Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Suggestions For The Second Installment

JacklessJackless Junior MemberPosts: 281Registered Users
edited January 2017 in Feedback & Suggestions
Hello CA and Total War fans,

when i saw the announcement of Warhammer last year I was kind of let down, i have to admit. I wasnt interested in fantasy stuff at all and was hoping for another historical title. I played all Total War Titles up until that point and i thought maybe ill give Warhammer a pass this time.
But well I´m so glad i gave Warhammer a try and ever since you released the Realm of the Wood Elves DLC you really got me sucked in.
Im really looking forward to the next game of the trilogy and i hope it will not only add new content but also improves some things of the first installment.
Besides the obvious points of missing naval battles and the linear sieges that everybody is talking about i want to touch on another few points that i think are really important as well.

Here are my suggestions to improve the game (in my opinion of course)

- MORE QUEST BATTLES and maybe RANDOMLY OCCURING BATTLE EVENTS which, if you take part in it will give you...

- UNIQUE AND LEGENDARY LOOT that really adds capabilities to your character and not only give a small stat improvement but give them access to some magic spells even if the lord is actually not a spellcaster or allow him and his forces to use the underground paths, or spawn some kind of ghost army on the map similiar to the waagh, etc, etc... there are so many possibilities to shake things up in the campaign ;)

- More ways to do POLITICS for the civilized races e.g edicts, offices, bribing, loyalty etc.

- MORE TERRAIN FEATURES ON BATTLEMAPS. I would like too see much more hills, rivers, bridges, swamps, buildings, cliffs and stuff on the battlemaps. Most maps are somewhat bland and only allow for minimal strategic deployment of troops. I would love to see really crazy maps with, maybe vulkans or lava flowing through the battlefield... I mean its fantasy and you could go all out crazy in my opinion.

- MORE POWERFUL MAGIC. Make all the spells and buffs more useful especially the vortex and projectile spells but therefore give us means to counter or dispell magic like in the tabletop game.
To balance stronger spells and wizards it would make sense to reduce their health. I noticed today that a fire wizard has more health than a battlepriest??? kind of weird. An increase in magic resistance would prevent them from being sniped all the time.

- TACTICAL BATTLES. I often feel the battles are a bit lacking in terms of tactical requirements. They are over so damn quickly and most of the times you just rush in the enemy, pop all your abilities at once and watch your enemy going down within a minute or so. Slower and more methodical battles which require good formation and unit combination together with the clever use of abilities and magic at the right time would be much more rewarding and satisfying.

- UNITS THAT DONT WALK THROUGH EACH OTHER. I really dont like the fact than a formation of infantry can just walk or run through another formation whenever it wants. Only fleeing units should be able to do that like it is in the tabletop as far as i can remember
also locking units when theyre engaged in melee combat would help to reduce micromanagment and help out the AI. It would also be more like tabletop this way.
An maybe this could prevent the constant blobbing of units.

- BETTER MP AND CUSTOM BATTLE SETUP SCREEN. Give us the more battlefield options and add Runes and Banners to the loadout screen so we can customize armies even better.

- STANDARD / BANNER BEARERS AND MUSICIANS that you can put in the units and who are carrying their flags and instruments like in the tabletop version. How could i forget to mention that in the first post?? This would be so much more immersive and just awesome! :)

- FIELD FORTIFICATIONS AND DEPLOYABLE BARRICADES. I think this is essential for any war simulator to have the option of deploying stakes, trenches, barricades and other means to stop or channel the enemy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suggestions from other members that i put here for overview and convenience

- PLAYER RECRUITS GARRISON UNITS INCLUDING HEROES. Pretty obvious point i guess :)

- BETTER SIEGE BATTLES. Unique maps for important/renown cities like Altdorf,Middenheim,Drakenhof,Marienburg,Kislev , Talabheim etc , where maps would be already avaiable and drawn on paper. Extended maps for the provincal capitals with some possibility to add layers. Restrict the range of the defense towers or expand the map outside the walls

