Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 105

Thread: Total Warhammer?

  1. #1
    Bureaucratically Efficient Senior Member TinCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    13,729

    Default Total Warhammer?

    Name:  warhammer creative assembly long.jpg
Views: 4664
Size:  54.1 KB

    So, in somewhat unexpected news, it has been announced that CA have obtained the license to Games Workshop's Warhammer IP and will be creating a Warhammer game. Relevant articles:
    http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012...orkshop-games/
    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...warhammer-deal
    http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/1...p#.UMJhy4Ox98E

    To be clear, this is the original Warhammer IP, not the (more popular and more well-known) Warhammer 40k IP. What that means, essentially, is that it's an IP for a classic fantasy strategy game, pitting humans against elves against dwarves against orcs, etc. However, Warhammer (both the original and 40k) are hard core strategy games and mesh well with CA's strategy background. While there have been some action oriented Warhammer 40k games in the past, I suspect CA will be working on a strategy game.

    In any case, what are your thoughts about this? Good? Bad? Sign of the Mayan Apocalypse?

    As far as I am concerned, this is welcome news. I've long hoped for a non-real world IP for the Total War series. While I love the historical titles, there are many limitations in factions, units, geography, etc. that are inherent in historical scenarios. Fictitious settings have no such limitations and are far easier to balance for strategy purposes. While Warhammer is an existing universe which CA will likely be obliged to represent (rather than making up something new), it's also a very well-balanced universe and was built from the ground up for multi-faction competitive strategy. So, it's got a lot of promise. While there's no guarantee that this will be a Total War game, I'm hopeful. While I'm sure many people will be concerned about CA straying away from historical strategy, the articles make clear that this game is being developed by a separate team than the one that's working on Rome 2. As such, it seems more likely to me that CA will continue development of historical TW games in parallel with any future projects, rather than instead of.

    Also, I'd like suggest an official unofficial name for the game until we hear otherwise: Total Warhammer.



  2. #2
    Needs more flowers Moderator drone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Moral High Grounds
    Posts
    9,276

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    Quote Originally Posted by TinCow View Post
    Also, I'd like suggest an official unofficial name for the game until we hear otherwise: Total Warhammer.
    World of Warhammer. Craft.

    It would be great to see WFB in the Total War battlefield, I'd be curious to see how they add in magic to the engine. Larger scale Shadow of the Horned Rat/Dark Omen fights. A "take over the world" campaign would be difficult to portray, as entire populations would need extermination when taking over regions for it to be true to the Warhammer worldview, not sure what route they would go there if this is the plan.

    All I want for Christmas is the Siege of Praag.
    The .Org's MTW Reference Guide Wiki - now taking comments, corrections, suggestions, and submissions

    If I werent playing games Id be killing small animals at a higher rate than I am now - SFTS
    Si je n'étais pas jouer à des jeux que je serais mort de petits animaux à un taux plus élevé que je suis maintenant - Louis VI The Fat

    "Why do you hate the extremely limited Spartan version of freedom?" - Lemur

  3. #3
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    Mordenheim is my guess a small RPG/tabletop game that would be between Total War and Total Warrior.
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  4. #4
    COYATOYPIKC Senior Member Flatout Minigame Champion Arjos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Prisoners upon this rock, flying without wings...
    Posts
    11,087

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    Good for those players that kept on asking for a fantasy theme :)

    I know only little of Warhammer, mostly about the 40k serie, but will definitely check out this one if it turns out to be a valid concept...
    The metalhead in me would love to see a soundtrack for the game, done by Be'lakor \m/
    Last edited by Arjos; 12-08-2012 at 06:08.

  5. #5
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,955

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    Can I say right now, on the first page, that I wish the .Org had the confidence to call this forum section "Upcoming TW Titles" and not "Upcoming CA Titles".

    Warhammer would make an excellent addition to the TW franchise, so please, please, do not release it as one of the console-lite style action RTS/RPG hybrids.

    A Warhammer: Battle for Stormrise Warrior would be a tragedy. Don't do it. Don't contemplate it.

    If you must release a console title buy up the rights for Powerangers, or some other such IP.

    :)
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  6. #6
    Liar and Trickster Senior Member Andres's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    In my own skin.
    Posts
    13,208

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    I hereby state for the record and officially that ever since I discovered the TW games, I've been CRAVING FOR A FANTASY TW GAME.

