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

Dark Elves Battle Let's Play

1456810

Comments

  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    I've posted before many times explaining how the game restricts what options the player has. You don't get to bypass all that by declaring what is and is not fact.

    All factions have basically the same playstyle and same restricted options because it's the battle design as a whole that makes it so. Not a single missile infantry unit currently in the game matches the range of a real-life longbow(with Elves you'd expect them to be way more advanced in that), nor do any of them fire how a ranked unit would. They lose all the natural advantages of that in favour of some quirky unrealistic ones imposed from the top-down, but as they are all the same they are basically short-ranged snipers, firing rapidly and unable to effectively skirmish like in previous games.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 21,981
    Take it easy folks. Don't take differing viewpoints personally.

    Thanks.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

  • SeldkamSeldkam Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,455

    I've posted before many times explaining how the game restricts what options the player has. You don't get to bypass all that by declaring what is and is not fact.

    All factions have basically the same playstyle and same restricted options because it's the battle design as a whole that makes it so. Not a single missile infantry unit currently in the game matches the range of a real-life longbow(with Elves you'd expect them to be way more advanced in that), nor do any of them fire how a ranked unit would. They lose all the natural advantages of that in favour of some quirky unrealistic ones imposed from the top-down, but as they are all the same they are basically short-ranged snipers, firing rapidly and unable to effectively skirmish like in previous games.

    Wood elves have fantastic skirmishing, I say it again, playing melee focused without any skirmishing as WE is frankly not a good idea, at least not in quick battle.

    Barring extremely good players who make anything work like govlin Archer spam, using deepwood scouts and whatnot is pretty common.

    As for the realism thing sorry but that doesn't hold water when there's no reason for making it realistic.

    If wood elf skirmishers had such an issue as you say they do there's no way you'd see the kinds of builds that are commonly seen as viable by both semi decent and good players.

    Moreover what exactly about making things realistic would help? If you increase the range you make things even worse because the unit must get more expensive or compensate somewhere else. Sadly range in this game does nothing for units past about 150 because you can dodge the arrows so easily, even with infantry.

    So actually adding range so it's realistic is not even that for them.

    Another problem is CA hates the idea of allowing skirmishers to kill other units before contact is made, which is why the realistic version of the longbow would never, ever work.

    And this is for good reason. No one wants to play a game where the enemy army is 70% peasant Bowen, like the good ol days of "realism"
    The inferior races of this world will be crushed one by one, as our armies move from shore to shore, and hill to hill, and city to city-- and each of their cries will be as music to our ears, for we are the Druchii.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    Wood Elves can skirmish nominally because many of their units can fire while moving and are slightly faster than most melee infantry in the game. This is only because they have explicitly been giving the abilities to do so; there is no reason why other races shouldn't be able to, except that CA designed battles to make it impossible without utterly unrealistic features like certain units being able to not only shoot behind them with bows(you try doing that) but do so while running.

    They don't skirmish for the reason why there is a such thing as skirmishers in warfare, they do it because it's a race gimmick and why no other race can do it. The reason for making it realistic is because players can logically infer what works and don't have to try guessing the opaque design intent of CA from the under-whelming in-game explanations of what units are for. Rule-based systems are infinitely superior to top-down design and reality is rule-based. Even when fiction and fantasy deviate from reality, they have to construct coherent rules to do so. That is not the case with the battle and unit design of Total War: Warhammer.

    Somehow further ranges were never a problem in previous TWs. They are a problem in this game because of the shooting mechanics, which are applied uniformly across all units that can shoot something. They don't fire in volleys and they aim for individual troops, which does make them very ineffective if they could shoot further. The shooting system is one of the things that really needs to change.
  • KayosivKayosiv Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,748
    I'd certainly want the game to play a little more like ArecBalrin describes.

    I mean you can like the arcade action if you want, but I think everyone has to agree that 47 units battling it out should probably take longer than 5 minutes if the forces are pretty close to equal.

    Whether that sweet spot is 7 minutes or 10 or 15 is always going to be up for debate. However I don't play campaign for the little battles. The skirmishes, while maybe fun for 1-4 battles at the start of a campaign, get old. I yearn for epic battles of multiple huge armies with monsters and heroic last stands and thunderous cavalry charges that snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

    That's not going to happen in a 5 minute battle. How can it?
    Space Frontier is a sci-fi themed board game I've designed for 2-4 players. Please take a look and enjoy our free Print-and-Play at FreezeDriedGames.com

    If you have any questions about tactics or mechanics in Total War Warhammer multiplayer, feel free to PM me.
  • Nyanko73Nyanko73 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,351
    Kayosiv said:

    I'd certainly want the game to play a little more like ArecBalrin describes.

    I mean you can like the arcade action if you want, but I think everyone has to agree that 47 units battling it out should probably take longer than 5 minutes if the forces are pretty close to equal.

    Whether that sweet spot is 7 minutes or 10 or 15 is always going to be up for debate. However I don't play campaign for the little battles. The skirmishes, while maybe fun for 1-4 battles at the start of a campaign, get old. I yearn for epic battles of multiple huge armies with monsters and heroic last stands and thunderous cavalry charges that snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

    That's not going to happen in a 5 minute battle. How can it?

    Unless you micromanage like an average starcraft player, it can't. But for some players, that's what they like. This is why I am asking for an option to choose between 'fast' and 'slow' mode battles. So everyone is happy.

    Team Yennefer

    "A blinding flash materialised into a transparent sphere, and inside it loomed a shape, assuming contours and shapes at frightening speed. Dandelion recognised it at once. He knew those wild, black curls and the obsidian star on a velvet ribbon. What he didn’t know and had never seen before was the face. It was a face of rage and fury, the face of the goddess of vengeance, destruction and death." - Time of contempt
  • FrancisFrancis Member Registered Users Posts: 504
    Kayosiv said:

    I'd certainly want the game to play a little more like ArecBalrin describes.

    I mean you can like the arcade action if you want, but I think everyone has to agree that 47 units battling it out should probably take longer than 5 minutes if the forces are pretty close to equal.

    Whether that sweet spot is 7 minutes or 10 or 15 is always going to be up for debate. However I don't play campaign for the little battles. The skirmishes, while maybe fun for 1-4 battles at the start of a campaign, get old. I yearn for epic battles of multiple huge armies with monsters and heroic last stands and thunderous cavalry charges that snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

    That's not going to happen in a 5 minute battle. How can it?

    Quoted for truth, the battles are way to micro heavy for my taste. It breaks my immersion.
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonRegistered Users Posts: 3,025
    Nyanko73 said:


    Unless you micromanage like an average starcraft player, it can't. But for some players, that's what they like. This is why I am asking for an option to choose between 'fast' and 'slow' mode battles. So everyone is happy.

    Indeed. I've been advocating for this since before Rome II came out.

    What we need is one option that keeps the current battle speed and one that offers a pace closer to what the overwhelming majority of regular players are asking for.



    Something around the average 14 minute mark basically.
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonRegistered Users Posts: 3,025
    I am actually quite in awe of how much of divide there is between current battle pace and what people would prefer. I'd understand if it was somewhere kind of in the middle and there were some people on either side of the fence.... but just look at this:



    That uptick on the left isn't even people asking for it faster. They voted "0" for no change/slower.
  • FrancisFrancis Member Registered Users Posts: 504
    Where did you get your numbers from? They seem telling
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonRegistered Users Posts: 3,025
    edited August 2017
    Francis said:

    Where did you get your numbers from? They seem telling

    I created a cross-community survey that has been responded to by about 2,300 people.

    You can take it here, if you like:

    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/200262/the-warhammer-battles-survey-results-are-in/p1
  • ErminazErminaz Senior Member Las Vegas, Nevada, USARegistered Users Posts: 5,755
    edited August 2017
    Deleted, didn't refresh before posting.
    Tacitus Quotes:
    Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace.

    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.

    I found Rome a city of filth covered marble and left it a pile of rubble. - Me
  • FrancisFrancis Member Registered Users Posts: 504
    Fredrin said:

    Francis said:

    Where did you get your numbers from? They seem telling

    I created a cross-community survey that has been responded to by about 2,300 people.

