View Full Version : Total Warhammer?
8129
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/2012/12/06/the-creative-assembly-making-games-workshop-games/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-12-06-total-war-dev-announces-multi-game-warhammer-deal
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/182995/Total_Wars_Creative_Assembly_gets_the_Warhammer_license.php#.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.
:smash:
Also, I'd like suggest an official unofficial name for the game until we hear otherwise: Total Warhammer.
World of Warhammer. Craft. :tongue:
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. :yes: 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.
Papewaio
12-08-2012, 04:49
Mordenheim is my guess a small RPG/tabletop game that would be between Total War and Total Warrior.
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/
Furunculus
12-08-2012, 13:46
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.
:)
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.
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.
Kadagar_AV
12-08-2012, 18:49
:cheerleader:
Awesome.
I am hoping for multiplayer oriented battles... I'd get hooked :yes:
Ja'chyra
12-08-2012, 21:57
Cool, can't wait
Papewaio
12-08-2012, 22:07
I hope it is a TW like title that suitable uses Warhammer IP. LOTR:TW would also be awesome.
LOTR:TW would also be awesome.
Have you tried this mod (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=654)? 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.
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.
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.
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.
HopAlongBunny
12-11-2012, 06:27
I'll have to hunt through boxes for my Jesters and festoon my PC.
Yes "that's 40k!" but who cares :p
Papewaio
12-11-2012, 09:25
War dancers are the Warhammer equivalent of Harlequins...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ituralde
12-11-2012, 14:16
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!
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 (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod2120007) or 20 x Lizardmen Stegadons (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440019a&prodId=prod1690060&rootCatGameStyle=wh) would be silly and a simple case of charge > win.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Papewaio
12-12-2012, 22:39
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.
HopAlongBunny
12-13-2012, 06:41
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.
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=tabletop+shogun&hl=en&client=safari&sa=X&tbo=d&rls=en&biw=1520&bih=1201&tbm=isch&tbnid=-Xn9nIbI4ZtitM:&imgrefurl=http://www.fantasy-workshop.de/Gemeinschaftsspiele/Artikel/Test/Testbericht/1837/1144602478/Shogun.html&docid=fZWQbaFKSBUFpM&imgurl=http://www.fantasy-workshop.de/artikel/shogun/shogun_spielfeld.jpg&w=700&h=525&ei=uZ3JUL6UH8jMsgbw5IHoAQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=120&vpy=126&dur=1054&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=119&ty=101&sig=101023920557718166411&page=1&tbnh=137&tbnw=182&start=0&ndsp=47&ved=1t:429,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.
Firstly pretty much every 'ordinary' infantry, cavalry, artillery, chariot or whatnot in WHFB has a TW counterpart - orcs are just particularly tough and poorly disciplined heavy infantry and so on.
For magic http://diceofdoom.com/blog/series/warhammer-magic-guide/ gives a summary of the spells available - wizards generally choose one of 8 lores which have 6 spells each and these generally either act as magical artillery or augment or demoralise your own or enemy units and thus mostly have TW equivalent effects - a fireball from a catapult and one from a wizard are pretty much the same thing.
What is problematic in TW terms are the uber-powerful single heroes and monsters who have tended to get more and more powerful and unbalanced with each edition as GW decided that they'd rather sell insanely expensive metal special figures (a single chaos warlord figure will set you back £30 and an elf on a dragon £32.50) than units of plastic orcs or whatever - AFAIK there's no TW equivalent for a single godlike superhero mounted on a dragon or griffin who can just drop out of the sky anywhere on the battlefield and annihilate whole units.
Papewaio
12-13-2012, 21:53
I think you will find that the old Herohammer had more powerful heroes.
I had in the earliest edition an High Elf Princess and her banner man er elf, face down an army of Orcs.
She had a couple of basic units with her, a ballista and a small unit of war dancers on the flank. I field approximately two dozen models, the opponent about ten times that. Yet because this was Mighty Empires banners fighting I had twice the points on the field and most of them on the heros.
The magic items and stat lines where over powered in the earliest editions.
AFAIK there's no TW equivalent for a single godlike superhero mounted on a dragon or griffin who can just drop out of the sky anywhere on the battlefield and annihilate whole units.
A triple gold chevron General's bodyguard in M2TW. You can kill entire armies with that one unit. Not that that's a good thing.
We had swordmaster in MI. That was one big red men using a huge katana. This was some kind of hero and counted as a whole unit in terms of flanking and rearing.
It took you almost a full monk unit to kill one of them, they mostly died by fatigue since they had some kind of fatigue blocker to ensure, the one men doesnt get killed too soon.
I dont see a problem with hero units in a TW game. In general its possible, the question is, if this good for the basic idea of the game?!?!
Imo its not a good thing. These units was a nightmare, not as a frontal unit, but as a sneak unit, which cant really get blocked. You just moved a "full" unit in the back of your enemy. This is just one example.
Now transfer this idea into the modern TW game.