    And I want magic in it. And a good deal of RPG and story driven campaigns.

    Please.
    Andres is our Lord and Master and could strike us down with thunderbolts or beer cans at any time. ~Askthepizzaguy

    Ja mata, TosaInu

    Member thankful for this post:



  7. #7
    Bureaucratically Efficient Senior Member TinCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    13,729

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
    Can I say right now, on the first page, that I wish the .Org had the confidence to call this forum section "Upcoming TW Titles" and not "Upcoming CA Titles".
    I'm optimistic for two reasons. First, they do not appear to be developing their Alien franchise to be a strategy game, so if there's going to be a successor to Spartan and Viking, I'd peg it as Alien rather than Warhammer. Second, Warhammer very naturally lends itself to a strategy game. I have difficult imagining Games Workshop selling out that license specifically to create an action game rather than a strategy game. While THQ has done a few 40K action games for them recently, they're in the significant minority. The vast majority of computer games based on GW IP have been strategy or squad-tactical games. So, not only is Warhammer itself heavily biased towards strategy, they've contracted with one of the biggest names in strategy gaming to make the game. Anything other than strategy would be insane.

    That said, a CA strategy game doesn't necessarily have to be a Total War game. Honestly, I don't care what they call it, as long as we get giant battlefields full of elves and dwarves killing each other. I'd buy that even if it was called Warhammered: Dwarf Tossing.

    Member thankful for this post:



  8. #8
    Banned Kadagar_AV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    In average 2000m above sea level.
    Posts
    4,176

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?



    Awesome.

    I am hoping for multiplayer oriented battles... I'd get hooked

  9. #9

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    Cool, can't wait

  10. #10
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    I hope it is a TW like title that suitable uses Warhammer IP. LOTR:TW would also be awesome.
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  11. #11
    Member Member Ferret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    3,679

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    Quote Originally Posted by Papewaio View Post
    LOTR:TW would also be awesome.
    Have you tried this mod? It has everything you could want from a lord of the rings total war game.

    There is also a warhammer mod for medieval II (Call of Warhammer) if anyone is looking for something to get them in the mood.

  12. #12
    Rolluplover Member Kocmoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,563
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    There should be a button, so someone could know, if people talk about the SP or the MP aspect of a game.

    I suggested a "magical TW" game around 2001 already. For the SP faction, the game could be amazing, considering the fact, that its more or less the same since about 13 years.

    For MP, yeah baby :D
    If they keep the maps and the basics, the whole thing will run out of hands for sure. Imo they should turn the moral of, since I cant see the slightest chance to balance this.
    CA could do it with just a handful units, but since we know CA, we probably see about 50 units with 120 different abilities and stuckable abilities.

    It was already a mess with S2 and if you bring magic in and spells and this kind of stuff… I cant even think about it. Before the game is halfway balanced, they have already
    "Warhammer TW 2" out. For MP it will be finally the end, if S2 wasnt already the end.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    This is getting me excited.

    Time, space, marraige, clumsy children, travelling, and not to mention cost.... there are many barriers to overcome with Warhammer as a guy gets older. This will hopefully solve most of them.

    I'd be happy if the just simulated the battles with all races and units recreated, and the strategy element was a simple Mighty Empires hex map.

  14. #14
    Bureaucratically Efficient Senior Member TinCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    13,729

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kocmoc View Post
    For MP, yeah baby :D
    If they keep the maps and the basics, the whole thing will run out of hands for sure. Imo they should turn the moral of, since I cant see the slightest chance to balance this.
    CA could do it with just a handful units, but since we know CA, we probably see about 50 units with 120 different abilities and stuckable abilities.

    It was already a mess with S2 and if you bring magic in and spells and this kind of stuff… I cant even think about it. Before the game is halfway balanced, they have already
    "Warhammer TW 2" out. For MP it will be finally the end, if S2 wasnt already the end.
    Well, Warhammer itself should already be pretty well balanced for MP due to its very nature, though I've never played orignal Warhammer and have extremely minimal experience with 40k so this is just an assumption. I think the question is more about whether CA's modifications to the system would break that balance.

    If anyone has personal experience with tabletop Warhammer, I'd be interested to hear their opinions about what would work well and poorly with a CA version of the game.


  15. #15

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    I'll have to hunt through boxes for my Jesters and festoon my PC.

    Yes "that's 40k!" but who cares :p
    Last edited by HopAlongBunny; 12-11-2012 at 06:31.
    Ja-mata TosaInu

  16. #16
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    War dancers are the Warhammer equivalent of Harlequins...
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  17. #17
    Rolluplover Member Kocmoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,563
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    Quote Originally Posted by TinCow View Post
    Well, Warhammer itself should already be pretty well balanced for MP due to its very nature, though I've never played orignal Warhammer and have extremely minimal experience with 40k so this is just an assumption. I think the question is more about whether CA's modifications to the system would break that balance.

    If anyone has personal experience with tabletop Warhammer, I'd be interested to hear their opinions about what would work well and poorly with a CA version of the game.
    Well, the tabletop is in its 8th version, with the current rules, the game is balanced, yes.
    Especially the different races, have well balanced advances and disadvances.

    The question is, do they really base the TW version on the tabletop? It will probably be the warhammer fantasy.


    Now I tell you my thoughts:

    1. CA fokus should be the SP part and Im pretty sure, that will be the case. The atmosphere, the dark, mystic situation, the different units, the general look of the game…
    that will make it an optical interesting game, the real deal will be the huge step away from the normal TW game. No one will come along and ask for historical correctness.

    2. The different races and nations. Its all there, TW doesnt have to invest a lot of time to create something new, they can just go and take the stats from the current units
    and adjust it a bit.

    3. The standard d6 dice is the way you play warhammer, this easy randomness is well balanced, but wont take place in a TW game. And exactly here the balancing will start.
    CA has experience (not the best) to balance units around, archer, melee and cav. Now you add magic. Its one thing to balance that on a tabletop, but how you get that on a battlefield?
    Range and the effect of range, AOE will be some very interesting part. If CA brings AOE, the whole tactical gameplay will be "interesting".

    Now Im just guessing, but in the end CA has to bring it on the battlefield, somehow.
    If I look at other games and how they dealt with Magic and especially AOE, than Im doubtful that CA will get it done properly.


    Example - WC3
    WC3 is a good example of a well balanced game with tons of magic involved. The game has a huge difference, each unit is a single unit. You can macro each of it, if you play well.
    Blizzard dealt with AE, let me mention the human magic on the horse, the blizzard is pretty powerfull. The orc-rider with its quake, same thing. Very powerful.


    While it can work in SP, it will hardly work in MP. As soon magic can kill, the whole thing will run out of hands.
    There are a few ways to deal with it:

    1. No real AOE. Just make the magic hit one certain unit.
    2. Magic has only effects, slows units, lower defense, cause fear…



    In my world, knowing CA for some time now. I bet they will bring hardcore AOE magic, especially for all those guys, who love eyecandy and huge graphic powerslammballbubblegummgiveneallcolorsasap!

    Than it will need about 2 bug patches to lower all the power from AE and nerf it to death. Imagine a big clash of 2 or more armies and now you get some serious AOE from some wizards going.
    If you want to look at it from something we know already, than look at old statistics (CA removed it in S2) where you could see how many friendly kills guns or archers got.

    To call some numbers out of anything (still they are 90% correct), a gun in a frontal shooting (on a 2-4 lined unit, max range) could do about 50-70 kills.
    The same units going close and hit in bunched up units, raised to 200 - close to 400 kills. The friendly fire was often high.


    If you transfer this thought to a warhammer TW battlefield with some hardcore magic units, you want to know, how on earth CA will calculate this.
    How are the stats done, to overcome this huge problem.
    I have problems to see a moral based TW game with all those extra effects.

    Its already hard to balance 3 kinds of units, missle, melee and cav, now you add some amazing statconsuming units.
    Everyone who played MP a lot and have some basic knowledge of how the stats are working, will agree, that this is a big challenge for CA.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    Quote Originally Posted by TinCow View Post
    Well, Warhammer itself should already be pretty well balanced for MP due to its very nature, though I've never played orignal Warhammer and have extremely minimal experience with 40k so this is just an assumption. I think the question is more about whether CA's modifications to the system would break that balance.

    If anyone has personal experience with tabletop Warhammer, I'd be interested to hear their opinions about what would work well and poorly with a CA version of the game.

    The melee should be a good match. If you take magic out of it, Warhammer fantasy battle is a turn based Medievil total war with alien races. There are a few ranged combat units in Warhammer, but my tabletop experience contains far less ranged units than I would use in TW - and i play with the Empire who probably have the most ranged units.

    There are some eccentricities of the table top game that won't convert well, one that springs to mind is cannons and mortars (used by the Empire who are the humans). In Warhammer the player guesses the distance to the target in inches, and then rolls a dice. The value on the dice is added to the guess and that is where the cannon ball lands. A further dice roll then decides how far the cannonball bounces. On each dice roll there is a chance of a misfire. I imagine all that will go and cannons will just work like cannons and trebuchets do in TW.

    There are some really quirky war machines which could be very interesting.

    EDIt, and the biggest inbalence in Warhammer won't exist in a virtual TW version. The biggest problem with the tabletop game is Games Workshop will re-vamp a particular race, this inevitably leads to that race being slightly improved in balence terms, and the difference between the most recently re-designed race and the race which has not been redesigned for 10 years can be quite stark. They will revamp a different race once every 12 to 18 months say, its a long process cause of the manufacturing and tooling etc. None of that will be an issue in the virtual version, they will be able to balence all races simultaneously, so in that regard the TW version should be more balenced than the table top, and you wont need to wait 10 years and spend $30 on a book for your Ogre Kingdoms army to be actually usable.

    Edit 2 - I wouldnt be surprised if this game sets a new standard for paid-DLC abuse. In fact I wouldnt be surprised if they charge a full-game-sized fee for each race. GW are nice like that.
    Last edited by fret; 12-11-2012 at 11:44.

  19. #19
    Rolluplover Member Kocmoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,563
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    Well, let me put it short and clear.

    SP is one thing, mostly the battle-balance is less important.

    In MP you only have the battles, balance means a lot here. Till today CA never managed it to bring a good well balanced game out. We got early betas in most cases.
    The magic part, which will be a big number in the game, will make it a lot harder to balance it.

    The trend over the last 13 years of CA gaming was, that the balance got less attention with each new TW version.
    Seeing all the new attributes which will come along with Warhammer, I have a hard time to believe, that CA will bring us a good MP part with good balanced battles.

  20. #20
    Bureaucratically Efficient Senior Member TinCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    13,729

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    Quote Originally Posted by fret View Post
    Edit 2 - I wouldnt be surprised if this game sets a new standard for paid-DLC abuse. In fact I wouldnt be surprised if they charge a full-game-sized fee for each race. GW are nice like that.
    I think that's likely. TWS2 already had some DLC craziness going on, and THQ's Dawn of War 2 was even worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kocmoc View Post
    Well, let me put it short and clear.

    SP is one thing, mostly the battle-balance is less important.

    In MP you only have the battles, balance means a lot here. Till today CA never managed it to bring a good well balanced game out. We got early betas in most cases.
    The magic part, which will be a big number in the game, will make it a lot harder to balance it.

    The trend over the last 13 years of CA gaming was, that the balance got less attention with each new TW version.
    Seeing all the new attributes which will come along with Warhammer, I have a hard time to believe, that CA will bring us a good MP part with good balanced battles.
    Maybe they should take the Blizzard route and have MP include a restricted list of units and abilities, keeping the most unbalanced ones in SP but not letting them be used in MP.

    Member thankful for this post:

    Kocmoc 


  21. #21
    Member Member Ituralde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,749

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    I honestly can not wait for a Warhammer Fantasy: Total War to become reality. Total War games and the Warhammer franchise are a perfect match.

    Ever since painting my little wood elf army I wished for a game to capture the massive scale and epicness of Warhammer Fantasy. While I played the demos of previous RTS Warhammer games, none came close to the true feeling. With CA at the helm, I'm really hopeful they can make a good game out of this. I wouldn't even need a Campaign Map. Just give me the raw vicious battles and as many factions as possible!
    The lions sing and the hills take flight.
    The moon by day, and the sun by night.
    Blind woman, deaf man, jackdaw fool.
    Let the Lord of Chaos rule.

    —chant from a children's game heard in Great Aravalon, the Fourth Age

  22. #22

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    If they remain faithful to the power of some units, they will have to take up more than one unit card slot, and/or they also need to restrict numbers of unit-types. This is achieved in table-top by having a rigid army structure with maximum number of unit-types allowed, given a specific army points total, but if they dont implement something similar on SP it would be plainly ridiculous.

    On SP having a general and 19 TW cannons is one thing, but an army of 20 x Steam Tanks or 20 x Lizardmen Stegadons would be silly and a simple case of charge > win.
    Last edited by fret; 12-11-2012 at 14:20.

  23. #23
    Rolluplover Member Kocmoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,563
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    Quote Originally Posted by TinCow View Post
    I think that's likely. TWS2 already had some DLC craziness going on, and THQ's Dawn of War 2 was even worse.



    Maybe they should take the Blizzard route and have MP include a restricted list of units and abilities, keeping the most unbalanced ones in SP but not letting them be used in MP.

    Well, the basic game design dont really allow that. WC3 is an arcade game, blizz dont come along and tell that "you can see 50.000 mens fighting".
    You can ask every good player with enough knowledge and each of them will tell you, that a few handful units are able to balance.

    To be fair, the amount of stats a TW game has is immense and a lot more than you can find in WC3. Thats pretty hard to balance.


    To your other point. Back in 2001 or 2002 we already had a conversation about 2 different statversions. One for SP and one for MP.
    The problem is, that in a campaign you build houses and invest money to gain new, better units, these new units have to be better, else it wouldnt made any sense.
    In most cases these new units have hude advances.


    The MP part of the TW games has a huge problem and its obvious, if you look at the number of players. I wouldnt call the "focus on MP" a success.

    Lets get that straight:

    1. Blizz has a much better betatesting group (actual there are real good gamer in, some of the best).
    2. Blizz and the telia-server are real successful, there are still playing 50-70k player in the peaks
    3. The focus is really on MP.

    4. CA. wants too much. An avatar-tree, units with abilities, a learningcurve with lvl ups, same time you can play "classic", you get the MM ( I asked for it and Im still in favor of the basic idea),
    you can set up games… too much. keep it simple is a basic rule of online gaming.

    5. What we did learn from previous version?!? Arty is a killer, defensive camping slots is bad… Each new version of a TW game allowed arty in MP battles, while everyone with brain ended with going without arty.

    6. Clancampaign. Now that was the worst thing I ever saw! To set the power to the mass. Clever. Someone who is in charge for these kind of decisions has to get kicked, instantly.


    I dont ask for a game I personal love in every aspect, I just see the different TW version, the progress the game took. Many good ideas… wasted in many ways.
    We will see the same once again, for sure. Nice graphics, hundreds of units, almost unlimited mens on the field. You can see how it works.

    Look what happened. People come online, they played some days or weeks and as soon they (unless they did disappear earlier) reached lvl 10 they was gone.
    I mentioned it from days one, that new player who meet and play lvl 10 or 9 or 8 will get doomed. I brought a good gun and just made them run… Whats that?
    Is this a smart way to let new player enjoy the game?

    The balance and the abilities ruined the game. It is what it is. A SP game with some MP aspects, which never will attract many multiplayer.


    Thatswhy I said initially, the SP part will be fine. I like the Warhammer idea a lot, after 13 years its really something new.

  24. #24
    Dragonslayer Emeritus Senior Member Sigurd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Norge
    Posts
    6,877

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    I had an acquaintance back in '94 who played Warhammer. I played a few matches as Orcs against his High Elf army - and visited the games workshop near every time I passed it when visiting Glasgow that year.
    From my knowledge (which is quite rusty), the classical multiplayer in totalwar is very similar to the Warhammer setup, with fielding an army based on a point system. ... you get some time to order your army and consider a strategy - one figurine in Warhammer represents an army class, not unlike a unit in totalwar.

    I think it was this warhammer background that made me instantly recognize the upcoming game Shogun Totalwar back in '99 (I saw a poster of it in a PC game shop).
    It is not unthinkable that the CA developers were Warhammer players. IIRC the campaign map was added to the realtime battles - not the other way around. Which means they developed a Warhammer kind of game as a starting point.
    This could be full circle back to their roots.
    Last edited by Sigurd; 12-12-2012 at 16:00.
    Status Emeritus

  25. #25
    Needs more flowers Moderator drone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Moral High Grounds
    Posts
    9,276

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
    It is not unthinkable that the CA developers were Warhammer players. IIRC the campaign map was added to the realtime battles - not the other way around. Which means they developed a Warhammer kind of game as a starting point.
    This could be full circle back to their roots.
    Captain Fishpants has stated that he worked on the Rogue Trader 40K rulebook for GW back in the day, and he probably wasn't the only one with Warhammer experience. SotHR ('96) and Dark Omen ('98) had smaller battles and linear SP campaigns, but still very much precursors to TW.
    The .Org's MTW Reference Guide Wiki - now taking comments, corrections, suggestions, and submissions

    If I werent playing games Id be killing small animals at a higher rate than I am now - SFTS
    Si je n'étais pas jouer à des jeux que je serais mort de petits animaux à un taux plus élevé que je suis maintenant - Louis VI The Fat

    "Why do you hate the extremely limited Spartan version of freedom?" - Lemur

  26. #26

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    The zoning is similar to TW, in respect of there is an restricted area of the table that each army can place its units.

    Once it is decided who will go first during set-up(a disadvantage), the players then take it in turns to place 1 unit at a time. Once the unit is placed, it can't be moved again during set-up.

    Warhammer armies are split like...

    Lords - named character, your general, usually only 1 on the field unless its a high point battle. Can either be solo or part of a unit.
    Heroes - named characters, can either be solo or part of a unit
    Core - rank and file
    Special - specialist units like mounted gunpowder, heavy cavelry, beefy rank and file.
    Rare - war machines and very powerful or unusual beserker style units


    A typical 2500 point army set up would be...

    1 x Lord
    2 or 3 x Heroes
    5 or 6 x Core
    2 or 3 x Special
    1 or 2 x Rare

    The numbers of units allowed for each type are restricted, except for Core which is unlimited.

    Within Rare, some units are limited to only 1 on the battlefield, even if the points total of the army you are fielding would allow for 2 x Rare units in total.

  27. #27
    Bureaucratically Efficient Senior Member TinCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    13,729

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    Quote Originally Posted by drone View Post
    Captain Fishpants has stated that he worked on the Rogue Trader 40K rulebook for GW back in the day, and he probably wasn't the only one with Warhammer experience. SotHR ('96) and Dark Omen ('98) had smaller battles and linear SP campaigns, but still very much precursors to TW.
    That's great. I'm getting pretty excited about this idea. I just hope they actually stick with a TW-style game even if they don't have TW in the title. Warhammer needs large-scale combat of that style. I was really bummed when Dawn of War 2 turned into a squad-based tactical game.


  28. #28
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    Quote Originally Posted by fret View Post
    Warhammer armies are split like...

    Lords - named character, your general, usually only 1 on the field unless its a high point battle. Can either be solo or part of a unit.
    Heroes - named characters, can either be solo or part of a unit
    Core - rank and file
    Special - specialist units like mounted gunpowder, heavy cavelry, beefy rank and file.
    Rare - war machines and very powerful or unusual beserker style units


    A typical 2500 point army set up would be...

    1 x Lord
    2 or 3 x Heroes
    5 or 6 x Core
    2 or 3 x Special
    1 or 2 x Rare

    The numbers of units allowed for each type are restricted, except for Core which is unlimited.

    Within Rare, some units are limited to only 1 on the battlefield, even if the points total of the army you are fielding would allow for 2 x Rare units in total.
    The unit restrictions were done to make balanced armies more in line with the fluff and somewhat restrict the more Beardy players .

    As Warhammer tabletop is by definition multiplayer, a PC version that inherits similar restrictions should be much more MP friendly... Much like Bloodbowl.
    Last edited by Papewaio; 12-13-2012 at 21:44. Reason: Beardy not Hearst begone ye foule auto incorrect
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  29. #29

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    This is great.

    Like MTW I no longer need 'x' numbers of ppl who are willing to spend oodles of dough on figures and spend copious amounts of time painting them. The need to co-ordinate everyones time and energy to fight the battles (which is really difficult now) is also gone. I am hoping CA does this well.
    Ja-mata TosaInu

  30. #30
    Rolluplover Member Kocmoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,563
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default Re: Total Warhammer?

    Playing vs. other people in real give you a lot more, than playing on a PC on your own.
    My friends and me still meet once a month and have a pretty long evening (night) to play warhammer, we also play other games.

    To paint your figures is, at least for me it was this way, interesting and a very personal thing. Im a member of a tin-club here in Leipzig,
    i created the figures on my own, not plastic, tin. After that they got painted.

    Shogun is also a tabletop, it was out years before STW came as PC game.
    here is a link: http://www.google.de/imgres?q=tablet...9,r:1,s:0,i:86

    CA pretty much copied that game, its more or less the same.


    Anyway, for me the trend goes away from the PC-solo-gaming, back to meeting with friends, playing face to face, talk have fun.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO