Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 67
  1. #21
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Drake Sigar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Jolly Ole England
    Posts
    3,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Zephro View Post
    I would also just be happy with Dark Omen or Shadow of the Horned Rat, but with 30,000 orcs on screen.
    Hmm maybe. I'm a huge fan of both those games but am not sure what I want out of this after the awful Mark of Chaos.

  2. #22
    Network Hub BTAxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sweden, Yurop
    Posts
    101
    A Total War game with non-real elements thrown in sounds just fine to me. I have no penchant for Warhammer specifically, but I fancy having some crazy shit going on during my battles. On the strategic side, I'd say there could be more focus on important locations, things like river crossings or mountain passes, as opposed to focusing only on towns.

  3. #23
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Sakkura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Serenegoose View Post
    Lots of these complaints don't seem especially relevant to a total war game, though. Except 4, really. It's not Europa universalis and it's not trying to be. You might as well field the same complaints to AoE2.

    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.
    The strategy side of it is trying to be a short-timespan version of Europa Universalis. Well, more like a Hearts of Iron or March of the Eagles, but still. And it handles that aspect very poorly, which is why they might as well skip that part, especially for a Warhammer game. People want that more for the waagh than the in-depth strategy.

  4. #24
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus vinraith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    the angry dome
    Posts
    3,508
    Short version? I'd like someone other than Creative Assembly to make it. They're great with the spectacle, but not so much with the actual strategy.

  5. #25
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Sakkura View Post
    The strategy side of it is trying to be a short-timespan version of Europa Universalis. Well, more like a Hearts of Iron or March of the Eagles, but still. And it handles that aspect very poorly, which is why they might as well skip that part, especially for a Warhammer game. People want that more for the waagh than the in-depth strategy.
    Though I hate these sorts of arguments, I'll argue about anything. I'd say it's more trying to be a slightly more advanced version of dune 2: battle for arrakis. It's a vaguely persistent element along with a small choice of where to attack next to make the player feel like they're doing something other than a series of skirmish games. Considering shogun 1 and EU1 launched within months of each other, I don't think either can really lay claim to the other 'attempting to be' them.

  6. #26
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,440
    Quote Originally Posted by vinraith View Post
    Short version? I'd like someone other than Creative Assembly to make it. They're great with the spectacle, but not so much with the actual strategy.
    So the ork AI will be immaculate, surely? :D

  7. #27
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Sakkura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,303
    Quote Originally Posted by Serenegoose View Post
    Though I hate these sorts of arguments, I'll argue about anything. I'd say it's more trying to be a slightly more advanced version of dune 2: battle for arrakis. It's a vaguely persistent element along with a small choice of where to attack next to make the player feel like they're doing something other than a series of skirmish games. Considering shogun 1 and EU1 launched within months of each other, I don't think either can really lay claim to the other 'attempting to be' them.
    I'm not saying they're trying to copy EU, in fact rather the opposite. They're trying to simulate roughly the same thing, EU just does it better and in a more detailed fashion.

    Which doesn't make the EU games better than the Total War games, because the strength of the Total War franchise is the tactical aspect. And that's why I think they could focus on that part for a Warhammer game, where the overall strategy aspect is likely to be worse than in the Total War games. At least to me, the Warhammer setting doesn't seem to lend itself to that type of gameplay.

  8. #28
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus sonson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Sakkura View Post
    I'm not saying they're trying to copy EU, in fact rather the opposite. They're trying to simulate roughly the same thing, EU just does it better and in a more detailed fashion.

    Which doesn't make the EU games better than the Total War games, because the strength of the Total War franchise is the tactical aspect. And that's why I think they could focus on that part for a Warhammer game, where the overall strategy aspect is likely to be worse than in the Total War games. At least to me, the Warhammer setting doesn't seem to lend itself to that type of gameplay.
    They're really not.

    Total War has always been a battle game with a strategic map to give said battles context. That's it. As the series has grown both elements have grown in complexity but the core element is still the synergy between war and the strategic context.

    You cannot win by any other means than conquest. You can plan how to do that outwith war through diplomacy and subterfuge as of Shogun 2 but the goal is domination nonetheless. There is increasing narrative emphasis on things like culture and faction character but these are bonuses which ultimate manifest themselves in terms of bettering the war effort. This is just one half of the game; the other half is the spectacle of battle, a battle which now means something on account of the fact that you're troops are stationed where they are for a reason that you have ordained, rather than just a random battle to fight.

