Page 9 of 39 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181934 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 771

Thread: Total War: Warhammer II announced

  1. #161
    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
    No, you can't. RTW and M2TW do not come in pieces. They both are complete games.
    Barbarian Invasion, Alexander, Kingdoms. But you mean more likely the whole DLC practice. Well sorry. World is moving fast, developing, even games are not static. DLC practice is in every current game (where it makes sense..pls don´t try to argue here) If you feel cheated, well wait for sale again. But try to compare what we get for our money. DLCs for warhammer are bringing the most content from all total war. Ie. check Empire´s DLC....a few units with slightly different stats just in different pyjamas.

    Quote Originally Posted by perifanosEllinas
    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.
    Well at this point point I can easily say I don´t care about your opinion if it´s bases only on rumors, pictures and third person sayings and not actual experience.

    Quote Originally Posted by perifanosEllinas
    Sure, different factions, but still the same race.
    And what´s your point? Original argument was about sharing animations (and therefore considering Dark/High Elves nething new..just copy/paste no work from CA) which simply is not true as eventhough we have three Elven factions, they share less than all previos Total Wars factions. Look at beasts, special units etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by perifanosEllinas
    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?
    Again. Are we discussing origin or unit diversity? What you describe is true for the Vampire leaders but the rest of factions are undead - skeletons, zombies and beasts and ghosts. There is even less similarity between Vampires and Humans than between Elven factions (you know, all Elves love spiky things like spears and bolts/arrows )

    Quote Originally Posted by perifanosEllinas
    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.
    Again. What does it prove? I don´t remeber one game where Orcs/Goblins were sub-faction of Elves....Can you refresh my memory? We are usually grouping factions on culture traits not according to genetic information. Ie. having Steppe factions, Vikings, Roman families, Greek states.....Sindar, Avari,..... Imperial clans vs Shogun Clans..

    Quote Originally Posted by perifanosEllinas
    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.
    Your opinion. But so far any (mini) campaign DLC, datadiscs comes with their own closed maps. Actually Wood Elves and Beastmen are first who besides own mini-campaign map are peresented even in the grand campaign.

    Quote Originally Posted by perifanosEllinas
    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?".
    These 4 factions are much much more different than in any previous title. You want quantity over quality? Besides Majority of total wars have like 5-10 playable factions. Factions unlocker is so much popular mod through history Warhammer 2 is bringing again 4 factions but can you show me how Skaven, Lizardmen or High/Dark Elves are copy/paste from any warhammer 1 factions? You cannot. I play warhammer 1 and know lore. All you can say is, 4 factions are low number. But I prefer quality over quantity ;-)

    Well I don´t care if next historical title is trilogy. I will buy it anyway as I have all other Total War, I love them all for being somewhat different. This is not about having the one best perfect title, because nobody can do it. But about having different games in different settings. But chance for history title being trilogy is pretty low. Ca would need to change scope of game, extending game time period and that´s one reason against it. Different times = diffferent settings, technologies, warfare...

    So you are pissed off because it´s trilogy and Warhammer got so much care from CA? I can understand history fans having feeling about being cheated BUT. 1) lisence from GW is also to be blamed.. 2) CA probably saw they would need big scale for this to pull out. I prefer trilogy over so hastily unfinished title. Warhammer deserves proper treatment. 3)CA has time for new engine and money as Warhammer is bringing so much... 4) I personally don´t understand history vs fantasy conflict here....History guys had so far every Title, fantasy are getting now three in row but that´s it. Behaving like small child who cannot wait is simply childish to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by perifanosEllinas
    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.
    Glad you know it and try to avoid it yourself ;-)

    EDIT: family tree. Nope, it really is not good idea for this game. Seasons of year, Naval combat yes but adding family trees here is like adding magic to other history titles. (and seasons would limit Humans mostly as almost every other factions is immune to some degree...Vampires, undead, beastmen, chaos...Elves are magic, Dwarves and Skaven are underground...Ok maybe Greenskins) But instead you can do something like new mechanics ( http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=904577954 ) it´s like Chivalry for Bretonia factions or Amber for Wood Elves. Yes, empire is missing something like this from their gameplay. But we don´t know what CA is preparing in game 2 and 3...
    Last edited by Daruwind; April 15, 2017 at 09:05 AM.

  2. #162

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    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?
    Well the elixer part is close to the origin but it happened far away in Southlands back when the Empire was a bunch of primitive tribes and Nagash was still flesh.
    Sure, different factions, but still the same race.
    Completely different playstyles and monsters, though.

    I don't think race is a good platform to stand on in a franchise that's always been human, human, human and human.

  3. #163
    Lord Baal's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Republica de Venezuela
    Posts
    6,393

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Well, there are races (dwarf, elves, humans, skavens, ogres), and then there are factions. I think that Vampires could be considered a different race, or at least into the undead category.
    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.

  4. #164

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Quote Originally Posted by perifanosEllinas View Post
    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.



    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.



    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.


    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.
    Sorry its not Fantasy Total War, its Warhammer Total War,

    CA has to stay with the Warhammer Lore,
    so Familiy trees are useless because they would have no effect in the Game at all,
    especially after your Faction Leader can't die, whats the use of creating the whole family thing with heir, intrigue, marriage etc. if it has absolutley no effect on the Game?
    All the intresting things about the Familiy tree don't work in Warhammer because it is Warhammer and not Fantasy TW


    So maybe its you who is not able to think outside the (TotalWar) Box?











    Quote Originally Posted by perifanosEllinas View Post

    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.
    Yes you could add it... Seasons bring attrition, reduced movement etc.
    but who would suffer from seasons e.g. Winter?

    Undead?
    Dwarfs?
    Wood Elves?
    Human Factions?
    Orks?
    Chaos?
    Beastmen?

    We have Chaos and Vampire corruption
    so what would Seaons add besides balancing problems?
    Last edited by Chlodwig I.; April 15, 2017 at 08:52 AM.

  5. #165
    ♘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
    I have neither bought nor played the game, and yet I am talking about features that are "gamebreaking."
    Fixed that for you.

    Your argument is broken into two things:

    "Cut content AKA: I don't like how they changed this."


    and

    "I don't like how certain features have been for over a decade AKA: I don't like how they didn't change this."



    First of all, I want to point out the obvious. You are not "The Fans." Total War is a massively popular game series, and Warhammer has been the most financially successful release... Well, ever, so far as I recall. So successful that CA themselves have said that they were surprised. The fanbase is not collapsing, not rebelling, not hating these games. They sell great every time they are released.


    Family trees do not work because faction leaders are immortal. They never die, they never have children, they never eat or use the bathroom, because they are not humans. They are larger-than-life characters who's sole purpose in the game is to hit other people/monsters very, very hard with very, very large weapons. This is entirely intentional, because this is not a game about dynasty building or inter-faction politics,this is a game about hitting people/monsters with large weapons. It's like asking for a family tree in a Civilizations game. It doesn't make any sense, because Karl Franz isn't the political leader of a diverse and complicated Imperial structure, he's the faction mascot.

    I would love a Warhammer game where Karl Franz dies 15 turns into the game from a lucky random goblin assassin, and then I have to take over as his infant son while his wife acts as regent against the electors' wishes, which tumbles the Empire into a massive civil war. This is not that game. This is not supposed to be that game.


    Seasons have a very similar argument. Yes, I suppose you could have seasons without any passage of time, but frankly that sounds terrible, why would you want that?

    "What's the weather look like on Sunday, Helga?"

    "Oh, it's going to be a bit Winter, dear."

    That seems like a bad idea, and CA appears to agree. You disagree. That's fine, and also not a valid criticism of the game.



    No, general speeches, individual province taxes, advisers sharing a voice, these are not major features. Objectively. It is not my opinion that general speeches are a minor and unimportant feature for the game to operate and exist, it is 100%, by any objective standards, an extremely minor thing. It is a nice thing to have, and it might be something you like very much and would prevent you from buying if it isn't in, but that doesn't mean it's important, it just means it's important to you.

    Having the amount of men per unit be moddable is extremely important to me, one of the most important parts of any Total War game for me. That doesn't mean it is actually important, though.



    Sieges changed. You don't like how sieges changed. That does not equal cut content. By your logic, switching to a 3D map is also cut content, switching to the current building system for regions is cut content, armies only being able to be led by generals is cut content, factions being limited to conquering only certain types of settlements is cut content. Any change CA makes, any deviation from a feature that they previously had is cut content? If they removed siege battles entirely, that would be cut content. This is a change in how sieges work and, much like the entire rest of the game, they take place on a smaller scale.

    The lack of naval battles is actual cut content. Cut with a reason, but cut nonetheless.


    "I have watched several playthroughs and reviews on youtube and I've never seen a single city battle. So please provide evidence for this."


    You're going to need to define "City battle". Are you still talking about sieges here? You only siege cities in this game. No, you can't fight through the whole city.


    For map modding, I need to clarify. CA released campaign map modding tools for Shogun 2. Mods were made to alter the campaign map. The vast majority of people didn't care. That's why there aren't campaign map mods. Shogun 2 has never had a popular modding scene relative to any other game in the franchise, because it's extremely limited in what you can do. That was not a dig at the Shogun 2 modding scene, that was an observation. People didn't and don't care about the Shogun 2 modding scene, in general, and that is why it is all but completely dead.

    Map modding is not something that needs to be "Fixed." If you want to know more about the topic, look up the many, many, many, many, many threads that have been made about it since Empire Total War, where both CA and major modders explain the huge difficulty in modifying the current campaign map engine, ranging from technical to legal. This is not a case of some CA employee going, "Oh darn I accidentally put a 1 instead of a 0, here you guys go, now the entire campaign map is moddable. Sorry 'bout that!"



    Who's to blame is pretty much irrelevant."


