SURPRISED; WHY is 3K forums so DEAD relative to other TW titles?

[Abdülmecid I]

I don't think that Daruwind means it in the sense of employees aiming to diversify their tasks to escape from monotony. Even if they felt such a need, it's not up to them to decide the setting of the games, they only design what their seniors have demanded from them, depending on what theme they estimate is capable of generating more sales. The multiple teams is more of an urban legend, initially created by Will, when many old fans feared (justifiably, as hindsight confirmed) that Warhammer would lead to a dilution of historical titles. Technically, it could be correct (albeit not always, it's safe to assume that there was absolutely no development of historical games in 2016 and early 2017), but these teams are not equal or otherwise Creative Assembly would bankrupt itself. There's always the core group, dedicated to designing the next tent-pole title and several satellite ones, more preoccupied with DLCs, patching and minor expansions, like the Saga franchise.

Anyway, history can come back, but, as I mentioned previously, I won't hold my breath. Warhammer much more profitable in the long-term than Three Kingdoms (the bugs the digital packs introduced didn't help either), while it has also established a very high standard of faction variety and spectacular battles, full of grotesque monsters and shiny beams. When Troy was announced, most of the criticism centered around not on the fantasy influences (supernaturally powerful heroes, single-man units dressed like the Minotaur), but actually on the lack of it: No actual Cyclops, Chimera, Hydra and etc. Honestly, there's a bunch of potential universes CA can easily exploit, from collaboration with fellow franchises, like Tolkien and Elder Scrolls to a world inspired from Greek, Egyptian, Chinese and Norse mythology. Medieval III could compete with Warhammer, in terms of pre-orders, but nowadays the gaming industry focuses more on DLCs, which enjoy a much more favourable net gain, thanks to the extremely detrimental to the consumer content/price ratio. EA's income already relies more on DLCs than the main product and I don't see why SEGA will not try to imitate this example. In this department, fantasy simply excels and does not suffer from the controversy of cut-out content. Removing the Tomb Kings can be justified with much less difficulty than locking the Fatimids or the Lagids behind a paywall.

[Daruwind]

I don´t think that ordinary employee can influence much what will be next TW but there were multiple interviews where CA people states that change to Wh was great to regain creativity and they have so much fun while doing Wh content (at least some mentions were in recent Wh AMA..about the fun part I think, rest is older ). Good team manager understand that doing one thing again and again is not safe not just for employees but even for market. Even Wh universe has some kind of breaking/saturation point where it will make sense to change next TW to something else. That´s why we have Wh + 3K right now. :-)

There is really more teams but they are not 1:1 on same scale or importance and mainly they have different goals, that´s all. At max I can imagine, that right now DLC team for 3K and Wh are somewhat similar, but except those all others are teams are probably varying in size and dynamically increasing or decreasing according to current plan for them. CA just have multiple projects in various stages of development so they can easily use all their resources to the best. At least that is way how I would run it in general terms. You don´t want for example two projects waiting for motion capture for example and them having empty time window for rest of year...Or team tackling engine in pre-production.

I think main question is, if CA and GW have any plan to extend their cooperation and then if CA is able to secure another strong IP. In my eyes, as manager, choosing from two projects for next tent-pole TW, I would choose TW Tolkien over Med 3..right now. Situation can be different in a few years or maybe due to continuing contract with GW.

DLC income is obvious thing but DLC income is larger, if base game fan base = number of owners is larger. :-)

[Aquila SPQR]

I can only speak for myself - I have to admit that at some point TW series started going in wrong direction. I'm playing TW since first Shogun. Up to M2TW it was a constant amazement of how awesome those games were. Then ETW arrived and it had two things I didn't like - only 2 tpy (IIRC) and limited number of buildings (in most of cities there was actually only one building). Since I loved the ability to build plenty of various buildings in M2TW - it was a huge disappointment. I skipped Shogun II and waited for R2TW. It was also a disappointment because of how regions and cities worked in that game - to unleash the full potential of a region you had to conquer it all. In order to improve situation in Rome you had to build some building in some other city in the region (because you couldn't do it in Rome, you know - "NO SLOTS"...). Attila didn't change that and while I played it quite a lot, it was never as good and enjoyable as M2TW mods. Also games became difficult to mod and I have to admit that while TW series games are good - it is mods which unleash its true potential. I don't remember when I played TW game without mod for the last time.

And then Warhammer arrived. I have literally no interest in non-historical TW game. I was never interested in Warhammer and so I'm not interested in Warhammer TW. Just as I'm not really interested in 3K and Chinese setting.

So for me, after M2TW, Total War made one bad decision after another. Just like Civilization where Civ V is worse than Civ IV and where Civ VI is some sort of a bad joke. And SimCity which, after SC4, literally died (SimCity 2013 was another joke like Civ VI).

[legate]

I can only speak for myself - I have to admit that at some point TW series started going in wrong direction. I'm playing TW since first Shogun. Up to M2TW it was a constant amazement of how awesome those games were. Then ETW arrived and it had two things I didn't like - only 2 tpy (IIRC) and limited number of buildings (in most of cities there was actually only one building). Since I loved the ability to build plenty of various buildings in M2TW - it was a huge disappointment. I skipped Shogun II and waited for R2TW. It was also a disappointment because of how regions and cities worked in that game - to unleash the full potential of a region you had to conquer it all. In order to improve situation in Rome you had to build some building in some other city in the region (because you couldn't do it in Rome, you know - "NO SLOTS"...). Attila didn't change that and while I played it quite a lot, it was never as good and enjoyable as M2TW mods. Also games became difficult to mod and I have to admit that while TW series games are good - it is mods which unleash its true potential. I don't remember when I played TW game without mod for the last time.

And then Warhammer arrived. I have literally no interest in non-historical TW game. I was never interested in Warhammer and so I'm not interested in Warhammer TW. Just as I'm not really interested in 3K and Chinese setting.

So for me, after M2TW, Total War made one bad decision after another. Just like Civilization where Civ V is worse than Civ IV and where Civ VI is some sort of a bad joke. And SimCity which, after SC4, literally died (SimCity 2013 was another joke like Civ VI).

I agree, if it wasn't for the mods I probably wouldn't be playing Total War much. As much as I enjoy playing the games its the mods that give them their true potential.

The games that I want - paradox style in-depth strategy with total war style battles - will probably never happen

[ParthianWarrior]

I don't think that Daruwind means it in the sense of employees aiming to diversify their tasks to escape from monotony. Even if they felt such a need, it's not up to them to decide the setting of the games, they only design what their seniors have demanded from them, depending on what theme they estimate is capable of generating more sales. The multiple teams is more of an urban legend, initially created by Will, when many old fans feared (justifiably, as hindsight confirmed) that Warhammer would lead to a dilution of historical titles. Technically, it could be correct (albeit not always, it's safe to assume that there was absolutely no development of historical games in 2016 and early 2017), but these teams are not equal or otherwise Creative Assembly would bankrupt itself. There's always the core group, dedicated to designing the next tent-pole title and several satellite ones, more preoccupied with DLCs, patching and minor expansions, like the Saga franchise.

Anyway, history can come back, but, as I mentioned previously, I won't hold my breath. Warhammer much more profitable in the long-term than Three Kingdoms (the bugs the digital packs introduced didn't help either), while it has also established a very high standard of faction variety and spectacular battles, full of grotesque monsters and shiny beams. When Troy was announced, most of the criticism centered around not on the fantasy influences (supernaturally powerful heroes, single-man units dressed like the Minotaur), but actually on the lack of it: No actual Cyclops, Chimera, Hydra and etc. Honestly, there's a bunch of potential universes CA can easily exploit, from collaboration with fellow franchises, like Tolkien and Elder Scrolls to a world inspired from Greek, Egyptian, Chinese and Norse mythology. Medieval III could compete with Warhammer, in terms of pre-orders, but nowadays the gaming industry focuses more on DLCs, which enjoy a much more favourable net gain, thanks to the extremely detrimental to the consumer content/price ratio. EA's income already relies more on DLCs than the main product and I don't see why SEGA will not try to imitate this example. In this department, fantasy simply excels and does not suffer from the controversy of cut-out content. Removing the Tomb Kings can be justified with much less difficulty than locking the Fatimids or the Lagids behind a paywall.

Very well said

[Huberto]

I am one of those who warned you all about the scourge of TW:Warhammer and how it posed a grave threat to dev time for historical titles and risked corrupting them. It did and does.

However...

I don't doubt WH has made SEGA a lot of money but it's easy to exaggerate its success, simply because there is a large group of hard-core fans that keep playing it on Steam. I don't believe more than 10% of those folks are intending to stick around Total War when it moves on to Victoria or Med 3. Same with China and 3K (by the way 3K is the fastest selling TW ever). I seriously doubt Dynasty Warrior fans are going to get into all the other Total War titles. So at the end of the day, you still have two distinct core audiences around historical games and around Warhammer.

There are many historically themed games out there that keep getting made, why would CA suddenly dump its historical IP that to focus exclusively on fantasy? Look at Amplitude, made Endless Legend, now making a Civ style historically themed game. Look at Assassin's Creed, CoD or Bannerlord, Paradox. Historical settings and themes sell games. What we need to do is keep advocating for historical games as many already do on reddit, and oppose any attempt to combine the two. I'm doing my bit by criticizing heroes in Troy and I will continue to criticize the Warhammerization of Total War whenever I can.

[Abdülmecid I]

I could have agreed with you, back when Warhammer was disproportionately hyped in reddit, but the situation has changed radically since then. Nowadays, the player-base of Warhammer actually forms the absolute majority of active players in the Total War franchise, despite facing direct competition from a more recent title (in terms of both tent-pole and DLC). If only a small portion of them is willing to play more realistic, historical titles, an estimation I find very reasonable, at least in what concerns retention rates, then this pretty much means that we should say farewell to history... Given how timidly the Records mode was introduced in Three Kingdoms and how even that minor compromised was completely removed from Troy, I suspect that Creative Assembly shares the same opinion. Granted, reddit fanboyism is not representative of the entire community, but, when the Troy leak was officially confirmed, most of the complaints focused exclusively on the lack of Hydras and Cyclops, not on the supernaturally strong heroes.

A factor that is often neglected is, in my opinion, that the games tend to ''spoil'' their customers. Many players have now grown accustomed to the visual spectacle of the fantasy world (Legend, an avid supporter of Medieval II, is a good example of this tendency) and cannot tolerated the more grounded approach of the historical scenarios. Especially in Three Kingdoms, where naval battles have been omitted and where Korea, Mongolia and Vietnam have been locked behind a pay-wall. I had also noticed that trend in my personal experience and in these forums with the transition from Medieval II to Empire (essentially, the rejected patriarch of every other TW game since 2009). For instance, the lack of automatic replenishment means that the player is obliged to maintain a huge line of supplies from the capital to the front, while even the cheesiest offensive ever will eventually fiddle out, due to attrition. That's no more the case, but the absolute majority would probably find a return to the older system totally abhorrent, despite its obvious advantages at strategic thought and immersion. Therefore, I'd argue that the Warhammer player-base is no more monopolised by fantasy newcomers, but by more loyal fans to the franchise, who have been converted into the universe of the Games Workshop.

Overall, criticising is an appreciated tactic, even in the echo chamber of reddit, where opposition is bullied into oblivion, but in the end, money matters and the Steam statistics don't lie, even if we assume that a considerable number of consumers plays Rome I and Medieval II on disc copies. I doubt the course can be reversed, to be frank, but I don't worry much, as mods offer a multitude of alternative options. Personally, I just downloaded Broken Crescent and right now I am having a blast as a religiously intolerant Salghurid Atabeg, although I always remain keen on commenting on shady business practices and speculating about future content!

[Huberto]

The number of people playing a single game day after day on Steam and $ earned from said game are two different things. We know Rome 2 sold millions and 3K is the fastest selling game to date. I suppose CA could just go with the GW audience and try to drag everyone else along but that actually doesn't make sense because of how well the historical games sell. I'm on Reddit almost every day and the "Empire 2 when?" or "Med 3 when?" posts are VERY common. Back when I used to check there were almost always more folks playing historical than WH titles. Right now for example 20:00 US Eastern Time 41,000 are playing historical and 27,000 the Warhammers.

[Daruwind]

Huberto Huberto Huberto... still fighting pointless battles.

3K is fastest selling core game but what about DLC? Drop-off of players for 3K is as well the fastest from all TW up to now. The number of DLCs is meter telling how long they are profitable and in this race, Wh(s) are winning.

You forgot to add important part. Shogun 2 si for free now so current metric is off... Why else is there 14K in Shogun, 7K in Rome2 and just 4K in 3K/Med2 and like 3K in Attila/Empire right now....while 23K in Warhammer II? If anything it seems a lot 3K fans moved to Shogun 2 but go and check the steam graph..numbers are falling after free week. What a surprise...
https://steamdb.info/app/34330/graphs/

You are right about Med3/Empire2 almost daily posts, but the tracking they are gaining is quite poor comparing to any Wh. Or toss there remark about Tolkien. That would be a ride...

If anything Warhammer saved TW and push it into new age. Fresh breath of inspiration. But I don´t fear about history in long run. Games are changing, that´s normal. Technology changes...but wheels of time won´t stop. Question is not if history will sell but if the prospect of history game will beat another strong IP and if CA can obtain such because if not, what else they have to do? Turn back to history. :-)

1) You can milk warhammer a lot but even there are certain borders. Even with current pace, sooner or later CA will hit wall. Then what? Naval expansion? I doubt it...
AoS. Recently another company got license for RTS around 2023. Plus while there is a lot TT fans of new AoS TT, current Warhammer is caretaking to much older demographics. One that is full of sentiment and for which this is like last chance to visit beloved place. (except not so long ago even GW teased possible rework for Old World ) This is on par with Star Wars, Tolkien fan base....we are speaking about people who played old stuff for 20+ years. These people can outbuy any history fan. Go check prices of TT models..because they care, they love, they buy.
Warhammer 40K is so different....it is like getting WW1/WW2 and lot on top of that. It would be another greal leap of faith...like Empire...like Warhammer. Major issue is, Empire/Warhammer are actually quite close to TW general formula but battles in 40K are anything but that. That would be hard, weird...even in WW1 concept of unit maneuvering is long dead. You maneuver armies, lot stuff, not single unit...

2) So another IP? Star Wars, Tolkien. Later would be even bigger hit, the fanbase is possible even larger and even more general audience might tap in but getting license is the real issue. If not those then which one? Warcraft? Witcher? GoT? Generic Age of Mythology? Look, if CA wanted generic mythological/historical setting....Troy. If would be even easier then making fantasy 3K because all the gods/mythological beast stuff in Ancient Greece.

3) So what is left? History? Honestly good company will try to spread the portfolio and tap in various sources. I don´t fear for history games but it will take time. Troy, Wh3, possible character base title for 3K ala Genghis Khan or another 3K based Saga..I can imagine a few scenarios for 2023. GW license extension, something ala Tolkien (that would be golden hit) or history game ala Med3/Empire2 or you know what? If not in 2023 then what will CA make around 2025/26? The wheel must turn. If they do Tolkien, they need something else then.

But if all you want is return of Med2 just in new graphics...that ships sailed and sank already.

And just closing remark. If CA was so greedy, who not release Wh3 already? Wh2 was release like 1,5 year after Wh1 but now we are nearing 3 year mark...They could easily sell game with just a few changes instead it looks like they are making deeper changes.

[Huberto]

3K is fastest selling core game but what about DLC? Drop-off of players for 3K is as well the fastest from all TW up to now. The number of DLCs is meter telling how long they are profitable and in this race, Wh(s) are winning.

Again, WH has a very enthusiastic player base of around 30 to 40 K that loves to play the game over and over again and loves all the DLC; but $60 games make more money than DLC when they sell in the millions. Total War historical games sell millions and as an added bonus for CA/SEGA there's no kick-back license fee to GW or The Tolkien estate.

[Abdülmecid I]

You raise a good point about the royalties Creative Assembly pays to Games Workshop, but I think you underestimate the importance of DLCs. Due to how grossly disproportional the ratio between price and cost (in favour of the former, of course) is, the trend of the industry is to move towards small digital packs, which offer much larger opportunities for net profit than the nominally more expensive tent-pole titles. Electronic Arts has already been gaining twice as much from DLCs than the main product since 2015, so I'm sure that SEGA and every other video-game flagship will try to imitate their example. The retention rates of Warhammer help a lot in this regard, not to mention the fact that its fandom is much more willing to spend her money on these digital packs.

Moreover, they are more easily justified and sold than their historical counterparts. Can you imagine Armenian archers from Empire or the snake catapults from Rome II trying to compete with unique lords, flying dragons and their extravagant models? Finally, although it is true that Warhammer's II performance was commercially disappointing, in terms of pre-orders, the sales probably recovered, as gradually more potential customers immersed themselves into it. Pre-order purchases matter much more than the rest, but when all these factors, when taken together, probably outweigh the advantages of Three Kingdoms and future historical titles.

Still, in my opinion, the example of Troy is the most convincing argument. Not only did Creative Assembly add superheroes and Minotaur furries, but the company didn't even bother to appease the more conservative crowd with a more historical mode. Presumably because Romance crushed Records in popularity. To sum up, the player-base has changed radically, in a similar manner it had already evolved, during the transition from Medieval II to Empire.

[legate]

You raise a good point about the royalties Creative Assembly pays to Games Workshop, but I think you underestimate the importance of DLCs. Due to how grossly disproportional the ratio between price and cost (in favour of the former, of course) is, the trend of the industry is to move towards small digital packs, which offer much larger opportunities for net profit than the nominally more expensive tent-pole titles. Electronic Arts has already been gaining twice as much from DLCs than the main product since 2015, so I'm sure that SEGA and every other video-game flagship will try to imitate their example. The retention rates of Warhammer help a lot in this regard, not to mention the fact that its fandom is much more willing to spend her money on these digital packs.

Moreover, they are more easily justified and sold than their historical counterparts. Can you imagine Armenian archers from Empire or the snake catapults from Rome II trying to compete with unique lords, flying dragons and their extravagant models? Finally, although it is true that Warhammer's II performance was commercially disappointing, in terms of pre-orders, the sales probably recovered, as gradually more potential customers immersed themselves into it. Pre-order purchases matter much more than the rest, but when all these factors, when taken together, probably outweigh the advantages of Three Kingdoms and future historical titles.

Still, in my opinion, the example of Troy is the most convincing argument. Not only did Creative Assembly add superheroes and Minotaur furries, but the company didn't even bother to appease the more conservative crowd with a more historical mode. Presumably because Romance crushed Records in popularity. To sum up, the player-base has changed radically, in a similar manner it had already evolved, during the transition from Medieval II to Empire.

With regards to Troy, is it confirmed that 'superheros' and in-game and not just fancy dress units and is it possible we could see two game modes just like TK, historical and fantasy?

[Daruwind]

Yep, fully agree with Abdul. In my eyes, DLCs production cost vs income is way better then the ration in case of fullgame. And question is how fees are split. If GW gets more from core game or DLC....there might be a lot hidden parameters.

Anyway, Huberto is right in one thing. WH fans bought two full price games in short time and they will buy third part as well. WH1+2+3 with all DLCs..that is massive juggernaut.

With regards to Troy, is it confirmed that 'superheros' and in-game and not just fancy dress units and is it possible we could see two game modes just like TK, historical and fantasy?

No possible to see two modes at all. Gating some content or worse, making duplicit content just for one mode? (fantasy creatures vs fantasy inspired human units) We don´t see such stuff in 3K and Troy as Saga has way more limited resources.

Read this if you want. https://www.totalwar.com/blog/a-tota...saga-troy-faq/ Honestly I expect famous characters to be powerful characters on battlefield but way grounded version, not like Wh. Something like 3K but probably more suited to Ancient Greece.

[legate]

"Our truth behind the myth approach has allowed us to draw from a multitude of mythology’s most renowned monsters and include them within the battlefields of Troy as realistic representations of what their true form may have been. This approach has allowed us to expand the unit diversity by including unique warriors to the roster whilst adding an extra layer of tactical versatility to the conflict."

Interesting. So no battlefield 'monsters' then.

[Huberto]

The reason EA makes so much money on DLC is Ultimate Team for Fifa and Madden. Sports games aren't Total War.

That said, I do agree that WH is a special case for DLC, its roots are the table top models and the expensive collectors fetish that its fans have. My point is simply that there's a limit to DLC as a business model especially one based on units and lords in one setting. I fully expect CA to crank out DLC for WH for years to come but they still need to make full games unless they want to leave money on the table, and the TW games that will earn $ most dependably are historical games, like the next Medieval, with CA having invested twenty years of IP growth on developing that form. Why they would move to fantasy IP full time, or decide to become a subsidiary to GW, seems risky and/or stupid in the extreme.

I'm not saying they won't develop TW fantasy or sci fi titles in the future, I think they will, but they're aren't going to bank on it; but they are definitely going to keep making historical titles as their bread and butter.

Daruwind your love of Warhammer blinds you to the reality that those games aren't the biggest or fastest sellers and they aren't even the most played TW games when we look at historical v. WH as distinct settings. Hats off to you and WHs fanatical base of supporters, but like you said, there are limits, and like I said, historical settings and themes reliably sell TW games.

The real fight going forward is about keeping historical TW authentic for its core historical audience, i.e. keeping the dumbed down campaign, overpowered heroes and monsters/myth/romance,forced faction and unit variety out of historical games. Beyond this, we need to be encouraging CA to create new systems while bringing back older ones to make TW challenging and fun.

[Daruwind]

The reason EA makes so much money on DLC is Ultimate Team for Fifa and Madden. Sports games aren't Total War.

True. CA has way better altitude to make money via actual content. Wh(s) DLCs are one of best they are produced plus sheer amount of free stuff they are giving with each paid DLC.

That said, I do agree that WH is a special case for DLC, its roots are the table top models and the expensive collectors fetish that its fans have. My point is simply that there's a limit to DLC as a business model especially one based on units and lords in one setting. I fully expect CA to crank out DLC for WH for years to come but they still need to make full games unless they want to leave money on the table, and the TW games that will earn $ most dependably are historical games, like the next Medieval, with CA having invested twenty years of IP growth on developing that form. Why they would move to fantasy IP full time, or decide to become a subsidiary to GW, seems risky and/or stupid in the extreme.

Loyal fans. Tolkien, Star Wars IP would be able to get similar numbers and similar money...that is strong advantage of strong IP. People are taking their hobbies very seriously. Like all the Star Wars costume and such. But sadly no historical period can provide similarly hyped fanbase....

But the same limitation are there even for historical games how many DLCs you can produce for various settings... So that´s why CA will hardly turn into full fantasy or whatever. Each IP is one turn of wheel and sooner or later they have to move to next...be it historical or fantasy or scifi.

Daruwind your love of Warhammer blinds you to the reality that those games aren't the biggest or fastest sellers and they aren't even the most played TW games when we look at historical v. WH as distinct settings. Hats off to you and WHs fanatical base of supporters, but like you said, there are limits, and like I said, historical settings and themes reliably sell TW games.

Ha Honestly I love a lot of things. I like Tolkien, Warhammer, Witcher, Warcraft..Star Wars I love history (AoE I+II) as showed by owning all TWs up to date. Heck I even finished ToB https://i.redd.it/nlz713tnl5a41.png So from my point of view going Wh heck even Tolkien is no problem because i love those settings as well. So my major issue is having pointless war while I´m having fun all the time so far.

I want historical games. I want Empire 2/Victoria, Med 3. Only what I try to do is pointing out that CA is at every step choosing what seems the be the next most valuable step. But what I can see, is that any of those. I want the best game every time, jsut my scope is broder than yours... :-)

Really if they are out of GW license and will not get Tolkien, they will be fully behind Historical. Or if they are smart, they will keep making historical titles in between. Which is exactly what CA is doing. Wh, 3K, ToB, Troy...

The real fight going forward is about keeping historical TW authentic for its core historical audience, i.e. keeping the dumbed down campaign, overpowered heroes and monsters/myth/romance,forced faction and unit variety out of historical games. Beyond this, we need to be encouraging CA to create new systems while bringing back older ones to make TW challenging and fun.

I would change it that CA is pursuing whatever settings feels the best and doing it with the same passion they are showing with Warhammer. I´m all for naval combat, I have even some pretty complex ideas around about composite army and how enviroment and weather and dynamic changes should affect battlefields I like complex stuff, but for sake of fun not for sake of complexity itself.

[Anna_Gein]

I think you have to take into account the vision of the leads developers and where the directors want to bring the Franchise. Sells, player retention, budgets, etc, are important for sure. And CA has a reputation of being particularly pragmatic about it. Yet despite the posture some CA directors like to play, their personal creative preference still matter as they matter every video game studio.

For example the move for more visual gimmicks happened years before the Franchise made the jump to fantasy universe with Total War - Warhammer. In Rome 2 camp would appear or disappear from the campaign floor depending of your army "stance". Generals could use buff and debuff spells during the battles. Some units too could use spell like the "trample" spell of some "shock cavalry". Likewise the Franchise shift to a punishing and frustrating limited "building slot" for the campaign gameplay long before there was any dragon flying over CA digital battlefields.

Additional I think it is highly hazardous to draw some conclusion about the fanbase with Steam stats. While the numbers can be exact, the interpretation of the data can be misleading. Total War Warhammer and Total Warhammer II are objectively the best TW games since Shogun II. And this has actually little to do with the Fantasy setting itself : the map are bigs, the faction are more diverse than in Three Kingdoms (It is difficult to make it worse anyway), and contrary to everything that was released since Rome II, the game does not punish you for playing it : You can build enough structure to deal with every problem you must face in the campaign mode (especially in Warhammer II), there are less variable to deal, character don't age so you can keep the one you like and grow attached to them, etc. Lastly Warhammer II is filled with small joy that make the game all the more pleasant : many ancillaries, cool artifacts, special buildings located all over the map. So I am not surprised the game keep more players than other titles. I prefer myself this game over the others.

Regarding the future I have mixed feeling. The Devs don't seem interested in history. So naturally they look out of ideas. That said a couple of weeks ago, CA made a teases with a medieval reenactment event. A medieval III would be both a great news for the fans who prefer Historical settings but at the same time a confirmation that CA have run out of idea/interest in history and now just you the most pop culture cliche.

[pajomife]

This 3K forum have about 350 threads,and 4000 posts...,should we back to the West?

[Daruwind]

Activity in Wh part is similar...but i noticed overall activity over all TW forums here is somewhat lower in the last few months..

[Basileos Leandros I]

To many of us older players, who were barely teenagers when RTW was launched and it heralded the 3D era of Total War, the new direction can be construed in 2 ways - either you're a exclusively historical fan, or you like both fantasy and history. At least most of us. Only some are completely new TW players with Warhammer.

We will see down the line if Warhammer will be the Cayenne to the Porsche factory or it will be something different. Very possible WH will allow them to devote more resources to historicals.

For those not familiar, Porsche, one of the most respected sports car brands in the world, created the Cayenne, a not so sportscar SUV to help them cover the very high development costs of the sports cars. It worked brilliantly on a financial level, and the Porsche 911's are fabulous sports cars.