    The series basically started as Risk, which is very different to what EU is, and while some 4x elements have been added over time this is still the appeal of the series, and it's still unique in offering it. You are not building an empire to stand the test of time, as it were, you're mobilizing a political regime in a comparatively small historical window of time to forge an empire out of dynastic conquest. In EU if you go all out military you're empire will collapse because it has to survive long enough to deal with the ramifications of that; whereas in TW you are basically occupying a deliberately selected belligerent period of history where you and all your neighbors are primarily focused on survival of the fittest. It is a simulation of one element that 4x covers but to a more intense degree.

  9. #29
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    837
    Well personally I love the Total War series, so all I want is a Total War game with all the Warhammer races thrown in and the various fantasy bits and bobs too. I don't want them to try being too clever and making it very different, Total Warhammer will suit me just fine.

    What I do not want is something resembling Mark of Chaos, that was an awful game that squandered the franchise's potential. Similarly I don't want something trying to be a full on 4x or grand strategy game, those are (in my opinion) much too boring to fit with Warhammer.

  10. #30
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus DaftPunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,181
    Army customization pleasee!

  11. #31
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Lukasz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,641
    Quote Originally Posted by Zephro View Post
    Why can't I have Guard units at the start? They're just normal infantry but more drilled ffs.
    18th century saw a massive change in how wars were waged. To keep up with the technology everything else had to adjust. Training methods, politicians and generals mentality, soldiers mentality, the culture of the army.
    even if a difference is only on more drills, doing more of them was against common sense at the time.

    TW game represent this problem by prohibiting you from using Guard units till you meet various in game criteria.


    also i like new distinct units instead of just adding +1 to firepower therefore i loathe your idea.

  12. #32
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Sakkura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,303
    Quote Originally Posted by sonson View Post
    They're really not.

    Total War has always been a battle game with a strategic map to give said battles context. That's it. As the series has grown both elements have grown in complexity but the core element is still the synergy between war and the strategic context.
    The strategic element of the game may only be intended to give context to the battles, but it's still a strategy simulation. And it's not all that good.

    It has still worked alright for the TW games, but there are other ways to give battles context, and I think alternative solutions would work better particularly with a Warhammer game.

  13. #33
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    761
    Haven't played TW titles past Medieval 2, but the only fun thing about he strategy layer was development of leaders and family members, something it shares with Crusader Kings 2 in many respects. Sadly, the military aspect was very barebones - and the fact that AI constantly spawned stacks in fog of war did not help at all.

  14. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,069
    Above everything else I want the classic dark, low fantasy setting of original Warhammer.

    Basically like 40k, with the goofy shit cut out and without the epic scale. Just MUD.

  15. #35
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Zephro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,594
    Quote Originally Posted by Lukasz View Post
    18th century saw a massive change in how wars were waged. To keep up with the technology everything else had to adjust. Training methods, politicians and generals mentality, soldiers mentality, the culture of the army.
    even if a difference is only on more drills, doing more of them was against common sense at the time.

    TW game represent this problem by prohibiting you from using Guard units till you meet various in game criteria.


    also i like new distinct units instead of just adding +1 to firepower therefore i loathe your idea.
    In the 18th Century Guard units fought at Blenheim. The guard units which would fight later in the century were still the guard units but drilled differently. As the century progressed new drill and added skills to the units makes more sense than waiting until 1740 to get the guard. So the guard should exist from the start as a better than normal line regiment and gain drill as it goes along.

    Light regiments didn't exist until much later in the century so I'm fine with them being an unlock.

    Similarly big ships of the line existed in 1700 they didn't get BIGGER over the century, they got better designed. But no I have to fight battles with frigates at the start for no reason.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Royal_Sovereign_(1701)

    Anyway I don't want TW to be EU or Civ, but the strategy map just needs more depth. The strategy AI works better in Shogun 2 because a) most the attack routes are through valley, the map if you look at it is very simple for routing the AI through areas b) Naval warfare just isn't important c) They did actually improve it and d) the sengoku area does provide for a more medieval set of wars where logistics isn't as important so it didn't have to try and model anything as complex.

    Quote Originally Posted by Serenegoose View Post
    Lots of these complaints don't seem especially relevant to a total war game, though. Except 4, really. It's not Europa universalis and it's not trying to be. You might as well field the same complaints to AoE2.

    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.
    Nah it seems to me that TW is attempting to model war, hence all the historical research they do and why they have added some rough systems for attrition and the like. I don't want it to be EU but I want it to actually have a flavour for the period of history it's set in. Empire fell on its face for this reason.
    Last edited by Zephro; 31-08-2013 at 03:40 PM.

  16. #36
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Zephro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,594
    Quote Originally Posted by sonson View Post
    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.
    Well ignoring the slightly patronising tone. No it doesn't have hidden depth, it just doesn't have depth. I've also been playing since the day Shogun 1 came out and have played countless hours of Warmaster. Also game do model poor lines of communication and troops failing to obey orders, try Combat Mission or Scourge of War Gettysburg. We have an RPS group for playing Scourge of War.

    Also I think you reiterated my point. The aim of battles was to break the enemy and not massacre them in history. Typical battles of the Empire period would only have casualty rates around 10-20% of combatants in bloody battles, very few were actual decisive battles of annihilation. I have no idea what Total War game you're playing but in all of them I pretty much massacre the AI so their army no longer exists. All the things I suggest are basically to counter that one main problem.

    Also I forget who said it but logistics was a massive part of Empire/Napoleon period warfare.

  17. #37
    Something along the lines of the Call of Warhammer mod for M:TW2 would be a good place to end up (just not as horribly broken and unbalanced). I think fitting in more than a couple of non standard factions (i.e the 'good' guys) would be difficult due to the radically differing economies,recruitment methods and mindsets. Undead would have to operate on an enitrely different set of rules, Orcs would need another, Skaven yet another etc.

    It could still be done of course but the strategic side of the game would need a lot more work than most TW games.

    Fantasy has always had 'goofy shit', even most of its 'GRIM DARK' elements are goofy.

  18. #38
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus sonson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Sakkura View Post
    The strategic element of the game may only be intended to give context to the battles, but it's still a strategy simulation. And it's not all that good.

    It has still worked alright for the TW games, but there are other ways to give battles context, and I think alternative solutions would work better particularly with a Warhammer game.
    What exactly is a "strategy simulation"? What is EU simulating? What is say Medieval II simualting? I'll give you a clue, it's more than abit relevant that EU actually covers the timeframe required of two TW games.

    The clue is in the title of the series.

    On topic; they're really go to have work very hard at keeping it balanced. It needs to be assymeritrc to keep the flavour, but there is basically no reason beyond narrative fluff that the Warhammer World isn't just covered in orcs, Undead and Chaos. Humans have only avoided being wiped out on account of convinient eschatological events. Both in terms of fiction and in tabletop gameplay the more fantasitcal factions are massivley OP compared to their human counterparts, unless the humans just take an army comprosied of ludicrously OP warmachines.

    So I think what I'm saying is they should be inspired by a general tone of the various factions, becuase the various units as presented in the tabletop rules are horribly balanaced.
    Last edited by sonson; 31-08-2013 at 03:56 PM.

  19. #39
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Sakkura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,303
    Quote Originally Posted by sonson View Post
    What exactly is a "strategy simulation"? What is EU simulating? What is say Medieval II simualting? I'll give you a clue, it's more than abit relevant that EU actually covers the timeframe required of two TW games.
    They simulate the EXACT same things as games like March of the Eagles or Hearts of Iron (the latter being in a different time period, but otherwise similar).

    The EU games just happen to simulate more things as well, since they're not focused only on warfare. But that's irrelevant.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by sonson View Post
    Both in terms of fiction and in tabletop gameplay the more fantasitcal factions are massivley OP compared to their human counterparts, unless the humans just take an army comprosied of ludicrously OP warmachines.
    Thats not really true though. The 'bad' factions tend to have inbuilt limiting factors (usually a lack of cohesion and a tendency towards infighting) while the 'good' factions have strengths that allow them to survive in the face of seemingly impossible odds. The Empire has professionalism and numbers, the Elves have magic and the Dwarves have really good equipment and really big guns. The Warhammer fiction really does have a lot of depth for all its flaws.

    Very little should be drawn from the abortion that is the last two editions of Warhammer and Games Workshops continual inability to produce a balanced ruleset.
    Last edited by palindrome; 31-08-2013 at 04:52 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •