Wow, so little activity

[JeromeBaker]

I just bought the game this past weekend and was surprised to see so little activity/posting on the org.

I was aware the reception was lukewarm at best from many org members due to them breaking with historical based game play, but there is almost zero activity here on this game.

So far I have enjoyed it, much more so than R2TW or Attila. Anyone else going to give it a shot?

[Veho Nex]

The orgs kinda light on people who browse the new TW titles. I myself am down in the Arena almost 90% of the time I'm on here.

I have played Warhammer and I do really enjoy it. I wish there was an army painter/customizer like the shogun mp avatar campaign map. I think this game also could have been a fantastic re-release of that mp style.

I love playing as the Empire with VC a super close second. (I really think they just need a little more cav or flying or something to really cover that bit of ground due to no ranged.)

[JeromeBaker]

That makes sense Veho. Thanks for the reply. After I complete my Empire campaign I was deciding between the VC or Chaos, and your comment was the tiebreaker to try the VC.

[Vuk]

That is because the latest TW titles have stunk and CA is alienating their fan base. If they put out a good TW titles, you will see me on it like stink on crap.

[easytarget]

This probably won't come as a surprise to you, not everyone agrees with you, and while your statement is written as if it was a fact, it is of course just your opinion.

Additionally, there's no correlation with the quality of CA games and how dead the org is, the org has been dead for years, whereas the main TW forum and TWCenter march along as busy as ever. You'll need to look for other causes on that score.

[Vuk]

The Org always appealed to a different type of fan. TW Center attracts a lot of modern gamers and casual gamers, while the Org was always home to more mature TW gamers. I think the type of gamer the Org attracts is not reacting to the new TW titles the way they used to with the old.

[Crandar]

The situation isn't much better in twcenter. Warhammer fandom is more in Warhammer than anywhere else.

The factors you mention probably pay a more important role in new releases like Rome II and Attila.
Warhammer is too casual for even twcenter.

[easytarget]

Could be, my take is the basic game concept CA has been pedaling for 15 years is a bit played out. Anyone and everyone who ever had any interest in it has seen it and played it, over and over again. Fifteen years is a long life for making the same game repeatedly and getting people to buy it, so I'd say kudos to CA for such a long run (the only corollary I have any experience with is Combat Mission by Battlefront, they've been making the same game over pretty much the same timeframe and their hardcore fans keep buying it).

Hard for me not to assume branching out to Warhammer and making other genre games than historical TW are a reflection of CA acknowledging they better find either some new life in the same game concept or find entirely new things to make.

[Vuk]

Could be, my take is the basic game concept CA has been pedaling for 15 years is a bit played out. Anyone and everyone who ever had any interest in it has seen it and played it, over and over again. Fifteen years is a long life for making the same game repeatedly and getting people to buy it, so I'd say kudos to CA for such a long run (the only corollary I have any experience with is Combat Mission by Battlefront, they've been making the same game over pretty much the same timeframe and their hardcore fans keep buying it).

Hard for me not to assume branching out to Warhammer and making other genre games than historical TW are a reflection of CA acknowledging they better find either some new life in the same game concept or find entirely new things to make.

I disagree with you. They really changed their concept and started going REALLY casual. Rome did it a bit. Empire a bit more. Both of those also expanded the depth in many other areas though. Shogun II started the downward slide toward arcadism. It is that trend that is killing TW. I am not buying the new TW games. I would buy the sh*t out of one that was a return to their roots (I still play the old ones all the time), and I am not alone. There is a huge market for serious strategy games, but they are ignoring it.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I would say the fall off of MP support has much to do with the decline here. Yes, the Org was more about hard-core players rather than casual console cross-overs, but folks came here to get a game with other players. Now they go to Steam....

