Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 68

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    868

    Happiness for everyone, Creative Assembly gets Warhammer license.

    SEGA of America, Inc. and SEGA Europe Ltd. today announced that Creative Assembly™, award-winning creator of the Total War™ series, and SEGA Group have entered into a multi-title licensing deal with Games Workshop to create videogames based in the Warhammer universe of fantasy battles. A new high-calibre development team has been set up at Creative Assembly’s UK studio to work alongside the existing Total War, Alien IP and Mobile teams on the first Warhammer title in the deal, scheduled to launch from beyond 2013.

    http://www.creative-assembly.com/seg...rhammer-games/

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,069

  3. #3
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus duff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,170
    Really amazing news, I mean it's pretty much a license to print money. It will be interesting to see how they can differentiate it from Total War. I really hope they use the Total War battle engine so we can get some epic scale rather than the smaller squad based stuff in Dawn of War, but then they will have to do something different for the strategy side? Or maybe they will just take out the turn based aspect and make everything real time in the battle engine.

  4. #4
    Activated Node thekev506's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Merseyside, UK
    Posts
    80
    I think it'll be in the total war vein, though with some big tweaks to balance just how differently the races play, and I really hope you can set custom colour schemes for your armies because that was one of my favourite things about the tabletop game as a kid, making your army truly yours.

    The only thing I'm concerned about is the number of races/units that would be available in the vanilla game. I'm not a fan of the way the last few total war games have started having DLC units, and the sheer amount of different races and units in warhammer lends itself to that model a little too well. I don't want to start the game up and find out that I can't play as lizardmen at all unless I pay an extra £5, or that dwarf armies only have 3 units unless you buy the 'elite dwarf' pack.

  5. #5
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus jnx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    1,183
    I've been praying this to happen for ten years at least :O
    Twitter! Occasional impressions on random sim games.

  6. #6
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Screwie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Swansea
    Posts
    3,181
    Yeah it'll most likely be in the Total War vein, which makes me excited to think what the campaign mode will be like.

    My biggest concern will be how the magical elements are handled, I'm hoping the magic system feels robust and not tacked on.

  7. #7
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gundato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,331
    On the one hand, I do look forward to a Total War game that isn't pseudo-historical.

    On the other hand, this reminds me of back when we DID get regular Warhammer games... and Blizzard took over the RTS market because THEIR games had "heart" while the competitors were "faithful to the ruleset".

    Don't get me wrong, I like Total War. It is a pseudo-4x game with fun tactical battles. But there is no real "heart" to it as it were. Sort of like comparing Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander to Dawn of War. Both have their advantages and I enjoy both, but I actually enjoy WATCHING the latter.

    Ah well, probably net good.
    Steam: Gundato
    PSN: Gundato
    If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

  8. #8
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    On the other hand, this reminds me of back when we DID get regular Warhammer games... and Blizzard took over the RTS market because THEIR games had "heart" while the competitors were "faithful to the ruleset".
    Isn't one of the biggest complaints about WH, FB and 40k, the fact that the ruleset is frequently quite unbalanced and that they're always focusing too much on the flavor of the month army rather than the ones that actually need it when it comes to updating rules? In that case I'd be begging for the game that had heart over the game that was faithful to the ruleset. It's why I've never quite understood the appeal of split rulebooks for each individual thing rather than one core rulebook that provides all the rules needed to play. I mean, it's one thing to release additional books that expand on a segment but stay in-line with what already exists, like most tabletop RPG books. It's another to release a new book which supersedes everything else, but only applies to that single segment. Which is the way that GW does theirs.

    Anyways, I'm kinda-sorta looking forward to this. I've had an on-again, off-again relationship with the Total War series, and I've always found WH interesting as a game(minus the stated issues with the way rules are handled) but have been kept away by both the price of amassing an army and the lack of available playmates. If they can create a game that semi-accurately portrays the WH games, while actually having fairly balanced play, it might just be the thing to really let me wet my whistle. DoW1 and its expansions were fun, but I just didn't think they represented actual WH40k tabletop at all. It was more "Standard RTS with WH40k trappings" than "WH40k on PC." I'm hoping that this gets closer to the latter.

  9. #9
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gundato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,331
    Quote Originally Posted by unruly View Post
    Isn't one of the biggest complaints about WH, FB and 40k, the fact that the ruleset is frequently quite unbalanced and that they're always focusing too much on the flavor of the month army rather than the ones that actually need it when it comes to updating rules? In that case I'd be begging for the game that had heart over the game that was faithful to the ruleset. It's why I've never quite understood the appeal of split rulebooks for each individual thing rather than one core rulebook that provides all the rules needed to play. I mean, it's one thing to release additional books that expand on a segment but stay in-line with what already exists, like most tabletop RPG books. It's another to release a new book which supersedes everything else, but only applies to that single segment. Which is the way that GW does theirs.

    Anyways, I'm kinda-sorta looking forward to this. I've had an on-again, off-again relationship with the Total War series, and I've always found WH interesting as a game(minus the stated issues with the way rules are handled) but have been kept away by both the price of amassing an army and the lack of available playmates. If they can create a game that semi-accurately portrays the WH games, while actually having fairly balanced play, it might just be the thing to really let me wet my whistle. DoW1 and its expansions were fun, but I just didn't think they represented actual WH40k tabletop at all. It was more "Standard RTS with WH40k trappings" than "WH40k on PC." I'm hoping that this gets closer to the latter.
    DISCLAIMER: My interest in 40k and FB is limited to buying a few miniatures (mostly to paint as art and/or D&D/GURPS/Pathfinder miniatures) and reading fluff

    My understanding is that the seperate rulebooks are more to provide fluff and specific unit details of each of the armies. So the core rulebook is enough to play against anyone, but if you want to be a Space Marines player you probably want the SM book, if only to know how to either make your own Chapter or which Chapter you want (for their bonuses). So theoretically, someone could play a super generic Eldar or SM army without the associated books, but they would be stupid :p

    It makes sense to a degree. If they put EVERYTHING in one book, it would be obscene. But yeah, it is also moneygrubbing.
    Steam: Gundato
    PSN: Gundato
    If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

  10. #10
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus duff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,170
    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    My understanding is that the seperate rulebooks are more to provide fluff and specific unit details of each of the armies. So the core rulebook is enough to play against anyone, but if you want to be a Space Marines player you probably want the SM book, if only to know how to either make your own Chapter or which Chapter you want (for their bonuses).
    This is kind of wrong. Thats how it used to work, up until 3rd (?) edition 40k. Those days you got the army list for every faction in the main rulebook. Since then the main rule book does not come with any army lists, it just has the core mechanics of the game. So you absolutely have to get the individual army books (called a codex) in order to play with that army. Without it you don't know the special rules associated with your army, what weapons and stuff your allowed in each unit, and how many points each unit costs. Thats how its been for the last 5 years atleast, I'm not sure how exactly Fantasy Warhammer works but I think it's the same.

  11. #11
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Jesus_Phish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    4,268
    Quote Originally Posted by duff View Post
    This is kind of wrong. Thats how it used to work, up until 3rd (?) edition 40k. Those days you got the army list for every faction in the main rulebook. Since then the main rule book does not come with any army lists, it just has the core mechanics of the game. So you absolutely have to get the individual army books (called a codex) in order to play with that army. Without it you don't know the special rules associated with your army, what weapons and stuff your allowed in each unit, and how many points each unit costs. Thats how its been for the last 5 years atleast, I'm not sure how exactly Fantasy Warhammer works but I think it's the same.
    You are correct. The big rule books will have reference tables for all the factions available at the time of print, so you can check what the toughness is of a dwarf warrior, but if you wan't to know the point cost, extra abilties, unit sizes etc, you must own the codex (40K) or army book (fantasy).

    Apart from using the names and likenesses for factions I don't see them getting bogged down in the rules. Dawn of War (I know different company) had very little resemblance to the rules. It had enough, such as X unit was good in close combat, Y unit had better range and you can only have Z of this type of unit (that was rare though).

  12. #12
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by duff View Post
    This is kind of wrong. Thats how it used to work, up until 3rd (?) edition 40k.
    The first army books were 1987 for Warhammer. 40K is a little different; technically the first codexes were for 2nd edition in 93, however this was the first release of 40K and technically the only way to get an army list as such for Rogue Trader was via White Dwarf (the original rules as written had no armies as such, it was more skirmish oriented with you randomly rolling stats and equipment, about the only thing you could choose was the race). The rulebook has never included an army list though - even 1st edition Warhammer you had to go to another book for the army lists (although in those days they shipped it with the main rulebook and magic rules in one box :P).

    Quote Originally Posted by duff View Post
    Shogun 2 had the whole rock, paper, scissors thing going on. Archers > melee troops (no shields in Sengoku period!) > spear troops > cavalry > archers. They should be able to adapt Warhammer to this quite nicely.
    Not likely. Unless GW relent on the past few decades of history and allow Sega to come up with new units, you have the immediate problem of not everyone being able to field archers or cavalry (and in some cases both; Skaven spring to mind). Trying to simplify to a rock/paper/scissors style balance wouldn't really work well with Warhammer; of course given there's thirty years of tabletop balancing to draw from it shouldn't be a problem (besides which the simplification is one of the reasons I hated Shogun 2).