Initially I mentioned to not let the game keeps using the moral system (I personal wouldnt like this).
Imagine flying units, droping somewhere on the field, invisible units, warp units…
You have to program a lot new things to make the current battlesystem work. Units which can drop somewhere on the field, have probably no moral effect at all.
This brings a basic idea back into the game, Imo the game needs a different amount of fear each unit can bring into the battle.
We had this kind of stuff already, with certain units who cause more fear than other. Im not 100% sure about the stats at this moment, but I remember a few units like camels in MTW.
This would be the way to work around with magic. While the killing speed has also an fear effect, you could reduce the base fear factor for units which can peak kills to high amounts.
I hope people can understand what Im writing here….
I do understand your concerns, Kocmoc, but you're assuming that this game will be a straight TW game with Warhammer units. I doubt that would be the case. This is a new IP for CA with it's own unique structures and quirks and (more importantly for CA) fanbase. I have a feeling that they will re-use the latest TW engine, but otherwise re-write the game from scratch to better accommodate Warhammer. I would expect that a fundamental part of such a re-write would include adapting the system to better handle heroes and magic.
I would honestly be very surprised if the game even had Total War in its title. I think it will be, at its heart, a Total War game, but I don't think it will be directly marketed as one. The Warhammer IP is stronger than the Total War IP, so it would be better to lean on the former than the latter.
I really do think they will dumb it down to capture the Warhammer demographic of 14-year old boys with affluent and indulgent parents who are a lot less interested in the strategic elements.
Plus there just isn't much room for teching up in the canonical WFB universe where the campaigns should zip along at the speed of 2-week turn Napoleon TW rather than previous iterations of MTW and RTW where you had to play a faction for a century before you could recruit any decent units and Hannibal would die of old age before he'd finished marching his army from Spain to Italy.
A triple gold chevron General's bodyguard in M2TW. You can kill entire armies with that one unit. Not that that's a good thing.
Played many hundreds of hours of M2TW and never had a single general unit good enough to kill an SP army - but then I always play at the highest difficulty level so my experience might be different.
I really do think they will dumb it down to capture the Warhammer demographic of 14-year old boys with affluent and indulgent parents who are a lot less interested in the strategic elements.
I always thought that the GW tabletop games tends to attract older and more mature audiences simply due to their cost.
Played many hundreds of hours of M2TW and never had a single general unit good enough to kill an SP army - but then I always play at the highest difficulty level so my experience might be different.
I'm not capable of doing it, but I recall FactionHeir obliterating some crazy armies with his general and some assorted low quality units alone in the King of the Romans PBM. Perhaps I'm exaggerating a bit, but he definitely had a reputation for causing ridiculous casualties with his general alone in that game.
I really do think they will dumb it down to capture the Warhammer demographic of 14-year old boys with affluent and indulgent parents who are a lot less interested in the strategic elements.
Plus there just isn't much room for teching up in the canonical WFB universe where the campaigns should zip along at the speed of 2-week turn Napoleon TW rather than previous iterations of MTW and RTW where you had to play a faction for a century before you could recruit any decent units and Hannibal would die of old age before he'd finished marching his army from Spain to Italy.
You should have played empire then. You can march across France (from the Spanish Netherlands to the Pyrenees) in a single turn.
I do understand your concerns, Kocmoc, but you're assuming that this game will be a straight TW game with Warhammer units. I doubt that would be the case. This is a new IP for CA with it's own unique structures and quirks and (more importantly for CA) fanbase. I have a feeling that they will re-use the latest TW engine, but otherwise re-write the game from scratch to better accommodate Warhammer. I would expect that a fundamental part of such a re-write would include adapting the system to better handle heroes and magic.
I would honestly be very surprised if the game even had Total War in its title. I think it will be, at its heart, a Total War game, but I don't think it will be directly marketed as one. The Warhammer IP is stronger than the Total War IP, so it would be better to lean on the former than the latter.
Well, than the game should be turned based and without the current battles.
I believe that CA will stick to their known system. Campaignmap and the battles.
How you think should the game be designed?
Do you expect still battles and if yes, how the battles should look like?
I bet they will just create a phantasy map with towns and castles, same as we have today on the campaignmaps.
Than you can create/build units in those towns and at some point you will attack towns or other armies.
The only thing Im unsure about, are the battles. If they are smart, than they use a hexagonsystem and do the battles turnbased. At least, if you want to adept the tabletop,
than this would be the best way to get close to the game. This would mean, that the MP part is completely gone, since no one ever will really play
campaigns online.
Still, I doubt CA will skip that battlesystem and stick to what they have and what worked for over 10 years already.
Also there must be some weird people, who think they sell a lot more copies, if they add a lot of "online gaming - MP", you could see that in the S2.
What I try to tell is, that they dont design/create the best game they can, they try to create the best selling game they can.
If CA would really care for the best of the game, we never would see a S2 game (same as other version before) hitting the store in this status. This was an early beta.
This said, they wont bring a complete new thing, alone the working process would need a lot more programmer working on completely new stuff.
