Results 1 to 20 of 67
30-08-2013, 04:29 PM #1
What we want to see from the Creative Assembly Warhammer game
I totally forgot about this,and now seeing how people started discussing Total War and Warhammer this week,we should talk about Creative ASsembly's Warhammer game! So i think this speaks for everyone,we all want what they do best,Total War kind of game set in Warhammer universe.
I would love to have all races possible,not just four main ones such as The Empire,Chaos,Elders and Orcs. I want Skaven,Ogres,the Undead,Lizardmen,Dwarfs etc. Then what about economy,i don't see that fitting in to a Warhammer universe lol :| Anyway i'll leave rest for you guys.
We learned recently that the creators of Total War, The Creative Assembly, have scooped Games Workshop’s Warhammer fantasy license. This is tip-top news. Warhammer is all about massive battles, Creative Assembly are really, really good at massive battles. It’s a great match.
Some nice ideas from PCGAMER as well.
http://<a href="http://www.pcgamer.c...mmer-game/</a>... I take the lives of a few to protect the lives of many. I commit acts of war to preserve the greater peace. I take no joy in killing, but make no mistake; I'll do what needs to be done. Because it's my job. It's my duty. My name is Sam Fisher, and I am a Splinter Cell.
30-08-2013, 04:35 PM #2
Basically Total War but with all the things I want fixed in Total War generally?
Ie I want to be able to recruit most units from the start, but the tech tree makes them more effective. Empire was so irritating for this. Why can't I have Guard units at the start? They're just normal infantry but more drilled ffs.
That sort of thing.
30-08-2013, 04:39 PM #3
Shogun 2 or Rome 2 which is hopefully a better version, but with orcs and shit.
Then I can do all of the awesome stuff to do with Warhammer (except painting admittedly), watch this amazing universe fight itself, and not have to wade through tons of litigious bullshit and play against people who take it too seriously for whatever reasons.
30-08-2013, 04:45 PM #4
I think they should concentrate more on the tactical combat, they suck at the strategy part anyway. Make it more like Dark Omen than Total War.
30-08-2013, 04:48 PM #5
30-08-2013, 04:49 PM #6
30-08-2013, 04:53 PM #7
30-08-2013, 04:55 PM #8
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
30-08-2013, 04:57 PM #9
30-08-2013, 04:58 PM #10
Randomly generated maps would be welcome in a fictional setting TW style game. What's Warhammer canon like? Does it allow random maps or it is all set in stone?
30-08-2013, 05:00 PM #11
30-08-2013, 05:10 PM #12
2) no lines of supply really
3) Armies move/intercept/block each other in really weird unnatural ways. So the campaign map only causes interesting battles in games with lots of narrow ravines and rivers to block. Otherwise it's too easy to just walk around an army.
4) The tech tree progression sucks. See above note about wanting guard units.
5) Rebellion is handled really stupdily. Look away for one turn and people are in rebellion, FOR NO REASON. Actually there is a reason, it just arbitrarily dumps it on you when you're doing well as an artificial way to slow you down. See Victoria 2 or Crusader Kings 2 as a good way to deal with this.
6) Diplomacy is still a nightmare. Though I'll admit that Civ 5 also suffered for this. Nobody ever accepts peace. You can't just fight a quick small war, you pretty much always have to annihilate someone.
7) Absolutely no way to withdraw armies. All battles are pretty much to the death. There is no way to spend time valiantly delaying the army really. or to engage, get a bloody nose but basically get out with your army intact. In reality armies would always have a large reserve and cavalry screen for doing just that. But Total War AI is eggs all in one basket.
8) Only 3 kinds of battle. Sieges, ambushes and pitched. The ambushes basically are pitched as the army on the defence isn't forced into a strung out marching line. I would like a breakthrough battle, so if I'm under siege I can sally out and just try run through the enemy army to get out the troops in one piece.
Though i suspect most of this would need a more real time or hybrid map.
30-08-2013, 05:14 PM #13
Mark of Chaos with a budget. That's about it.
30-08-2013, 05:15 PM #14
I would also just be happy with Dark Omen or Shadow of the Horned Rat, but with 30,000 orcs on screen.
30-08-2013, 05:18 PM #15
Of course economy works on the warhammer setting, Daft, you just need to get a bit creative. Orcs, for example, they would have economy based on teef for upgrading, waaagh for recruiting, and fun to get more specialised units and keep the ones you already have with you. Fun being defined by how much carnage you provoke, have little fun? you risk some of your armies becoming their own warband. Skaven? Food for recruiting, gold for upgrading and witchstone for special units ans such, I'll let you figure ut the rest.
30-08-2013, 05:22 PM #16
I'd go further and make nomadic armies like the Orcs properly nomadic. You just spend your loot getting more Orcs together but have no base.
30-08-2013, 05:39 PM #17
Well, of course, that'd make sense. But I think you could spend your loot on something else. Basically, I'm thinking totems for example. Werever your main army, the one with the warboss, is, it's kind of like a very disorganized camp, and there you have some mystical crap wich lets you generate more waaagh and do stuff. Mostly magic.