    That's a weird argument to make. It's very much relevant. It's like complaining on a Sony PS4 forum that Halo isn't being released for the PS4, therefore you aren't buying it. Who does that complaint benefit? How is that a critique of the platform? It's an entirely separate legal issue, it's not a flaw except on an entirely subjective, personal level. You wouldn't say, "PS4 can't play Halo so it's a console" would you?

    You specifically demanded to know why Pasan "only praises the game, and never criticizes it." It's because these aren't criticisms of the game, they're subjective complaints that you hold against it. It's not a flaw in the game that it doesn't have seasons or a family tree, you just want those things. It's not a flaw in the game that sieges are downscaled and only have one part of the city, you just don't like that design decision.


    Totally unbalanced economy system. Economy system that practically doesn't work."
    "Worse diplomacy than what we've had before."


    Alright Mr. "I have never played this game before." Explain in detail how the economic system is broken, and how the diplomacy matches up unfavorably between this game and the previous games. Because I actually own this game, and have played it for five hundred and ten hours, and I have never experienced this "Totally unbalanced economy system that practically doesn't work."


    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."


    I am not dismissing your opinions, I am informing you that they are, in fact, opinions. Not meaningful criticisms of the game, not flaws of the game. They are things that you, personally (And "the majority of big TW youtubers") dislike. If you want to talk about things that you personally dislike about the game, in calm manner, then I am all for that. There's lots of things I dislike about the game. But demanding to know why another player doesn't criticize the game is laughable. Do you think maybe it's because the "flaws" you perceive in the game are, oh, subjective? Not actually important to other people? Not actually flaws of the game at all, but just things that you, personally, in your opinion, don't like?

    Saying, "I don't like how the sieges are in Total War Warhammer." Perfectly fine opinion, completely appropriate expression of dissatisfaction with a changed gameplay feature.

    "I don't like how sieges are in Total War Warhammer, SO WHY DON'T YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT IT TOO FANBOY?????" Baffling and silly.

    "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.


    They're not fixing it because it's not an issue. You are not the fans. Why hasn't Call of Duty ever fixed their horrible representation of modern combat? Why do they keep making games that have such fast battles? Because it's not broken, it's purposefully designed to be that way. It's not supposed to be a slow paced military simulator. Total War is supposed to be fast, clearly, as that's how the game was made. If you don't like it and want it to be changed, go start a poll on the actual Total War forums where actual employees will actually see it and, if it's popular enough, maybe change something. Demanding to know why people aren't complaining about it here? Because everyone here has heard it a billion trillion brazilian times, and it is entirely pointless to complain about it here. If you want to discuss it, start a discussion about it. But asking why people aren't complaining about it, as if it's some horrible objective flaw of the game, just makes it look like you don't understand that it's your opinion.



    "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."


    Labeling different opinions as "Fanboying" is not going to silence different voices, whether you like it or not. They will say anything or not say anything they want, any time they want, and there's nothing you can do to stop them or force them to espouse your opinions. And even if they wanted to praise the game and explain why something is priced the way it is, that's their right. And they'll do it anywhere they like. Get a grip. Understand what an opinion is, and understand that your opinions are neither the majority, nor more important than anyone else's.


    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."


    So you're talking about pre-order (semi) exclusives. Like exactly what Warriors of Chaos was? It's literally the exact same thing, only slightly less exclusive. Better than a pre-order exclusive, really, since they're just a pre-order bonus and you can still get them anyway.

    "It's still wrong." No, it's not. You don't like it. I don't like when restaurants charge extra for refilling my drink. Im not going to call them ethically wrong bastards, though. Im going to judge whether I want to spend money on a refill, and make my decision accordingly.


    Again, for you. For me they're a collection of major features that make or break a TW game."


    So, not meaningful criticisms, just things you dislike not having. Got it.


    They do fit warhammer. I proposed above ways that they can be implemented in a warhammer game."


    They don't fit Warhammer. As in, Total War Warhammer. Family trees do not fit the game. Seasons do not fit the game. You can hamfistedly shove them in. That doesn't mean they fit the game.


    Since when is a higher quality game with greater depth, greater longevity (especially through modding) and greater immersion of "very little benefit"?"


    Well, seeing as the game works perfectly fine, is the highest grossing Total War game in the series, and does not require naval battles or map modding, and those things would both take lots of time, money, and effort to implement, and with the majority of naval battles being autoresolved and no other fantasy mods allowed to the GW, I would deem both of these things to be of "Very little benefit."


    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..."


    You are complaining, and that is not what I did. I dismissed your points as opinions, because that is what they are. You can't demand to know why someone isn't criticizing your game and then list a collection of subjective things that you don't like.

    You answered your own question. "Why isn't Pasan criticizing these things about the game?"

    because I have a different opinion than him."



    "Rajadharma! The Duty of Kings. Know you: Kingship is a Trust. The King is the most exalted and conscientious servant of the people."

  6. #166

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    I can not believe that people here are objecting to complains about battle speed just because "bbbut its been like that since shogun 2!" SO WHAT? And some people here are opposed to naval battles? Really? I bet you will miraculously change your minds if CA suddenly announced they decided to add naval battles to the next game.

    Rome 2 vanilla battle speed were as fast as Warhammer's. We complained. CA improved it by leaps and bounds by the time the Emperor Edition was released. Same thing happened for Attila.

    I had refunded my pre-order after seeing the extreme-arcade unbalanced state of Warhammer at launch, and got back to it recently thanks Humble monthly. I can see now why combat has not improved for Warhammer even after so long.

    Keep complaining. Do not get dissuaded by the lickspittle. It works.

  7. #167
    Lord Baal's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Republica de Venezuela
    Posts
    6,393

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    The point of family trees would be precisely that. The fact your faction leader can't die sucks balls. Sorry, but that's what I think anyway. Okay, I understand they don't die for narrative purposes perhaps, I don't know. But I would be happy if the game had this sandbox campaign where you can play over the span of hundreds of years, there family trees would be useful for some factions.

    In Warhammer lore lineage it's important (just like in virtually all medieval/fantasy settings). I'm not wishing for a family tree for the current game because it has no use, sure (on the game on it's current state, not in Warhammer in general). I want a game where I could use such feature, along with lots of other ones so the game is far more engaging that already seems to be. I'm sorry for you guys if you settle with anything, I will always want more, and I'm not saying it in a pejorative way, as I'm sure you'll be sorry for me for not being happy with what we have.
    Last edited by Lord Baal; April 15, 2017 at 12:57 PM.
    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.

  8. #168

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    My opinion on WH dlc, gameplay and content. You don't have to agree, but if you are like-minded consider some of my options.

    1)The day-one dlc was an attempt to break the £40 cap on new video games. People are more likely to buy the extra £5 content then a £45 full game. Considering it was being sold on the same day as the base game, and works seamlessly with it, the dlc could be put in and sold with the base game, but was cut out to take advantage of the extra money. I don't agree that the dlc after the game is released is cut content though. Nor do I care about CA making a profit by this method as it is up to the buyer to assess whether the content is worth it or not. I strongly suggest waiting for a sale or a few years when prices seem more reasonable. This is why I expect WH2 to have day one dlc and the same aggressive dlc policy that 1 had, but don't care as its not in my budget yet. I'm the sort of guy who patiently waits for that one steam sale where I can get a newish TW and the dlc I want for £20 and be really happy about it.

    2) A lot of gameplay mechanics have been heavily streamlined in Warhammer total war. This is saddening but ultimately doesn't matter if you get your mileage out of the game. For example, I have put 700 hours roughly in Rome 1 but only 324 hours in Rome 2, simply because Rome 2 restricts your armies to one general and some other gameplay decisions that severely affect playtime(no sieges). Warhammer also seems to have weaker gameplay mechanics like Rome 2, but strives to make up for that fact with the different flavor races and faction play style. The dilemma here is does the variety you get cover the lacklustre sieges and poor campaign management? Imo, no, but the game is not necessarily garbage because of that. The game just has less worth in my eyes than another total war like Shogun 2 and I won't be throwing money at it because of that. Somebody else probably disagrees and will happily pay £40 for the game and more for the content they get.

    CA is targeting a different demographic with TWW then hardcore history buffs like myself, so it doesn't matter if Warhammer is a bit different. One selling point Warhammer has probably wont appeal as much to a history fan then a Warhammer fan.

  9. #169

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Quote Originally Posted by prithupaul View Post
    I can not believe that people here are objecting to complains about battle speed just because "bbbut its been like that since shogun 2!" SO WHAT? And some people here are opposed to naval battles? Really? I bet you will miraculously change your minds if CA suddenly announced they decided to add naval battles to the next game.

    Rome 2 vanilla battle speed were as fast as Warhammer's. We complained. CA improved it by leaps and bounds by the time the Emperor Edition was released. Same thing happened for Attila.

    I had refunded my pre-order after seeing the extreme-arcade unbalanced state of Warhammer at launch, and got back to it recently thanks Humble monthly. I can see now why combat has not improved for Warhammer even after so long.

    Keep complaining. Do not get dissuaded by the lickspittle. It works.
    Spot on.

    At many levels, this game is objectively an absolute masterpiece. The scale, the artwork, the attention to detail, the faithfulness to lore in some areas and the ingenuity with how it's been reinterpreted to fit the TW formula... they've all been pulled off with aplomb.

    But this battle gameplay is woeful. That is very much a subjective statement on the silly pace and over-the-top arcadey stylings, but it's still one that is held by many, many players. And it's a criticism that has been argued vociferously ever since the inane speed of battles first seen with Shogun II.

    I can't speak for anyone else, but CA has lost out on a lot of potential sales revenue from myself with Warhammer. I haven't bought a single bit of extra content (except Blood & Gore) - the main reason being I only fight about 20 battles in the course of a whole campaign. Why? Because they are over way too quickly and don't allow for a satisfying amount of tactical maneuvering (or other things usually associated with battlefield strategy) to achieve a victory.

    There's obviously no right or wrong in this, as it is a purely subjective distinction, but given that it's a design decision that has perhaps split the crowd more than any other, it's time CA started to look at ways to provide a more varied suite of gameplay options to cater for these disparate player preferences. Despite being a huge fan of TW since the original Shogun, I doubt I'll pick up the next game if combat looks like it's going in a roughly similar direction to what we see currently. The depth of the campaign is just not sufficient to sustain these games all by itself.

    And these arguments that we should keep our mouths shut because "CA don't care" and because "nothing has changed since people started complaining since Shogun II" are utterly redundant. CA constantly respond to feedback and they need to know these particular criticisms are turning a lot of players away from the franchise.

  10. #170
    Lord Baal's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Republica de Venezuela
    Posts
    6,393

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    I know it's not something that actually affects the game play at all and it's not important at all. But I'm perplexed to know some reloading animations are missing. It's that true?
    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.

  11. #171
    ♘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 prithupaul View Post
    I can not believe that people here are objecting to complains about battle speed just because "bbbut its been like that since shogun 2!" SO WHAT? And some people here are opposed to naval battles? Really? I bet you will miraculously change your minds if CA suddenly announced they decided to add naval battles to the next game.

    Keep complaining. Do not get dissuaded by the lickspittle. It works.
    I don't think anybody is objecting to a conversation about battle speed. What people are objecting to is the fact that, every single thread, in every forum since Shogun 2 is filled to the brim with people complaining about the battle speed, and nowhere on this forum is the appropriate place to complain about the battle speed. CA comes here very rarely, and responds to posts on here even more rarely. This is an unofficial forum focused heavily on modding, there's literally nothing anyone here can do about your complaints on battle speed except go, "Yes, I agree." or "No, I disagree." or "Well there's several mods that fix that."

    What I am objecting to is people arrogantly assuming their opinions are objectives and acting as if anyone who isn't bothered by the battle speed are just fanboys who never criticize the game, or paid shills for CA, or some other nonsense besides accepting that, gasp, someone actually holds a different opinion on a subjective topic and this forum isn't a giant echo chamber.

    I think battles are too fast. However, battle speed is extremely easy to fix, and I just downloaded a mod to fix it. Still wasn't slow enough, so I went in and modded it myself to slow things down even further. I didn't come to an unofficial forum and fill random threads with off-topic complaints about the game speed, or demand to know why people who are perfectly satisfied with the game as it is aren't complaining with me.

    "It works." Yes. If the company sees your bloody complaints. It's like standing in a supermarket's parking lot and complaining to random passerby about the store's service. Yeah, you might find an employee there, and they might even respond if you're really lucky, but you're going to have an infinitely easier time if you just walk up to the damn customer service desk instead of wasting your time and annoying everyone else who's heard it a billion bloody times.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Baal View Post
    The point of family trees would be precisely that. The fact your faction leader can't die sucks balls. Sorry, but that's what I think anyway. Okay, I understand they don't die for narrative purposes perhaps, I don't know. But I would be happy if the game had this sandbox campaign where you can play over the span of hundreds of years, there family trees would be useful for some factions.

    In Warhammer lore lineage it's important (just like in virtually all medieval/fantasy settings). I'm not wishing for a family tree for the current game because it has no use, sure (on the game on it's current state, not in Warhammer in general). I want a game where I could use such feature, along with lots of other ones so the game is far more engaging that already seems to be. I'm sorry for you guys if you settle with anything, I will always want more, and I'm not saying it in a pejorative way, as I'm sure you'll be sorry for me for not being happy with what we have.
    That's nice. But at some point you have to separate your desires from actual criticisms of the game. I would love a complex logistics system where you have to manage food and equipment supply lines for each of your armies. But why would I criticize this game for lacking that, when it's never supposed to have that in the first place? I would love it if Crusader Kings II had real time tactical battles. It doesn't, though, and it would be inane for me to try and act as if that's a valid criticism of the game, wouldn't it? Total War Warhammer, any of the three games in the trilogy, are not going to be games about lineage and dynasties. They are games about hitting orcs with a big warhammer, or clobbering zombies with overly-large, flaming swords.

    At this point what you're wishing for isn't to pointlessly staple a family tree onto this game, you're just wishing for an entirely different game, which is fine, but not a criticism of TWW in any way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Baal View Post
    I know it's not something that actually affects the game play at all and it's not important at all. But I'm perplexed to know some reloading animations are missing. It's that true?
    Yes. That is actual cut content. It is a minor thing, and it's easy to overlook when you're fighting a battle, but when you do notice it, it's rather annoying. The only reason to not include it is laziness.
    "Rajadharma! The Duty of Kings. Know you: Kingship is a Trust. The King is the most exalted and conscientious servant of the people."

  12. #172
    Lord Baal's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Republica de Venezuela
    Posts
    6,393

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    I'm wishing for CA to give us a longer campaign. Or a campaign that covers more time. And naval battles. But I know it's only wishing.
    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.

  13. #173

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    I don't think anybody is objecting to a conversation about battle speed. What people are objecting to is the fact that, every single thread, in every forum since Shogun 2 is filled to the brim with people complaining about the battle speed, and nowhere on this forum is the appropriate place to complain about the battle speed. CA comes here very rarely, and responds to posts on here even more rarely. This is an unofficial forum focused heavily on modding, there's literally nothing anyone here can do about your complaints on battle speed except go, "Yes, I agree." or "No, I disagree." or "Well there's several mods that fix that."

    "It works." Yes. If the company sees your bloody complaints. It's like standing in a supermarket's parking lot and complaining to random passerby about the store's service. Yeah, you might find an employee there, and they might even respond if you're really lucky, but you're going to have an infinitely easier time if you just walk up to the damn customer service desk instead of wasting your time and annoying everyone else who's heard it a billion bloody times.
    You see the problem there? You say people are complaining too much, then you say that those complaints may not be enough?

    Last time I was active here (during Rome 2), CA employees paid active attention to this "unofficial" forum. Are you saying they have been chased away? In that case I urge the dissenters to take these conversations to forums.totalwar.com. The number of pitchforks, and irrational hatred you will face will be much larger (that community has been overrun with fartcraft, dawn of war - generic RTS players that have no appreciation for "taking time" during battles). Consider them as free bumps.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    What I am objecting to is people arrogantly assuming their opinions are objectives and acting as if anyone who isn't bothered by the battle speed are just fanboys who never criticize the game, or paid shills for CA, or some other nonsense besides accepting that, gasp, someone actually holds a different opinion on a subjective topic and this forum isn't a giant echo chamber.
    Does that "someone" actually have any opinions of their own? They said battle speeds in Rome 2 vanilla were perfect. Objected when we complained about it. However CA massively slowed down the battles in Rome 2, I did not see a single objection to that. It seems agreeing to CA is what matters, not opinions. I am sure you are not one personally, but "fanboys who never criticize the game" exist in great numbers.
    Last edited by prithupaul; April 16, 2017 at 12:19 AM.

  14. #174
    bigdaddy1204's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dar al-Islam
    Posts
    1,896

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrin View Post
    this battle gameplay is woeful. That is very much a subjective statement on the silly pace and over-the-top arcadey stylings, but it's still one that is held by many, many players. And it's a criticism that has been argued vociferously ever since the inane speed of battles first seen with Shogun II.

    I can't speak for anyone else, but CA has lost out on a lot of potential sales revenue from myself with Warhammer. I haven't bought a single bit of extra content (except Blood & Gore) - the main reason being I only fight about 20 battles in the course of a whole campaign. Why? Because they are over way too quickly and don't allow for a satisfying amount of tactical maneuvering (or other things usually associated with battlefield strategy) to achieve a victory.
    This thread reminds me of this:

    Last edited by bigdaddy1204; April 16, 2017 at 04:05 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adar View Post
    I am quite impressed by the fact that you managed to make such a rant but still manage to phrase it in such a way that it is neither relevant to the thread nor to the topic you are trying to introduce to the thread.

  15. #175

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Baal View Post
    The point of family trees would be precisely that. The fact your faction leader can't die sucks balls. Sorry, but that's what I think anyway. Okay, I understand they don't die for narrative purposes perhaps, I don't know. But I would be happy if the game had this sandbox campaign where you can play over the span of hundreds of years, there family trees would be useful for some factions.

    In Warhammer lore lineage it's important (just like in virtually all medieval/fantasy settings). I'm not wishing for a family tree for the current game because it has no use, sure (on the game on it's current state, not in Warhammer in general). I want a game where I could use such feature, along with lots of other ones so the game is far more engaging that already seems to be. I'm sorry for you guys if you settle with anything, I will always want more, and I'm not saying it in a pejorative way, as I'm sure you'll be sorry for me for not being happy with what we have.
    If this would be Fantasy Total War I would be on your side , because than it is a Free Setting like previous "Historical" Titles, it would be an absolute No Go to don't have Family Trees,
    but its not a Free Game with Lore created by CA its a Warhammer Franchise, so CA has to stick to the Warhamme Lore from GW.

    I would like to have Naval Battles, with 2nd Game where you have seperated Landmasses, Islands, that just screams for having Navy and real time Naval Battles,
    but the Question is what is CA allowed to do by GW?
    Is Naval Batt not Included because GW or because of CA?


    By the Way
    I guess if a Legendary Lord could die we wouldn't use them like a Unit that takes an active part in battle
    but would treat them, just like in previous games, like a precious Jewel that needs to be protected all the time
    and that would destroy the whole Warhammer feeling.
    Last edited by Chlodwig I.; April 16, 2017 at 04:30 AM.

  16. #176

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    I don't think anybody is objecting to a conversation about battle speed. What people are objecting to is the fact that, every single thread, in every forum since Shogun 2 is filled to the brim with people complaining about the battle speed, and nowhere on this forum is the appropriate place to complain about the battle speed. CA comes here very rarely, and responds to posts on here even more rarely. This is an unofficial forum focused heavily on modding, there's literally nothing anyone here can do about your complaints on battle speed except go, "Yes, I agree." or "No, I disagree." or "Well there's several mods that fix that."

    What I am objecting to is people arrogantly assuming their opinions are objectives and acting as if anyone who isn't bothered by the battle speed are just fanboys who never criticize the game, or paid shills for CA, or some other nonsense besides accepting that, gasp, someone actually holds a different opinion on a subjective topic and this forum isn't a giant echo chamber.

    I think battles are too fast. However, battle speed is extremely easy to fix, and I just downloaded a mod to fix it. Still wasn't slow enough, so I went in and modded it myself to slow things down even further. I didn't come to an unofficial forum and fill random threads with off-topic complaints about the game speed, or demand to know why people who are perfectly satisfied with the game as it is aren't complaining with me.

    "It works." Yes. If the company sees your bloody complaints. It's like standing in a supermarket's parking lot and complaining to random passerby about the store's service. Yeah, you might find an employee there, and they might even respond if you're really lucky, but you're going to have an infinitely easier time if you just walk up to the damn customer service desk instead of wasting your time and annoying everyone else who's heard it a billion bloody times.
    For what it's worth, THZ, I enjoy your posts and think they're by and large pretty reasonable. You often have a sensible counter-argument when criticism of the game or CA goes overboard. But occasionally you warm to your subject and over-extend a little (as we all do).

    Battle pace is a recurring topic because it hugely affects gameplay for a great many people. I actually stick to your advice mainly and post threads about it on the official forums, directed straight at the relevant devs such as Simon Mann, who I believe is still handling battle design for Warhammer.

    It's not for you to say whether it belongs here as a topic of conversation though. This thread is about the announcement of the new game and uppermost in my mind (and doubtless many others) is whether the battles are actually going to be playable. At present they are borderline or not at all for a lot of people, so it's inevitable this issue is going to raise its head yet again. It's still a talking point just like any other, whether you've heard it a million times or otherwise. CA will read the forum here, even if they don't actively contribute, so it's reasonable to discuss it so it at least shows up on their radar as being a fairly ubiquitous complaint.

    And in terms of modding.... mods are not the great panacea that you make them out to be. I haven't found a single mod that has provided a battle pace I find enjoyable and - like most other people -wouldn't have a clue about changing stat sheets in the game files. I only really trust CA to deliver a well-balanced pace setting, which is why I often push the case for them to provide a range of pace settings so that the moment they slow it down (as in the big Emperor Edition patch for RomeII) a load of people who were happy or accustomed to that setting didn't feel left out.

    I'll leave you with a comment from SteelFaith on the official forums yesterday. He must be one of the most active and experienced modders on the scene.

    A majority of players, if not a significant portion of them, do not like the vanilla pace of battles. Most battles, evne large ones, end in less than 10 minutes; it's just way too fast, considering this is supposed to be a game with in-depth tactics with epic battles. Browse through the workshop, and mods that prolong the pace of battle, are extremely popular and used by a huge amount of people, and it's growing every day.

    Forcing people to use slow mo, throughout most of a battle, is not good or a viable solution. It's a feature which should be used to pull off complex maneuvers and spellcasts, for a brief period of time - not be used for 80%, or more, of the battle time. There's a variety of things that could be done with the vanilla game, to at least slow the rate of combat down some, and have a happy medium between what it is now, and what we've seen in past TW games (such as Med II).

    As for some people continuing to bring up that Mods can fix most of these things, etc and that it's somehow an unpaid modders job to fix these things, is ridiculous. Once a modder stops updating their mod, which could be at anytime, then the "fix" is no longer usable. Also, I do not believe modders can "fix" this game, better than CA if they invested more time into polishing and fixing various aspects of the game. CA are a professional team with specialists, with full access to the entire game, who can fully dedicate their skills to improving every aspect of the game; a lone modder (or small team of modders) cannot properly do this with limited mod tools.

  17. #177

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    So... Some new animations, a few new campaign features, and slower battles = New Game.
    Nice try at simplifying my points but not good enough. Medieval 2 did not just have "Some new animations", it had nothing BUT new animations for everything.All units moved differently then in Rome 1 and it was the first TW to have units with different looking men in them which it self was a clear graphical upgrade. It did not just have "a few new campaign features" almost everything about the Campaign was different compared to Rome 1. The Cardinal system, Crusades, the Guilds, choosing Castles or Cities, papal authority and Excommunication, and so on. The battles were slower not just in combat speed but in everything else. Units no longer run like they are cheetahs or on speed, weight is far more pronounced and the over the top charges that left some units in the air was massively toned down. It also was the first Total War game to have Combat animations(the best in the series honestly when it came to how they affected battles).

    The Game was was vastly different to Rome 1 in almost every way and yet Pasan would argue that it is just an expansion to Rome in the same vain as Napoleon which is ludicrous. Napoleon was meant from the ground up to be a better version of Empire after the fiasco with fans and almost nothing about it was different. I will say there are some neat features it introduced like Liberation and weather attrition. But outside of that it had nothing different from Empire to it's battles, campaign features, and even the voices were not all that different. It was just an improved Empire.


    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    But a lot of new animations, several new species, doubling the size of the map, some new unique campaign features for each faction, new magic, and so on = Overpriced expansion pack?
    "new animations" for like a couple of monsters or so, I highly doubt every single unit will have completely new animation. The regular foot soldiers had similar animations in combat so I really doubt these new animations are enough to justify calling this a new game entirely. "new species" as in new factions? because that is again something that is already common in Total War and strategy games in general. "bigger map"? Yeah interesting but it is in the end the same map just expanded upon. Get it? "expanded"? I crack myself up. "some new unique campaign features" yeah like every other Expansion you can find. Why are you just repeating Pasan's points, are you incapable of making your own? "new Magic" so new abilities, no that special.

    And I find it funny how much you guys love to talk about prices when I never even mentioned them in the first place.
    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Imagine this. Total War: Pike and Shot comes out. The first game has the entirety of Europe, plus lots of DLC.

    Total War: A New World comes out a year later. It has North and South America, all the Native factions, plus some early European explorers. New campaign mechanics, new animations, new units, new cities, etc. It's a standalone game with roughly the same, if not more content as the first game. Is it an expansion pack?
    Yes it is. Because it EXPANDS upon the Pike and Shot setting by adding on to it. We already got the main point of the pike and shot combat down along with the European factions so adding more units, factions, and features does not suddenly make it a completely different game. Being bigger means nothing when all it did to get bigger was add more onto the original so of course it will be bigger. Do you seriously want me to believe is enough to call a new game? don't make me laugh.
    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    I think the only reasonable answer is "Who cares?" If you want to call it an expansion pack so badly, you can have that word.
    "who cares" seems to be your go to words with how often you use it. I just can't help but laugh how contradictory you are being. You act like I am obsessed with it being called an expansion when you and the others like Pasan have been more dedicated on defending it not being so. Honestly at this point I am more annoyed by guys like Pasan trying to argue Medieval 2 is an expansion to Rome 1 in the same vein as Empire and Napoleon. But continue pretending I am obsessed with the it being an expansion, you are the guy who has posted more about that then me.
    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    But the fact of the matter is, given the information we have about it, it has either the same or more content than the original TWW base game. I paid a price for Warhammer 1, and seeing as the second game seems to have an equivalent level of content. it's entirely fair that I pay an equivalent price. Why would it not be? (Whether that's a fair price for a digitally distributed game in the first place is an entirely different, irrelevant topic)
    Let me just repeat what you told me and other like me. "Who Cares?"

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    If you can't afford more than $60 a year on video games, I feel for you. Im serious, that sucks. But you not being able to afford it is not a reason for them to lower their price.


    I don't know what is with you guys and your need to imply we don't buy these games because we can't afford it as if that could be the only reason. I am in no poor financial situation. In fact the real reason I have not bought Warhammer and will not buy it's standalone expansion is because of time. I have other games I wish to complete and I am going to wait a bit to see how the game handles whatever bugs it will have(because it is naive to not expect that). I feel giving it time to clog out the errors it will have would be better then buying it on release or a little bit after.

    But keep acting as if we are all poor misguided peasants who cannot possibly understand the wisdom of CA because we are too greedy to give up our precious money.

  18. #178
    Lord Baal's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Republica de Venezuela
    Posts
    6,393

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Well, I am relatively very poor when it comes to anything that has dollars or not my local currency in the price tag.

    That's why I would like to have the most per penny I can have. But beyond that, if the game had all the features and options I like to, then I would pay up to 80 or a hundred.
    Last edited by Lord Baal; April 16, 2017 at 08:30 PM.
    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. #179
    Unchained's Avatar Libertus
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    64

    Default Re: Total War: Warhammer II announced

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Baal View Post
    Exactly. It shouldn't even be named Warhammer 2, if people were more sane or Sega had more respect for their costumers it would be called an EXPANSION, because that's what it is.

    Is this closer to say, Shogun 2: Fall of the Samurai than say, Shogun 1 vs Shogun 2? Judging by the announcement, it sure looks like it.

    There is no new engine or anything else that is a radical advancement. I think that yes, it is looking like an expansion, although possibly a bigger expansion than before.

  20. #180
    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 Unchained View Post
    Is this closer to say, Shogun 2: Fall of the Samurai than say, Shogun 1 vs Shogun 2? Judging by the announcement, it sure looks like it.

    There is no new engine or anything else that is a radical advancement. I think that yes, it is looking like an expansion, although possibly a bigger expansion than before.
    It's part 2 of a 3 game series. It's an expansion unlike other expansion. Other game expansions are about different period of the same era (or the other way around) while Warhammer II expanded the Warhammer I to the other side of the conflict of the same era.

    It's not just tied like Shogun 2 units can play MP battles with FOTS units but also on the mega campaign map (provided you have both games though). Total war Warhammer is a $180 game divided into 3 parts.

Posting Permissions

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