Total Warhammer

[Cordeos]

This game didn't really have its own thread so I figured I would create one.

 

Destructoid liked it http://www.destructoid.com/review-total-war-warhammer-359936.phtml

 

What's really cool about the particular factions in Warhammer is that each one feels wholly different from one another. You don't need to be a historian (what makes Parthia different from Carthage in a previous game for example) to be able to discern the differences between certain factions or armor types -- no, the nuances are incredibly obvious and gamey, in a good way.

Chaos is now going to be a free post launch addon who have some cool sounding mechanics:

[Valorian Endymion]

Gamespot have been doing a roundup of some the reviews - http://www.gamespot.com/articles/total-war-warhammer-review-roundup/1100-6439959/ and the total war on twitter is retweeting a lot of them too.

 

[Dewar]

Hmm, it's clear from the previews and reviews that the things that I like about Total War (the strategy bits) are not a priority for most folks.

[Gatazhk]

The fantasy setting puts me to sleep. It's the turn of others this year with Total War I guess.

[Cordeos]

Hmm, it's clear from the previews and reviews that the things that I like about Total War (the strategy bits) are not a priority for most folks.

What do you mean by the strategy bits?

[Dewar]

I mean the reviews, YouTube videos, Twitch streamers, and such are showing the tactical combats with army lines and cannons and goblins who fly through the air. I really want to know how the greater map strategy works. The stuff that sets up the combat has always been more interesting that the combats themselves to me. 

[Gaizokubanou]

Rob's RPS review tackled that question and from the sound of it, they put more emphasis on combat by making economy more stringent.

 

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/05/19/total-war-warhammer-review/

 

Maybe there are undiscovered loopholes to make strategy layer more 'strategic' (like in Shogun 2, best strat was to sit on your ass for a while on low level castles and high level rice fields with magic pixel away from realm divide and let your economy grow out of control before going with realm divide) but for now the answer seems like more focus on fight with strategy layer being more bare bone to let you field just few armies.

[Dewar]

Thanks for that link, it's the first review I've seen that actually goes somewhat in depth on the map mechanics.

 

I really enjoyed the strategic layer for Empires: Total War, at least until I found out that the CPU was unable to disembark soldiers from fleets which made me completely unbeatable due to the fact that I'd started as an island country. And then it took them like three months to fix it. It sounds like rather than work harder at that bit, they're just pivoting away from it

[Gaizokubanou]

So I pre-ordered this while getting Doom.  Watching a stream of it last night (total war newbies itmejp and strippin) reminded me how much Total War franchise's spectacles I missed (didn't get Atilla).  So it looks like it's still using Rome 2/Atilla's province system and with hero units it looks like battles might be easier than ever if anything else.

[Turrican]

I just think CA have gone way off the boil since Shogun 2.  Their emphasis now is purely on spectacle, cinematics, hawking DLC etc and they seem to have given up on the notions of realism, strategy, simulation and competent AI.

 

I've bought every TW game since Shogun 1 was first released.  I'm waiting on this one though - I just don't have any faith in the studio or the reviewers who will gladly give a AAA strategy title a 9/10 after an hour with it.  

[Suburban_Commando]

I just think CA have gone way off the boil since Shogun 2.  Their emphasis now is purely on spectacle, cinematics, hawking DLC etc and they seem to have given up on the notions of realism, strategy, simulation and competent AI.

 

I've bought every TW game since Shogun 1 was first released.  I'm waiting on this one though - I just don't have any faith in the studio or the reviewers who will gladly give a AAA strategy title a 9/10 after an hour with it.  

I agree on them really losing their way since that game.  I think the AI and strategy layer are way past their expiration date.  There's constant fudging going on with the AI following different rules than you and diplomacy never works as it should.  Battle AI is a big issue itself.

 

 

I agree on reviews too, which is why I'm waiting for some 3MA coverage.  I think this appears to be a game that could make a great first impression through your first hours with it too because the battles seem better and there seem to be some changes on the strategy layer.  But Rob's write up on the game with early impressions already had him feeling like the strategy portion was over simplified and didn't work as he got further in.

 

Hoping they cover the game on 3MA this week.

[Turrican]

Yeah, I think we all remember IGN's 9/10 for the abomination that was Rome 2 in release.

I'm looking forward to the Endless Legend and Warhammer shows.

[Gaizokubanou]

There is some sort of restriction on what territories you can capture (dwarf - orcs can capture each others, humans-vampire capture each other and chaos is territory-less roamer?), not sure how much stuff is there for me to capture but if it's like 1/3 to 1/2 of a map that should be fine?

 

Update: Whoever is responsible for army stance and zoc should actually try playing the game.  It's fucking awful when AI army slip past yours and... that's it, it's gone forever, basically sacking every city you own cause you can never catch up to another army that is raiding in your territory.  This was also a problem in previous TW games but holy crap the fact that AI can tunnel into your territory (bypass mountains) creates this amazingly annoying whack-a-mole strategy layer movement.

 

Battles are hella fun though.

[Pearlmania]

Really into it so far. The last Total War I played was Shogun 2 and nothing since then has really done it for me. I was a huge Warhammer fan as a teen so maybe that has something to do with the rose coloured glasses I have for Total Warhammer.

[Martothir]

A few hours into a dwarven campaign. Really mixed feelings.  

 

On the one hand, they have everything really streamlined and tightly balanced. Battles feel fantastic. Optimization is (for a Total War game) incredible. City management is, as mentioned, well balanced. And everything on the campaign map pushes you towards the battles the series is so well known for. CA is really capitalizing on their strengths while mitigating their weaknesses. 

 

On the other hand, city management is pretty damn boring. Sure, it's tight and balanced, but there's nothing to it. Few buildings. Cookie cutter provinces, with few exceptions. In fact, the map layer is almost too well balanced and cohesive. To the point where I kind of wonder what the point of even having it is.

 

I'm glad that they're forcing the issue with battles. If you aren't going to play the battles, why play Total War at all? There are better options out there than this series for strategic level gameplay.

 

But I don't know that dumbing down and making the map/tech tree incidental are really the best way to solve the issue. The map design has sure helped force encounters. I think the current settlement and tech system is overkill.

 

That aside, though, the battles are bitchin. 

[Gatazhk]

I hope the streamlining and simplification is unique to Warhammer.  There were a decent number of strategic systems going on in Attila: TW that made the campaign more thought provoking than the old school Total War romps.    There were provinces and building slots you needed to balance for happiness, health and income.  There was a dynastic tree and a political system that wasn't explained very well but once it became clear was fairly satisfying.  Sure there was some stupid stuff but generally speaking a deeper strategic game. 

[Gaizokubanou]

Just finished Orc on Hard (wow Orcs are super easy compared to dwarf cause of free army system) and I like the game overall but it's such an odd mix of things I really like (battle and lot of Warhammer flavor) with some baffling mechanics that actively deter battles from happening.

 

I wouldn't even call this 'simplified/dumbed down'... rather, they split few complex systems into whole bunch of simpler system which makes things simpler (every system is simpler) and more complicated (there are more systems?)

 

I really absolutely hate how sacking/razing a city doesn't end army's movement.  It's sooooooo annoying.  For a game that's meant to be all about the battles (and battles are fantastic), it's hilarious how hard it is to get in a battle against enemy army cause all they do is run a loop around your empire razing cities ffffffffffffffffffff

[Fhnuzoag]

If you are having that kind of trouble, send out smaller armies that the AI wouldn't refuse battle against, consider using agents to fix their army's movement, and upgrade your towns with the garrison buildings. They buffed garrisons hugely in this game, which is paired up with it seems a severe increase in unit upkeep. Large defensive standing armies seem like bad ideas now.

Also, it can be greatly preferable to sack an enemy town, attack again and raze it, instead of occupying. Gets you a nice buffer zone of destroyed crap, and a huge amount of cash, and means the AI focuses on resettling instead of fucking with your stuff. Keeps your armies nicely mobile also.

Game plays pretty great, but also pretty differently to traditional total war. I really like the streamlining they did.

[Gaizokubanou]

If you are having that kind of trouble, send out smaller armies that the AI wouldn't refuse battle against

 

That pretty much kills the progression aspect of the campaign (which is what separates it from series of custom battles for me) so thanks but that bit doesn't quite work for me.

 

I'm going to give agents more look, maybe the old stun-locking is the only remedy to this :/

[Gormongous]

I'm going to give agents more look, maybe the old stun-locking is the only remedy to this :/

 

I look forward to a day when Creative Assembly finally removes agent avatars from the campaign map and moves their gameplay functions to a all-in-one UI element. It'll have the dual boon of cleaning up the map visually and encouraging the designers to stop using agents as crutches for wonky settlement and army controls...

[Gaizokubanou]

Yesss, or just roll it into retinue and give all necessary agent functionalities to the armies.

[Gormongous]

Yesss, or just roll it into retinue and give all necessary agent functionalities to the armies.

 

Armies with agent functionalities! Oh man, that'd be a great reason to have a general lying around whom you can't afford to back with an army yet.

[Fhnuzoag]

Having played some more, the real solution to little armies staying out of reach?

Ambush stance.

Seriously, give it a try. Basically being in ambush stance means the AI ignores that army when doing its moves. The ambush doesn't even have to succeed, so feel free to pop it in the middle of a plain or something. Lure them close and then whack them.

[Cordeos]

I am really enjoying the chaos campaign. I get to be the asshole AI that just kills armies and burns cities to the ground. The main trick appears to be keep moving and avoid major conflicts until you can use two armies. I was able to destroy the Dwarves in the north, but I had to wait for a chaos rebellion to weaken them then use two armies to take their cities. No I will be raiding the realms of man. BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!

[paradi6m]

I pretty much agree with Fraser; the battles are excellent, the campaign not so much.  One thing I would take exception to is the idea that the AI's use of agents is fair and its just a matter of the player not properly countering them.  I disagree with that sentiment emphatically.  I just abandoned my Chaos campaign as every turn I had 3 or 4 enemy agents using the 'assault troops' mission on my single horde and succeeding almost every time.  I tried assassinating the agents with my own, but with a 30% success rate (on a good day) combined with the sheer number of agents, I couldn't stop them.  It's especially punishing as chaos because you only have one horde for most of the campaign and since you don't have a source of income outside killing things, every turn you waste encamped, letting your troops reinforce is a turn you are actively losing money.  It's made even more ridiculous when you consider that I can wipe a 20 stack of Imperial troops while taking only about 100 losses, or less, while a single goblin can inflict 300-400 losses per turn to this same army.  There is already a couple mods that disable enemy agent actions, but I'm hoping we'll get a more permanent solution from CA.

Edit: I meant to post this in the podcast thread, oh well.