The TW series is dead. Everything after Medieval II sucks!

[Daruwind]

C'mon dude, Shogun 2 is 7 years old. It was very nice at it's time, but lots have improved since that. Warhammer want to bring an RPG experience. That makes the overall strategy experience get worse.

Why no magic then? Why not a chinese dragons in a three kingdmos DLC? bring back gladiators? Valkyre units as germanic heavy cavalry. Infantry + artillery with the romans? Not cool enough. Why not give them elephants? That's what clients want. And maybe you can ask Jupiter to throw a lightning just like Age of Mitologies style.

So we bait RPG players with something which is unlike total war, and then surprise if they dislike the other games because there are no magic nukes.

Naval support almost runied the game. At first it was fun, a salvo of 5-10 cannon balls, a minor damage or disruption. Later you can disband half of the enemies even before engaging. Pick a dumbening down idea and bring in to make warhammer easy enough. But at least that was to counter the last civil war, in which you had to face a tremendous civil war and loosing a single battle could ruin you, so you had to play every single battle very carfully. See that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofz0nisIzPA&t=1958s
One single character killed more than 2 thousand enemies just by spell grinding. Tipically warhammer.

-This is not about RPG elements. They might at best mask some problems or make them look smaller. Actually I agree with Huberto and others that better and deeper mechnics for example better formations or emphasy on manouvering during battle would improve ANY TW. Historical as fantasy one. Because there is zero difference if my army is Empire/Dwarfs bases or 15-16 century Europe centric..

-Because I can distinquish fantasy and history game? I like both, when playing WH i prefer staying true to the lore which is the same as staying historical in history titles. Valkyre for germanic units sounds as Legolas hero for Wood Elves in Warhammer ;-) Simply that is the heresy!

-Why baiting anybody? I know a few guys who were playing predominantly action Warhammer games, mostly 40K and never have tried any TW. They tried Warhammer and then even some history TWs and are still playing them..

-You are right Naval Support was overpowered. I don´t deny it. I just use it as example because almost everyone has heard about it. Definitely could be tone down.

-Yeah, and do you understand why he did it? ;-) High level character, casting efficiently spells and kicking low low low tier crappy units. What you saw is equivalent of Naval Bombardment in FotS but focused,compressed on small space - Purple Sun of Xereus. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. And you haven´t seen what can do Tyrion with Khaine´s sword and some buffs. ;-) But that is Warhammer. Super heroes...but sadly it is not typical as for most part you try to not lose your precious Lord..
https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/co...m_3276_damage/

Does he even need an army at this point?
No. Not even since the stats in the campaign map picture. With 90% ward save, more than 100 Defence, 160 Armour, over 120 Speed, and most importantly Unbreakable+Regeneration, he can comfortably solo any normal army that the AI is able to field.

[druchii7]

-This is not about RPG elements. They might at best mask some problems or make them look smaller. Actually I agree with Huberto and others that better and deeper mechnics for example better formations or emphasy on manouvering during battle would improve ANY TW. Historical as fantasy one. Because there is zero difference if my army is Empire/Dwarfs bases or 15-16 century Europe centric..

Warhammer TW is specially targetting newcommers. So I think to some extent that it's ok to sell a dumbed down and a bit broken game, as most of the players have little or no interest in war simulation or grand strategy (which is what total war is... or used to be). I think that overcomplexity would be a bad idea on warhammer. As far as those features don't trespass the frontier of fantasy titles. If I begin to see them pour into historical based campains, I won't buy/play them. Because I want war simulation no one more strategy game between thousands.

-Because I can distinquish fantasy and history game? I like both, when playing WH i prefer staying true to the lore which is the same as staying historical in history titles. Valkyre for germanic units sounds as Legolas hero for Wood Elves in Warhammer ;-) Simply that is the heresy!

Why not? You have a man that can kill thousands. People climbing walls as if the work in the cirque du soleil. There's a character that terribly "debuffs" (I suspect that it will be an ultra broken version of other titles debuffs, which were mainly intimidations).

-Why baiting anybody? I know a few guys who were playing predominantly action Warhammer games, mostly 40K and never have tried any TW. They tried Warhammer and then even some history TWs and are still playing them..