    To be honest the TW engine as is isn't that far from what they need it to do. Troop stats aren't too hard to get right (you've already got a numeric system from the tabletop after all) and they already have the morale penalties for flanking and rear charges (the one area Mark of Chaos went horribly wrong). Given units and generals have had triggered abilities since Napoleon it wouldn't be too hard to develop that into a magic system.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by unruly View Post
    Isn't one of the biggest complaints about WH, FB and 40k, the fact that the ruleset is frequently quite unbalanced and that they're always focusing too much on the flavor of the month army rather than the ones that actually need it when it comes to updating rules?
    Thats basically true, if quite simplistic. GW's games are unblanced as they simply don't put in the requied legwork during the development phase which allows problems to persist into the printed army lists which are then not updated for over a decade in some cases. Its not really focused on 'flavour of the month', its just a case of shoddy games design which does create FotM armies relatively frequently but by the same token some new codices/army books are obviously sub par when compared to their peers.

    The problem with a game representing the tabletop is that the tabletop is a poor representation of the 'real' 40k/warhammer. A PC game would be freed from most of the limitations of scale and clunky game mechanics so could well end up being truer to the source materiel. If you relly want a game that sticks closely to the tabletop rules then Chaos Gate is a very good choice (although it uses a version of 40K that has been sadly obsolete for over a decade), basically its like X-COM tactical battles but with Space Marines.

    There is a mod for Medieval:Total War called Call of Warhammer which proves that the Warhammer world can work very well in a TW game. Its not a very good mod (it is poorly balanced and it doesn't play as smoothly as TW games usually do) but the possiblities are clear.
    Last edited by palindrome; 07-12-2012 at 07:44 AM.

  14. #14
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Sakkura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,355
    Dawn of Total Warhammer™

  15. #15
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Drake Sigar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Jolly Ole England
    Posts
    3,224
    Let's have it old school - Mercenary Commander Morgan Bernhardt returns with a host of customisable unique units which can suffer perm death, journeying all across the Old World through multiple paths to counter a new threat to the Empire. Environments and units are colourful in this dream story-driven strategy, where the problem isn't completing the mission so much as completing the mission with the majority of your army left intact! Also, I'd finally like to be able to touch my own money, fucking paymaster Dietrich.

    Well, a man can dream. I'd be happy with a Total War style Warhammer game too I guess.

  16. #16
    Lesser Hivemind Node Gorzan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    782
    I think I just came.



    Yep, I did.

  17. #17
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Rauten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    That hellhole known as "Spain"
    Posts
    1,803
    Total WarHammer: Emperor.

  18. #18
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,247
    We don't even know what kinda of game they will even make out of this. Don't get to excited yet. 80% of their work is Total War, but who knows what SEGA may ask (or if they want something on console also.) Thinking about it, Wii U would be a interesting platform to put Total War on.

  19. #19
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gundato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,331
    Yeah. I think that is why Dawn of War did so well. It was a solid RTS (maybe not "competitive" solid, but it had the fundamentals and tried new things) while playing up the actual FUN of the setting.

    I forget the name, but there was a semi-recent (a few years back) Warhammer FB RTS (mark of chaos?) that pretty much sums up my thoughts on this. It had definitely learned from DoW and even had RPG-esque development of your hero units. But it just felt "meh" and was basically "smash armies together" which has been a long standing complaint I have had of Total War. Yes, you have a crapton of strategy and what not, but it still boils down to something that might as well be a top-down view and a bunch of glowing dots.

    But yeah. Wasn't aware GW had gotten that bad.
    Steam: Gundato
    PSN: Gundato
    If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

  20. #20
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Stockton-on-Tees, UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Mark of Chaos was one of those odd games where you know that the designers knew that its predecessor (Dark Omen) was a good game but had no clue why it was a good game. There was one thing that it did do really well: it was a wargame with a campaign mode in which losing loads of soldiers in a battle was something you could recover from. So you could actually have battles between fairly evenly matched armies. The Chaos campaign on Hard was actually rather good, but more by luck than judgement I felt.

    I'd love a video game that followed the tabletop wargame rules more closely (I started life as a wargamer and moved into video gaming more for practical reasons rather than gameplay ones) but obviously it won't happen. I do think that video wargames like Total War would be better if they were more gamey though. As gundato says, you usually just end up splattering people together in a big melee. That doesn't happen in a tabletop game like Warhammer, because the rules are more gamey and less simulationy.
    Last edited by NathanH; 06-12-2012 at 03:34 PM.
    Irrelevant on further examination of the rest of the thread.

Posting Permissions

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