From my experience, I would go and just stick with at least 80% of what I have right now and add 20% new stuff. This would save me a lot of money and also it would lower
the risk a lot. New games, real new things, are always timeconsuming, this always eats your money, especially as you never know how many time it will need before.
Anyway, I bet on this. Same kind of TW game, they use the engine, they use the same system. There might be a slight chance of seeing a different battlesystem (as mentioned
hexagon).
Papewaio
12-17-2012, 12:40
I would have assumed if any hexagon system existed it would be to have a Mighty Empires as the turn/seasonal based campaign map followed by an adapted battle system.
If for MP they adapt the unit selection criteria from tabletop then you would have a situation where only a couple of units at most could be the rare Warp Bell, Dragons or cannons. With a minimum number of basic troops having to be selected first.
Take the best elements of both systems. Take the lessons learned from tabletop in creating balanced unit unique armies, and it would be a much more MP player friendly game.
HopAlongBunny
12-17-2012, 13:56
A hex-based/turn system might make for a better AI in SP. The AI seems to get better with a reduction in the number of choices available.
It might not be what delivers the thrill for MP though.
The only thing Im unsure about, are the battles. If they are smart, than they use a hexagonsystem and do the battles turnbased. At least, if you want to adept the tabletop, than this would be the best way to get close to the game. This would mean, that the MP part is completely gone, since no one ever will really play
campaigns online.
I think there is no chance at all that will happen. The Dawn of War games are the only things we really have to compare to and those were real-time. Turn-based strategy tends to be for grognards, and both GW and CA have been trying to broaden their appeal, not double down on the old formula. CA also has no experience with turn-based strategy. If GW wanted a turn-based license, they should have turned to Firaxis or Paradox or some other company. CA makes RTS games. Without turn-based, there's no point in having a hex-grid, so that's unlikely to appear either.
That said, there's a ton of room in the RTS genre itself to adapt Warhammer rules without just making it look like a mod for a TW game.
Your forgetting mark of chaos. Which was quite TW like in it's set up.
Your forgetting mark of chaos.
I wish I could...
CA also has no experience with turn-based strategy.
I disagree. CA have a turn based campaign map game engine which the GW people could utilise rather than building from scratch.
The campaign map in the first two games was turn based. The new campaign map is also turn based with a movement points system - this reminds me of an old Warhammer 40k game from 10+ years ago and of course games like Fallout/2.
CA makes RTS games.
I would say that CA makes RTS battles with a turn based game - not pure RTS (C&C/Stronghold/Warcraft style) resource management based fast-clicking games.
:bow:
HopAlongBunny
12-20-2012, 13:43
That raises the question of whether we will be looking at another TW game; turn based strategy with real-time tactical; or something more akin to Warcraft.
I have to admit, Warhammer makes me think of Warcraft more than TW, although I would prefer a TW style approach.
Very true, I suppose I should have said CA has no experience with turn-based combat. You're right that it's not a pure RTS game, but I'm still going to call it RTS. No other genre name fits as well. The entire game is built around the battles. The campaign map was originally created as a means to create different and interesting battles, and it essentially retains that function even today.
Papewaio
12-21-2012, 02:25
If you auto calc combat in TW it is turn based.
I normally play auto calc at first to figure out the economy and tech trees, so it isn't a big if.
Mighty Empires can be played as hex turned based and just roll a dice for combat resolution or tabletop it out.
Very true, I suppose I should have said CA has no experience with turn-based combat. You're right that it's not a pure RTS game, but I'm still going to call it RTS. No other genre name fits as well. The entire game is built around the battles. The campaign map was originally created as a means to create different and interesting battles, and it essentially retains that function even today.
I don't think it fits any genre. When STW was released, it pretty much defined it's own. In later games the campaign map game became more like other familiar turn based games (AoE/Civ), but the real time battles things was still unique. Yes the battles are in real time, but so is an FPS game, but TW games are not really RTS in my humble opinion.
As one of the harshest critics of the RTW campaign map, I'd say that the the campaign map game became a game in it's own right rather than just a way to manage battles and string them together into something meaningful (in my opinion from that moment onwards the battles themselves became a mere sideshow...) - so it does seem to me that CA have proven themselves in the turn based war gaming genre.
:bow:
Warhammer Shadow of the Horned Rat and Dark Omens (IIRC) are the games to have in mind whem marrying WH with TW.
I don't think it fits any genre. When STW was released, it pretty much defined it's own. In later games the campaign map game became more like other familiar turn based games (AoE/Civ), but the real time battles things was still unique. Yes the battles are in real time, but so is an FPS game, but TW games are not really RTS in my humble opinion.
Actually, I was already familiar with the style the first time I played MTW because of Sid Meier's Gettysburg, which preceded STW by three years. There are huge differences between the two games, but the basic idea of units with large numbers of men on a 3D battlefield slugging it out with flanking, morale, abilities, charges, etc. are all there. It was also real-time with pause for issuing commands, just like the TW series. The main difference is that Gettysburg lacked a campaign map. Wikipedia calls Gettysburg a real-time tactical game, which I suppose fits well. It also called STW a turn-based strategy and real-time tactical game, which I cannot really argue with either. So, I guess I'll call it TBSRTT... :laugh4:
Actually, I was already familiar with the style the first time I played MTW because of Sid Meier's Gettysburg, which preceded STW by three years. There are huge differences between the two games, but the basic idea of units with large numbers of men on a 3D battlefield slugging it out with flanking, morale, abilities, charges, etc. are all there. It was also real-time with pause for issuing commands, just like the TW series. The main difference is that Gettysburg lacked a campaign map. Wikipedia calls Gettysburg a real-time tactical game, which I suppose fits well. It also called STW a turn-based strategy and real-time tactical game, which I cannot really argue with either. So, I guess I'll call it TBSRTT... :laugh4:
Yes, prior to that there was an old DOS game, Fields of Glory and a few others. The same principle but without the campaign map and not really "total war".
Yes, prior to that there was an old DOS game, Fields of Glory and a few others. The same principle but without the campaign map and not really "total war".
Gettysburg was released in 97, iirc, Warhammer: Shadow of the Horned is from 95, and WH: Dark Omen is a 98 release (iirc). Both were real time tactics. On the strategy level one could reinforce old units and recruit new units, but that was tied to game progression and narrative, not strategical choices. I dont knw the Warhammer Universe, is there a form of economics/cultures behind the military? If so the TW formula would apply directly.
Warhammer40k is like a futuristic dark age where much of the technology and equipment cannot be reproduced, especially for Space Marines. So it is simply found and carried as relics.
edit: Yes, it is Warhammer, doh.
Papewaio
12-24-2012, 02:16
That's Warhammer 40k.
Warhammer is set in a renaissance like period. With crossbows, cannons, magic, elves, demons and a touch of steam punk.
It is similar to 40k. It has both Elves (Eldar) and Dark Elves (Dark Eldar) which are very similar. And the Warhammer world could be some lost human civilisation within the 40k universe.
However the 40k IP is with Relic.
The Warhammer IP has been bequeathed in some format to CA.
=][=
As for the world itself it is very much a mutated map of Europe. UK is Albion, Eygpt has the skeleton undead armies, whilst Europe has vampire counts. America has Aztec like Saurians... Dinosaurs and dinosaur men. Europe has German and Italian style armies with a smattering of French influence. Plus Dwarves, Elves and Skaven (rat men) .
ededed117
12-24-2012, 19:02
Have you guys ever played "Call of Warhammer" It was developed by a Russian team. Super detail campaign and units, while staying pretty much true with Warhammer lore
Here it is:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=320935
The Outsider
12-28-2012, 16:17
Yep thats one hell of a mod its pretty good loads of detail and quite a few factions to choose from i have been playing it for almost a year now and i really enjoy it there are loads of scripts so it can sometimes become ennoying but except the rare ctd its stable overall. I hear that the moders are working on a new version with four morefactions . I cant wait for the skaven. Anyone who likes warhammer should give it try. The modders are russian so i dont know if they will see this but guys thank you very much the community is gratefull :-)
Gettysburg was released in 97, iirc, Warhammer: Shadow of the Horned is from 95, and WH: Dark Omen is a 98 release (iirc). Both were real time tactics. On the strategy level one could reinforce old units and recruit new units, but that was tied to game progression and narrative, not strategical choices. I dont knw the Warhammer Universe, is there a form of economics/cultures behind the military? If so the TW formula would apply directly.
Yes there are.
8275
That map doesn't show political boundries. But they do exist. Most of the human nations are stand-ins for real world ones. Other areas that equate to a real world nation are replaced them with fantasy ones. For example the Warhammer world lacks Meso-american cultures. They've been replaced with dinosaur riding lizardmen.
Mongoose
01-04-2013, 06:02
Yep thats one hell of a mod its pretty good loads of detail and quite a few factions to choose from i have been playing it for almost a year now and i really enjoy it there are loads of scripts so it can sometimes become ennoying but except the rare ctd its stable overall. I hear that the moders are working on a new version with four morefactions . I cant wait for the skaven. Anyone who likes warhammer should give it try. The modders are russian so i dont know if they will see this but guys thank you very much the community is gratefull :-)
I've played a few campaigns of it as well, and it is a great mod. Playing as one of the Empire Factions gave me one of the most engaging total war campaigns I've ever played. On thewhole, the experience makes me confident that Warhammer and Total War are compatible and that CA can succeed with this game even without deviating much from their formula. I hope, however, they will use their greater resources to work in magic better than Call of Warhammer can. I also would want to see at least some custom settlements.
Gettysburg was released in 97, iirc, Warhammer: Shadow of the Horned is from 95, and WH: Dark Omen is a 98 release (iirc). Both were real time tactics. On the strategy level one could reinforce old units and recruit new units, but that was tied to game progression and narrative, not strategical choices. I dont knw the Warhammer Universe, is there a form of economics/cultures behind the military? If so the TW formula would apply directly.
FoG was from around '93 and while it was unlikely to be the first of it's kind, it did have parameters such as morale, terrain, units of multiple men, cavalry, infantry and artillery in historical battles all played out in real time, etc.
I believe that CA will stick to their known system. Campaignmap and the battles.
I agree. I think it will be more of what they do best. Turn based strategy and real time combat. This style has served us well so if it ain't broke it doesn't need fixing.
Papewaio
01-15-2013, 00:51
CA also does mobile games. It's a big market that both CA and GW would love to get more of their IP into.
Swoosh So
02-27-2013, 17:59
Is it true Undead armies have no morale? how will CA handle that surely they will have to die really quick? would be a disaster to have a whole army with no morale!
It's been several versions since I played WFB, but it used to be that the undead didn't take Leadership tests (essentially morale, but also fear/terror and other stuff). An undead unit would never flee if beaten during a round, but suffered additional wounds depending on how badly the combat went. So a big unit of skeletons would generally start falling to pieces as the losses mounted, but they did pin the opposing unit in place until they were completely destroyed.
Swoosh So
02-27-2013, 21:36
Ok, so similar to morale but instead of breaking the units will suffer quicker and more casualties? Sounds ok tbh. The other thing im worried about is the composition of armies as it would seems silly and quite boring to face say 6 dragons in an army and thats all so lets hope there are selection controls so a minimum amount of foot units must be purchased before you can buy monsters and wizards and the like.
Im pretty confident CA will restrict these elite units anyway.
adembroski
03-01-2013, 10:30
My fervent hope is that they keep the current Total War setup intact, and figure out a way to include the extras to make them interesting tactical options rather than game-dominating necessities.
Additionally, they damn well better include the Bretonnians. Sick of them being ignored.
Is it true Undead armies have no morale? how will CA handle that surely they will have to die really quick? would be a disaster to have a whole army with no morale!
Undead is a broad term that covers units in 2 whole armies in Warhammer. Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings. But yes mindless undead creatures (which are used by both armies as core troops) have no morale and are easily killed.
The Outsider
03-02-2013, 12:03
I agree. I think it will be more of what they do best. Turn based strategy and real time combat. This style has served us well so if it ain't broke it doesn't need fixing.
I hope that you guys are right. Total war system would perfectly fit the warhammer world, however, Im not sure if CA would incorporate warhammer into the Total War franchise, fantasy was never a part of the games but you never know, i think that the series would actually highly benefit from a different perspective.
FoxLeLay
06-13-2013, 17:58
I wonder how many units there will be in this game?
Papewaio
06-17-2013, 09:56
Kensai, war dogs and screaming Druids not exactly all legit non fantasy units. So whilst Skaven will be a jump, it is the magic system that would be hardest to incorporate... But even then most magic is just mobile cannons.
HoreTore
08-23-2013, 12:29
Many fast-paced(which the battle mode of TW certainly is) games contain magic effects of different kinds. I don't see how it would be impossible to implement for example Morrowind's magic system in a TW game. Just swap it from affecting one monster in Morrowind to one unit of troops in a TW game. Slow, paralyze, increase/decrease vulnerability, etc etc. We've already got effects like 'hidden' and inspiring auras, I don't see how a magic effect would be that different.
What I really hope they do, though, is that they make so we buy an empty army stack and then fill it up with troops according to limitations, instead of buying individual units and then combining them to make an army. Should be an easy fix to avoid all-cannon armies... Make it so you can buy different kinds of army stacks, like "recon army", "siege train", "battle army", etc, so you can get different kinds of armies, but still avoid the whacky stuff(like the warhound stacks from RTW)¨.
BroskiDerpman
08-28-2013, 00:46
I got Call of Warhamer and Rise of the Witch King mod for M2TW.
If CA were to make TW:Warhammer their next game I would say it fits their style more though I fear they'll make combat way different compared to tabletop. (I only got 40k though...)
Being an old tabletop player of WH40k (Iron Hands! The Flesh is weak!), I think that the fidelity to the tabletop wargame is the most important thing for the new game.
..... But also the fluff cannot be freely manipulated like History in the TW games, in fact actually Game Workshops has a very strict legal policy about fluff, copyrights and ownership of any single detail of the history of Warhammer and WH40k universes.
Papewaio
09-25-2013, 10:10
The last Space Marine games fluff wouldn't be considered conforming to canon to some.
A lot of games get hand waived through. Long love the squats ;)
BroskiDerpman
09-25-2013, 22:59
Darn GW I liked the Squats a lot, DWARVES IN SPESS.
They don't have any replacements...
About WH Fantasy, Call of Warhammer is my favorite, pretty fun I hope CA uses the mod as an example.