Youtube and forums are soaked with TW warhammer fans, that feel no sympathy for any other total war that deffend that they want to see many of the features of warhammer in three kingdoms (such as characters as powerful as possible, units with antihistorical weapons, etc). Why else would they make the normal difficulty so easy and erase the formations mechanics? Because the newcomers would reject a game as complex as attila, for example (in which western rome in normal difficulty is impossible to the newcomers).

-Yeah, and do you understand why he did it? ;-) High level character, casting efficiently spells and kicking low low low tier crappy units. What you saw is equivalent of Naval Bombardment in FotS but focused,compressed on small space - Purple Sun of Xereus. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

So what? Anyone could easily see that expoilt and use it. No mastermind masterpiece, just a broken mechanic that leds to an easy and expoiltable mechanic. When they set a multiple rocket launcher in attila total war, I'll complain.

Easy money is sexy. Casuallize games. Do unfair DLCs (chaos warriors, the most played warhammer fantasy battles faction of all time not in the core game). Implement easy features and let hard to mend flaws (AI for example) in stagnation forever.

[Daruwind]

Warhammer TW is specially targetting newcommers. So I think to some extent that it's ok to sell a dumbed down and a bit broken game, as most of the players have little or no interest in war simulation or grand strategy (which is what total war is... or used to be). I think that overcomplexity would be a bad idea on warhammer. As far as those features don't trespass the frontier of fantasy titles. If I begin to see them pour into historical based campains, I won't buy/play them. Because I want war simulation no one more strategy game between thousands.

Why not? You have a man that can kill thousands. People climbing walls as if the work in the cirque du soleil. There's a character that terribly "debuffs" (I suspect that it will be an ultra broken version of other titles debuffs, which were mainly intimidations).

Youtube and forums are soaked with TW warhammer fans, that feel no sympathy for any other total war that deffend that they want to see many of the features of warhammer in three kingdoms (such as characters as powerful as possible, units with antihistorical weapons, etc). Why else would they make the normal difficulty so easy and erase the formations mechanics? Because the newcomers would reject a game as complex as attila, for example (in which western rome in normal difficulty is impossible to the newcomers).

So what? Anyone could easily see that expoilt and use it. No mastermind masterpiece, just a broken mechanic that leds to an easy and expoiltable mechanic. When they set a multiple rocket launcher in attila total war, I'll complain.

Easy money is sexy. Casuallize games. Do unfair DLCs (chaos warriors, the most played warhammer fantasy battles faction of all time not in the core game). Implement easy features and let hard to mend flaws (AI for example) in stagnation forever.

-Your opinion. It is targetting Warhammer people which are very furious about any deviation from lore. It is similar to how history fans are fanatical about historical accuracy. TW are being called to be streamlined from R2, nothing new with WH. But I can quite easily see reason for some feature cutting in WH. While it makes no sense to lock some features for history factions it makes very good sense to lock something or make something special for particular faction.Because it is fantasy..Still there are even people playing both TWs who can easily distinquish what they are playing.

-Aaaaand? Your point? WH has great contrast in Legendary Lords vs ordinary men. In End times some of these characters become actual gods, some are demigods, avatars, chosen of chaos gods...It is okey for them to slay thousand enemies. But that´s no reason why I should want Valkyre in R2. Naval bombardment, beach landings, ninjas why not. For me these are not crossing the line and for you probably do and what? We have different opinion both has same value..

-And? I like quote from dr. House. People are idiots, on all sides. I like history games, I like WH. Look in other threads here, people calling for strike on fantasy fans....exactly the same what you are saying about other side...

-Again, you are missing point. One side in that battle had utter advantage. There was 0% chance for AI to beat it. Or for player. It is very much same as if I my properly build Roman army in R2 is besieging a city defended by some pyjamas man. Thousands will die just to my Artillery..It is still cheesy tactics as was cyclo charges in Med 2...

-So why did CA change policy and preorder for WH2 was viable for both WH1/WH2? There was no backlash with Norsca (except WH2 implementation, which was delayed but it is already working). Plus ask Existence about WH DLC. He is considered them to be superior to any historical content And generally speaking, WH dlcs are really offering best ratio between money/value from any TW so far. I don´t know how much you watch WH news but CA is tinkering with AI. There already improved field battles a few times..

[druchii7]

-Your opinion. It is targetting Warhammer people which are very furious about any deviation from lore. It is similar to how history fans are fanatical about historical accuracy. TW are being called to be streamlined from R2, nothing new with WH. But I can quite easily see reason for some feature cutting in WH. While it makes no sense to lock some features for history factions it makes very good sense to lock something or make something special for particular faction.Because it is fantasy..Still there are even people playing both TWs who can easily distinquish what they are playing.

Maybe that point's out that CA should take a bit more serious research as many (maybe most) of the costumers want an actual simulator of the background. If I liked and played WTW I'd like crazily authentic.

-Aaaaand? Your point? WH has great contrast in Legendary Lords vs ordinary men. In End times some of these characters become actual gods, some are demigods, avatars, chosen of chaos gods...It is okey for them to slay thousand enemies. But that´s no reason why I should want Valkyre in R2. Naval bombardment, beach landings, ninjas why not. For me these are not crossing the line and for you probably do and what? We have different opinion both has same value..

I'm OK with that on warhammer, but it's affecting the history line and that's inacceptable to me. And ToB and Emperor divided scored terible marks. I asked refund for ToB after I saw that it wasn't interesting to me. First time I do it on a CA product. I personally think that the deviation of resources to warhammer has had a bad impact (maybe the cause is other, but the result is undeniable, look at the critics on steam).

-And? I like quote from dr. House. People are idiots, on all sides. I like history games, I like WH. Look in other threads here, people calling for strike on fantasy fans....exactly the same what you are saying about other side...

Of course, if people don't like it, they're idiots. It's a sign: many old lovers of CA are loosing interest on the games. Make the best Warhammer TW for warhammer fans, make the best historical games for historical games fans. They're developing and releasing too many products simultaneously. That almost killed assassin's creed (infamous AC3, AC unity had a BUG tsunami).

-Again, you are missing point. One side in that battle had utter advantage. There was 0% chance for AI to beat it. Or for player. It is very much same as if I my properly build Roman army in R2 is besieging a city defended by some pyjamas man. Thousands will die just to my Artillery..It is still cheesy tactics as was cyclo charges in Med 2...

The problem is that those mechanics are permeating into historical games. Threatening to ruin the historical war simulation aspect/evolution. It's the very first TW game that brings no new realistic features. No one has been announced and in the previous ones they were the first thing to be announced. Such as integrity, nomads, etc.

So why did CA change policy and preorder for WH2 was viable for both WH1/WH2? There was no backlash with Norsca (except WH2 implementation, which was delayed but it is already working). Plus ask Existence about WH DLC. He is considered them to be superior to any historical content And generally speaking, WH dlcs are really offering best ratio between money/value from any TW so far. I don´t know how much you watch WH news but CA is tinkering with AI. There already improved field battles a few times

The result is that the new historical DLCs have recieved poor rating. I personally didn't like them. ED adds very very little to the game, and ToB would be acceptable to me for 14-18€, not 40! The game is not polished and it adds many new and well mechanics, but that seems badly integrated in the overall experience. I'm really glad that WH DLC have are worth it. The ones for the games I play are not (criticism in steam leaves no doubt, the DLC are not a generally satisfying product).

I honestly wish they make the best TW warhammer ever and that people enjoy it but it's crearly broken the possitive tendency towards realism and realistic and more refined campaign mechanics and I'm unhappy to see that they haven't released any product acceptable to me since 2015 (age of charlemagne). I really hoped ToB to be good (good ideas were there), lost hype after watching the first reviews pre release and asked refund after playing a little and checking that it was not worth the price. Maybe I'll buy it again in future sales if it drops under 20€ and gets a few patches to improve some things, but otherwise I'll be OK if I never play it again.

[Daruwind]

The problem is that those mechanics are permeating into historical games. Threatening to ruin the historical war simulation aspect/evolution. It's the very first TW game that brings no new realistic features. No one has been announced and in the previous ones they were the first thing to be announced. Such as integrity, nomads, etc.
...
I honestly wish they make the best TW warhammer ever and that people enjoy it but it's crearly broken the possitive tendency towards realism and realistic and more refined campaign mechanics and I'm unhappy to see that they haven't released any product acceptable to me since 2015 (age of charlemagne). I really hoped ToB to be good (good ideas were there), lost hype after watching the first reviews pre release and asked refund after playing a little and checking that it was not worth the price. Maybe I'll buy it again in future sales if it drops under 20€ and gets a few patches to improve some things, but otherwise I'll be OK if I never play it again.

-We know that for sure? I can agree with you if there will be no new historical features, (campaign) mechanisms...but do we know that already for sure? Honestly 3K duality romance/history is probably first aspect they wanted to show off and explain properly. There is still like 10 months for previews,info,details...because exactly as you said a lot customers are children or casuals who won´t be as thrilled by attrition, recruitment system and such as we are. I consider Attila one of the best TW so far. :-)
-I can feel sorry for you and all others that you cannot find joy in TW as I can now. :/ Really. Wish you had fun at least with R2 or ToB but I can agree that these projects are just sideprojdects in comparison wirh WH and now 3K. But from my point of veiw this change was very needed. TWs were locked in cycling Shogun/Rome/Medieval/Empire for 15 years. However we look at WH it is success and after it run I hope the team will dive into whatever next main game will be. :-)

[druchii7]

We know that for sure? I can agree with you if there will be no new historical features, (campaign) mechanisms...but do we know that already for sure? Honestly 3K duality romance/history is probably first aspect they wanted to show off and explain properly. There is still like 10 months for previews,info,details...because exactly as you said a lot customers are children or casuals who won´t be as thrilled by attrition, recruitment system and such as we are. I consider Attila one of the best TW so far. :-

I wouldn't bet all my money, but would bet 2 thirds of my money. TW titles tend to have only a few but more or less solid new features and I see too many romantic/character oriented. I admit that generals changing unit rosters and unit skills doesn't sound that bad, but I'm not sure at all whether I want it or whether it will force me to play unwanted characters only to use an OP unit.

Even between the campaign and playable feature news, not all are as wellcome as others. So far I have no good signs about classic mode, it seems to be just lacking fantasy features from the romantic mode, but clearly the sings point that emphasis will be on romantic mode, as it's the new feature. I expect to have a few new features, but seem to be things uninteresing to me: characters conditioning unit roster, characters doing politics against each other... those are not unwanted features to me (and wouldn't hate to have them in a classic campaing), but not my priority at all.

I can feel sorry for you and all others that you cannot find joy in TW as I can now. :/ Really. Wish you had fun at least with R2 or ToB but I can agree that these projects are just sideprojdects in comparison wirh WH and now 3K. But from my point of veiw this change was very needed. TWs were locked in cycling Shogun/Rome/Medieval/Empire for 15 years. However we look at WH it is success and after it run I hope the team will dive into whatever next main game will be. :-)

I like R2TW battles in general, but the campaign map is not too interesting and those long campaigns are very boring to me after the initial challenge. Campaigns are all the same: growing insanely by doing more or less the same.

Attila is much better to me, but I've already played most civs in campaing and it's a bit more sandbox-survival feeling, but still don't like the campaign that much and in late game fighting back horde after horde of the huns feels a bit boring. They spawn a crazy ammount of overpowered troops but you can win by stacking a ton of troops in the borders. Campaigns have a different flavour, WRE is unique, nomads are unique, buildings are a bit more distinct, most factions have some sort of genuine flavour and feel better when you replay.

Attila mods are wonderful and you can quit the game a year and find some new delicious ones. I found medieval kingdoms and ancient empires and had again a great experience. But you eventually need something different. Mods can refine a game to the extreme, but it's like eating a better version of the same dish, you'll eventually feel tired. I can play very few TW games without reballancing mods, maybe attila and age of charlemagne (I also played all factions). So I got nothing interesting since 2015, and even though I get wonderful mods, it's a game improvement, not a new game.

If I play too much crusader kings 2, I have europa universalis, mods are interesting in general (overpriced but they tend to make insane sales twice a yer), and soon I'll have rome imperator. So I can have variety. I can even start a CK2 campaign and continue playing it in EU4. The games are good even without mods. I didn't like HOI4 due to the terrible interface, but it's only one (and I think I'd love it if I spent millions of hours watching tutorials).

The key is the bigger the progression to realism and the better the new mechanics are, the better will be their mods. For example, Ancient empires (set in third(?) Punic war) is made in attila, not in R2, because the mechanics of nomads and integrity are there. So if the 3k has no interesting or very few new features, I cannot expect mods to do miracles as introducing new mechanics is a titanic task.

[Daruwind]

Take a look at Steams game stats, most CA games are in the toilet .. where as CIV5 has been in the top 20 games played for YEARS ! I can imagine some CA-fan-boy screaming "Different game gene!" .. Rubbish, all are strategic war games. CA's games lack of replayability proves the poor quality of the games .. but new releases do sell . Very pretty, highly promoted does work. Very Sad, time to move elsewhere .. M&B etc

Oh really? Civ 5+4 is twice first page with 17/13k players, Warhammer is second page 8.5k ,R2 is third page with 4.5k. Witcher 3 has 8.5 also, Skyrim 2x 8.5, TES also round 9..oh right but that is not strategy. So EU4 9 or Cities with almost 7....if that is toilet gargabe, that´s quite bold statement ;-) And once again, replaybility of Warhammer is way better than Shogun 2 for example.

Just got idea to check WH2 stats with Norsca. And after Norsca everything is way up. WH2 peaks reaching to 30K, average is now just below 20k being around top20games on steam...WH2 is simply being played a lot.
https://steamdb.info/app/594570/graphs/

[Sir Sesshaku]

True that M2TW was overrated at the beginning, but with the mods it became the best TW game until now. ETW was so bad that no mod could save it.
From what some people say I guess the ThrB has a quite decent engine and many campaign mechanics have been changed. To be seen what the modder will be able to make out of it.

Yeah, but the idea behind this is to question wether or not CA is making better or worse TW games. Modders saved what was just a bad RTW mod made by CA.

And there you have it , CA Australia was the golden age of TW. Ever since its been sucky. Only CA UK could milk a engine(probably made by CA Australia) for 15 years. Keep you skin jobs I'm sick of Warscape. First they say we are all dumb and need streamlining , now there on the mirco manage thing again like that never happened. Why would anyone want to take away game features?.

I disagree completely, I remember even distruting every TW news from that studio, they basically always modded the engine made previously by the main one.

[herne_the _hunter]

It can't be dead i've been thorughly enjoying Warhammer 1 this week and started a new Empire Divided campaign.

[BHL 20]

Rome II being streamlined is a statement that comes from ignorance. All the limitations in the campaign actually make the game harder not easier. If you're someone who values difficulty, it's clear the campaign mechanics were thought-out and deliberate. They force the player to make hard decisions instead of just min-maxing everything like in the early TWs. RTW and M2TW are classics but the vanilla versions of those games essentially play themselves.

What I would criticize Rome II on is incompetent battle AI and the lack of flavor. Even thought the BAI has always been bad, you couldn't dream of getting some of the victories you can get on Rome II on earlier TWs. And the whole game feels like a Hollywood version of antiquity, the difference is striking if compared to the immersive atmosphere of some Rome I mods. Factions are are too similar to each other in terms of mechanics. The special cultural bonuses don't create enough differentiation, the differences in culture should be palpable.

[Jac_PS]

I've voted in the first slot. Sorry, I can't describe exactly what it is, but from Shogun 2 forwards, I think that CA lost their hands. See, From Rome II until the newest Warhammer II, for me the mechanics are the same: very little to do in the GC map and the same kind of fast battles with no space for strategic manouvers, formations, etc.
Adding to that, I think that the Warhammer game, with heroes, and quietly permeated in the historical games, I mean, the devs included the concept of heroes in the new Three Kingdoms Title. That is new.
My vote is consciously described above, but I think that Empire, Napoleon and Shogun 2 are still in the category of the best total wars.

[Basileos Leandros I]

Despite the sometimes extremely annoying problems (such as diplomacy penalties & no ceasefires), the original Medieval TW had some of the most atmospheric gameplay possible. It felt like the middle ages, with all of the turbulent scheming and fighting.

MTW was absolutely fantastic.

Props to Shogun 2 for being excellent as well and for the amazing music, some of which was remixed from the original S TW. And no problem with that. STW was great.

[Athos187]

The only things i miss from MTW is the ability to build as many buildings in a settlement as you want and the ability to create new gc maps, other than that I think Attila is the best game in the series. The graphics and gameplay mechanics like hordes in conjunction with the mods that are being worked on are better than anything before.

Rome II on the other hand is probably my least favorite of the entire series, havent quite been able to pin point why but I just cant stand playing that game even with mods and updates.

[AnthoniusII]

Despite the sometimes extremely annoying problems (such as diplomacy penalties & no ceasefires), the original Medieval TW had some of the most atmospheric gameplay possible. It felt like the middle ages, with all of the turbulent scheming and fighting.

MTW was absolutely fantastic.

Props to Shogun 2 for being excellent as well and for the amazing music, some of which was remixed from the original S TW. And no problem with that. STW was great.

I agree, I was surpriced when a pop up message from a spy of mine informed me that my opponets gather troops and that could be a sign of an invasion!!!
Even the horses model (despite the fact they were 2d) were much better than every other TW game untill Rome II (horse models were the only good feature in Rome II).
Music in MTW-1 was wonderfull too easpesialy in battles! Diplomacy was much more authentic and accurate with more options than any other TW game!
I wish the "scripts" of MTW could be transformed and adopted to M2TW .That alone would create a supemod of its own.

[Athos187]

I actually never got a chance to play the original MTW. I always wanted to as a kid but the old family pc wasnt up to it. By the time I could play it I dont think it even worked on the newer computers.

Interesting to hear it had some of the best features in terms of diplomacy and intelligence gathering, I really think those are the types of things CA should focus on improving in their new titles. Feel like they focus too much on making battles look pretty and thats it. Now instead of improving on those things it does seem like Jack Lusted and his crew are intent on getting rid of them altogether

[BHL 20]

I never got the chance to play MTW or STW either. I assumed before they were similar to RTW but even more basic in terms of graphics but from talking to people I found that apparently there was something magical about MTW (don't know about STW) which was unlike anything in other TWs.

[Switz]

I feel as if community mods since Empire/Napolean have really slipped. Nothing against the modder's themselves, they are all hero's without capes, AND I fully understand the game is much more limited in what can be done....but it does not feel as if mods anymore are a work of intense passion, but more about how fast they can be released and how many downloads they can get.

[Slaytaninc]

Total War campaigns have always really been there to give context to the battles.

However what CA likely found is that unless a battle is close in auto-resolve people generally don't play them.

Thus in Rome 2 they decided to require generals to lead forces and have static garrisons. The plan was likely to have more battles that mean something.

While Rome 2's campaign was streamlined I don't think it was "dumbed down." You have more movement mechanics than Med 2, with less building slots you have to make choices on what to build*, and the politics system is far more advanced. In Med 2 you couldn't even set your heir.

Battle AI isn't exceptional but pathfinding is better than before and while the battles aren't "meaty" there's certainly more thought put into abilities and formations**.

*To be fair it's a no-brainer to convert cities deep in your empire to pure economy but at least early on you have to decide if your port is gonna be military, food, or trade oriented; to name one example.

**Okay Warhammer ditched formations but in exchange we got lords with powerful abilities to either support or do damage, abilities that greatly buff the armies on campaign.

[Bethrezen]

Best Total War game is the oldest. Anything after Shogun 1 is just not immersive enough and has bad graphics and no historical accuracy. Medieval 1 is also good, and exceeds in historical accuracy!!!

Seriously now, the Warhammer games are above any older Total War games, even modded and everything, in just about all aspects.

I won't even get into the Warhammer games, which are not my thing and I don't even consider part of the series.

Translation: "I don't like the Warhammer games because, well, I don't." Also "Older games are my thing because they are better. They are better because I like them."

[codybene]

Total War campaigns have always really been there to give context to the battles.

However what CA likely found is that unless a battle is close in auto-resolve people generally don't play them.

Thus in Rome 2 they decided to require generals to lead forces and have static garrisons. The plan was likely to have more battles that mean something.

While Rome 2's campaign was streamlined I don't think it was "dumbed down." You have more movement mechanics than Med 2, with less building slots you have to make choices on what to build*, and the politics system is far more advanced. In Med 2 you couldn't even set your heir.

Battle AI isn't exceptional but pathfinding is better than before and while the battles aren't "meaty" there's certainly more thought put into abilities and formations**.

*To be fair it's a no-brainer to convert cities deep in your empire to pure economy but at least early on you have to decide if your port is gonna be military, food, or trade oriented; to name one example.

**Okay Warhammer ditched formations but in exchange we got lords with powerful abilities to either support or do damage, abilities that greatly buff the armies on campaign.

IKR? Converting cities deep in the empire to pure economy is stupid.