- MINOR CITY-BATTLEMAPS

- TECHTREE. More interesting done by unlocking units buildings,siege-equipment and traits to decrease siege time , as well as unique abilities, so you can finally get an advantage for researching something distinct.This would go along a University or research building to get used to the changes


- MORE BUILDINGS FOR EVERY FACTION. More special buildings for special settlements, like imperial palace in Altdorf , and the grand temple of sigmar as last stage, or the palaces of the elector counts as extra slot in the empire provinces capitals. More economy factors AND options for the civalized factions


- MORE SETTLEMENTS FOR THE EMPIRE PROVINCES. Exspecially Striland , whissenland, Talabecland and Westerland/ostermark are in dire need of some provinces ,which would also support the idea of expanding the economy buildings

- UNITS GOING INSANE is imo a big part of Chaos influence in the lore and in the TT and I would really like to see that being reflected in some mechanics in battle (for example attacking random nearby units, friendly or not). Also, part of some units's identity is that they cannot be trained/easily controlled and you can lose control of them in battle (squigs (herders?) etc.), I think this would also be an opportunity for an interesting mechanic. Also, both of these mechanics would imo provide more strategic options without making the player click more buttons or something similar.

- Region Outposts/Provincial Assets/ Outbuildings please https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/190221/region-outposts-outbuildings-provincial-assets

- More campaign Depth as discussed here and here --> https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/189724/3-things-that-limit-the-campaign-depth

- WARRIORS OF CHAOS OVERHAUL--> https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/189182/warriors-of-chaos-overhaul/p1

- 1v1 LL kill aniamtions

- LL recruitment movies

- Interactive battles/battle maps--> https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/186993/interactive-battle-maps/p1

- Fire and destruction sim just like Atilla. Maybe even better

- Improve this game's music--> https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/190192/official-petition-to-improve-the-music-of-the-game

- STOP MAKING MINI CAMPAIGNS--> https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/188677/stop-making-mini-campaigns/p1

- Prebattle deployment of certain items to aid in battle. (Spikes or stakes to protect ranged units)

- End times units DLC for people who like the units

- Expand on Araby, Nippon, and Cathey (Maybe even Kingdoms of Ind and Albion)

- Endgame Cinematics

- Heavy storms and weather conditions on the battle field

- The return of map built fortresses, like the ones in empire. It would be nice to provide a strategic defense point on the map that I can influence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I ALSO RECOMMEND YOU READ THE POSTS BELOW WHERE I AND OTHERS HAVE DESCRIBED THEIR SUGGESTIONS AND IDEAS A BIT MORE DETAILED.
Post edited by Jackless on
«13

Comments

  • SaphironSaphiron Junior Member Posts: 827Registered Users
    I don't play a ton of MP but for the single play stuff I actually agree with all of your ideas. Not often I can say that.

    CA, these are some good ideas.
  • JacklessJackless Junior Member Posts: 281Registered Users
    Saphiron said:

    I don't play a ton of MP but for the single play stuff I actually agree with all of your ideas. Not often I can say that.

    CA, these are some good ideas.

    Glad to hear that you like it :smile:
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,235Registered Users
    Jackless said:



    - MORE QUEST BATTLES and maybe RANDOMLY OCCURING BATTLE EVENTS

    TBH I dislike quest battles due to their scripted and linear nature, plus you cannot auto-resolve. The random occurrence of battle events depend very much on exactly how they are designed, ie are they just randomized versions of quest battles? They'd also have to make a LOT of them from scratch to even feel like they are random, otherwise choosing at random 1 of three battles isn't really random, especially if the difficulty and diversity between them is extremely limited. The result would instead be the opposite of intended effect; people end up hating them as boring things you have to suffer through. IMO what's great about quest battles are the unique rewards (either from items or just money) at the starting point of the game, presenting strategic dilemmas between securing foothold early on or trying to do the quest battles before dealing with enemies in the campaign map.
    In other words, I see quest battle's best characteristic is their rarity and set-piece nature; throwing in a dozen more of them would easily over-saturate the experience for the worst.
    Jackless said:

    - UNIQUE AND LEGENDARY LOOT that really adds capabilities to your character and not only give a small stat improvement but give them access to some magic spells even if the lord is actually not a spellcaster or allow him and his forces to use the underground paths, or spawn some kind of ghost army on the map similar to the waagh, etc, etc... there are so many possibilities to shake things up in the campaign ;)

    I'm not a fan of this idea, because if the rewards of quests are so powerful it shakes up the campaign in a negative way. Most items already offer unique powers, ie spells for a faction that doesn't normally use spells like Dwarfs, but one you give them things like spawning ghost armies, then you risk making certain factions designed to play in certain manner playing just like any other faction. I'd go as far to say this actually wouldn't make them more unique, but rather less unique! Of course the examples you give are just that, but it is worth noting that, quite frankly, some ideas are better than others for various reasons. Naturally this also means that certain ideas suit different factions over others; Dwarfs' unique items shouldn't give them the sort of spells you expect from, say, Chaos or Empire. And of course, whether such items are at least lore-friendly.
    Jackless said:

    - More ways to do POLITICS for the civilized races e.g edicts, offices, bribing, loyalty etc.

    I really hated the politics found in Rome2 and Attila. It felt very detached from the experience of the campaign map while also having powerful game-changing effects if you failed to remember to do things in it. It was also far too simplistic whilst at the same time not being too complex of a feature.
    Having said that, most people usually don't elaborate on what they mean by "more politics", so naturally there is a confusion among users on what is considered good or bad addition to the game in that regard.
    In your examples, for example, what would bribery do and what would it be focused on? Internal politics (ie bribing your Lords to keep them loyal), or bribing other factions' characters? Lore-wise this wouldn't fit with the Dwarfs, but certainly would for Empire, but Empire is the closest we have to politics in the game (and Wood Elfs, their offices is more or less identical in function).
    Jackless said:

    - MORE TERRAIN FEATURES ON BATTLEMAPS. I would like too see much more hills, rivers, bridges, swamps, buildings, cliffs and stuff on the battlemaps. Most maps are somewhat bland and only allow for minimal strategic deployment of troops. I would love to see really crazy maps with, maybe vulkans or lava flowing through the battlefield... I mean its fantasy and you could go all out crazy in my opinion.

    It's fantasy but also conventional, because the armies need to act conventional. If you want "crazy" map features try Medieval II: you could have situations like armies on such steep hills that it was not even possible for the opposing sides to engage due to the map design.
    The design needs to be functional for field battles; cliffs mean situations where units can attack the enemy without ever fearing of return fire.
    I mean if I were to choose the environment of the battlefield I'd just pick the flattest part of the region anyways; with a feature like "crazy terrain" I would actually not like it, especially if I was forced to play on them.
    And of course there is the issue of making the units work properly in said terrain. It simply isn't a matter of just adding these things into the map and the units know what to do. This is the fundamental issue with the AI and things like sieges and towns ever since RTW.
    Jackless said:

    - MORE POWERFUL MAGIC. Make all the spells and buffs more useful especially the vortex and projectile spells but therefore give us means to counter or dispell magic like in the tabletop game.

    I think this is a touchy issue; first, I think difficulty level might have to do with how effective magic seems. As someone who largely plays on Easy mode, it's not really my place to say whether the magic that the opponent uses are more or less effective than they should be, but I do feel like they have less power than they are supposed to; on the other hand this seems to be done for the reason that they shouldn't be too much a force multiplier, that you can talk on full stacks with just a handful of powerful Heroes...unless of course the enemy army composes of nothing but Goblin Spearmen!
    Jackless said:

    - TACTICAL BATTLES. I often feel the battles are a bit lacking in terms of tactical requirements. They are over so damn quickly and most of the times you just rush in the enemy, pop all your abilities at once and watch your enemy going down within a minute or so. Slower and more methodical battles which require good formation and unit combination together with the clever use of abilities and magic at the right time would be much more rewarding and satisfying.

    I think you mean tactical variety, which is difficult to achieve because that can only happen if unit design ends up providing for it in the first place.
    I don't think the game is lacking in that regard; only lacking in allowing for more diverse situations.
    For example, the AI attacking your minor settlements: there is literally no diversity because you can't choose to fight in the town, or even choose what units are in the garrison. You don't even have a Lord that can have skills to lead that army, and Heroes cannot be embedded to provide tactical assistance. The game however would be massively improved if these were put into the game; the player can't always just spend time chasing enemy armies around trying to sack your villages, they have to also go in and take out enemy settlements.
    The enemy army's tactical disposition also heavily influences the diversity of battles. Chaos armies under Archaeon is never going to be bland because the options of winning are far more than a small army of Goblins. You got the high level Lord to try to snipe and break the back of the Chaos army, the Chaos army's units, the Hellcannons, the monstrous infantry, and the cavalry units. The only caveat of Chaos armies is that they lack missile units; only Norsca field horse skirmishers and they are not very powerful.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • HorseWithNoNameHorseWithNoName Posts: 1,001Registered Users
    edited January 2017
    Jackless said:


    - MORE QUEST BATTLES and maybe RANDOMLY OCCURING BATTLE EVENTS

    I will say that it is not easy to find a good balance between giving the player a world with certain rules and let the game play out and having a narrative to the game. In TWW I think a little more narratively driven events would help bring the world to life more. I mean no more static quest battles, but events that come not directly from an AI opponent, but from the "environment". Things like a chance that an allegedly killed enemy general (not LL) having a chance to survive and to come back to take revenge or an Orc Warboss gathering a Waaagh, for example at the fringes of your territory (chance to disband before becoming a problem, becoming a small or big threat). These events should be less likely to occur in the earlygame and become more likely in the lategame and with you becoming more powerful/having more land.

    These would make for a better story to experiance or tell about your campaign, but as I said, must not occur frequently at all.
    Jackless said:


    - UNIQUE AND LEGENDARY LOOT that really adds capabilities to your character and not only give a small stat improvement but give them access to some magic spells even if the lord is actually not a spellcaster or allow him and his forces to use the underground paths, or spawn some kind of ghost army on the map similiar to the waagh, etc, etc... there are so many possibilities to shake things up in the campaign ;)

    I think the rate at which different items occur is pretty good as is. I will say however that many of those "stat a + x% etc." items seem rather boring. But this is not a very pressing issue imo.
    Jackless said:


    - More ways to do POLITICS for the civilized races e.g edicts, offices, bribing, loyalty etc.

    Very broad statement ("as long as it is done right...").
    Jackless said:


    - MORE TERRAIN FEATURES ON BATTLEMAPS. I would like too see much more hills, rivers, bridges, swamps, buildings, cliffs and stuff on the battlemaps. Most maps are somewhat bland and only allow for minimal strategic deployment of troops. I would love to see really crazy maps with, maybe vulkans or lava flowing through the battlefield... I mean its fantasy and you could go all out crazy in my opinion.

    If it makes battles more enjoyable. With battles being as fast as they sometimes are, I am not sure I want to have even more things I need to consider in a battle.
    Jackless said:


    - MORE POWERFUL MAGIC. Make all the spells and buffs more useful especially the vortex and projectile spells but therefore give us means to counter or dispell magic like in the tabletop game.

    A dispel mechanic is something I also want to see in the game. As it stands now, spells are almost completely uninteractive and as such cannot be impactful. It would be a shame if that stayed the case for when factions are introduced that have magic/very strong casters as one of their defining characteristics.
    Jackless said:


    - TACTICAL BATTLES. I often feel the battles are a bit lacking in terms of tactical requirements. They are over so damn quickly and most of the times you just rush in the enemy, pop all your abilities at once and watch your enemy going down within a minute or so. Slower and more methodical battles which require good formation and unit combination together with the clever use of abilities and magic at the right time would be much more rewarding and satisfying.

    Battles are too fast for my tastes as well.
    Jackless said:


    - BETTER MP AND CUSTOM BATTLE SETUP SCREEN. Give us the more battlefield options and add Runes and Banners to the loadout screen so we can customize armies even better.

    Better rune system is also something I can get behind, but also ("as long as it is done right...").
  • JacklessJackless Junior Member Posts: 281Registered Users
    edited January 2017
    daelin4 said:

    TBH I dislike quest battles due to their scripted and linear nature, plus you cannot auto-resolve. The random occurrence of battle events depend very much on exactly how they are designed, ie are they just randomized versions of quest battles? They'd also have to make a LOT of them from scratch to even feel like they are random, otherwise choosing at random 1 of three battles isn't really random, especially if the difficulty and diversity between them is extremely limited. The result would instead be the opposite of intended effect; people end up hating them as boring things you have to suffer through. IMO what's great about quest battles are the unique rewards (either from items or just money) at the starting point of the game, presenting strategic dilemmas between securing foothold early on or trying to do the quest battles before dealing with enemies in the campaign map.
    In other words, I see quest battle's best characteristic is their rarity and set-piece nature; throwing in a dozen more of them would easily over-saturate the experience for the worst.

    I'm not a fan of this idea, because if the rewards of quests are so powerful it shakes up the campaign in a negative way. Most items already offer unique powers, ie spells for a faction that doesn't normally use spells like Dwarfs, but one you give them things like spawning ghost armies, then you risk making certain factions designed to play in certain manner playing just like any other faction. I'd go as far to say this actually wouldn't make them more unique, but rather less unique! Of course the examples you give are just that, but it is worth noting that, quite frankly, some ideas are better than others for various reasons. Naturally this also means that certain ideas suit different factions over others; Dwarfs' unique items shouldn't give them the sort of spells you expect from, say, Chaos or Empire. And of course, whether such items are at least lore-friendly.

    I think quest battles are a really cool feature to bring Warhammer newbies like myself into the lore and they offer a possibility for long and exciting battles because of their scripted nature and their (mostly) interesting battlemaps which often have terrain features that you have to consider!
    I mean random in the sense that they CAN occur but don’t have to. It would be enough if there were 6-10 different battles to choose from which would all offer different, non-race-specific, legendary loot.
    1 or 2 of these battles in the pool may happen during a campaign and you´re free to decide if you take part or not.
    CA could even design them so that multiple LLs from different factions take part in it, kind of like the free-for-alls in Medieval 2 (or in the tabletop). The Lord who wins the battle is rewarded with a unique item.
    These items don’t have to be so powerful to alter the campaign or the balance of a whole faction.

    Lets take the example of the ghost army. It could be a magic item obtained through one of those special battles that has the power to raise a ghost army that supports your own army for a few turns, but it is only usable once in the campaign. So it is powerful but it doesnt make you stomp everything and everyone. It could help you out in very desperate situations e.g the chaos invasion. I guess that would be a very rewarding system for the player.
    Or it could even be the other way around if an AI faction has won the special battle event and obtained the item and use it against you when youre trying to invade them.
    Sure it’s a lot of work and bares the risk of being unbalanced but it would make for a much more interesting and exciting campaign.

    Another example would be the ring of destruction that’s already in the game and grants the Lord who wears it the power to use fireball spells ery two minutes. Now lets imagine a different item that lets the lord use a powerful vortex spell as a one time magic scroll per battle.

    Or imagine an item that grants him the ability to use the world roots (i.e. underground movement) for a specific amount of time. It gives you the possibility to escape a desperate situation but you could still be intercepted (Risk / Reward).
    I think the current legendary items do not really provide interesting abilities or powers to your Lords but mostly stat buffs and minor campaign effects.
    daelin4 said:


    It's fantasy but also conventional, because the armies need to act conventional. If you want "crazy" map features try Medieval II: you could have situations like armies on such steep hills that it was not even possible for the opposing sides to engage due to the map design.
    The design needs to be functional for field battles; cliffs mean situations where units can attack the enemy without ever fearing of return fire.
    I mean if I were to choose the environment of the battlefield I'd just pick the flattest part of the region anyways; with a feature like "crazy terrain" I would actually not like it, especially if I was forced to play on them.
    And of course there is the issue of making the units work properly in said terrain. It simply isn't a matter of just adding these things into the map and the units know what to do. This is the fundamental issue with the AI and things like sieges and towns ever since RTW.

    I agree that the current featureless design of battlemaps is owed to the fact that the AI has its usual issues. But having seen how much better the AI has become after Rome 2 gives me hope that theyre on a good way and now with the big success of Warhammer they also have the financial means to further improve these aspects of the game.

    Sure nobody would like to fight on maps where the AI constantly bugs out. But having a battle for a river crossing, or on mountainous terrain once in a while would be highly appreciated.
    Whats vanguard deployment good for when you can rarely get any benefit out of it because theres is never a reason to delay the enemy nor are there any trees or terrain features where you could even set up an ambush with your vanguard units (especially in orc and dwarfen areas).

    In a battle where you have to fight your way up a hill through serpentines, units like bats or hawk riders would eventually be useful for once.
    But at the moment you can always brainlessly charge the enemy without having to think about terrain advantages on almost all battlemaps.
    daelin4 said:


    I think this is a touchy issue; first, I think difficulty level might have to do with how effective magic seems. As someone who largely plays on Easy mode, it's not really my place to say whether the magic that the opponent uses are more or less effective than they should be, but I do feel like they have less power than they are supposed to; on the other hand this seems to be done for the reason that they shouldn't be too much a force multiplier, that you can talk on full stacks with just a handful of powerful Heroes...unless of course the enemy army composes of nothing but Goblin Spearmen!

    I of course don’t want magic to be overpowered too but at the moment it is pretty much broken.
    For example some spells do only very little damage on large unit size but one-shot Lords on small unit size.
    When dropping a huge badass looking fire vortex right in the middle of a few units and it goes right through them and does so little damage that you cant even see their health bar going down even a little bit, something tells me that this behavior probably wasn’t intended. Especially if you consider that this spell takes two thirds of your magic pool away.

    Magic damage first of all needs to be adjusted and scaled for different unit sizes and some spell mechanics, especially vortex spells need to be reconsidered.
    There is a reason why nobody brings vortex spells into a multiplayer battle…
    daelin4 said:


    I think you mean tactical variety, which is difficult to achieve because that can only happen if unit design ends up providing for it in the first place.
    I don't think the game is lacking in that regard; only lacking in allowing for more diverse situations.
    For example, the AI attacking your minor settlements: there is literally no diversity because you can't choose to fight in the town, or even choose what units are in the garrison. You don't even have a Lord that can have skills to lead that army, and Heroes cannot be embedded to provide tactical assistance. The game however would be massively improved if these were put into the game; the player can't always just spend time chasing enemy armies around trying to sack your villages, they have to also go in and take out enemy settlements.
    The enemy army's tactical disposition also heavily influences the diversity of battles. Chaos armies under Archaeon is never going to be bland because the options of winning are far more than a small army of Goblins. You got the high level Lord to try to snipe and break the back of the Chaos army, the Chaos army's units, the Hellcannons, the monstrous infantry, and the cavalry units. The only caveat of Chaos armies is that they lack missile units; only Norsca field horse skirmishers and they are not very powerful.

    I agree that not having the option to edit your garrison units does impact variety negatively.
    Post edited by Jackless on
  • JacklessJackless Junior Member Posts: 281Registered Users
    Oh and as an addition to my points concerning magic.
    To balance stronger spells and wizards it would make sense to reduce their health. I noticed today that a fire wizard has more health than a battlepriest??? kind of weird.

    But to prevent them from being sniped they could get a 50% magic resistance or so.
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Posts: 2,827Registered Users
    Better Siege battles

    -Unique maps for important/renown cities like Altdorf,Middenheim,Drakenhof,Marienburg,Kislev , Talabheim etc , where maps would be already avaiable and drawn on paper.

    -Extended maps for the provincal capitals with some possibility to add layers.

    -Restrict the range of the defense towers or expand the map outside the walls

    -MINOR CITY-battlemaps!!!

    Techtree

    -More interesting done by unlocking units buildings,siege-equipment and traits to decrease siege time , as well as unique abilities, so you can finally get an advantage for researching something distinct.This would go along a University or research building to get used to the changes


    More buildings for EVERY faction

    -More special buildings for special settlements, like imperial palace in Altdorf , and the grand temple of sigmar as last stage, or the palaces of the elector counts as extra slot in the empire provinces capitals
    -More economy factions AND options for the civalized factions


    More settlements for the empire provinces


    Exspecially Striland , whissenland, Talabecland and Westerland/ostermark are in dire need of some provinces ,which would also support the idea of expanding the economy buildings
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Posts: 2,827Registered Users
    OP are u willing to update ur thread to the expressions of the people contributing to make one big thread to express our thoughts and wishes.And to show CA clearly , WHAT WE want, and WHAT THE GAME needs?
  • JacklessJackless Junior Member Posts: 281Registered Users
    TeNoSkill said:

    OP are u willing to update ur thread to the expressions of the people contributing to make one big thread to express our thoughts and wishes.And to show CA clearly , WHAT WE want, and WHAT THE GAME needs?

    Yes i can do that. I'll add your suggestions tomorrow Morning when im back home ;)
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Posts: 2,827Registered Users
    Jackless said:

    TeNoSkill said:

    OP are u willing to update ur thread to the expressions of the people contributing to make one big thread to express our thoughts and wishes.And to show CA clearly , WHAT WE want, and WHAT THE GAME needs?

    Yes i can do that. I'll add your suggestions tomorrow Morning when im back home ;)
    Thx, but not only mine:)
  • doclumbagodoclumbago Posts: 1,456Registered Users
    Playable Sea Battles

    Better Siege battles - there´s a ton of extra ideas in other threads.

    Advanced settlement bulding chains- more stuff to buff military economically abiliities
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Posts: 2,827Registered Users
    Unit formations need to be brought back to the factions that need it( empire ,dwarves , ).And some for the other factions.

  • HorseWithNoNameHorseWithNoName Posts: 1,001Registered Users
    One thing I would also really like is CA going a bit more all out with the mechanics. For example, units going insane is imo a big part of Chaos influence in the lore and in the TT and I would really like to see that being reflected in some mechanics in battle (for example attacking random nearby units, friendly or not). Also, part of some units's identity is that they cannot be trained/easily controlled and you can lose control of them in battle (squigs (herders?) etc.), I think this would also be an opportunity for an interesting mechanic. Also, both of these mechanics would imo provide more strategic options without making the player click more buttons or something similar.
    I do not knnow how difficult it would be to implement such mechanics with updating the AI among other things, but I certainly would like to see them in the game if possible.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,487Registered Users

    One thing I would also really like is CA going a bit more all out with the mechanics. For example, units going insane is imo a big part of Chaos influence in the lore and in the TT and I would really like to see that being reflected in some mechanics in battle

    That's a capability of the Slaughterbrute or the vortexbeast. Can't remember which one, but one of them can make enemy units go crazy.
  • JacklessJackless Junior Member Posts: 281Registered Users


    I do not knnow how difficult it would be to implement such mechanics with updating the AI among other things, but I certainly would like to see them in the game if possible.

    I guess it wouldnt be too difficult since Total War had this feature already in Rome1, Rome2 and Attilla for elephants.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 21,294Registered Users
    Jackless said:


    I do not knnow how difficult it would be to implement such mechanics with updating the AI among other things, but I certainly would like to see them in the game if possible.

    I guess it wouldnt be too difficult since Total War had this feature already in Rome1, Rome2 and Attilla for elephants.
    It was also badly balanced and made them borderline useless if the enemy brought even one unit that countered them. I don't see TWWH doing any better in that regard were it introduced.
  • JacklessJackless Junior Member Posts: 281Registered Users
    edited January 2017



    It was also badly balanced and made them borderline useless if the enemy brought even one unit that countered them. I don't see TWWH doing any better in that regard were it introduced.

    Just because it was badly balanced in Rome doesnt mean it also needs to be badly balanced in Warhammer.
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Posts: 4,092Registered Users
    Jackless said:



    It was also badly balanced and made them borderline useless if the enemy brought even one unit that countered them. I don't see TWWH doing any better in that regard were it introduced.

