here don't have families, Karl Franz as far as I know doesn't even have a wife, neither does Thorgrim and even if they did and had kids, they don't inherit the titles anyway atleast not in the Empire.
    Valten almost became the new emperor of the Empire only for GW to realise that "oh Karl has to remain the emperor" and conviently killed him off so that Karl could remain.
    So it's the heroes that makes or break this setting, a family tree would had literally nothing since it wouldn't matter at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Baal View Post
    Naval battles should be included. No optionse about it. While they are not as prominent it would be SUPER to play with Dwarven and elven vessels, empire ships, sea monsters and all that.
    No naval battles should not be included.
    Naval battles is a different game, that's Man O' war. Warhammer fantasy battles is all about land battles which this game is based on so if CA wanted to do naval battles, they would have to get the rights for Man O' War and make a seperate game based entirely on that.
    But there is already a game based on Man O' War so get that if you want naval combat, it's actually quite good.

  16. #156
    Lord Baal's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Republica de Venezuela
    Posts
    6,393

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    I don't and never understand the patological need of some people here to deny other people opinions.

    I made pretty clear my points with IF the game sandbox campaign were to expand over centuries... also Dwarf do inherit titles, as do elves and many other factions. And while the Emperor may not be the case, the electors come from positions that do are inheritable (is that a word?) in most if not all cases. So fine the Emperor is not. But only if you rule the whole empire this would apply and you still have the other electors with their own families and agendas that would make for a tad more of political deep, role playing and immersion.

    Question. Are there Emperor elections on this game?

    About naval battles, I want them in the game because I want them connected to the campaign. Period. But fear not My Emperor, they most likely never bee included on Total Warhammer anyway, with people paying up full price for a new campaign map and models alone, why would they bother putting up a real effort into developing really new stuff.

    Please don't make my head explode for this your Goldennes!
    Last edited by Lord Baal; April 14, 2017 at 06:50 AM.
    PROUD TO BE A PESANT. And for the dimwitted, I know how to spell peasant. <== This blue things are links, you click them and magical things (like not ending up like a fool) happens.
    Visit my utterly wall of doom here.
    Do you wanna play SS 6.4 and take your time while at it? Play with my 12 turns per year here.
    Y también quieres jugar Stainless Steel 100% en español? Mira por aca.

  17. #157
    God-Emperor of Mankind's Avatar Apperently I protect
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Malmö, Sweden
    Posts
    21,640

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Baal View Post
    I made pretty clear my points with IF the game sandbox campaign were to expand over centuries... also Dwarf do inherit titles, as do elves and many other factions. And while the Emperor may not be the case, the electors come from positions that do are inheritable (is that a word?) in most if not all cases. So fine the Emperor is not. But only if you rule the whole empire this would apply and you still have the other electors with their own families and agendas that would make for a tad more of political deep, role playing and immersion.
    Opinions are fine when they make sense, family trees does not
    For example I was trying to think of any faction where the children does actually inherit, that's how rare that is in this world. Thorgrim for example I haven't read anything about his father being the high king, infact it just seems like he was picked to be high king.
    Elves do not inherit at all, High Elves have a council that pick the next Phoenix King, the one that tried to do the whole inherit thing was Malekith and that didn't work.
    Dark Elves never tried to to begin with since they have only had 1 ruler but I think they run by the classical might makes right so inheritance be damned.
    Wood Elves don't since Orion is eternal so he is always in charge, they just need a sacrifice.
    Orcs is might is right, same with beastmen, chaos, Ogres, Vampire counts, Skaven.
    Tomb Kings, same with Wood Elves, Settra is eternal.
    Bretonnia is the only one I know where inheritance is a thing and even then, we have no idea who his dad was which just goes to show how pointless family is.
    Having a feature that is pointless and serves no purpose is a bad feature to me and I would rather not have it then have a bad feature in a game.
    Wouldn't you agree ?
    And no there is no emperor elections in the game because Karl Franz is the emperor and always will be.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Baal View Post
    About naval battles, I want them in the game because I want them connected to the campaign. Period. But fear not My Emperor, they most likely never bee included on Total Warhammer anyway, with people paying up full price for a new campaign map and models alone, why would they bother putting up a real effort into developing really new stuff.
    This isn't about effort, this is about licence.
    CA does not have the licence to make naval combat because naval combat is a different game at GW and thus has a different licence that you need to acquire in order to use.
    For GW I'm sure they would love it if CA bought the rights to use Man O' War since they would get a even bigger cut from the profits from the sales but for CA it would mean lose of revenue since instead of say paying 10% to GW they would be paying 20%(not actual numbers, just a guess).
    This is why I laugh everytime I see someone complain about the lack of naval battles, they were never suppose to be in nor could they be in and it has nothing to do with laziness or anything of the sort from CA's part.
    And again, opinions are fine but for example just because I think that they should add Space marines to Warhammer total war(which I don't by the way) then that doesn't mean that I should expect people to accept it, infact I should expect the opposite, people should call out on the bad opinion that it would be.
    Now if you were to say that we should have a army painter in the game then I will not harp on that opinion since atleast it's related to the game which family trees and naval battles is not.

  18. #158
    Lord Baal's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Republica de Venezuela
    Posts
    6,393

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    On naval battles, if it were a license issue my lord, I think they wouldn't be able to display even the tiny ships. And Man O War is a RPG at best, not a strategy game. I would love them to be in Total Warhammer, but alas I know it's something that might not happen.

    On the family tree, for the empire: each lay Elector is the head of a dynasty, the most prestigious member of a powerful aristocratic family. Brettonia could use a family tree too, as do Vampire Counts, only they make the family grow in unorthodox ways. The High King is the spiritual and political leader of the Dwarfs. This position is hereditary and the High Kings are direct descendants of the Ancestor God Grungni.

    The Wood Elves are separated into numerous kindreds and kinbands each presided over by Elf nobles. Each kinband holds separate views and ideologies so feuds naturally occur between the elves. They all however pay homage to Orion, the avatar of Kurnous, and Ariel, the avatar of Isha, King and Queen of Athel Loren. So playing wood elves factions should lead to you playing with nobles.

    Karl Franz by the way, is married and has two children: his older son Luitpold (probably named for his Imperial grandfather), and a younger daughter, whose name is unknown. He has a sister, who is also married. Not that it matters to be the Emperor, but it does when it comes to be the Elector Count and Grand Prince of Reikland.

    Of course all this comes to matter IF the game were to have a campaign that spans over dozens of years at least and the blanks could be filled by anything CA can make up and be done with it. I think what I dislike the most is the way CA limits itself on the warhammer world instead of giving us a more ample look.

    I don't mean to say this game sucks, in fact it looks quite enjoyable, I only think it could have been way much more, way more. But maybe I'm just expecting too much from games these days. Again, to each it's own.
    Last edited by Lord Baal; April 14, 2017 at 08:09 AM.
    PROUD TO BE A PESANT. And for the dimwitted, I know how to spell peasant. <== This blue things are links, you click them and magical things (like not ending up like a fool) happens.
    Visit my utterly wall of doom here.
    Do you wanna play SS 6.4 and take your time while at it? Play with my 12 turns per year here.
    Y también quieres jugar Stainless Steel 100% en español? Mira por aca.

  19. #159

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    After it is Warhammer Setting, a Family Tree doesn't make any sense
    and from Gamemechanics, also Family Tree doesn't make sense because Legendary Lords can't die.

    But if it wasn't warhammer but some own Fantasy Setting I would be disapointed if there where no Family Trees

  20. #160

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Sorry for the very long post guys, but there's a lot to respond to here. But I'll try to be short and to the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Let's go over this one by one.

    Family Tree: How would this make sense in Warhammer?
    For the empire it's pretty obvious: renaissance human faction, why wouldn't it make sense? Do I really need to explain more on this?

    For Bretonnia: late medieval human faction, again self explanatory

    The dwarfs are organized in the dwarven clans, which is essentially the dwarven version of families.

    The vampires have their precious bloodlines.

    Orcs, beastmen and warriors of chaos as far as I know about them shouldn't have a family tree. About wood elves I don't know, I'm not familiar with their lore in warhammer at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Why would it even matter?
    For the same reasons that it mattered in all previous TW titles: greater role playing and greater attachment to the generals, which lead to greater player's immersion in the game. Plus, if done right, it can add a whole layer of tactics / politics that give much greater depth to the game, as the way that each general relates to others can cause a number of very interesting scenarios that the player would have to watch out for like civil wars, alliances among generals against other generals, generals abandoning factions or kings if they are too displeased with them, generals betraying other generals and so forth.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    The game doesn't take place over the course of hundreds of years. Children would never grow up,
    The game doesn't need to progress in date to have characters grow in age over certain amounts of turns. Plus, noone said that it would have to work identically to the historical titles (with children aging up). Think out of the box.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    it would just be pointless fluff for no reason. Sure, I guess I'd like it because I like pointless fluff,
    You've got to be bluffing here. You can't seriously believe that, you can't possibly be that much of a mindless fanboy. Since when is the family tree and all the layers of strategy and tactics that come with it "pointless fluff"? Try telling that to all the people who caused the massive uproar about it not being there in Rome 2.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    but how is this a "Stripped feature" exactly?
    Simple, it's a feature that they stripped out while making warhammer. What's so hard to understand about this?

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    That's like saying Rome II stripped out guns.
    Not even close. Guns are not a feature, they're a weapon type. And that particular weapon type comes only in certain periods. And Rome 2 is not one of these periods.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Just because something was in a previous game doesn't mean it has to be in all future games.
    Sure, not in all. But in every game that they make sense. Especially core features like the family tree are a must.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Seasons: Again, see above. Seasons would be cool, sure, but it's a lot of work
    Seasons don't really require that much work. Just four sets of stats and graphical effects like snow or sun. Big deal. And yet they add a lot to the immersion of the player, to the tactical side of the campaign map and to the depth of the game.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    for something that likely wouldn't be balanced in the slightest.
    1) Why wouldn't it be balanced?

    2) Even if it wasn't, the modders would fix it. The point would be to have it in the game.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    How many turns of winter would there be in a game where each turn is, what, a week?
    Again, you don't need time or date progression to have seasons. Even without time counting, a season per turn would work fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Naval Battles: I agree I would like naval battles, but I understand why they aren't there. Naval battles were never a big deal in Warhammer, there isn't a lot of fluff about them in the first place, and they would be a ton of work animating so many different types of ships and sea monsters and then trying to balance them.
    I think they wanted to include them, because there are unit cards of naval units in the data files, but they probably just couldn't get them to work properly. So instead of having another Rome 2 fiasco they just said "screw it, naval battles are out". Which is pretty much what probably happened with full sieges too. Plus, they were probably too lazy to create full cities.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    City Battles: TWW has city battles. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they are "Stripped content."
    I have watched several playthroughs and reviews on youtube and I've never seen a single city battle. So please provide evidence for this.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Individual Province taxes: I don't think this has been in Total War for a while. It's an odd choice, but hardly very important. I agree it would be nice to have, but I honestly don't really care.
    That's a very selfish attitude. Just because you don't care about it, it doesn't mean that other people don't care about it either, or that it's not an important feature, or that it shouldn't be there. Bottom line is it's one more stripped out feature.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Mercenaries: Again, it would be nice to have, but not that important. Besides which, the RoR system is extremely similar.
    Again, not that important to you. Let other people make their own minds about what's important to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Unit Formations: Completely agree on this one, however. There should absolutely be unit formations.
    Alright.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Fully Surround Sieges: This isn't stripped content, this is a changed design decision. You don't like the change, and that's alright, but they did not strip anything.
    Cities that can be sieged by every side is a feature. As I said above, CA took the lazy way in every possible area with warhammer. Instead of fixing the problems of previous titles they just decided to remove them entirely. That's what happened with naval battles and that's what happened with sieges too. Instead of fixing the broken pathfinding on the walls they just removed the problem entirely by replacing walls with a straight restricted platform.

    And they did strip out the fully siege-able cities.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Campaign map mods: Haven't been practical since Medieval 2.
    Exactly. That's why they need to fix this in future titles.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    There are campaign map mods for Shogun 2, but nobody cares about that modding scene.
    There we go again with the who cares or nobody cares nonsense. Speak about yourself dude. I, as a modder, care very deeply about the moddability of the TW titles.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Besides which, I doubt GW would allow campaign map modding.
    I doubt that too. But the reason why a feature is stripped out is irrelevant really. Bottom line is it's stripped out.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Modding Freedom: Entirely not CA's fault. Blame GW for that one.
    See above. Who's to blame is pretty much irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    General's speeches: A completely minor and unimportant feature that hasn't been in since Rome 2, and if you mean cutscenes only, then they haven't been in since Shogun 2. Technically there are general's speeches in legendary battles, but I doubt that's what you mean. Honestly, this is a very petty complaint to try and pan a company for. Yes, it's a nice little thing, but not even remotely gamebreaking.
    Again, minor and unimportant for you. For me it's a crucial feature that makes a ton of difference and adds tremendously to the immersion of the player. It actually makes me excited to jump into battles. The best example of this is medieval 2. And combined with the family tree which makes me more attached to my generals, it's just awesome to jump into battles and see them talking to the troops like that. And yes, I'm talking about cutscenes where the general says different things depending on his personality and the enemy he's facing.

    As for your last comment, to me (and it seems to many other people on youtube too) the lack of this feature actually is game breaking.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    "Dumbed down" sieges: You already said this. It's your opinion.
    No, that's not an opinion, that's a fact. Whether you like them or not is an opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Machine Gun towers: These have literally been here since the first Rome. Are you just learning about these?
    1) No other total war game had towers with a shooting range that covered the entire battlefield. That's extremely stupid and forces the player to rush everything to the wall, essentially throwing any sense of strategy and tactics out of the window.

    and

    2) That argument "previous games had similar issues" is a very weak argument. First of all, we're discussing warhammer here, not the history of the TW franchise. And second, even if previous titles had some of the same issues so what? Does that justify the same issues persisting in new titles? Absolutely not.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Animations in sieges: Sure, but also, these sieges work the best over any in the series.
    If you're referring to performance then yes, more stable performance overall compared to their recent titles is one of the strong points of warhammer indeed.

    If you're referring to gameplay then I couldn't disagree more. I find them to be the worst of the franchise.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Units never get stuck on walls,
    That's because there are no walls to get stuck on.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    the pathfinding doesn't break every time you issue an order, the AI doesn't all stream into a single breach in your wall as soon as it makes one, the game doesn't run at -4 FPS when the entire enemy army condenses to a single point and creates an entire new universe while trying to fit into a mousehole to get through your wall, etc. The improvements outweigh the minor issues in my opinion.
    Sacrificing gameplay for performance is not an improvement. Dumping sieges down to the point of making them essentially a land battle with a platform in the middle is not an improvement. Removing a problem entirely does not solve the problem. The wall now is pretty much useless.

    And you keep pushing the "minor issues" argument over and over and over. So once again, these are minor for you, for others they are major (including me). And the majority of big TW youtubers (lionheart, warrior of Sparta, heir of Cathage, the rumbler, arch warhammer, pixelated apollo and others) have openly expressed their displeasure with the new sieges, and for more or less the same reasons that I mentioned above, so what is minor to you is major to others. Trying to dismiss the opinions of others by simply saying "what you're talking about is not important" is very rude.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Fast battles: They've been in and complained about since Shogun 2.
    Actually, they've been in since the first Rome. And yet they're still not fixing the issue in the new titles. What does that tell you about CA? They don't really give a f... about what their fans think or want.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    We know. We know. We know.
    Yes, we know. And CA knows that we know. They just don't care what we think. All they care about is getting high metacritic scores, as they have openly admitted in the past.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    People will not shut up about it,
    Because it's damn important to people and CA doesn't give us what we're asking for.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    and CA very obviously does not care,
    Yes, I just said the same thing above and it's a huge problem. That's also one of the most important reasons why I don't understant the fanboys. CA has proven time and time again that they don't really care about their fans at all, only about milking us down to the last cent. And yet the fanboys keep putting all that effort and time into defending and praising a company that clearly disrespects them and doesn't care about them. What do they get out of it? It leaves me scratching my head. Anyway...

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    and has not cared since March 15, 2011. Every bloody day someone gets on the forum to complain about the fast battles
    This actually proves how important this is to the fans. Fast battles are simply not fun. Plus, what's the point of flashy animations and eye-catching graphics if the battles are over in 30 seconds?

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    and it's literally not achieved anything at all,
    That couldn't be further from the truth. The massive uproar and the constant complaining about it in Rome 2 forced CA to make the battles notably slower and longer in the emperor / Spartan edition.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    just get a damn mod
    That it can be modded doesn't excuse the official product from having these issues in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    and stop complaining about it or at least, if you're going to complain, do it to CA and not just to random people on an unofficial modding forum.
    First of all, the supporters of CA seem to have a very hard time understanding the difference between disagreeing and complaining. So, once again, having a different opinion does not equal complaining. Just like having a positive opinion about a feature of the game doesn't equal cheerleading, having a negative opinion about it doesn't equal complaining either. Try to understand this.

    And second, labeling different opinions as "complaining" is not going to silence different voices, whether you like it or not. I'll say anything I want anytime I want and there's nothing you can do to stop me. And even if I wanted to complain, that's my right. And I'll do it anywhere I like. Get a grip.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Nobody here cares.
    There we go again with the "nobody cares" rudeness. First, you care enough to reply, so thank you, you just proved you wrong.

    Second, I don't know if you actually realise this, but your attitude is pure insanity. Imagine if the situation was reversed and I had your attitude. I would be like: "Just buy the damn game dude and stop cheerleading here! Or if you want to cheerlead just go do that to CA and not just to random people on an unofficial modding forum. Nobody heres cares what you think! The features that you like in the game are pointless fluff. Stop cheerleading!"

    What a way to make a conversation, right? LOL

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Autoresolve: At what point in the history of the Total War franchise has Autoresolve not been broken?
    Check out the Spartan edition of Rome 2. The autoresolve is actually scarily accurate there.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    "Broken" economy: Define exactly what you mean by this?
    Totally unbalanced economy system. Economy system that practically doesn't work.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    "Worse" diplomacy: Worse than what?
    Than what we're used to so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Bad AI/Suicide Generals: Again, at what point in the history of the Total War franchise has the AI been good at anything? What game didn't have suicide generals? So far as I can tell, this has some of the best BAI in any Total War game, and the AI is actually using it's generals relatively effectively in this game, because generals are tanks so the AI finally knows what to do with them.
    The AI is good at many things, but this usually goes unnoticed by veteran TW players because it's nowhere near good enough to beat them without cheating.

    Suicide generals: again, the fact that it was an issue in previous titles is pretty much irrelevant when discussing the issues of warhammer. How does it being an issue in previous titles make it not be an issue in warhammer? Your "logic" is not very logical. Again, you're just trying to dismiss it as an issue of warhammer.

    As for the BAI knowing how to use its generals: thanks for the laugh dude. In every single playthrough that I've watched on youtube the AI always uses its generals awfully and gets them killed. In every single battle.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Same advisor: Seriously, who cares? I've never even played with the adviser on.
    I care. And I'm probably not the only one. And again, just because you personally don't care about a failure of the game doesn't mean that the failure is not there.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Units ignoring orders: Never come across this.
    I've seen it several times on youtube playthroughs. Although to be fair, I have to say that it's not as frequent as in Rome 2.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    CAI unaware of attrition: You mean like in every Total War game that's had attrition so far?
    Again, even if it's so, that's completely irrelevant to the issues of warhammer and it doesn't excuse CA for not fixing it. And it's still a failure of warhammer.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    "Cut" content: Are you talking about pre-order exclusives? That thing that almost every game released in the past seven years has had? How ing dare they!
    No, I'm not talking about pre-order exclusives. I'm talking about cut content, like the warriors of chaos that were developed more than half a year before release and instead of being in the base game they were locked behind a paywall. They're not the same thing. And stop with the "oh you mean like x title? oh you mean like y company?" already. It's pure nonsense. So what if other companies are doing it? It's still wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    These things are a collection of minor features that don't matter
    Again, for you. For me they're a collection of major features that make or break a TW game.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    and/or fit in a Warhammer world,
    They do fit warhammer. I proposed above ways that they can be implemented in a warhammer game.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    good stuff that would be too much work for very little benefit,
    Since when is a higher quality game with greater depth, greater longevity (especially through modding) and greater immersion of "very little benefit"?

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    and pure design decisions that make changes that you don't like.
    Yes, stripping out features is a design decision. We agree on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    That's why Pasan isn't talking about them.
    Come on dude, let's not try to hide behind our fingers, it's pointless. We both know that this is not why.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    I know it might be hard to believe, but it turns out other people don't share your personal opinions on everything. Weird, right?
    Said the guy who spent his entire post trying to label me as "a complainer" and to dismiss my points as "pointless fluff that nobody cares about" because I have a different opinion than him. Oh, the irony...

    And by the way, don't think I didn't notice how you conveniently avoided touching on the multiplayer front.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    You can say the very same about any Total War. How dare they release Empire, Napoleon, Shogun, Rome 2 , Attila at same engine. We had map of Europe in like 4 games and they are just selling copy/paste factions and units. Shame on CA. Booo Booo
    No, you can't. RTW and M2TW do not come in pieces. They both are complete games.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    If the price is concern for you, why not wait for steam sales? Nobody is forcing you to buy it right now...Just look at Crusaders Kings II and their DLCs. I understand the money threshold is high but when you take into consideration how much time you spend in-game....it´s still like 0,1 EU per hour and with sales you get 50-75% discount.
    Who said I've bought it? I haven't. Spending 120 Euros for just one third of the game? I would have to be either absolutely nuts or just have an insane surplus of cash to throw away. Neither one is currently true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    You are right about races being more factions in this case. BUT. You are not counting High/Dark Elves because we have already Wood Elves? Really? This could work For Avari, Vanyar and Sindar Elves (Tolkien) but in Warhammer these factions are pretty different. Like having Tree Kins vs Hydras, Coldblood cavalry.....They have at most common pike unit (damn developers how they dare to have more factions with similar weapon holding units....)
    Sure, different factions, but still the same race.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    You can see Empire and Vampires as one race? Really? REALLY? (poor Wraiths, Vargheists, Terrorgheists, Bats, Varghulfs, Dire Wolves, all kinds of ghosts....This is vast generalization Almost Heresy! (call somebody pls Ordo Hereticus!! ))
    If I'm not mistaken the vampires were actually humans who were a part of the empire. Then while searching for immortality they created an elixir that tainted them and turned them into vampires. Don't I remember correctly?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    EDIT: Actually comparing Empire with Vampires is like saying that Orcs/Goblins in Middle-Earth are Elves as they were creating by dark magic from Elves....But i think you can see my point ;-)
    But Orcs in middle earth are elves. Fallen, corrupted and misshapen, yes, but still elves. One of the very few details that I don't like about Tolkien's world. At least that I know of, as I haven't gone in depth with the lore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    Napoleon, Fall of the Samurai, Attila....they cost 20, 30, 40 EU and are standalone and all new toys/stuff/features is limited only for these datadiscs, nothing new for original game. So nice prize for Warhammer 2 as datadisc would be also 40 EU? I mean just for Warhammer 2 new map, new factions. Because that´s effectively what´s in there. Map of Europe was in Empire and Napoleon, In Rome 2 and Attila, map of Japan is very much the same in all three Shogun 2 campaigns. Factions diversity is much smaller than in Warhammer... So let me ask a question. How much would you pay for DLC, that will allow you to merge efectively original game and datadisc and play with all the new stuff at much bigger map. 20EU? Well here you go.... 40 + 20 = 60 EU. I love Attila but at the same time hate how Attila left Rome 2 in junk yard, unwanted child :/ That´s why for onc i love this idea about warhammer trilogy. Because CA would be taking into account all three games. Not just caring about the latest one...
    If an expansion comes out with an extension of the map of the basic game, then I think that the combined map should be a feature of the expansion. There should not be an extra dlc to combine the maps, so I would not buy that dlc if it existed.

    But I personally don't consider warhammer 2 and 3 to be expansions or new games. All 3 parts are the same game just being sold in pieces. Just 4 factions at release? Yeah, it definitely doesn't qualify as a full game for me. That's my opinion. I don't know if it's a popular opinion or not, but that's how I see it and if other people disagree that's OK. But if you people disagree, then don't come here screaming about it if they announce that the next historical title will be released as a "trilogy". 'Cause then I'll be like: "where were you when I was speaking up about warhammer?".

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Baal View Post
    I don't and never understand the patological need of some people here to deny other people opinions.
    That's what people who have no valid arguments do. They will either attack you personally by using slander or intimidation, or they'll attack your right to express your opinion (meaning that they'll try to silence your voice and a very common tactic for that is shaming you into silence), or they'll try to dismiss your points as unimportant or false, or they'll use a diversion by bringing up irrelevant topics to draw the attention away from the topic.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •