Make War Not Love 4: Sega’s cross-game non-Valentine’s event brings discounts and rewards

Make War Not Love 4

Make War Not Love [official site] – Sega’s cross-game point collection event which aims to stick it to Valentine’s Day while also raising awareness of their games/rewarding fans – has returned for a fourth outing. This year it technically started on Valentine’s Day but the real meat of the event kicks off yesterday and involves Company of Heroes 2, Endless Legend, Dawn of War 2 and Total War: Warhammer.

SO. The broad idea is that Sega are pitting the four studios behind those games and their related communities against one another as factions in a competition. Winners will be crowned for events taking place daily from 16-19 Feb and that faction will win DLC for its followers. There will also be an overall winner and more prizes in the form of digital content for the game in question.

My favourite thing about the announcement video is about the 1:35 mark where it sounds like they’ve edited it to say “available to buy at great discounts” instead of “fff” – free, perhaps?

Even though the competition is underway you can still register and pick a faction to ally with as well as the games being fff- available to buy at great discounts.

From [Feb 16th] until Feb 20th, up to save 80% off the Dawn of War franchise, up to 75% off the Company of Heroes franchise, 33% off Total War: Warhammer, up to 75% off the Total War franchise and up to 75% off the Endless franchise

There’s also an art contest which is partly about Sega picking their favourite artwork for a faction and partly about a numbers competition relating to how many times particular images are shared on social media.

The final showdown is happening as part of the PC Gamer Weekender which, I believe, is an RPS tribute convention and meet-up hosted by cheery RPS fanzine, PC Gamer. The two leading factions will compete against one another in their respective games for points, glory, digital content and so on.

From this site

30 Comments

  1. HigoChumbo says:

    SEGA owns some of the best strategy developers of the last decade and they just can’t make a strategy game that stands out of the usual…

    • KingJoff39 says:

      I don’t know about that. The Total War games are pretty much the pinnacle when it come to real time battles.

      • HigoChumbo says:

        The Total War games are the pinnacle and have remained virtually the same for a decade. There is an absolute lack of ambition or innovation in those games as of today. Warhammer included.

        • KingJoff39 says:

          Oh, I don’t disagree with that. I was meaning if you compare the games that have been released under Sega’s banner to the strategy games of other publishers they stand head and shoulders above everyone else in that regard.

          Almost every other aspect of the games though, not so much.

        • Landiss says:

          Well, that’s not entirely true. Warhammer introduces some new things that are quite innovative for the series – different sized units (so far we only had infantry, cavalry and elephants, now we have monster of various size, including really big ones), flying units (though I admit that this part is not really done well), magic casters.

          And while AI is not what it should be, it’s also not as bad as in some former parts of the series.

          The turn based part (campaign map) is terrible. But it was never good. They do try some innovative things in that part in each new game, but I almost never like any of that.

          In general, for me the critique of Total War was always based not on what the games are, but what potential there is. It could really be something so much better and they are not even going in the right direction most of the time. Nevertheless, I still think Warhammer is one of their best titles, it’s really fun a few dozens hours.

          • HigoChumbo says:

            Battle for Middle Earth had implemented big units properly in like, what, 2004? There were also huge units in older TW mods (like Third Age TW for Rome 1). Adding big units to TW is not preciselly a mechanical revolution (though I think they have done a really good job with them in TW:WH).

            The other “big” addition to TW:WH is flying which is one most gimmicky mechanic implementation I’ve seen in a long time. Flying units in TW:WH are essentially regular ground soldiers in an invisible, separate ground layer. They behave entirely like regular infantry. There were games in 2000 with more advanced flying systems (I can think of Ground Control).

            The same goes for magic… most of them are just slight stat boosts with terribly plain and boring particle effects. Again, there is a 2000 game like Sacrifice which puts TW:WH spells to shame. In Warhammer you have stat boosts and copy-pasted vortexes, in Sacrifice you can freaking make wholes in the ground that throw units into the void or conjure gigantic vines which pluck individual units and send them flying above the ground…

            In the end, besides the reskin, Warhammer is essentially a mod for Attila/Rome 2, mechanically feels identical. I you zoom out, it does not really feel any different other than for the different setting.

        • kud13 says:

          Under the hood, TotalWar is still basically a prettied-up Lords of the Realm. We really haven’t budged much from that.

          • HigoChumbo says:

            Exactly.

            Which is why I get upset when puritan TW fanboys use how revolutionary and unique the core mechanics (realtime battles+turn based campaign) are to argue against any kind of change or experiment.

            I wish they tried to make something more on the line of Knights of Honor (essentially TW in real time), or Anno 1404 with TW combat and less city building (I love how resources and trade routes in that game are an actual argument for conflict and expansion, instead of the usual TW “paint the whole map roman red” motivation), or Civilization in real time if you will. I also really liked the Cossacks 2 system, in which instead of having a huge clash in a single battlefield, the map would be a region with several cities and roads connecting them, and the game would be not just about the clash but also about the maneuvers, chockepoint control, supplies and so on.

        • jevry says:

          maybe the hearts of iron series is an idea for you guys? it has some city management but battlefronts are globally although no rts battles controlling the units. u just see their icons on the map. though you can micromanage them and stuff

      • Daymare says:

        Uhm, what about Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2? Are they too small-scope or something or am I missing something about what counts as real-time strategy in this context? (TBH: No idea about Total War games tho.)

        • kud13 says:

          I adore War Craft 3, but it branched off into its own direction, with a mix of RTS and RPG (see also the Spellforce series for more examples of the sub-genre).

          Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it gets too easy to get the mix wrong, and then the game ends up “RPG with RTS elements (which is usually prettied-up tower building).

        • Premium User Badge

          Nauallis says:

          I’m not disagreeing with you (because those are noteworthy examples), but aren’t those games a fundamentally different subgenre of RTS, because they focus so heavily on micromanagement/tactics of individual units and squads for what are essentially a bunch of skirmishes, rather than on the whole strategic point of view of fighting nations & armies?

          • Daymare says:

            I guess? That’s why I meant it’s a question of context and maybe the scope is too different to compare these two anyway.

          • Premium User Badge

            Nauallis says:

            But maybe not – DoW2 and Company of Heroes are both pretty much based around squad-sized control, abilities, and battles, where preserving individual units if not independent squads is really important, which is strategically akin, somewhat, to WC3 and SC2. Endless Legend is more about empire management than army management (no comparison to WC3/SC2), so really only Total War is actually large-scale. I dunno. SC2 is pretty awesome for a small-army, individual-but-overall battle strategy.

        • KingJoff39 says:

          Well if you factor in elements like fatigue and morale thats not somethin that you really see outside of Total War games in a real time setting. Those elements alone are what elevate the Total War games for me.

          Warcraft and Starcraft are excellent at what they do but I don’t think a proper like for like comparison can be made with the Total War games, at least when we are talking about the real time battles.

          Total War has always leaned too much to the side of simulation with their real time battles to compare properly with Warcraft or Starcraft.

          Scope only really comes into play if we are comparing with another game that handles real time combat in a similar fashion. Once we add accessability and the simplicity of the combat system to all that I dont see much else that come close to the Total War series.

          I’m happy to be proved wrong though, I could always use more strategy titles to play.

          • Daymare says:

            I didn’t mean as a 1:1 comparison, I thought more about “RTSes that also exist that do interesting, new things” as opposed to what was called a pinnacle that hasn’t changed.

            Like, I thought the campaign missions in SC2 were quite varied (regardless of the plot). And I thought the story in WC3 was enjoyable. Again, I know zilch about Total War, except for some videos.

      • Lefarbe says:

        I guess they might be realistic, but they aren’t very fun. I find the combat to be a plodding bore, and autoresolve it.

      • Nouser says:

        The pinnacle of the genre are still Ground Control I & II. The Total War series has been ‘almost there’ since then.

    • cardboardcity says:

      Yeah I agree with that. The Total War series always looked way better than it was, IMO. Underneath the hood, those games are strategy-lite. There’s a place for that, but give me an old grognard Steel Panthers for tactics, Operational Art of War for operational-level, and one of the Paradox games for strategy. For the rare times I do RTS, I go back to Total Annihilation.

  2. Bobtree says:

    The rewards are poor, and they streamed advertisements instead of starting the challenge on day 1. It’s all a gimmick to get you on the SEGA mailing list.

    Who is going to pay the $40 sale price for Total Warhammer when it’s $12 in the Humble monthly? And none of its DLC are discounted.

    The one upside is that I discovered I already own all the Endless Legend DLC because it’s been added to the Collection package I bought two years ago.

    • SaintAn says:

      Well Isabella is getting added as a LL to Warhammer and her and Vlad are getting their own separate starting faction so it’s not just Mannfred leading VC anymore. And that’s free if Warhammer wins. That’s a pretty big addition imo.

  3. Wulfram says:

    The vote for discount thing is always a bit weird because the incentive is to vote for the game you couldn’t be bothered to buy earlier.

  4. KingJoff39 says:

    You’re not wrong about the mission and story elements.

    My initial point was that I disagreed with the idea that you could say that none of Sega’s strategy games did anything that stood out from the rest of the feild.

    I think I mistook the original point though, which appears to be that all of Sega’s output has been lacking in inovation in the last decade. What they have might do something better than anyone else but they’ve been resting on their laurels rather than taking the next great leap.

    • KingJoff39 says:

      Damn this should be a reply to Daymare’s last post.

      I suppose this is what I get for typing this out on my phone.

      • Daymare says:

        I gotcha! Can’t add anything more to the discussion, I think, so I’m going out for a pizza instead!

  5. Spacewalk says:

    Love is a battlefield, we can have both.

  6. sickre says:

    Warhammer would be a great game, but its ruined by autoresolve. In so many cases its just better to Autoresolve what could have been fun battles.

  7. Greg says:

    They still haven’t released the winner’s DLC. They haven’t honored the “the overall winning faction will be awarded new digital content for their title” portion. I think they’re going to pretend that they never promised anything.

    “What are the prizes?

    Every day we will award the winning faction with some great DLC for each of the involved titles alongside a SEGA digital title. At the end of the event the overall winning faction will be awarded new digital content for their title.”

    • Greg says:

      Well, I’ve found it… the final prize is “Total War: WARHAMMER – Isabella von Carstein”. Which isn’t available yet. What they really need to do is be consistent. They announced all the other prizes and provided codes to everyone’s e-mail but they didn’t do this with the final prize. If I didn’t dig through the DLC on the steam page and read the description I wouldn’t have found it.