Am I The Only One Trying Really Hard To Like This Game? [and finding it hard to like it]

[Sebidee]

The battles can be fun and they are probably the best part of the gameplay. But personally I always preferred campaign play and Warhammer doesn't have that really.

[Fredrin]

The battles can be fun and they are probably the best part of the gameplay. But personally I always preferred campaign play and Warhammer doesn't have that really.

Agreed. Battles could be the most amazing experience ever, but without the context of a really compelling campaign to give the outcome a bit of meaning, they're never going to deliver that deep satisfaction you get from winning a battle that determines the fate of your whole empire.

I almost like the battles in this game; they look incredible and BAI was scarily good at first. But even with most mods, they're too fast and a bit light on thought-provoking tactical gameplay.

It is the campaign that really saps replayability though. Beyond the initially quite engaging mini-game that is settlement/building management and the small injection of interest that is faction specific mechanics, there is painfully little going on. Definitely not enough to sustain a second play through with the same race. I discovered enough about other race's mechanics just from fighting them that I didn't even much of an appetite to play as them after the first couple of campaigns.

But as you say, Sebidee, we're mostly history nuts here so it's not likely we're going to get as much out of it as lifelong WH fans. I just pray that CA are adopting this approach very much for the specific requirements of a Warhammer game and are going in the opposite direction with their development of the next historical one.

[Sebidee]

The BAI is very good, I think Warhammer was the first game where the AI actually beat me (occasionally) and I cannot stress enough how great the graphics and sound and everything technical is but you are right about tactical gameplay not being in there. There are no formations or units with unique roles, even the monsters are just tanks that get progressively stronger as you go up in tiers.

I find that most battles just end up being big blobs and the army with the stronger units wins. There are no cycle charges, defensive lines, skirmishing or anything like that. I find even flanking doesn't help that much. Just blobbing together.

It does worry me slightly about the future of total war since Warhammer has been so successful. I hope CA doesn't take that as an endorsement for all it's flaws. That said I think it is likely that they are Warhammer specific as there isn't really much room in the Warhammer universe for indepth economics and diplomacy.

[Huberto]

Ive had some interesting large scale battles in Attila recently where the AI flanked and tried to trap some of my units and keep me out of their rear 😅 Would have lost if I hadn't slow mo'd the battle for a bit. It's encouraging.

[prithupaul]

Ive had some interesting large scale battles in Attila recently where the AI flanked and tried to trap some of my units and keep me out of their rear  Would have lost if I hadn't slow mo'd the battle for a bit. It's encouraging.

Those are formulaic checkbox style tactics the AI uses in all battles. Extremely predictable and easy to work around.

CA have been making these games for decades, and yet some basic conventions of battlefield tactics are still beyond them -

1. Reserves - AI is unable to conceive of reserves (unless you move some units to the AI's rear, which leads the AI forming, not really a reserve force, but a detachment to counter yours), instead attacks with all melee infantry at once, event if they outnumber you 3 to 1.

2. Avoiding Friendly Fire - AI ranged and artillery units will continue to fire even when their melee units are engaged with yours, indiscriminately killing both.

3. Battle lines - AI will usually move in a single melee line, but just before attacking they will form random blobs that only attack some of your units, allowing you to easily flank them with the rest of your units. They have "solved" this in Warhammer by massively lowering flanking bonuses and with the fickle morale system. They have compounded bad design with more bad design.

4. Rallying fleeing units - Fleeing units do not gather and reform another cohesive line, instead they rally one by one and immediately charge back (often suicidal) in to the fray.

5. Reinforcements - Reinforcements do not enter battles as a proper reinforcing army, delayed in accordance with their distance from the field. Instead they enter the battle unit by unit, based on how many "slots" are left in your UI.

6. Multiple commanders in the battlefield, commanding different flanks / parts of the army - Many games like Scourge of War, Command Ops, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, even Ultimate General have managed to achieve this, but too much for CA.

7. Ranged Units - Artillery and ranged units are massively overpowered. Shields, defensive covers, etc all end up being useless during sustained fire. Un-engaged soldiers do not scatter when they see a huge fiery boulder flying towards them, instead they stand and die.

8. Defensive Positions - If you take a couple of shots with artillery or a couple of volleys with archers, AI army will immediately leave a solid defensive position and charge at you. This is because artillery and archers cause abnormally massive amount of casualties. Another case of bad design, "fixed" by more bad design. Even owning more artillery than AI will ensure that AI will always attack. Of course this behavior is disabled during siege via hard-coding, which means you beat a besieged army to a pulp with artillery superiority.

9. Fatigue - Armies still run everywhere with minimum penalties. Again, this is often due to overpowered artillery and skirmishers, that can obliterate a marching army unless they run full speed. And as usual, instead of balancing the overpowered units, CA have simply increased the thresholds and lowered the penalties for fatigue. Fast paced FTW!

10. Cohesion - Scattered units should be more vulnerable. But since CA's AI is unable to maintain cohesive formations, there are no penalties for lack of cohesion. In fact, it can be the other way around. If your formed unit charges at a scattered blob - your charge will often falter if they come across a single enemy soldier.

11..... sigh.. this just makes me feel bitter and tiresome. Now-a-days I usually get into TW games with lowered expectations - a fast paced generic RTS-style clickfest (eg Empire at War, Dawn of War etc) with more sprites per unit, as opposed to a relatively realistic tactical sim (which the first Total War games felt like, at the time they were released). Now I have to look at wargames for that kind of authentic tactical experience. Total War, to its credit, still plays better than generic RTS games.... for now.

That’s how you can successfully like a new Total War game - lower your expectations.

[Sebidee]

That is a pretty comprehensive list and it's hard to argue with it. I have been playing Total War since the beginning and I have always made rules for myself not to exploit the bad AI but sometimes it can't be helped. The worst problem I find with the AI is that they never play defensively, even when I am attacking they will charge and throw away any advantage they have while I trap them. Let's hope they figure out a way to improve AI in the next historicl game.

[Huberto]

Yup its a great list of problems with the BAI. The blobbing attacks and lack of use of reserves just kills the immersion sometimes. I do think some of this is due partly to the 20 unit stack limitation. It's the reason missile and arty is overpowered - otherwise why give it room in a stack? Also the constant calls by fans for "unit diversity" leads to unrealistic battle situations and the BAI is programmed to hunt down Rock Paper Scissors mismatches which often leads to it making dumb decisions. think the BAI in Attila is better than TWR2 but doesn't begin to address your list. I think they are afraid to devote time and energy to really change it because people don't like getting beat by the BAI; so they invest in visuals? Or they just don't care becauSe people buy the games. Warhammer's changes worry me though I don't know the BAI well in that game.

[The Wandering Storyteller]

The problem with Warhammer is that the AI never attacks, I've played Bretonnia however and that is the only faction I like really. Empire is too easy when it should be hard. The Orcs, Chaos aren't the big threat as they were made out to be. The lore is undeveloped and there is a poor lack of story telling. They should introduce more story mechanics. The music is not that great, like in the Dwarven trailer, we should have that.

But it is a good game. Is it that great as the other games are, maybe. Its competent.

Plus the idea to make sieges one walled was the worst decision ever made. I'm glad that modders finally forced CA to edit and put maps onto the campaign map. In the past they have been the most reluctant to do this simple job.

[Sebidee]

Also the constant calls by fans for "unit diversity" leads to unrealistic battle situations and the BAI is programmed to hunt down Rock Paper Scissors mismatches which often leads to it making dumb decisions.

I would agree and disagree with that. It's true that a rock paper scissors system can cause problems but that is not an issue of too much unit diversity, if anything it's too little. If there is a diverse range of units, all of which have a unique roles, then that can improve tactics immensely. I don't mean like archers beat infantry, infantry beat cavalry and cavalry beat archers I mean more like some units more suited to defence and offence, tanky heavy units and quick light units as well as missile troops designed to take out different kinds of enemies and so on.

One of the problems I find with Warhammer is the lack of unit diversity. Sure, you have all kinds of different looking monsters but they are almost all weaker or stronger tanks and the different types of infantry and cavalry are more or less the same as one another. It means there aren't many opportunities to use units in different ways, you can only click CHARGE and hope for the best.

[Destraex]

Not at all. I generally find it to be a real grind. Mainly because the games tactical battles bore me to tears most times. I find that it's just a blob fest because you cannot really command your troops to do anything much apart from magical buffing. They stripped any real formations out of the game for infantry etc etc.
I played until I had seen all of the empire units and then found I did not like the game enough to continue. Part of the reason was that I felt I just had no real affect on the campaign map. No matter what you do you are countered by the AI and campaign mechanics to "keep things interesting".

Could it be because I like playing heroic human factions vs the monsters??? Perhaps monster factions would seem more interesting because you would expect the blob.

[Ichon]

Those are formulaic checkbox style tactics the AI uses in all battles. Extremely predictable and easy to work around.

CA have been making these games for decades, and yet some basic conventions of battlefield tactics are still beyond them -

1. Reserves - AI is unable to conceive of reserves (unless you move some units to the AI's rear, which leads the AI forming, not really a reserve force, but a detachment to counter yours), instead attacks with all melee infantry at once, event if they outnumber you 3 to 1.

2. Avoiding Friendly Fire - AI ranged and artillery units will continue to fire even when their melee units are engaged with yours, indiscriminately killing both.

3. Battle lines - AI will usually move in a single melee line, but just before attacking they will form random blobs that only attack some of your units, allowing you to easily flank them with the rest of your units. They have "solved" this in Warhammer by massively lowering flanking bonuses and with the fickle morale system. They have compounded bad design with more bad design.

4. Rallying fleeing units - Fleeing units do not gather and reform another cohesive line, instead they rally one by one and immediately charge back (often suicidal) in to the fray.

5. Reinforcements - Reinforcements do not enter battles as a proper reinforcing army, delayed in accordance with their distance from the field. Instead they enter the battle unit by unit, based on how many "slots" are left in your UI.

6. Multiple commanders in the battlefield, commanding different flanks / parts of the army - Many games like Scourge of War, Command Ops, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, even Ultimate General have managed to achieve this, but too much for CA.

7. Ranged Units - Artillery and ranged units are massively overpowered. Shields, defensive covers, etc all end up being useless during sustained fire. Un-engaged soldiers do not scatter when they see a huge fiery boulder flying towards them, instead they stand and die.

8. Defensive Positions - If you take a couple of shots with artillery or a couple of volleys with archers, AI army will immediately leave a solid defensive position and charge at you. This is because artillery and archers cause abnormally massive amount of casualties. Another case of bad design, "fixed" by more bad design. Even owning more artillery than AI will ensure that AI will always attack. Of course this behavior is disabled during siege via hard-coding, which means you beat a besieged army to a pulp with artillery superiority.

9. Fatigue - Armies still run everywhere with minimum penalties. Again, this is often due to overpowered artillery and skirmishers, that can obliterate a marching army unless they run full speed. And as usual, instead of balancing the overpowered units, CA have simply increased the thresholds and lowered the penalties for fatigue. Fast paced FTW!

10. Cohesion - Scattered units should be more vulnerable. But since CA's AI is unable to maintain cohesive formations, there are no penalties for lack of cohesion. In fact, it can be the other way around. If your formed unit charges at a scattered blob - your charge will often falter if they come across a single enemy soldier.

1. Reserves is quite difficult to code and even most people have trouble setting up reserve and using it effectively. I don't know any game that has successfully implemented reserves but I agree it would be quite nice if it could be coded.

2. Again not sure how to code that... would make archers quite less effective and even most humans have FF issues unless you flank with archers but competent AI wouldn't let flanking so...

3. Not sure what you mean here- sure this sometime happens but more often as a result of last minute moves in your own lines. If you advance with perfect ordered formation (using group, up arrows key) the AI usually advances to meet your line pretty evenly unless there is a high priority target like a general or a ranged unit in the front. Blobs do happen but even in older TW they happened, just slightly less mixing but the result of that was higher tier units took even fewer losses than they do in Warhammer because they aren't getting attacked as often. Not sure what people expect here honestly- ever see a riot or a fight between 2 mobs? Supposedly phalanx and some other formations were very rigid but that is a minority of formations throughout the history of warfare.

4. I agree this is annoying but can't see how it would be better if they formed a cohesive line because 1/4 of an army would just be standing around waiting for the rest to rout leaving them in much weaker position when they did reform.

5. Can you manage 60+ units? Can many computers handle 120+ units at once? Not ideal but there are hardware and micro limits.

6. What do you mean? I almost always make use of more than 1 commander in TW as the main generals command radius can't cover even half the army most of the time. Also if a second army is in the battle there is a 2nd commander... really not sure what you mean here.

7. This I totally agree with and has been in my top 3 complaints about TW since Rome 2. Too many people want massive ranged death to happen without working for it. IE moving to the flanks, or setting up good tactical position letting ranged work. Part of that is the relatively featureless battlefields. MTW2 had great battlefields with rock features, buildings, slopes, etc that had important tactical impacts. That is incredibly rare in TW since Rome 2 and battlefields are worse for it.

8. Not sure how to fix that without total redo of several things. 'Strong' defensive position doesn't really exist in TW since Rome 2 and at least the rush to melee is a vast improvement over older TW where the AI was completely passive and could be eliminated with 0 losses sometimes.

9. Yep, totally agree with this.

10. There is a large vulnerability to lack of cohesion so I am not sure what you mean here. Not on a per unit basis perhaps but that is really complex coding but definitely on a line/flank basis. If you disorder part of your opponents army the rest often falls really fast which is why cavalry even in Shogun 2 (where spears were everywhere and killed cavalry incredibly fast) was so powerful.

[prithupaul]

1. Reserves is quite difficult to code and even most people have trouble setting up reserve and using it effectively. I don't know any game that has successfully implemented reserves but I agree it would be quite nice if it could be coded.

2. Again not sure how to code that... would make archers quite less effective and even most humans have FF issues unless you flank with archers but competent AI wouldn't let flanking so...

3. Not sure what you mean here- sure this sometime happens but more often as a result of last minute moves in your own lines. If you advance with perfect ordered formation (using group, up arrows key) the AI usually advances to meet your line pretty evenly unless there is a high priority target like a general or a ranged unit in the front. Blobs do happen but even in older TW they happened, just slightly less mixing but the result of that was higher tier units took even fewer losses than they do in Warhammer because they aren't getting attacked as often. Not sure what people expect here honestly- ever see a riot or a fight between 2 mobs? Supposedly phalanx and some other formations were very rigid but that is a minority of formations throughout the history of warfare.

4. I agree this is annoying but can't see how it would be better if they formed a cohesive line because 1/4 of an army would just be standing around waiting for the rest to rout leaving them in much weaker position when they did reform.

5. Can you manage 60+ units? Can many computers handle 120+ units at once? Not ideal but there are hardware and micro limits.

6. What do you mean? I almost always make use of more than 1 commander in TW as the main generals command radius can't cover even half the army most of the time. Also if a second army is in the battle there is a 2nd commander... really not sure what you mean here.

7. This I totally agree with and has been in my top 3 complaints about TW since Rome 2. Too many people want massive ranged death to happen without working for it. IE moving to the flanks, or setting up good tactical position letting ranged work. Part of that is the relatively featureless battlefields. MTW2 had great battlefields with rock features, buildings, slopes, etc that had important tactical impacts. That is incredibly rare in TW since Rome 2 and battlefields are worse for it.

8. Not sure how to fix that without total redo of several things. 'Strong' defensive position doesn't really exist in TW since Rome 2 and at least the rush to melee is a vast improvement over older TW where the AI was completely passive and could be eliminated with 0 losses sometimes.

9. Yep, totally agree with this.

10. There is a large vulnerability to lack of cohesion so I am not sure what you mean here. Not on a per unit basis perhaps but that is really complex coding but definitely on a line/flank basis. If you disorder part of your opponents army the rest often falls really fast which is why cavalry even in Shogun 2 (where spears were everywhere and killed cavalry incredibly fast) was so powerful.

1. Not that difficult. There are metrics within the game that can measure the strength of a force. It will be an extension of that. AI can commit enough units that can, in theory, overpower your front line, and keep the rest in reserves. It should also aim to conserve veteran and highly trained troops unless absolutely necessary. Consider how Napoleon used his Old Guard, or how early Roman armies used the Triarii.

2. Again not that difficult. AI knows where its units are. "Try not to fire at units that are within x distance of your own units". As simple as that. It can be tied to factions and / or leaders. Bloodthirsty leaders, or "evil" factions may worry less about friendly fire.

3. "but more often as a result of last minute moves in your own lines" No not really. Happens EVERY time, especially in Warhammer. Its more noticeable if there are large armies involved, with wide lines. There is no logic or historical authenticity to the AI's behavior. Its random, and nonsensical. It just loves blobs. Not so frequent in previous Total War games, but I have seen it in Attila and Rome 2 as well.

4. The way it works now is also completely pointless. If its just one unit that recovers, sure, it has no option but to charge back. But if three units recover close to one another, they should form up and advance as one.

5. Even if I could, I would not want to. Thats why I prefer Chain of Command (my point no 6), so we can have realistic army sizes without it being a micromanagement hell. Its another case of CA doubling down on bad game design. As far as graphics are concerned - consider Scourge of War, Take Command, Pike & Shot etc, or any table top wargame for that matter. You do not need to draw 100,000 sprites to represent 100,000 soldiers. Instead of scaling the size of armies, CA should scale how many soldiers each sprite / model represents, while the underlying calculations can still use the actual troop numbers.

6. I mean chain of command. You should look at how tactical battles work in the games I mentioned. Many devs have already worked out chain of command (& realistic reinforcements, my point no 5).

8. Forests, hill tops, passes and so on. And yes, as I mentioned, its only "better" because CA has "fixed" bad balancing with bad workarounds.

10. Not in my experience.... well, I agree that this aspect was better implemented in previous Total War games. Maintaining good formation did seem more effective in previous games. I am mostly referring to Blobhammer for this point, where that no longer seems to be the case.

[Huberto]

Thats why I prefer Chain of Command (my point no 6), so we can have realistic army sizes without it being a micromanagement hell. Its another case of CA doubling down on bad game design. As far as graphics are concerned - consider Scourge of War, Take Command, Pike & Shot etc, or any table top wargame for that matter. You do not need to draw 100,000 sprites to represent 100,000 soldiers. Instead of scaling the size of armies, CA should scale how many soldiers each sprite / model represents, while the underlying calculations can still use the actual troop numbers.

Because the real time battles are micro management heavy, it's hard to believe CA will ever have the guts to utilize a chain of command concept, i.e. large parts of a battle going on that the player cannot micro. I remember a few years back trying to argue for this and Jack Lusted came on here and said basically that it's too Grognard-ish to do that in Total War.

Therefore, the best we can hope for is *an option* to control or not control part of a multi-stack which we sort of have already, although with reinforcements only. But a new battle system is going to be a reach for them. I really wish they would experiment more, but it seems that they really want TW to be a twitch-heavy thing.

Regarding Warhammer, given that it has been a table-top game with (I assume) complex tactical rules, I am surprised that the melee blob version seen in TW:WH hasn't been criticized more by the fans. But perhaps it's all about the visuals for them too.

[Anna_Gein]

That is a pretty comprehensive list and it's hard to argue with it. I have been playing Total War since the beginning and I have always made rules for myself not to exploit the bad AI but sometimes it can't be helped. The worst problem I find with the AI is that they never play defensively, even when I am attacking they will charge and throw away any advantage they have while I trap them. Let's hope they figure out a way to improve AI in the next historicl game.

This used to be different in RTW and M2TW. Back then the AI was capable to hold its line when on the defense. With a little tweaking, RTW AI was even capable to assess the odds were overwhelming against it and so retreat its force during a battle.

2. Again not sure how to code that... would make archers quite less effective and even most humans have FF issues unless you flank with archers but competent AI wouldn't let flanking so...

As far as I remember RTW and M2TW did not have this problem. The old "auto fire" command in RTW and M2TW was coded so that range units did not shoot on enemy units engaged in melee combat.

[Ichon]

This used to be different in RTW and M2TW. Back then the AI was capable to hold its line when on the defense. With a little tweaking, RTW AI was even capable to assess the odds were overwhelming against it and so retreat its force during a battle.


As far as I remember RTW and M2TW did not have this problem. The old "auto fire" command in RTW and M2TW was coded so that range units did not shoot on enemy units engaged in melee combat.

AI did retreat occasionally in RTW and MTW2 but even more often it was pummeled easily by ranged. It would be nice if some AI especially Empire/Bretonnia/Elves would retreat if in poor odds but overall the AI in Warhammer is way better than in MTW2 though not in every single way.

Yes, and then the AI in RTW and MTW2 spent 1/3 the battle holding fire or walking its ranged around. Having some friendly fire is not the best but better than not using those units. If ranged wasn't so OP and especially units extra vulnerable in the back where they generally get FF from it wouldn't be too bad. Honestly it is really rare battle that AI FF its own troops makes much difference. I agree it is a problem but I'd much rather they spend more time coding unit prioritization and reserves.

[geala]

This used to be different in RTW and M2TW. Back then the AI was capable to hold its line when on the defense. With a little tweaking, RTW AI was even capable to assess the odds were overwhelming against it and so retreat its force during a battle.


...

Oh yes, I remember several EB battles where I rubbed my hands with an evil grin after perfectly placing my units, just to see the AI escape from the field. In one battle I lost my general because I recklessly chased the enemy with him. Too bad...


I think it is an invitation to get lynched but I would even accept, let's say something like the R2:TW/DeI 1.2 or A:TW/FotE battle AI in future TW games, if only the campaign options would be better fleshed out.

[prithupaul]

Because the real time battles are micro management heavy, it's hard to believe CA will ever have the guts to utilize a chain of command concept, i.e. large parts of a battle going on that the player cannot micro. I remember a few years back trying to argue for this and Jack Lusted came on here and said basically that it's too Grognard-ish to do that in Total War.

The irony is that a chain of command system actually makes a "Grognard-ish" game more usable. Command Ops is so easy to get in to. Scourge of War seems complicated due to terrible UI / UX design, but once you decipher that, it is also very easy to get into. Chain of Command basically lets the player choose the amount of complexity they want to handle.

Ultimately I think CA's design focus is on fast-faced clickfest action, as opposed to realistic tactical simulation. You can see this in the way CA's developers play the game during streams. They are not bothered with wargamers, and want to pander to the much more numerous generic RTS fanbase.

Regarding Warhammer, given that it has been a table-top game with (I assume) complex tactical rules, I am surprised that the melee blob version seen in TW:WH hasn't been criticized more by the fans. But perhaps it's all about the visuals for them too.

Yeah I found that odd as well. I suspect a lot of the "Warhammer veterans" that gush over TW Warhammer are mostly fans of Dawn of War (a generic RTS full of blobs and arcade simplicity) pretending to be great Warhammer Tabletop fans after glancing at a few army books.

[geala]

TW games are a compromise between campaign play, battles and graphics. Compromises are usually lacking in all of it's parts. But they also offer more than special games. I like the campaigns because they potentially can lead to battles, I like the battles because some at least mean something for my campaign, and frankly said I need some graphical appeal as well.

BTW, is there a tactical war game on the market with an ancient or medieval setting with at least some decent graphics (let's say Scourges of War: Waterloo or Graviteam Tactics OS)?

[prithupaul]

TW games are a compromise between campaign play, battles and graphics. Compromises are usually lacking in all of it's parts. But they also offer more than special games. I like the campaigns because they potentially can lead to battles, I like the battles because some at least mean something for my campaign, and frankly said I need some graphical appeal as well.

BTW, is there a tactical war game on the market with an ancient or medieval setting with at least some decent graphics (let's say Scourges of War: Waterloo or Graviteam Tactics OS)?

In case of Total War the compromise is overwhelmingly in favor of fast paced action and graphics. Even then, are smarter ways of achieving those without sacrificing tactical gameplay.

But yeah I also do not have too many complaints about the strategic part of Total War, except may be a few things such as lack of context (eg family tree) for characters in some TW games, agent spam, the arbitrary caps / rules such as total number of armies, units per armies etc. Many of them are easy to fix via mods.

Regarding non-modern tactical wargames with decent graphics.... well.. there are not many, which is why the direction of Total War is especially disappointing for a fan of wargames. If I have to recommend, and considering "decent graphics" as something subjective, I would say that I have enjoyed Pike & Shot, Sengoku Jidai : Shadow of the Shogun, Tin Soldiers, Ultimate General : Civil War and Romance of the Three Kingdoms (not counting tactical RPGs like Battle Brothers, Fire Emblem etc). None of them can match the production values of Total War, but thats got more to do with development budgets and not design compromises.

[Totalheadache]

I dont think Total wars will or ever have been particularly challenging in terms of tactis etc. But I do think improvements have been made.

Playing on very hard and havent struggled really in any of my campaigns. Ok have lost a few battles but that was just numbers more than anything...but the AI has a good stab at it!

I think you would only see really decent A.I in heavily scripted battles/campaigns and probably needs a more turn-based approach. I'd love to see a Warhammer game that really is more like the actual tabletop with cover systems etc...a 40k game rather than fantasy per say..

p.s will pick up dawn of war3 when it goes on sale. Not that impressed with it...