[easytarget]

I disagree with you. They really changed their concept and started going REALLY casual. Rome did it a bit. Empire a bit more. Both of those also expanded the depth in many other areas though. Shogun II started the downward slide toward arcadism. It is that trend that is killing TW. I am not buying the new TW games. I would buy the sh*t out of one that was a return to their roots (I still play the old ones all the time), and I am not alone. There is a huge market for serious strategy games, but they are ignoring it.

Core game mechanic is the same. You're just making the typical TW fan "I've been playing them since Shogun released" argument about dumbing down for casuals we've all heard a thousand times. Me, I'll apply occam's razor and look for the simpler more obvious explanation, they've been doing the shame shit for 15 years.

And I find the suggestion laughable there is or ever has been a huge market for "serious strategy games".

[Vuk]

Core game mechanic is the same. You're just making the typical TW fan "I've been playing them since Shogun released" argument about dumbing down for casuals we've all heard a thousand times. Me, I'll apply occam's razor and look for the simpler more obvious explanation, they've been doing the shame shit for 15 years.

And I find the suggestion laughable there is or ever has been a huge market for "serious strategy games".

But you are wrong there easytarget in so many ways that I would think it would not need explanation. Apparently it does.
Let me start by saying that just because an argument has been made many times does not mean that argument is invalid. In fact, many of the best arguments in the world have been made millions of times by millions of people.
Second, how can you say that Total War is not shifting its focus from trying to be as realistic, serious of a simulation as possible to being more of a casual game?
The faction bonus, the character bonuses, the RPG element, the new fantasy setting, etc, etc, etc. At their core, current TW games barely resemble older TW games, and that is not a good thing.
And don't get me wrong, it is not that I do not like change. RTW was a massive improvement over previous titles (despite dumbing a few elements down); I said that then and I say that now.
Medieval II saw some improvements over RTW, so it was a tiny step forward.
Along comes Empire and it is a total disaster. My beefs with that game was that it was not complete, was bugged as hell, moved toward the DLC trap, and really suffered from being not modder friendly. I hated the game at the time. After literally years of being patched though, I consider the game it is in its current state to be a massive advancement. It still got us into the slippery slope of DLC, it was still not that modder friendly, and it still was dumbed down in a few areas, but for the most part it added depth and made the simulation more realistic and put more control into the hands of the players.
Then came Napoleon and laid the blueprint for the doom of CA games. They really messed up and hurt their reputation with Empire, but it turned out a solid game in the end. Napoleon on the other hand really made a push toward the casual crowd that the series has never recovered from. They added the stupid RPG stuff, the special abilities, took away control from the player, etc, etc.
Shogun II was more of the same. It took the casual push of Napoleon even farther and majorly dumbed down game mechanics to take an incredible amount of control out of the player's hands.
RTW II was the same type of half-baked release disaster as Empire, but instead of turn out to be a good game in the end like Empire did, it turned out to be more of a progression into the world of casual gaming garbage.
Don't get me started on the complete joke that is Total War Hammer, or Hammered Total War, or whatever the heck they are calling it.

The truth is that there is a big audience for realistic war simulations. The success of the Total War franchise is proof of that. Is it as big as the market for Pokemon Go or Angry Birds? No, but it is loyal and there is very little competition. Total War can own the market and be a huge success if they stick true to their real fanbase. Casual games don't want a casual game that is mixed with strategy, because it is not casual enough. Serious gamers don't want a strategy game that is mixed with casual gaming bull because it is too casual. CA is shooting itself in the foot with what it is doing, and the state of these forums is proof of that. I don't buy modern TW. I could see what RTWII was turning out to be just by the trailers. If CA was to put out a realistic true-to-their-roots strategy game with all the added depth that modern technology would make possible, me and so many like me would come flocking back to throw our money at them.
Unfortunately I think that they will not learn their lesson till they go out of business. They think that we serious gamers are a demographic that is dying off. They forget that most of us got interested in this stuff when we were kids, and there are always new kids getting interested in it. They can grow their fanbase only by playing to it, not shunning it.

[ReluctantSamurai]

RTW was a massive improvement over previous titles

In some ways yes, in others no. Graphics made a big improvement with the new game engine, but game-play sucked (IMHO) because there was no corresponding increase in the quality of the AI which had great difficulty with the new 3-D map, and was too predictable with its' battlefield tactics.

...and really suffered from being not modder friendly

And this is where CA really blew it, IMHO. I can remember my experiences with NeverWinterNights. Bioware actually sponsored/encouraged contests for original mods based on their game, many of which were as good or better than the original. It's all those dozens and dozens of NWN mods that I still have that keep me playing the game several times per year.

Baldurs Gate is a similar story. The G3 Forum is still a viable and active community today because of all the extensive mods that continue to be done years after the original release.

It'd be interesting to see how much of the traffic here at the .org is in the modding forums

[easytarget]

Vuk,

You wrote a wall of text I certainly won't bother reading, suffice it to say you might want to wrap your brain around the concept of what an opinion is vs a fact, you have the two badly confused.

P.S. Feel free to write as many walls of text in the future as you like, got you on ignore now.

[Vuk]

lol, I think someone certainly doesn't understand the concepts of friendly discussion and opinion. :P

In some ways yes, in others no. Graphics made a big improvement with the new game engine, but game-play sucked (IMHO) because there was no corresponding increase in the quality of the AI which had great difficulty with the new 3-D map, and was too predictable with its' battlefield tactics.



And this is where CA really blew it, IMHO. I can remember my experiences with NeverWinterNights. Bioware actually sponsored/encouraged contests for original mods based on their game, many of which were as good or better than the original. It's all those dozens and dozens of NWN mods that I still have that keep me playing the game several times per year.

Baldurs Gate is a similar story. The G3 Forum is still a viable and active community today because of all the extensive mods that continue to be done years after the original release.

It'd be interesting to see how much of the traffic here at the .org is in the modding forums

I agree with you completely. For the most part RTW didn't take any steps backward, but many steps forward. That said however, I agree that some basic changes to the core AI should have been done then, at that vital stage before the engine got more and more complex, and changing it became harder and harder. Their AI does the exact same, stupid, unrealistic and confusing garbage in their new games that they have done since the beginning. They never took the time to go back and rework the basics, and it gets more impractical to do so with each release. That was definitely a missed opportunity in every game.
I also agree about the modding. I don't think I have actually played any TW game more than 2-300 hours, yet I have clocked thousands of hours on some of them because of the time I have been testing the mods I have worked on. When I have played them, it was usually one of my mods or one of someone else's. Mount and Blade is one of the only franchises out there that still gets how important modding support is. Most games I currently play are older games because of all the mods. I'd love to have new ones to play, but the industry ignores gamers like me. M&B Bannerlord will be on my Steam account the minute it is released, because they still give a darn. I really cannot think of any other modern games coming out that I am excited for.

Oh yea, Bethesda still has lots of modding support too...I forgot them. I don't particularly care for most of their games, but I still end up buying them for the mods. :P

[fallen851]

Total Warhammer is the best TW title in my opinion. The game is polished, runs well, looks great, add significantly strategy to battles and have very few bugs. That being said, it has some serious problems that keep it from being a great game, but it is still a very good one.

As easytarget mentioned though, other genres have improved by leaps and bounds though and that is dealing damage to the TW player base. You can only do the hammer and anvil in TW so many times against an incompetent AI before you get bored and want to play a multiplayer game that has some semblance of balance, which TW has never offered.

But this forum is dead because Rome 2 killed it. It was and is a terrible game.

[Vuk]

Total Warhammer is the best TW title in my opinion. The game is polished, runs well, looks great, add significantly strategy to battles and have very few bugs. That being said, it has some serious problems that keep it from being a great game, but it is still a very good one.

As easytarget mentioned though, other genres have improved by leaps and bounds though and that is dealing damage to the TW player base. You can only do the hammer and anvil in TW so many times against an incompetent AI before you get bored and want to play a multiplayer game that has some semblance of balance, which TW has never offered.

But this forum is dead because Rome 2 killed it. It was and is a terrible game.

Agreed about Rome 2. They really dropped the ball on that.

[Slaists]

An indicator for how broad the serious gamer base is can be found in the stats page on steam achievements (for Rome 2 in particular); in particular the part that deals with number of campaigns completed; and the number of campaigns completed on the hardest difficulty settings. To cut to the chase, the stats are not encouraging. Most Rome 2 owners have not completed a single campaign (note, that, in Rome 2, you can get the achievement by completing just the short campaign requirements). The number of people who have completed a legendary campaign is less than 1% (I believe, it was significantly less than 1% but have not checked that page in more than a year).

Also, there used to be a stat for the number of people who complete more than 100 turns (or something like it). The stat for this was less than 50% when I last looked.

[Frazzle-G]

An indicator for how broad the serious gamer base is can be found in the stats page on steam achievements (for Rome 2 in particular); in particular the part that deals with number of campaigns completed; and the number of campaigns completed on the hardest difficulty settings. To cut to the chase, the stats are not encouraging. Most Rome 2 owners have not completed a single campaign (note, that, in Rome 2, you can get the achievement by completing just the short campaign requirements). The number of people who have completed a legendary campaign is less than 1% (I believe, it was significantly less than 1% but have not checked that page in more than a year).

Also, there used to be a stat for the number of people who complete more than 100 turns (or something like it). The stat for this was less than 50% when I last looked.

I must admit that I never played Rome 2, but I have heard mainly negative things about it, but what you have said there I never expected to hear, especially how few people had completed 100 turns.

[Slaists]

I must admit that I never played Rome 2, but I have heard mainly negative things about it, but what you have said there I never expected to hear, especially how few people had completed 100 turns.

Those stats are on par with stats for other TW games (and probably other games too). Hard-core players are a minority among the horde of regular "buyers". Majority just buy a game, give it a spin for a few days and move on to the next thing. That is the explanation why the games are designed to have an engaging "opening" and then, boring mid and late-game. Most of the developer time is spent on those starting turns that majority of buyers will see.

Actually, I found the current achievement page. I was overly optimistic in my recollection:

http://steamcommunity.com/stats/214950/achievements

70% of the buyers have completed 1 h of gameplay (implying 30% did not)

20 campaign turns have been completed by about 50% of the game owners (implying 50% did not get that far)

100 campaign turns have been completed only by 36% of the game owners...

Winning a military campaign (any difficulty), seems to be the most popular approach (to winning), is stated to have been achieved by around 11% of the game owners.

Completed a campaign on Hard Difficulty - 4.2%.

Completed a campaign on Very Hard Difficulty - 2.2%.

Completed a campaign on Legendary Difficulty - 1.1%.

P.S. I purposely picked a TW game that has been out for a while, so has both, the initial crowd and late-buyers accounted for.

[Montmorency]

(the only corollary I have any experience with is Combat Mission by Battlefront, they've been making the same game over pretty much the same timeframe and their hardcore fans keep buying it).

A bit unfair, as in that sense any 3D tactical simulator is the same game over and over.

I've only ever played the original (WW2) trio, but by all accounts their rebooted engine has plenty to recommend it. Fans keep buying because these are niche products anyway, as with most military tactical/strategic sims. That shouldn't be surprising. Battlefront, Shrapnel Games, HPS Sim, and Matrix Games/Slitherine (though they're the most mainstream) all do this, along with a few small super-obscure developers.

Certainly, assuming their current engine keeps steady this thing -

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Combat Mission: Black Sea was released on 04 Nov 2014. Battlefront's first modern-day Combat Mission title since Shock Force, Black Sea focuses on a hypothetical war between NATO and Russia over Ukraine in the year 2017. Keeping true to the nature of modern conflict, several new features have been introduced, including electronic warfare, unmanned aerial vehicles, and laser-guided weapons.

could be the only playable product today for post-Cold War European battle.

[Frazzle-G]

I knew that many people would buy it just for a spin, but that many! Honestly I'm both surprised and almost a little disappointed. I have never disagreed with CAs dlc policy for tww but this makes me even sympathetic to their cause, it seems that they really have to work super hard just to get people to play the game, let alone buy it.

[Slaists]

I knew that many people would buy it just for a spin, but that many! Honestly I'm both surprised and almost a little disappointed. I have never disagreed with CAs dlc policy for tww but this makes me even sympathetic to their cause, it seems that they really have to work super hard just to get people to play the game, let alone buy it.

It's rather the other way around: to optimize efforts, CA just needs to focus their attention on the starting 100 turns (for each faction) or even less because the majority of buyers won't bother playing farther anyway.

[easytarget]

A bit unfair, as in that sense any 3D tactical simulator is the same game over and over.

I've only ever played the original (WW2) trio, but by all accounts their rebooted engine has plenty to recommend it. Fans keep buying because these are niche products anyway, as with most military tactical/strategic sims. That shouldn't be surprising. Battlefront, Shrapnel Games, HPS Sim, and Matrix Games/Slitherine (though they're the most mainstream) all do this, along with a few small super-obscure developers.

Certainly, assuming their current engine keeps steady this thing -



could be the only playable product today for post-Cold War European battle.

Not sure how that changes my point, both series have been making basically the same game over about the same period. As for their rebooted engine, meh, I own and play all of them, it's ok. There's free demos of all of them, so not like you can't see for yourselves.

What is well and truly amusing though about Battlefront is their game forum (to return back to the topic of the thread), it suffers from one of the worst cases of Stockholm syndrome I've ever witnessed, it is really and truly a sight to behold. To use the term fanboi to describe their customer base doesn't come close to doing justice to the incest at work between developer and consumer there. I'd take the dead of this place over that any-day.

[Montmorency]

Not sure how that changes my point, both series have been making basically the same game over about the same period.

Certainly the point doesn't hold for market saturation in the latter case, is what I said. Unless you're making some deeper argument regarding design and aesthetic?

[lars573]

I must admit that I never played Rome 2, but I have heard mainly negative things about it, but what you have said there I never expected to hear, especially how few people had completed 100 turns.

Hi I've been playing Total war since 2002, I've won a little more than a dozen campaigns in that time. I'm talking all TW games published (minus Napoleon, Fall of the Samurai, and Warhammer). It's such a slog I rarely bother to finish. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy it, it's just that even 100 turns is a lot once you get going.

[Slaists]

Hi I've been playing Total war since 2002, I've won a little more than a dozen campaigns in that time. I'm talking all TW games published (minus Napoleon, Fall of the Samurai, and Warhammer). It's such a slog I rarely bother to finish. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy it, it's just that even 100 turns is a lot once you get going.

Yes, but you probably have way more than 100 turns logged with each of the games. That stat (of 100 turns) is across all factions (for the respective game). Also, nowadays (with the lastest titles), it is much easier to get a campaign completed achievement since also minor victories count.

[lars573]

And you'd be quite wrong. I can get bored after as little as 50 turns.

[Sp4]

The situation isn't much better in twcenter. Warhammer fandom is more in Warhammer than anywhere else.

The factors you mention probably pay a more important role in new releases like Rome II and Attila.
Warhammer is too casual for even twcenter.

Yeah this is kind of weird. I was excited about the game because total war and whee and I have literally no clue about warhammer in general but I don't mind fantasy type games. The funny thing is... Warhammer TW sucks as a TW game but it's beautiful because fantasy lol.

[easytarget]

Certainly the point doesn't hold for market saturation in the latter case, is what I said. Unless you're making some deeper argument regarding design and aesthetic?

Nah, there's no hidden meaning here, I'm really just saying both companies have made a living off of making the same game for 15 years. I guess I should be congratulating them.