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

Bring back old total war features

245

Comments

  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Registered Users Posts: 2,009
    The three most useful formations were the shield formation and the phalanx and the wedge for calvary. I used them a lot in Rome. As a beginning total war player I thought they were pointless but I eventually started using them. .....because you know ....strategy. The more of it the better in a strategy game.
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Registered Users Posts: 2,009
    Jotunheim said:

    First of all I want to say that i really enjoy this game and I am an huge fan of the total war franchise.

    BUT I really can't understand why this total war lost so many simple and necessary features causing the campaign/battle experience too easy and repetitive.

    Lost features:
    - seasonal events with climate bonus/malus
    - food
    - public order impact on the population ( bonus/malus based on PO level ). Best example on workshop -> Zarkis' Happiness Matters: ATTILA/ROME II values
    - more variety for buildings
    - formations ( why only 2 )
    - default minor settlement maps ( ok coming soon though mods )
    - weapons and armors upgradeable through the blacksmith (and maybe arrows to avoid to have more type of archers )
    - night battles
    - in battle dismount ability for knights and lords/heroes

    I could have missed something, ex. Naval Battles but for now i think that it is not a priority.

    Am I the only one that want those features again?

    I want to add politics to that, because I get really bored of clicking turn after turn with nothing to do but fight and click building upgrades. I want to mess around with court intrigue and things like that for the vampires and council and politics for the empire. Atilla had a bit of that and it was enough to amuse from turn to turn. It also gave some depth to the faction. So did Rome 2. I want those political features to return according to the race it fits of course. I know, the irony of liking politics in a game but in real life......ugh. But the same can be said about war so....
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Registered Users Posts: 2,009
    I knew my comment would be removed....
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Registered Users Posts: 2,009
    Suggestion

    Get rid of the censor that deletes the attempts at editing a post. No it as nothing to do with length. There must be trigger words.
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Registered Users Posts: 2,009

    I want to add politics to that, because I get really bored of clicking turn after turn with nothing to do but fight and click building upgrades. I want to mess around with court intrigue and things like that for the vampires and council and politics for the empire. Atilla had a bit of that and it was enough to amuse from turn to turn. It also gave some depth to the faction. So did Rome 2. I want those political features to return according to the race it fits of course. I know, the irony of liking politics in a game but in real life......ugh. But the same can be said about war so....

    It's not that I don't like the campaigns, it just gets a little tedious. Like playing the orcs is really fun. But sometimes I feel every campaign gets a little reduced to being orcs.
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Registered Users Posts: 4,092
    KGpoopy said:

    The three most useful formations were the shield formation and the phalanx and the wedge for calvary. I used them a lot in Rome. As a beginning total war player I thought they were pointless but I eventually started using them. .....because you know ....strategy. The more of it the better in a strategy game.

    KGpoopy said:

    Jotunheim said:

    First of all I want to say that i really enjoy this game and I am an huge fan of the total war franchise.

    BUT I really can't understand why this total war lost so many simple and necessary features causing the campaign/battle experience too easy and repetitive.

    Lost features:
    - seasonal events with climate bonus/malus
    - food
    - public order impact on the population ( bonus/malus based on PO level ). Best example on workshop -> Zarkis' Happiness Matters: ATTILA/ROME II values
    - more variety for buildings
    - formations ( why only 2 )
    - default minor settlement maps ( ok coming soon though mods )
    - weapons and armors upgradeable through the blacksmith (and maybe arrows to avoid to have more type of archers )
    - night battles
    - in battle dismount ability for knights and lords/heroes

    I could have missed something, ex. Naval Battles but for now i think that it is not a priority.

    Am I the only one that want those features again?

    I want to add politics to that, because I get really bored of clicking turn after turn with nothing to do but fight and click building upgrades. I want to mess around with court intrigue and things like that for the vampires and council and politics for the empire. Atilla had a bit of that and it was enough to amuse from turn to turn. It also gave some depth to the faction. So did Rome 2. I want those political features to return according to the race it fits of course. I know, the irony of liking politics in a game but in real life......ugh. But the same can be said about war so....
    KGpoopy said:

    I knew my comment would be removed....

    KGpoopy said:

    Suggestion

    Get rid of the censor that deletes the attempts at editing a post. No it as nothing to do with length. There must be trigger words.

    KGpoopy said:


    I want to add politics to that, because I get really bored of clicking turn after turn with nothing to do but fight and click building upgrades. I want to mess around with court intrigue and things like that for the vampires and council and politics for the empire. Atilla had a bit of that and it was enough to amuse from turn to turn. It also gave some depth to the faction. So did Rome 2. I want those political features to return according to the race it fits of course. I know, the irony of liking politics in a game but in real life......ugh. But the same can be said about war so....

    It's not that I don't like the campaigns, it just gets a little tedious. Like playing the orcs is really fun. But sometimes I feel every campaign gets a little reduced to being orcs.

    What the hell happened here?

  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 24,678
    edited March 2017
    KGpoopy said:


    Building Variety
    It's not a "meaningless soundbite". It is what it is. Variety. ....and that would suggest more management features be added and also more variables to affect with different and more building selection. This is quite obvious beyond trying to belittle a simple request.

    Attila had a lot of building options. Most of them were also completely useless as there was always a rather obvious best option. So again, just saying you want more buildings to choose from doesn't cut it, you need to make concrete suggestions for what they'd do, how they'd improve gameplay and why choice would even matter.

    Otherwise it really is nothing but try-hardy soundbyte flinging.

  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Registered Users Posts: 4,092
    Does anyone else feel like building should move closer to the originals like Rome1? Maybe what we need are buildings that every city has that aren't part of the 5 open spots but still upgradable on their own.
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,585

    Does anyone else feel like building should move closer to the originals like Rome1? Maybe what we need are buildings that every city has that aren't part of the 5 open spots but still upgradable on their own.

    you mean stuff potentially like... canalizations, baths, wells, markets, farms outside of the city and the likes?
    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD! Clan Gunnisson! Karak Eight Peaks! JOSEF BUGMAN! TOTAL WAR TROY FOR ONE YEAR EXCLUSIVELY ON THE EPIC GAMES STORE!"

    The Empire still hasn't gotten their FLC LL. We need Marius Leitdorf of Averland!

    Where is Boris Todbringer? Have you seen him? For a Middenland DLC with Boris and the Ar-Ulric!

    Queek could smell their hatred, ratcheted to a degree that even he could not evoke in their simple hearts. He stepped over the old orange-fur’s body, eager to see for himself what it was they saw. But he heard it first.
    'Waaaaaaaggh! Gorfang!'
  • JotunheimJotunheim Registered Users Posts: 71
    edited March 2017
    @KGpoopy
    In my PERSONAL opinion i think that politic is not so lore friendly. We have to remember that we are in a fantasy world ( and it is not called westeros :P ). How much politic can it be? Vlad Vs Manfred? There is yet xD for the empire: franz is the emperor, and who want to dispossess him based of Warhammer lore? Same for bretonnia, dwarfs, chaos and so on... This is just my opinion

    @lotofguys
    Lot of you don't want/need food and i understand. There are some good reasons to dont want it. My only goal is adding complexity and variety at the campaign xD but i don't agree with seasons. There is still something , as someone previous said, for Beastman and grombindal. Why is so hard adding cyclical events that alter , for ex, income, pop growth, buildings costs, armies movement, casualties due to winter attrition ecc... Just my opinion xD

    KGpoopy said:


    Building Variety
    It's not a "meaningless soundbite". It is what it is. Variety. ....and that would suggest more management features be added and also more variables to affect with different and more building selection. This is quite obvious beyond trying to belittle a simple request.

    Attila had a lot of building options. Most of them were also completely useless as there was always a rather obvious best option. So again, just saying you want more buildings to choose from doesn't cut it, you need to make concrete suggestions for what they'd do, how they'd improve gameplay and why choice would even matter.

    Otherwise it really is nothing but try-hardy soundbyte flinging.
    Lol. There are lot of bad reviews on warhammer about that, a great part of community want it and now the beautiful building system of Attila is a crap. Of course SOME buildings are worse than others but that variety make Attila's campaign very interesting. But don't want argue anymore. Really i cant with those people. Anyways CA do a great job with bretonnian's buildings so i hope they continue in that way


  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,425
    edited March 2017
    Saphiron said:

    It's weird to hear people say formations are pointless and then complain they micromanage enough, before painstakingly setting their unsaveable formation before every battle.

    Total war had always had some solid formations to start with, that means less micromanagement for us, not more.

    Maybe they enjoy the time to set up armies in particular orders in particular scenarios that might preclude the need for using presets.

    It seems I forgot to mention unit upgrades: I don't mind if it's not a universal thing, for example if High Elves' primary unit management is instead through upgrades, rather than the typical method of Lords' army effect buff skills, then that's a good thing- the feature is back, it's a unique feature of a particular race, and it also means that race's Character design is much different because less emphasis on buffing armies. Just because you want a feature brought back to Total War doesn't mean it should be universally applied to everything, in a game meant to be diverse and unique in faction properties.

    That one word Politics means so many different things for different people. For some it;'s merely the ability to hold Offices to garner conditional buffs for certain characters, for others its' Rome2 style where you have this minigame involving charisma and spending points for benefits, and yet others that see it as inter-faction activities. Ignore the people who say "we need politics in this game" because most of the time they actually don't know what they want.

    On variety of buildings and Attila, I also didn't like how there were so many different options to fill up your so limited slots, and how some were obviously more useful than others that you end up using some buildings and never really seeing the others put to use (outside of capturing them from the AI). I think diversity can be achieved by racial diversity- it is not like in RTW where blacksmitih for barbarian factions is the same as blacksmith for Romans, Greenskins gain different ways to make moeny and increase public order, for example.
    Also, the amount of features in the game also determines the variety of buildings. Since there is no food mechanic, and some of the buildings in Attila produced or consumed food, you naturally limited the amount of varied buildings in this game in just that one manner. Disease events (though replaced by those negative growth Skaven events) also don;'t exist, so Sanitation also isn't something you can add to a building;'s effects, so they go too.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Registered Users Posts: 2,868
    edited March 2017
    daelin4 said:

    Saphiron said:


    Also, the amount of features in the game also determines the variety of buildings.







    Yes that s sadly the truth.

    There are no reliogion mechanics ->no real need for special religion buildings
    No Sanitation -> no need for those buildings
    No food -> No need for those buildings
    etc..


    The problem is, that every race would have to have unique mechanics, which means you can t recycle, which was clearly done in Attila and just fine,because it worked well for the historical title.

    BUT, this leaves a big hole, because of the (seemingly) lack of features for every race.

    I think 2 special features, well and deeply done per race, would be enough.

    e.g - religion(same as beyond) mechanics and showing of the electorial system, the empire is , more for Empire
    - religion mechanics (going lady of the lake, Manaan etc., or disbanding the lady and religion entirely) and
    chivalry for Bretonnia
    etc....
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Registered Users Posts: 2,868
    And some things that should be a thing is 1 unique resource for every faction.

    Gromril for Dwarves
    Waaagh-energy for Orks
    (real) Dark magic for VC
    Food for Human states etc....
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,585
    edited March 2017
    tbh... i dont miss the Sanitation buildings one bit... especially due to the limited amount of building slots... if it'd be like in Medieval II and simply a question of the "when will i (be able to) build it" instead of the "if i build the stuff to keep the city well i might not be able to build the stuff i actually need" then: yeah... but with the limited slots...

    problem with religion mechanics: to a certain extend religions are "exlusive" in Warhammer:
    The Lady is exclusive to Bretonnia
    Sigmar is exclusive to the Empire
    the Ancestor Gods are exclusive to the Dwarfs
    Hashut is purely Chaos Dwarfs

    no Citizen of the Empire would pray to the lady... no Bretonnian would pray to Sigmar...

    The Old World Pantheon (Ulric, Manaan, Myrmidia etc.) on the other hand is more or less "everywhere" from Kislev to TEB...

    Citizens "converting" to Chaos or falling under Vampiric Influence is imho included in the effects of each corruption... which gets countered using... often... religious buildings (Cathedral of Sigmar, blabla of the Lady)

    but "spreading faith"... well... having a Human being a "devote" follower of the ancestor Gods is roughly as likely as having a Dwarf call upon the Lady of the Lake from deepest faith... ~ roughly as likely as the Dwarfs becoming best buds with the Chaos Dwarfs (in the lore)... around zero...
    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD! Clan Gunnisson! Karak Eight Peaks! JOSEF BUGMAN! TOTAL WAR TROY FOR ONE YEAR EXCLUSIVELY ON THE EPIC GAMES STORE!"

    The Empire still hasn't gotten their FLC LL. We need Marius Leitdorf of Averland!

    Where is Boris Todbringer? Have you seen him? For a Middenland DLC with Boris and the Ar-Ulric!

    Queek could smell their hatred, ratcheted to a degree that even he could not evoke in their simple hearts. He stepped over the old orange-fur’s body, eager to see for himself what it was they saw. But he heard it first.
    'Waaaaaaaggh! Gorfang!'
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Registered Users Posts: 2,868



    problem with religion mechanics: to a certain extend religions are "exlusive" in Warhammer:
    The Lady is exclusive to Bretonnia
    Sigmar is exclusive to the Empire
    the Ancestor Gods are exclusive to the Dwarfs
    Hashut is purely Chaos Dwarfs

    . But seeing 50% of a dwarf province follow gork and mork only means(in my eyes) that the followers of Gork´n ´Mork are 50%, which means , there are a lot of orcs in this province.

    It would of course not be, that humans follow ancestor gods etc. but the % of followers would only mean, there are % of dwarves there.

    And I don t would it get crazy, like humans spreading sigmarite belief to dwarves or greenskins.Maybe some conversion resistance for distinct provinces, like Norsca,World edge mountains?(stuff your race cont conquer?)

    But spreading Sigmarite belief to Bretonnia would be possible, if Bretonnia is conquered by the Empire, which quiet frequently happens.

    Also, it´s a game and players like to have choices may it be by the Dev´s or by modders.(there could be conversion resistances for Sigmar in Bretonia in Vanilla to make the lore appropriate;)


    tbh... i dont miss the Sanitation buildings one bit... especially due to the limited amount of building slots... if it'd be like in Medieval II and simply a question of the "when will i (be able to) build it" instead of the "if i build the stuff to keep the city well i might not be able to build the stuff i actually need" then: yeah... but with the limited slots...
    .

    If you actually had more cities to build stuff, this wouldn t matter as much.I played much WRE and ERE in Attila and I was preatty ok, I built every bilding atleast 1 time
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Registered Users Posts: 1,487
    edited March 2017
    Jotunheim said:

    @KGpoopy
    In my PERSONAL opinion i think that politic is not so lore friendly. We have to remember that we are in a fantasy world ( and it is not called westeros :P ). How much politic can it be? Vlad Vs Manfred? There is yet xD for the empire: franz is the emperor, and who want to dispossess him based of Warhammer lore? Same for bretonnia, dwarfs, chaos and so on... This is just my opinion

    @lotofguys
    Lot of you don't want/need food and i understand. There are some good reasons to dont want it. My only goal is adding complexity and variety at the campaign xD but i don't agree with seasons. There is still something , as someone previous said, for Beastman and grombindal. Why is so hard adding cyclical events that alter , for ex, income, pop growth, buildings costs, armies movement, casualties due to winter attrition ecc... Just my opinion xD

    KGpoopy said:


    Building Variety
    It's not a "meaningless soundbite". It is what it is. Variety. ....and that would suggest more management features be added and also more variables to affect with different and more building selection. This is quite obvious beyond trying to belittle a simple request.