    Just because it was badly balanced in Rome doesnt mean it also needs to be badly balanced in Warhammer.
    You expect too much from CA.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,487Registered Users
    edited January 2017
    Naval Battles please! Playable warhammer naval battles...

    Region Outposts/Provincial Assets/ Outbuildings please https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/190221/region-outposts-outbuildings-provincial-assets

    More campaign Depth as discussed here and here --> https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/189724/3-things-that-limit-the-campaign-depth

    WARRIORS OF CHAOS OVERHAUL--> https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/189182/warriors-of-chaos-overhaul/p1

    1v1 LL kill aniamtions

    LL recruitment movies

    Interactive battles/battle maps--> https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/186993/interactive-battle-maps/p1

    Fire and destruction sim just like Atilla. Maybe even better

    Improve this game's music--> https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/190192/official-petition-to-improve-the-music-of-the-game

    STOP MAKING MINI CAMPAIGNS--> https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/188677/stop-making-mini-campaigns/p1

    -Improved Siege Mechanics with multi-level battlefields. So we can decide where and how we can attack a city.

    -Prebattle deployment of certain items to aid in battle. (Spikes or stakes to protect ranged units)

    -End times units DLC for people who like the units

    Standard bearers

    -Expand on Araby, Nippon, and Cathey (Maybe even Kingdoms of Ind and Albion)

    unit formations

    endgame cinematics

    Heavy storms and weather conditions on the battle field

    More options in custom battles
  • kilijankilijan Junior Member Posts: 473Registered Users
    I would like to see the return of map built fortresses, like the ones in empire. It would be nice to provide a strategic defense point on the map that I can influence.
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Posts: 2,827Registered Users
    kilijan said:

    I would like to see the return of map built fortresses, like the ones in empire. It would be nice to provide a strategic defense point on the map that I can influence.

    This should be taken to the list.
  • JacklessJackless Junior Member Posts: 281Registered Users
    TeNoSkill said:


    This should be taken to the list.

    done!
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 21,294Registered Users
    Jackless said:



    It was also badly balanced and made them borderline useless if the enemy brought even one unit that countered them. I don't see TWWH doing any better in that regard were it introduced.

    Just because it was badly balanced in Rome doesnt mean it also needs to be badly balanced in Warhammer.
    It can only be badly balanced.

    Either they're super-strong and steamroll all opposition, or they get hard-countered easily. Nothing in-between because everything there is already covered by other troops.
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Posts: 2,827Registered Users

    Jackless said:



    It was also badly balanced and made them borderline useless if the enemy brought even one unit that countered them. I don't see TWWH doing any better in that regard were it introduced.

    Just because it was badly balanced in Rome doesnt mean it also needs to be badly balanced in Warhammer.
    It can only be badly balanced.

    Either they're super-strong and steamroll all opposition, or they get hard-countered easily. Nothing in-between because everything there is already covered by other troops.
    Well , it would be difficult to do.
    Maybe an ability?
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Posts: 2,827Registered Users
    edited January 2017
    What to you think about unit abilities?

    I know its already hard to micro everthing and to enjoy the battle , maybe in slow-mow?

    And what about a unique fortress battlemap like in Attila, with maybe antechnology to unlock better camp stance with upgraded battlemap aswell, so ou ccould maybe mount troops on the camps walls, something around earth walls with palisades)
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Posts: 2,827Registered Users
    OP , can you rename the threads title to collection of Suggestions for the second installment, to ensure that everybody gets , that those are not your opinions only :) ?
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,487Registered Users
    edited January 2017
    TeNoSkill said:

    OP , can you rename the threads title to collection of Suggestions for the second installment, to ensure that everybody gets , that those are not your opinions only :) ?

    He already has the separation of our suggestions in the OP.

    Suggestions from other members that i put here for overview and convenience

  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Posts: 2,827Registered Users

    TeNoSkill said:

    OP , can you rename the threads title to collection of Suggestions for the second installment, to ensure that everybody gets , that those are not your opinions only :) ?

    He already has the separation of our suggestions in the OP.

    Suggestions from other members that i put here for overview and convenience

    Just to make clear this thread is a collage of us all :)

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file