AntiDamascus
09-26-2013, 15:13
I remember Mythic did a WarHammer MMORPG that wasn't great but was ok apparently. They just posted their shutdown notice because they no longer have the license now that it's over here.
http://www.warhammeronline.com/article/Warhammer-Notice-Shutdown
I feel kind of bad for them losing a game but I don't think it did all that great. It ran for like 8 years though.
Jubal_Barca
09-28-2013, 18:02
Don't know if anyone here's seen the RTW Warhammer mod, but as its team leader I feel it should get a quick mention too here :P
http://www.exilian.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=2670
Wrt an official Warhammer TW, my biggest hope is that they do what we did with WHTW and really delve into the background - it shouldn't even be a question whether Brets, Dark Elves, etc get in, but what I'd really like to see are Araby, Kislev, the Tilean states, Estalia, and so on.
The main challenge I can forsee with the TW engine is that at present it doesn't always represent asymmetric warfare well; for example, province ownership is based on the cities, and the the Empire the cities are owned by... the Empire. The huge packs of orcs and beastmen in the forests, or the skaven underground armies, are far harder to represent, so there'd maybe need to be some on the move foraging system for them, or actually make strat map forts equivalent to cities for the "barbarian" factions. Getting some of the more interesting settings created would also be a challenge; representing the Dwarf Underway or the Skaven Under-Empire could be very tough, though SO SO worth it if done well.
From my reading of WHFB wiki there are places in the old world where Ork's have settlements and such.
Jubal_Barca
09-29-2013, 10:59
Yeah, the Badlands, and some shanty towns in the depths of the forests. All of their significant forts are miles away from the Empire, Brettonia, or several other fairly common opponents of theirs.
The main challenge I can forsee with the TW engine is that at present it doesn't always represent asymmetric warfare well; for example, province ownership is based on the cities, and the the Empire the cities are owned by... the Empire. The huge packs of orcs and beastmen in the forests, or the skaven underground armies, are far harder to represent, so there'd maybe need to be some on the move foraging system for them, or actually make strat map forts equivalent to cities for the "barbarian" factions. Getting some of the more interesting settings created would also be a challenge; representing the Dwarf Underway or the Skaven Under-Empire could be very tough, though SO SO worth it if done well.
It's not the asymmetric warfare, but the asymmetric occupation that causes issues with a Total War style game. I looked into a WHFB mod for the MTW engine but gave up when I realized that 1) I would never have the time to do it justice, and 2) I had no idea how to handle situations like the Empire taking over the Chaos Wastes or Khemri. Add the facts that "good" factions can't really ally with other good factions in the engine, and Warhammer being Warhammer genocide is the order of the day. Chaos was the easiest of my problems, and I had figured out how to represent the Undersea World and Skaven Under-Empire with the engine. But the underlying mechanic of conquering the map only works for the Chaos/Evil factions/races, humans occupying warp-cursed regions doesn't jibe with the fluff.
RAWROMNOM
11-13-2013, 03:28
Like MadKow mentioned, Shadow of the Horned Rat and Dark Omen are the perfect progenitors. Played both more than I can count... *reinstalls*
GermanicWarlord
11-19-2013, 20:38
So is this really set in stone?
sassbarman
11-29-2013, 05:26
Please delete
moonburn
03-06-2014, 06:03
being an huge fan of dark omen i only ask ca to respect the incredible work that was made back in 98 and lets hope ca brings some strategy points particulary the creation of a strategic map where one can go around picking who we wanna work for and buy regiments make alliances with other generals against other mercenary generals all to try and get either a good marriage into nobility or be awarded some nobility title where we can build a castle and develop both your own family and family ties into an horrible backstabing political world
but keep the war engine and the batle style those where perfect nothing can be improved there only screwed up by stupid ideas that seem good when you have it but that normally more times then not are only crap
also adding in the original dark omen and it´s prequel in the future game would be nice c&c as done it with their old titles so no reason why you wouldn´t either make them available to increase the hype over a future launch
fallen851
06-07-2014, 01:05
Kensai, war dogs and screaming Druids not exactly all legit non fantasy units. So whilst Skaven will be a jump, it is the magic system that would be hardest to incorporate... But even then most magic is just mobile cannons.
Do you really think CA will slavishly follow Warhammer lore when they didn't slavishly follow real history?
I mean, I really hope they do... but it would certainly not make any sense if they did.
Warhammer is an awesome game, but I think this will be Total War with a Warhammer spin. I don't think we'll see the great depths of strategy and the tactics that a Warhammer game provides.
HopAlongBunny
08-21-2014, 14:05
Do you really think CA will slavishly follow Warhammer lore when they didn't slavishly follow real history?
Yes.
GDW in the past has been quite finicky about "their stuff". I suspect if it "ain't Canon, it ain't in".
Ja'chyra
09-17-2014, 19:11
Any news on this?
HeadClot
09-24-2014, 00:35
Any news on this?
Sorry for the thread necro - But it is still relevant.
There is an announcement by Creative Assembly in a few days - 25th of September in regards to a new total war game.
Here is hoping that it is war hammer fantasy or 40k.
Here is hoping that it is war hammer fantasy or 40k.
It won't be 40K, CA only got the IP rights to the Warhammer FB universe.
It would be fun to replay the Siege of Praag, hopefully they get it right.
HeadClot
09-24-2014, 19:55
It won't be 40K, CA only got the IP rights to the Warhammer FB universe.
It would be fun to replay the Siege of Praag, hopefully they get it right.
Oh ok - Well that is a bummer - Either way I am excited and have been telling my friends about this upcoming announcement.
That said -
I am fairly new to Warhammer Fantasy - But I am no dummy and I know that this would be great place for modding! Especially if they get the magic system down and Integrate it some how into the Diplomacy system.
Ja'chyra
09-26-2014, 17:27
Unfortunately not Warhammer
Linky (http://uk.ign.com/articles/2014/09/25/total-war-attila-announced)
HeadClot
09-28-2014, 13:31
Unfortunately not Warhammer
Linky (http://uk.ign.com/articles/2014/09/25/total-war-attila-announced)
Yeah - I am still disappointed that it is not Warhammer. That said - I look forward to getting my hands on Attila Total War :D
Swoosh So
10-31-2014, 00:54
Cant say I am too excited for Attila either although I guess the improvements and refinements it will bring will be helpful to the series as a whole.
I really hope CA stick to the Totalwar formula for Warhammer, otherwise we could be looking at a missed opportunity.
Kront the King
12-22-2014, 18:18
Balance was always hard to come by in the WarHammer Fantasy Battles TT game from the 90's. Basically if you wanted to be awesome you chose chaos...PERIOD! lol But they refined it a lot and brought in new units because elf and dwarf and imperial players kept whinning about loosing, but in that universe evil/chaos is the king, it is far more powerful in scheme then the goody-goody gods and goddesses.
So for me (personally & aesthetically) a horde of chaos orta be hard as hell to resist if you were dumb enough to play as the Bretonians or whoever. The thing I want to see is the infighting between the various factions of chaos and not just a single faction labled "chaos". That would add the balance, because a chaos lord would need to consolidate the wastes of the barren north before invading the imperial lands. Or he would be slaughtered from the rear by a rival chaos faction if he tried to do it before his power was assured.
In the mean, the Imperials could ally with their traditional friends (loose term) and focus on repeling greenskin attacks and building up defenses to hault a horde of Khornates, for example. Or perish for being nearsighted and petty as they should.
But it would be totally stupid for chaos to march in happy and united when the chaos gods wage ceasless and eternal warfare in the warp.
You might disagree with me, but if you do, I urge you to read more of the literature on chaos before you get in a tizzy.
And for the lizard folk, there should be a real long technology tree that puts boats or ship of any kind at the very tail end of their development ability. That would mean they could spend time defending invasions and not raping the globe.
Tomb Kings, I'm not even mentioning them, they came along after the whinning was well in the open, so holy magic actually hurts them.
Conquers need to be different for the game as well, as no humans would settle in the crypt kingdoms, or the rotten places left over by goblins and orcs. They should just remain feral rebel lands once a leader is killed, but if you are like me, you'd like them to keep returning/respawning out of the blue in gameplay and give it another try. ;)
Abokasee
04-22-2015, 23:19
So for me (personally & aesthetically) a horde of chaos orta be hard as hell to resist if you were dumb enough to play as the Bretonians or whoever. The thing I want to see is the infighting between the various factions of chaos and not just a single faction labled "chaos". That would add the balance, because a chaos lord would need to consolidate the wastes of the barren north before invading the imperial lands. Or he would be slaughtered from the rear by a rival chaos faction if he tried to do it before his power was assured.
But it would be totally stupid for chaos to march in happy and united when the chaos gods wage ceasless and eternal warfare in the warp.
A large issue that's going to create is that we may have a similar situation to R2TW if they tried to represent every damned(hah) tribe there. Perhaps 2-3 tribes per main god, and 4 undivided ones? God knows how they'll go about representing orcs. I've not played Atilla yet but they might want to implement their migration system into that to represent a Waaagh, slowing down only when you've taken huge losses/current leader has insufficient influence to keep the whole thing together.
Frazzle-G
07-17-2015, 09:33
Hey guys this is my first ever post and I got a membership just so I could post this. So... First a bit about me... I recently got into total war, about a month ago, I bought medieval 2 and I am loving it. It is definitely in my top three ever games and I will shortly get the others (I can't wait!!!). I decided to get it because I am a long time massive fan of warhammer and I wanted to see what total war is like, I am very happy with it so far and I can't wait for total warhammer (great name TinCow). Now the reason for my post...
Whilst I am initially disappointed with the choice of armies (not a big fan of vampire counts) I believe that they have been well chosen. The vampire counts are from Sylvania which is geographically very close to the empire, so it's viable for the game. And there's no beast men, I love beast men. But anyways, and it is something I am hoping the creative assembly will eventually hear and that's why I'm writing this post so that they can hopefully see it and my idea so if anyone can get back to me on how I can contact them directly that would be great. My idea is that it would be great if when you chose an army ie dwarves you then had to choose from a series of special characters or heroes who would be your generals or your faction leader (or maybe you could have them all!!!) and that all of these characters had special abilities that would grant them certain traits or abilities in the game both world map and battlefield which would result in the need for different play styles. So... For example, you choose dwarves. You then have the choice of three different characters for your initial faction leader. For example, your choices are gotrek gurnisson, whose army would have lots of slayers, and would be a real pain in the ass for armies stacked with lots of monsters and big boys, a downside maybe they can be a little unruly but due to slayers having high morale they would be very hard to rout. Another choice might be malakai makaisson who despite also being a slayer is also an engineer and so he would have a highly mechanised army ie gyro copters and such as well as lots of artillery which the dwarves are great at. The third choice may be josef bugman who would a stealth orientated army due to his Rangers and his army might also have a bugman's xxxx skill which may increase morale but cause them to have hangovers, who knows.
But these are just ideas and I would love feedback for this idea.
If you guys like it I'll post other ideas for the other armies, thank you guys!
sassbarman
09-28-2015, 22:11
My 2 cents I'll be taking a pass on this one. Two disclaimers one being that I've never been a big warhammer fan and two I do realize that this is just a game but this just screams silly to me. I mean apparently there's vampires in this game...F'ing vampires. The fact that discussion around totalwar will now and the foreseeable future will be about how vampires shouldn't be able to take down zombies riding on giant rats is depressing. Again just my 2 cents.
Hooahguy
09-29-2015, 17:19
My 2 cents I'll be taking a pass on this one. Two disclaimers one being that I've never been a big warhammer fan and two I do realize that this is just a game but this just screams silly to me. I mean apparently there's vampires in this game...F'ing vampires. The fact that discussion around totalwar will now and the foreseeable future will be about how vampires shouldn't be able to take down zombies riding on giant rats is depressing. Again just my 2 cents.
Well they have said repeatedly that the team working on the Warhammer game is different than the team working on the other TW games. They have mentioned that there are more historical TW games in the future so I wouldnt be too concerned. In fact I would suspect a new announcement for another TW game probably around the time that Warhammer is released.
sassbarman
09-30-2015, 01:39
Well they have said repeatedly that the team working on the Warhammer game is different than the team working on the other TW games. They have mentioned that there are more historical TW games in the future so I wouldnt be too concerned. In fact I would suspect a new announcement for another TW game probably around the time that Warhammer is released.
Thanks for the heads up. Hope your right.
Ituralde
09-30-2015, 11:04
My 2 cents I'll be taking a pass on this one. Two disclaimers one being that I've never been a big warhammer fan and two I do realize that this is just a game but this just screams silly to me. I mean apparently there's vampires in this game...F'ing vampires. The fact that discussion around totalwar will now and the foreseeable future will be about how vampires shouldn't be able to take down zombies riding on giant rats is depressing. Again just my 2 cents.
For me it's the other way around. I started out with the Warhammer Tabletop and when I first saw Shogun the similarities drew me to the Total War series. Playing with the figurines was nice, but I always wanted the immersivness that a pc game could offer for Warhammer. So in a sense Warhammer Total War is a dream come true for me.
That being said, I do hope that we will also get to see the next historical Total War pretty soon. Fighting it out with Dwarves and Goblins will be nice for a change, but it should not be the sole future of Total War.
Veho Nex
10-01-2015, 13:55
My 2 cents I'll be taking a pass on this one. Two disclaimers one being that I've never been a big warhammer fan and two I do realize that this is just a game but this just screams silly to me. I mean apparently there's vampires in this game...F'ing vampires. The fact that discussion around totalwar will now and the foreseeable future will be about how vampires shouldn't be able to take down zombies riding on giant rats is depressing. Again just my 2 cents.
I dont even think we've seen the end of Attila let alone their historical basis. I for one welcome their jump into fantasy and I hope they will goto LOTR-verse one day. (a fanboi can dream right?)
sassbarman
10-02-2015, 21:05
For me it's the other way around. I started out with the Warhammer Tabletop and when I first saw Shogun the similarities drew me to the Total War series. Playing with the figurines was nice, but I always wanted the immersivness that a pc game could offer for Warhammer. So in a sense Warhammer Total War is a dream come true for me.
That being said, I do hope that we will also get to see the next historical Total War pretty soon. Fighting it out with Dwarves and Goblins will be nice for a change, but it should not be the sole future of Total War.
Fair enough. Maybe the gameplay will be different and breathe some fresh air into the series. However at the risk of sounding like a cinic; because they have not created a new engine for Warhammer I feel it will be more of the same with vampires and goblins replacing Greeks and Romans. I'll definitely have to wait for player reviews before jumping in this time.
JamesGoblin
02-06-2016, 12:36
I was hooked to Warhammer Online for quite some time. Might try this one, just out of nostalgia!? Not really my style thou.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.