    Attila had a lot of building options. Most of them were also completely useless as there was always a rather obvious best option. So again, just saying you want more buildings to choose from doesn't cut it, you need to make concrete suggestions for what they'd do, how they'd improve gameplay and why choice would even matter.

    Otherwise it really is nothing but try-hardy soundbyte flinging.
    Lol. There are lot of bad reviews on warhammer about that, a great part of community want it and now the beautiful building system of Attila is a crap. Of course SOME buildings are worse than others but that variety make Attila's campaign very interesting. But don't want argue anymore. Really i cant with those people. Anyways CA do a great job with bretonnian's buildings so i hope they continue in that way


    Politics is very apparent in warhammer lore. Even politics is represented as pop up text sometimes. So that is an incorrect statement.

    The only good reason to not "want" food mechanic is because it may be too hard to deal with. Otherwise I have not seen great reasons.

    Brettonia's building selection is good but it could be better with more variables to affect in the campaign and armies. I find the wood elves selection to be the best. Mainly becasue of the Offices, but they actually needed a greater selection because they can't build there building outside of Athel Loren, only outposts.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,425
    TeNoSkill said:


    The problem is, that every race would have to have unique mechanics, which means you can t recycle, which was clearly done in Attila and just fine,because it worked well for the historical title.
    BUT, this leaves a big hole, because of the (seemingly) lack of features for every race.

    Every race does have unique mechanics.

    Dwarfs have Grudges,
    Greenskins have Waagh!
    Undead have Raise Dead+unbreakable units,
    Chaos are horde,
    Beastment are horde plus rely on ambush,
    Wood Elfs have outposts and Amber,
    Empire has Offices,
    Bretonnia has Peasant Economy and Chivalry

    You're not asking for variety, you're actually asking that more factions play out the same as others because you want them (not one, but multiple if not all) to have mechanics. Which actually reduce variety for everyone and risks making one race play out like another. The Horde feature already makes a problem out of the two Chaos factions because of this- playing as Chaos very much plays out like Beastmen. So what this ends up becoming, is LESS variety among races.

    In order for one race to be distinct than another, it has to lack certain features that other races have. If every race has Sanitation, Food and Religion, of which are very important elements to winning the campaign on top of making units, then you really do force players to play the game in similar fashion. Religion already plays a factor in the form of Chaos creep, and Amber/ Peasant Economy already simulates some element of Food gameplay.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Registered Users Posts: 2,009

    KGpoopy said:


    Building Variety
    It's not a "meaningless soundbite". It is what it is. Variety. ....and that would suggest more management features be added and also more variables to affect with different and more building selection. This is quite obvious beyond trying to belittle a simple request.

    Attila had a lot of building options. Most of them were also completely useless as there was always a rather obvious best option. So again, just saying you want more buildings to choose from doesn't cut it, you need to make concrete suggestions for what they'd do, how they'd improve gameplay and why choice would even matter.

    Otherwise it really is nothing but try-hardy soundbyte flinging.
    If you don't understand what I'm saying stop arguing the same thing over and over. "It is what it is. Variety. ....and that would suggest more management features be added and also more variables to affect with different and more building selection. This is quite obvious beyond trying to belittle a simple request."

    More building variety means more variables to affect in the campaign. I know what the OP means by "building variety".

    By the way to be against building variety is pretty pointless considering this is a RTS/turn base strategy game with empire building.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,425
    KGpoopy said:


    More building variety means more variables to affect in the campaign. I know what the OP means by "building variety".

    By the way to be against building variety is pretty pointless considering this is a RTS/turn base strategy game with empire building.

    OP did not clarify on what s/he meant by building variety, so you're either smurfing or just presuming.

    In order to have more building variety you need various mechanics in place for those buildings to affect. Otherwise the only variety you get are several buildings that give nothing but "More public order but less money" and "More public order but less money". A farm's only going to give you bonus growth and casualty replacement, because there is no Food mechanic.

    Building variety therefore ties very much with what mechanics the game offers. In Rome2 Carthage farms had three variants- one toward money, one towards food, and one towards replenishment. If Food is taken out, then that leaves you with two variants, no longer three. Warhammer has no Food, therefore you cannot have a variant that gives Food bonus. Variety needs to have a meaningful impact in your campaign play, otherwise the variety that exist is absolutely meaningless, more so than Attila's buildings that give bits of bonuses here and there that you cannot possibly fulfill satisfactorily, so you ignore some of them and focus on the more immediate concerns. To some people Attila's larger variety of buildings was pointless and thus isn't a good thing.

    Buildings in Warhammer have a much clearer emphasis on supporting your armies, that is the only reason for empire building in TW games. Farms allowed you to expand cities and thus gain more slots, but also replenished armies faster. Public Order is so you didn't need armies garrisoned everywhere to prevent rebellions, income buildings let you train more units, and other buildings unlocked better units, or otherwise opened doors for your armies to perform better. Ultimately, Total War structures are there to support the building of armies and going out to fight other armies. As it's both staple and fundamental element of TW gameplay, any buildings that produce less useful benefits are thrown to the wayside: sure Sanitation is important because it prevents disease, but it also came as chance spawn and Sanitation buildings only reduced chance of disease events. Naturally, you ignore them and focus on a building that gives money and allows training units, which offset any disease effects. The variety gained from Sanitation buildings, therefore, is rendered meaningless, not because of Sanitation or even what it brings to the game (problematic already) but how it brings itself into the game is a problem. The very fact that all Sanitation buildings also had other effects on top is pretty much an admitting that this mechanic alone is not important enough to the gameplay.

    In any event there are other ways to increase (and improve) variety in Warhammer buildings without simply copying old features like Food or Religion from an old game into a new one. If you want building variety it needs to be done in a manner that suits the new environment, not trying to shove those from an old environment into a new one.


    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Registered Users Posts: 2,868
    daelin4 said:

    KGpoopy said:



    In any event there are other ways to increase (and improve) variety in Warhammer buildings without simply copying old features like Food or Religion from an old game into a new one. If you want building variety it needs to be done in a manner that suits the new environment, not trying to shove those from an old environment into a new one.

    How do religion (and food) not suit the new enviroment?
    They where proven mechanics and religion is a very big thing in the world.
    daelin4 said:

    TeNoSkill said:


    The problem is, that every race would have to have unique mechanics, which means you can t recycle, which was clearly done in Attila and just fine,because it worked well for the historical title.
    BUT, this leaves a big hole, because of the (seemingly) lack of features for every race.

    Every race does have unique mechanics.

    Dwarfs have Grudges,
    Greenskins have Waagh!
    Undead have Raise Dead+unbreakable units,
    Chaos are horde,
    Beastment are horde plus rely on ambush,
    Wood Elfs have outposts and Amber,
    Empire has Offices,
    Bretonnia has Peasant Economy and Chivalry


    Those are the most basic features and they don t offer a depth of gameplay as the WRE or ERE ect.

    And you can t say, that the Empire and Bretonnia, as normal human factions, play at the same ammount of depth as in Attila.

    Every race offers so much more, whic isn t represented mostly or only roughly :/


    daelin4 said:

    TeNoSkill said:


    The problem is, that every race would have to have unique mechanics, which means you can t recycle, which was clearly done in Attila and just fine,because it worked well for the historical title.
    BUT, this leaves a big hole, because of the (seemingly) lack of features for every race.

    You're not asking for variety, you're actually asking that more factions play out the same as others because you want them (not one, but multiple if not all) to have mechanics.
    If you mean, all factions play the same because beeing tied to a special ressource, this is not ment and intended.

    And you can t say, that dwarves will pay out the same because having e.g to hunt for gromril to get special bonuses and (maybe) recruiting enhanced units, while orks have "Waagh-energy"-Ressource ,which e.g gives u boni and some nice additons like having 2 waagh armies insted of 1 when on max lvl.

    daelin4 said:

    TeNoSkill said:


    The problem is, that every race would have to have unique mechanics, which means you can t recycle, which was clearly done in Attila and just fine,because it worked well for the historical title.
    BUT, this leaves a big hole, because of the (seemingly) lack of features for every race.



    In order for one race to be distinct than another, it has to lack certain features that other races have. If every race has Sanitation, Food and Religion, of which are very important elements to winning the campaign on top of making units, then you really do force players to play the game in similar fashion. Religion already plays a factor in the form of Chaos creep, and Amber/ Peasant Economy already simulates some element of Food gameplay.
    I think you don t understand my suggestion. I know, that sanitation and food are not as viable for distinct factions , I only mean , those factions who CARE about this stuff , should have those mechanics, while those who don t for lore reasons should have another thing to keep them busy and not make em too unfair.

    And onto religion, it s very sad, how less it impacts the actuall gameplay, and there could be many nice ways to do it.
    And amber and peasant economy is no replacement for food, only amber is kinda interesting, but also not so deeply thought about.

    And that s my main point : I would have no problem, IF those features would be worked out appropriatly and deeply/immersive, but because of the variety of factions, this is sadly not the case, because you can t use distince things per faction.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,425
    TeNoSkill said:


    Those are the most basic features and they don t offer a depth of gameplay as the WRE or ERE ect.

    And you can t say, that the Empire and Bretonnia, as normal human factions, play at the same ammount of depth as in Attila.

    That is your opinion. Racial mechanics being "basic" I'll grant you, but they are still unique mechanics that make the factions distinct from eachother.

    Whatever definition you have of "depth", you cannot ignore the fact that Empire (Humans) are indeed more distinct from Greenskins, than the Romans in Attila do by virtue of mechanics. You don't get Waaghs!! when playing as Humans, and Greenskins don't have Offices. I can only guess what mechanics ERE has that WRE does not, don't both of them have politics, start as large empires, surrounded by enemies, and feature Roman units? That sounds awfully more simplistic compared to "most basic" features between Dwarfs and Chaos.

    My point is that if Humans shared the same mechanics as everyone else (for example a human version of Waagh!), then there would be no unique mechanics. Some races have this issue despite also having distinctions- as mechanic, what's the difference between Underway, Worldroots, Beastpaths? Literally, the answer is nothing. That makes Dwarfs, Greenskins, and Wood Elfs less distinct than they could be. THAT is most basic, because it really isn't different besides map design.
    Now imagine if Humans, Undead and Chaos can also have this mechanic: that would be even less diversity when playing the game.
    TeNoSkill said:


    If you mean, all factions play the same because beeing tied to a special ressource, this is not ment and intended.

    And you can t say, that dwarves will pay out the same because having e.g to hunt for gromril to get special bonuses and (maybe) recruiting enhanced units, while orks have "Waagh-energy"-Ressource ,which e.g gives u boni and some nice additons like having 2 waagh armies insted of 1 when on max lvl.

    Yes that is what I meant, and no, I can say that.
    Special resources is one form of unique game mechanic, and in my opinion, not all factions should have them, because that's how you keep variety- some factions have X and others have Y; other factions have neither and use
    Z, which is nothing. X and Y should also not just be superficial variants of eachother.

    Take, for example, if Dwarfs had Gromril as their special resource, and it was simply a clone of Amber. That isn't increased variety, it's actually less because they are the same mechanic applied to two different races, and gives the same gameplay result; obtain special resource to gain special bonuses (in this case, allow tech research, allow units to be trained, and gained via conquest or alliances). If that's even considered diversity, it's not a good one, in fact that's classic example of bad variety.

    Now if Gromril operated very differently than Amber, such as they are basically the Warhammer version of Food, then that's another thing entirely, because while it is also a special resource, the way it works is VERY different from the way you use Amber. This is what CA did with Chivalry, Bretonnia's special resource- it works very differently than Amber in that you cannot apply the rules of gaining Amber with Chivalry: how the latter works and is gained, differs substantially than Amber.
    If the hypothetical Gromril acted as an economic modifier, ie they give a global reduced upkeep, or gave a global income bonus, this instead increases factional variety, because that's not the way Chivalry nor Amber works, both are more military in their bonus application.

    That said, Dwarfs already have Grudges, and Gromril can simply just be a special resource building that granted a bonus to regular income. If every race has a special resource, you run the risk of less variety as a result, unless each resource is somehow very conspicuous from each other, yet at the same time isn't so much added complexity that new players have to read multiple threads here just to get a grip of the game (which BTW is nearly impossible, especially since next two games will feature even more races).
    Mechanics also need to be accessible, and sometimes the most accessible is that some factions don't have one at all; sometimes the exclusivity is the best form of unique. Amber is unique as long as it's exclusive in being a special resource.

    In the case with Sanitation and Food, they'd have to operate very differently from Amber and Chivalry. Trying to apply this with existing races is tricky because they are already designed the way they are now, but you can try to put these mechanics- whatever special designs yo might have for them- to other races down the line, like High Elves. That's not a bad idea, but again that depends on what the ideas are and how different they'd be from other special resources or mechanics.

    I also do want to point out that not having a special resource is a quality of its own. Dwarfs for example are straightforward as a faction in Warhammer, they don't need to worry about a special resource that limits what special units you want. As a result Dwarfs have this reputation as being a "plain" no-nonsense, quintessential Total War faction that most players would be familiar with. That's a good thing because that IS what makes Dwarfs unique.
    If however you're forced to juggle with a special resource like when you played as Wood Elfs, then it's not so unique anymore: the fact that you have to deal with a special resource itself risks reducing variety.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Registered Users Posts: 2,868
    daelin4 said:


    That is your opinion. Racial mechanics being "basic" I'll grant you, but they are still unique mechanics that make the factions distinct from eachother.

    Whatever definition you have of "depth", you cannot ignore the fact that Empire (Humans) are indeed more distinct from Greenskins, than the Romans in Attila do by virtue of mechanics. You don't get Waaghs!! when playing as Humans, and Greenskins don't have Offices. I can only guess what mechanics ERE has that WRE does not, don't both of them have politics, start as large empires, surrounded by enemies, and feature Roman units? That sounds awfully more simplistic compared to "most basic" features between Dwarfs and Chaos.

    My point is that if Humans shared the same mechanics as everyone else (for example a human version of Waagh!), then there would be no unique mechanics. Some races have this issue despite also having distinctions- as mechanic, what's the difference between Underway, Worldroots, Beastpaths? Literally, the answer is nothing. That makes Dwarfs, Greenskins, and Wood Elfs less distinct than they could be. THAT is most basic, because it really isn't different besides map design.
    Now imagine if Humans, Undead and Chaos can also have this mechanic: that would be even less diversity when playing the game.
    .

    I think you don t get my point.What i meant, was giving the races more depth by having a special ressource.
    This ressource would in every case be different and so attuned to the race it gets to.

    The thing, why people are suggesting, that old features need to be brought back, is because TWW lacks empire managment and things you can do on the campaign map e.g

    -More economy-buildings e.g specialize your economy
    -Unique ressources to care about to give an wider variety of works to be done.
    -Politics, which won t be punishing when you forget about it a bit, but can punish you, with some event windows popping up, effecting your generals or faction or political influence.
    -Integrity, which is where the waagh mechanic descendat from, which simulates the influence of you leading armies and the affect on the soldiers.
    -Unique race traits, like WRE can recriut militia from hordes + no integrity penalty or Saxons getting + 250% money from raiding etc.
    -better diplomacy, allowing to gift settlements and stop war between 2 factions etc.
    -.....
    the list continues

    I don t say those faetures should be implemented as they were, which would be wrong on many levels, but looked, how they would appeal to certain factions.

    politics can be addresd to most factions: Empire electorial council, Chaos warband leaders, vampire aristocracy, greenskin tribal leaderz etc.
    Of course, the way it would work and how the boni would be , must be decently race appealing as possible to not make it play entirely as the same


  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Registered Users Posts: 2,868
    OP , you should change " more buildings variety" to more economic /support buildings variety, like in TWA,which had the best eco-system
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 24,678
    edited April 2017
    TeNoSkill said:

    OP , you should change " more buildings variety" to more economic /support buildings variety, like in TWA,which had the best eco-system

    No. It. Did. Not. I've been playing TWA extensively and modded it quite a bit as well, so don't tell obvious tall-tales.

    It had a lot of buildings to choose from but only a handful of them were actually worth building, the rest either were worse or actively detrimental to campaign progress because of the hefty penalties that accompanied so many buildings and which off-set whatever advantage they were bringing.

    One Goat Pen To Rule Them...

  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Registered Users Posts: 2,868

    TeNoSkill said:

    OP , you should change " more buildings variety" to more economic /support buildings variety, like in TWA,which had the best eco-system

    No. It. Did. Not. I've been playing TWA extensively and modded it quite a bit as well, so don't tell obvious tall-tales.

    It had a lot of buildings to choose from but only a handful of them were actually worth building, the rest either were worse or actively detrimental to campaign progress because of the hefty penalties that accompanied so many buildings and which off-set whatever advantage they were bringing.

    One Goat Pen To Rule Them...
    I had no problem utilizing most buildings as WRE or ERE. The food chain had a middle ground on more specializing in food, one in money. This, comined with the fertitlity system made all 3 things usable.

    You had industrial buildings, who gave mucg money, but a decent penalty while others not so much money, but less/no penalty.
    But a wider variety of buildings is not actually bad. It may be your opinion,that some buildings where absolute nonsense, but in the end more is always better.

    But i have to admit, that the map in TWW 1 is not as big as Attila.At least it feels so. And the Empire has too less cities to support the ammount of buildings in Attila. i still think, that each Empire province should have 3-4 cities.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 24,678
    If you used all of TWA's buildings then you deliberately hobbled yourself and made the game artificially harder, period. Sorry, but the buildings choices in TWA were pretty obvious in what paid off and what didn't.

  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Registered Users Posts: 2,868

    If you used all of TWA's buildings then you deliberately hobbled yourself and made the game artificially harder, period. Sorry, but the buildings choices in TWA were pretty obvious in what paid off and what didn't.

    Did you calculate evrything out or what, also I don t care, I had fun, I don t seek the ultimate way to beat a campaign and I enjoyed having so much choices.
    And it speaks for the game if it can be be beaten easily and satisfy people like me, who enjoy the variety ;)
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Registered Users Posts: 2,868
    I don t say that the features should be brought back exactly as they were, but in a large portion.

    Also the razing of a settlement i nAttlia caused a literal burning of the whole province, which looked amazing
  • EarthpacEarthpac Registered Users Posts: 69
    The big 2 on that list for me are formation & minor settlement battles.

    I currently use the "Ultimate minor settlement map pack" mod and it's good, but the problem is that the AI doesn't take into account that you have a new defensive position and so they attack in some battles where they can't really win. The battle AI really needs a specific way of playing in settlement battles distinct from sieges & field battles which the modding community can't add and so CA really needs to make this a base part of the game.

    Formations are the other big one - I don't understand why these weren't included in the game, surely they must have had to consciously gut them from the engine? In TWW it's unfavourable for cav to charge spears over another unit, but they can't be used as the immobile deathtrap for cav that they were in other games because there's no spearwall. They defo should be able to use it though.

    Most factions have a means of dealing with them, whether it's pummelling their clumped formation with artillery / ranged units or flanking them with flyers. It would also probably make magic more powerful by having more clumped targets to unleash hell on.

    An ironbreaker shield-wall should also be a thing - they're meant to be the ultimate defensive unit but they can't even close ranks and form a really tight impenetrable shell. Would be awesome in sieges to have an ironbreaker shield wall at your gate.

    Would also be great if you could adopt lose formations like in older games as well. It's annoying that as dwarfs you don't really have any counter to arty other than bringing more arty than them because you can't adopt any stance, your units are so tightly packed that they always take a lot of damage.

    Could also be a good way of differentiating factions more - giving more orderly factions access to formations whilst factions like orcs & beastmen lack the discipline to adopt them.

    Edit: Also I'm pretty sure OP is talking about formations like spearwall, circling missle cav, shieldwall & loose formation, not the **** preset things that no one really used. I've never heard anyone complain about those being missing, but this other stuff is pretty sorely gone. My only guess is that they didn't include it because it isn't in Warhammer ruleswise, but this is a total war game in the total war engine and formations are definitely something missing due to how the whole engine is designed.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,425
    edited April 2017
    TeNoSkill said:


    I think you don t get my point.What i meant, was giving the races more depth by having a special ressource.
    This ressource would in every case be different and so attuned to the race it gets to.

    I got your point and I have reservations for it. Presence of special resource in itself does not make a game have more depth. A special resource design that's done well, would produce more depth. Analogy-wise, tacking on an engine and random tires doesn't produce a car, let alone a good one.
    TeNoSkill said:


    The thing, why people are suggesting, that old features need to be brought back, is because TWW lacks empire managment and things you can do on the campaign map e.g

    There are multiple reasons why people want "old" features, and not all of them are equal in their validity.
    Not all factions in Warhammer are there for an empire management experience, certainly not ones like Greenskins or Beastmen. Knights might be the biggest reason why MTW2 played well, but that hardly means that giving everyone knights in Warhammer is going to result in the same thing.
    In terms of empire management, whatever that might mean, I'd think that Empire would come close to what you're imagining, as I personally think their Office mechanics is very basic and managing an actual empire is kind of their theme. Dwarfs you can at least get away with them being nominal fiefs to high king etc. You'd have to make a very different management scheme for other races, otherwise you just go through the Rome2 experience again where every faction operated the same thing and just wore different clothes. Barbarian Elders were literally the same as Roman Senators in that game. There was no true variety and thus the factions boasted some more features than Warhammer, but were shallow as a result. I think CA learned that lesson and applied it to Warhammer, where races are designed to be played very differently than eachother.
    TeNoSkill said:


    -More economy-buildings e.g specialize your economy
    -Unique ressources to care about to give an wider variety of works to be done.
    -Politics, which won t be punishing when you forget about it a bit, but can punish you, with some event windows popping up, effecting your generals or faction or political influence.
    -Integrity, which is where the waagh mechanic descendat from, which simulates the influence of you leading armies and the affect on the soldiers.
    -Unique race traits, like WRE can recriut militia from hordes + no integrity penalty or Saxons getting + 250% money from raiding etc.
    -better diplomacy, allowing to gift settlements and stop war between 2 factions etc.
    -.....
    the list continues

    I don t say those faetures should be implemented as they were, which would be wrong on many levels, but looked, how they would appeal to certain factions.

    But the main point of reference in regards to Warhammer is Rome2 and Attila, hardly good references. Naturally people will look at be looking at these previous features from the games that used them. If you think there would be good variants made of these features in Warhammer then you need to demonstrate it with your imagination. You're not going to convince people by insisting that they are and will be great if they make a return, especially if no one knows how you envision that happening at all among the races.
    If you want something like empire management your best bet is to focus on the faction(s) that would portray them well. Obviously you neither argue for them to be included for Greenskins nor for all factions. You're asking for mew stuff, and misinterpreting it as gaining new variety or depth. Not so simple.
    TeNoSkill said:


    Of course, the way it would work and how the boni would be , must be decently race appealing as possible to not make it play entirely as the same

    Precisely my point: the way you implement these features into the game is more important than whether the features are implemented at all, because if done improperly or lazily you ruin the game. Be a huge fan of knights or triremes all you want, but you'll find the vast majority of serious thinkers will agree that putting them into Shogun2 is not a good idea at all. Bretonnia is the quintessential Knightly set of factions in Warhammer, so Empire needs to be a bit different.
    I'm not suggesting empire management for Warhammer is perfect, far from it; I'm saying that throwing any empire management feature won't equal an improvement. Half of what makes an idea great is whether it would produce a good result; the other half is whether you can produce the result at all. Integrity for everyone while Greenskins have Waagh! is an example of tacking on features you liked from before. If everyone has it, then everyone plays out the same. Fine line between variety and depth.
    TeNoSkill said:


    But a wider variety of buildings is not actually bad. It may be your opinion,that some buildings where absolute nonsense, but in the end more is always better.

    First, you contradict yourself. What you're saying is that more (variety) isn't actually bad, then say that it is always better.

    Second, that is not true. If the wider variety you put into the game actually works out well, then it is good. The presence of a wide variety doesn't inherently lead to a great game. Warhammer and Shogun2 proves that. You can even argue that Empire and Rome2/ Attila demonstrates the opposite, that they don't lead to great games given heir reputation. Yes the reputation isn't really based on the wider variety of buildings (no clear consensus, equal numbers like and dislike it), but it did seem to have convinced CA to go with the less variety route for Warhammer; they did the same in Shogun2.

    Third, your sentiment is that even if more variety produced terrible results, the fact that said results exist is always better than if it didn't. Whether you truly believe that or it's being said just to support your desire for more variety, I'll let you decide.

    Post edited by daelin4 on

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.

Leave a Comment

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