30-08-2013, 07:52 PM #18
As long as my dwarves can eradicate the elves, I'll be fine.
30-08-2013, 10:15 PM #19
1) Attrition is a matter of opinion I guess. I never had a problem with it personally. You can mod it easy enough.
2) Supply is down to the historical eras I think. Most of the periods TW concerns itself with logistics trains traveled with armies, rather than there being a chain. I agree there could maybe be a little more to the logistics element of things but not really sure how you can do that without things being slow and tedious. For most of history Powers have struggled to field armies without crippling themselves, there is basically no strategy game which recognizes this , 4x or otherwise. Fielding armies was as much a social and cultural consideration as a military one. Any game which allows you to just build or recruit "soldiers" for money before at least the 18th century without that entirely affecting the composition of your faction is way off in terms of accuracy.
3) I never really encountered this problem, so can't comment
4) I think the tech tree works well. Focus on military or eco, or go for a half way house approach, all have consequences. You talk about the concept of drills as though they're no big deal, yet the difference between even drilled levies and untrained troops was enormous. Most battles fought in history have been won through logistics and morale, and drilling gives you a decisive and fundamental edge in that. It absolutely makes sense that you have to build towards better armies, because that's how it has worked throughout history. Disciplined troops took a hell of a lot of effort, time, money and investment to produce. Also it rewards a player who invests in an arms race and punishes a player who ignores military advances.
5) I'm not sure what difficulty you were playing on? I can honestly say that on all my playthoughs I've invested heavily in population happiness and province growth because it's the bedrock of a sound economy. Not once in any of them has happiness just altered artificially on Normal or Hard difficulty. Never had a province rebel on me despite the fact that one of my usual steps is to convert to Christianity, which is *the* unhappiness modifier king.
6) Diplomacy works, no question. Everyone I've treated well who doesn't have dishonorable trait has always stayed my friends if I've invested in them, everyone else has done their thing as befits different factions trying to win the same game. Agents are key to fighting small wars. Incite some rebellions, bribe armies, assassinate people, get other factions to DOW for you, generally cause chaos through subterfuge and it's really easy to nibble at someone. I've also had plenty enemies sue for peace, although I've rarely accepted it because it doesn't make sense for me to in the circumstances. I have also sued for peace myself and even become a vassal and had both accepted.
7) You can do that. Go into a battle, have a fight, withdraw with CtrL W. I've done it on occasion. If you want to stall armies or disrupt them, which is the point of skirmishing, that's also what agents are for.
Most engagements in the eras TW concerns itself with there wasn't the skirmishing you mention. Or if there was it was small numbers. It's the epitome of Clauswitz's observation that before the era of Modern warfare conflicts were won through single battles rather than national conquest. The biggest problem TW has had on this front is that there were just too many battles. They didn't matter enough. Losing an army in the context of the Sengoku era could represent losing an entire generation of men, that's not something that feudal society can just make again in a month to have a second go. Thankfully it sounds as though they're really pushing that in Rome 2. Battles will be rarer but of more consequence.
8) Sounds as though they're going for more variety in Rome 2. But really, again, the eras TW has been all about battles were all about manouevure and morale, lining up your force to push at weak points, using reserves judiciously to this end, and outflanking the enemy.
The aim was not not to kill but to break the enemy, that's when the real deaths began to mount, in the rout, and TW gets this pretty much spot on. Its combat model is based around chaining morale collapses,not grinding through an enemy. Thing is generals weren't able to do this from an omnipresent point of view and instantly make things happen, they had to make decision either in the thick of the action or, in Shogun 2's example, several miles away and about 20 minutes behind due to the chain of communication they were relying on. That's what made generalship difficult, and TW is not alone in basically ignoring this entirely. No other 4x game does either. Few hardcore wargames do even. I would be quite up for some form of random element which occasionally prevents less professional troops from completing orders, or lesser generals more likely to fail giving orders by way of communicating this, as simulated in the excellent Warmaster tabletop game by Games Workshop, but it won't happen.
So that's my counterpoint there. I've played TW from release on day one way back in 1999 or whatever it was, and have been as critical as anyone of the AI in that time. I was all set to give up on the series after Empire's AI, but Shogun 2 is not just a marked improvement in my opinion, it's genuinely pretty good. Most of the TW community were ready to kill someone after Empire's AI, but the majority have similarly commented on how good Shogun 2's AI is, as have the likes of Tom Chick, the Three Moves Ahead crowd and RPS's own Tim Stone. The strategic map is by far my favourite bit of Shogun 2 and the bit I spent the most time on.
Forgive me for saying but it sounds as though you might just need to look a bit deeper into the concepts you think aren't working. Like Civ V there's quite a lot of hidden depth behind them but the logic does work out if you invest in it.
30-08-2013, 10:24 PM #20
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
I mean, you might not like that, and that's fair enough. But they seem out of place in much the same way I might criticise any iteration of the fifa games for having lacklustre gun physics.