    You can take it here, if you like:

    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/200262/the-warhammer-battles-survey-results-are-in/p1
    Good job, to bad CA don't do surveys like this themselves.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    Dialogue would be better than surveys. Even the best-intentioned surveys still suffer biases. Community members can do surveys on their own initiative and the fact they do shows something is a concern, but if the devs were to do it then it would be the devs choosing what the surveys are about and those would reflect dev concerns.

    Considering the mini-backlash over the recent stream where questions were raised about who at CA actually plays TW games, there will be a real and/or perceived issue of them being out of touch and unable to design surveys were the questions were informed in order to get useful response data.

    For me, I would much prefer CA to do dialogue explaining some of the decisions they take and then responding to the responses. The last time we got anything there was a statement about battle-pacing detailing some changes that were being made, but I felt it expressed a huge misunderstanding of what mainly causes the pace to be out of step with older TWs. Before that there was a post discussing the related issue of tactical options given by group and unit formations and toggles that had long been a staple in the series but are heavily stripped-back in Warhammer; I feel the devs failed to understand that these options were anticipatory rather than reactionary and would not as they claimed increase the amount of micro needed but reduce it, because that is what they used to do. You don't need to commit your reserves due to them being sniped at if you can help preserve them with loose formation already active. You don't need to get a unit to counter-charge to match the charge bonus of the attacker if you have correctly positioned them and they automatically brace and hold formation.

    CA just said their bit and left, we don't even know if they read the responses to them.
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonRegistered Users Posts: 3,025
    edited August 2017

    Dialogue would be better than surveys. Even the best-intentioned surveys still suffer biases. Community members can do surveys on their own initiative and the fact they do shows something is a concern, but if the devs were to do it then it would be the devs choosing what the surveys are about and those would reflect dev concerns.

    Considering the mini-backlash over the recent stream where questions were raised about who at CA actually plays TW games, there will be a real and/or perceived issue of them being out of touch and unable to design surveys were the questions were informed in order to get useful response data.

    For me, I would much prefer CA to do dialogue explaining some of the decisions they take and then responding to the responses. The last time we got anything there was a statement about battle-pacing detailing some changes that were being made, but I felt it expressed a huge misunderstanding of what mainly causes the pace to be out of step with older TWs. Before that there was a post discussing the related issue of tactical options given by group and unit formations and toggles that had long been a staple in the series but are heavily stripped-back in Warhammer; I feel the devs failed to understand that these options were anticipatory rather than reactionary and would not as they claimed increase the amount of micro needed but reduce it, because that is what they used to do. You don't need to commit your reserves due to them being sniped at if you can help preserve them with loose formation already active. You don't need to get a unit to counter-charge to match the charge bonus of the attacker if you have correctly positioned them and they automatically brace and hold formation.

    CA just said their bit and left, we don't even know if they read the responses to them.

    I actually started doing the surveys as a way of starting the dialogue you mention. Back in December 2013 I put one together (not a particularly good one) in the wake of all of Rome II's fallout that got something crazy like 110k views and pages and pages of comments.

    I put another together for Rome II and a big one for Attila, which had approx 4,000+ responses. I know CA has seen them and at quite a senior level too, but I haven't been able to start a proper collaboration sadly.

    The ideal formula as far as I can see it, would be for the devs to be able get info from the community at a stage when they're developing new or overhauled features (pre-production basically). You'd think a central question they're asking themselves at this point is "what would our players really enjoy?" - quite a difficult one unless you spend hours upon hours sifting through forum posts, and even then with difficulty.

    What I would like to happen is to collaborate with the devs, for them to feed me questions through the community guys, while I get key questions from the community and then we combine them into a big survey. Randomly sample for results in a way that only help from CA would allow and then discuss them quite openly with the devs before they get to the task of actually designing and implementing.

    I have no idea about the feasibility of all this, but I imagine the outcome would be developers making large design decisions in full confidence they're going to be met with a decent level of praise, plus a community that feels like it's being listened to and being offered a game that is well tailored to their tastes. A win-win, if you will.

    Anyway, better go and tend to all my other pipe dreams now :tongue:
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonRegistered Users Posts: 3,025

    Dialogue would be better than surveys. Even the best-intentioned surveys still suffer biases.

    CA already take a huge amount of feedback form the forums, regularly fixing bugs and designing features around feedback. Are the many opinions expressed on these pages any less biased than the results a community survey would be collecting? Unlikely - it's the same people.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    Slightly off-topic, but came across this video about game balance. It's mainly about fighting games, namely Street Fighter, but a lot of what it covers applies to games in general; an example from basketball is used.



    There are two things in the video which stand out to me.

    1. A game might be made more complex by more gameplay options for players, but this actually reduces the work required to make it fair and fun because the players themselves are able to adapt more and the developers are better able to zero-in on what causes problems with more specificity. Making characters(or in the case of TW, races and units) too similar is the reverse of this and makes a game less fun and harder to troubleshoot. I have argued that there is insufficient role diversity for units and that on the macro level applies to races too; units are either shock troops, flankers, snipers or nukers. Roles based on being part of an army would be greater and more diverse than that.

    2. People feel losses 2x as much as they feel wins. What good are all the toys for killing if you are scraping through with many units having less than 40 troops left in what would have been an obvious victory given the terrain and tactics you knew worked in other TWs? Even if you win, the repeated close and pyrrhic victories make you feel you didn't.
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Registered Users Posts: 2,009
    One thing that gives battles more depth and gives units more range in roles they play is unit formations and a selection of attack types, armor piercing , fire, poison etc.
  • JastalllJastalll Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,289

    Wood Elves can skirmish nominally because many of their units can fire while moving and are slightly faster than most melee infantry in the game. This is only because they have explicitly been giving the abilities to do so; there is no reason why other races shouldn't be able to, except that CA designed battles to make it impossible without utterly unrealistic features like certain units being able to not only shoot behind them with bows(you try doing that) but do so while running.

    They don't skirmish for the reason why there is a such thing as skirmishers in warfare, they do it because it's a race gimmick and why no other race can do it. The reason for making it realistic is because players can logically infer what works and don't have to try guessing the opaque design intent of CA from the under-whelming in-game explanations of what units are for. Rule-based systems are infinitely superior to top-down design and reality is rule-based. Even when fiction and fantasy deviate from reality, they have to construct coherent rules to do so. That is not the case with the battle and unit design of Total War: Warhammer.

    Somehow further ranges were never a problem in previous TWs. They are a problem in this game because of the shooting mechanics, which are applied uniformly across all units that can shoot something. They don't fire in volleys and they aim for individual troops, which does make them very ineffective if they could shoot further. The shooting system is one of the things that really needs to change.

    Realism doesn't often serve gameplay in Total War. That's really the long and short of it.

    In fact I think you have it backwards; the average player, who is interested in but usually largely ignorant of medieval warfare, is far better able to grasp basic information like X counters Y, than X realistically has more range than Y so we need to make it that way. For instance; swords beat spears, spears beat cavalry, cavalry beats swords. Realistic? Hell no, in real warfare swords were sidearms most of the time and guys with swords charging at braced spears would get massacred. Easy to infer and understand for the average Joe? You bet. Similarily, hand weapons and bows are best vs light armor, Great Weapons and handguns beat armor. Realistic? Not really. Easily understandable? Yep. Some units do break that mold however which is where faction uniqueness comes in.

    Leaving aside the fact that realism just plain doesn't work for most factions (how realistically far can an Orc bowman shoot? How realistically well can a Hellcannon fire? How realistically can a dragon soak bullets? How realistically strong is a Chaos Warrior?), it's a goal that Total has literally never shot for and never will. Shogun II was certainly far from realistic when it depicted Samurai as using any other battlefield weapon than bows, for the majority of them at least. It's like Company of Heroes the RTS; you aim at photorealism, then focus on fun, accessible gameplay. It's worked well for Total War so far and they have little reason to change it.

    I would agree that slowing down battles a bit would be nice, as well as seeing more interesting interactions; for example I think cavalry or monster charging braced Halberds or Spears should get utterly massacred on the charge, not only for realism but because these units then serve as highly effective deterrents if well positioned. But a revolution in terms of battle design is unlikely to happen and IMO wouldn't serve the series, especially not for Warhammer.
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonRegistered Users Posts: 3,025
    edited September 2017
    Good points @Jastall - CA has for sure never put outright realism at the centre of their design.

    But I think the point Arec's making often is that there are ways of introducing tactical elements which would better reflect the variety of factors which determine real battles, without necessarily aiming for sim levels of authenticity. Counter mechanics do exist in RL battles, but they seem to have taken over battle gameplay, to the point where many other tactical considerations are either heavily watered down or non-existent.

    My suspicion is that this is more likely to do with AI programming than conscious design. Counter mechanics must be relatively (!) straightforward to programme - whereas when you start to introduce lots of other complexly interacting tactical mechanics, you are likely to get some fiendishly unpredictable emergent phenomena. Which would in turn make balancing extremely hard.

    I actually believe this to the main reason why there is such a huge disparity between battle speed as it is and as players want. Not to make it more palatable to new/casual players, but to make it a challenge to experienced players. It's much simpler (cheaper) solution than programming battles to have the complexity that Arec and the rest of us would dearly like to see.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    Jastall said:

    Wood Elves can skirmish nominally because many of their units can fire while moving and are slightly faster than most melee infantry in the game. This is only because they have explicitly been giving the abilities to do so; there is no reason why other races shouldn't be able to, except that CA designed battles to make it impossible without utterly unrealistic features like certain units being able to not only shoot behind them with bows(you try doing that) but do so while running.

    They don't skirmish for the reason why there is a such thing as skirmishers in warfare, they do it because it's a race gimmick and why no other race can do it. The reason for making it realistic is because players can logically infer what works and don't have to try guessing the opaque design intent of CA from the under-whelming in-game explanations of what units are for. Rule-based systems are infinitely superior to top-down design and reality is rule-based. Even when fiction and fantasy deviate from reality, they have to construct coherent rules to do so. That is not the case with the battle and unit design of Total War: Warhammer.

    Somehow further ranges were never a problem in previous TWs. They are a problem in this game because of the shooting mechanics, which are applied uniformly across all units that can shoot something. They don't fire in volleys and they aim for individual troops, which does make them very ineffective if they could shoot further. The shooting system is one of the things that really needs to change.

    Realism doesn't often serve gameplay in Total War. That's really the long and short of it.

    In fact I think you have it backwards; the average player, who is interested in but usually largely ignorant of medieval warfare, is far better able to grasp basic information like X counters Y, than X realistically has more range than Y so we need to make it that way. For instance; swords beat spears, spears beat cavalry, cavalry beats swords. Realistic? Hell no, in real warfare swords were sidearms most of the time and guys with swords charging at braced spears would get massacred. Easy to infer and understand for the average Joe? You bet. Similarily, hand weapons and bows are best vs light armor, Great Weapons and handguns beat armor. Realistic? Not really. Easily understandable? Yep. Some units do break that mold however which is where faction uniqueness comes in.

    Leaving aside the fact that realism just plain doesn't work for most factions (how realistically far can an Orc bowman shoot? How realistically well can a Hellcannon fire? How realistically can a dragon soak bullets? How realistically strong is a Chaos Warrior?), it's a goal that Total has literally never shot for and never will. Shogun II was certainly far from realistic when it depicted Samurai as using any other battlefield weapon than bows, for the majority of them at least. It's like Company of Heroes the RTS; you aim at photorealism, then focus on fun, accessible gameplay. It's worked well for Total War so far and they have little reason to change it.

    I would agree that slowing down battles a bit would be nice, as well as seeing more interesting interactions; for example I think cavalry or monster charging braced Halberds or Spears should get utterly massacred on the charge, not only for realism but because these units then serve as highly effective deterrents if well positioned. But a revolution in terms of battle design is unlikely to happen and IMO wouldn't serve the series, especially not for Warhammer.
    It's important to establish that realism is not the same as realistic. Many simulator games are designed with realism in mind, but they do not and can not be realistic without technology that doesn't yet exist and a huge budget and tens of thousands of people working on it. So for example, Euro Truck Simulator has all the realism of actually driving a truck, but the distances you travel and thus the time it takes are massively scaled-down, with the game-time sped up to match those distances. It is not realistic, but the realism is captured.

    I've started playing the very first Total War again as it's on sale on steam really cheap and my own disc copy no longer works. It is quite obvious even then CA were going for a simulation of realism in battles, which is not to be confused with trying to make them realistic. I have to go out now but will come back to this later.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    I have returned and I am full of ice cream and may be sick, perfect time to pick up where I left off.

    Now, to answer your own well-thought out argument; the way you teach a beginner what does what is to show, not tell. In visual media like games, TV, cinema and even theatre, that rule is often the most ignored and yet it's the most crucial. The problem is in Warhammer you can't do that because if someone zooms in to have a look, something is happening somewhere else where their attention should be better focused, such is the peril of a battle design that means almost every unit is engaged at once.

    You could see this in Shogun 2: if Yari Ashigaru were attacked in melee and they weren't holding their spear-wall formation(where they DID behave with realism and massacre almost everything that attacked the formation head-on), they would change to their sidearm swords. Yari Samurai did not do this because whilst they did not realistically deploy with such a weapon, they did train with it so the realism interpretation would be that it made no sense for them to change change to a sidearm when they know how to use the weapon in individual combat and weren't limited to depending on the formation like the conscripts were.

    In RPS, rock-paper-shotgun simulation like the above scenario, you learn by doing and seeing. In 'X beats Y', you learn by remembering a long list of arbitrary counters for your aesthetically varied but functionally identical shock, snipe and flank units.

    CA could have chosen to depict a simulation of the realism inherent in the fiction of Warhammer, but it seems some people keep falling back on saying they are trying to imitate the tabletop despite the evidence to the contrary. Yes, CA have borrowed some things from the tabletop, but they have done so selectively and some things which would really make sense and make battles more in-depth have been left out. Magic doesn't seem powerful enough or risky enough, expendable units dying causes leadership to drop in other units when it shouldn't and so on.

    How far can an Orc shoot? Not very far, but in the realism sense, most sources I've seen agree that the average Orc is considerably stronger and larger than the average man, so they can use bows with much higher draw-strength that go further and hit harder. If they fired in volleys, they would be able to exert good zones-of-control from the sheer amount of missiles in the air, whilst not being good at sniping or skirmishing. Yet like all ranged units, they are just snipers.

    In fantasy fiction, the good kind at least, what is realistic is only what can exist in our world as well as the make-believe one and where it can not it obeys realism within the context of the setting. I will use Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea universe as an example: magic in that setting is based on everything that exists having a True-name which when known enables mastery over it. The study of wizardry is the study of these names, but they do not just hand that out because knowing a name doesn't mean the magician understands it and that could lead to catastrophe. So instead of spells, apprentice wizards learn how to discover names by how the names whether spoken or written relate to the existence of the subject. In the first book, A Wizard Of Earthsea, the reader learns about this alongside Ged/Sparrowhawk the main protagonist(his secret True-name and public wizard-name respectively), as he is taught it. The reader also learns how spells disrupt nature and these consequences are what bind wizards to a code of limitation; if one were to make it rain, it could cause drought elsewhere.

    So, it disappoints me when someone makes the suggestion that because something is fantasy or genre fiction, that it doesn't have to make sense. The best always makes sense and the worst always treats the audience like idiots.
  • SeldkamSeldkam Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,455

    Wood Elves can skirmish nominally because many of their units can fire while moving and are slightly faster than most melee infantry in the game. This is only because they have explicitly been giving the abilities to do so; there is no reason why other races shouldn't be able to, except that CA designed battles to make it impossible without utterly unrealistic features like certain units being able to not only shoot behind them with bows(you try doing that) but do so while running.

    They don't skirmish for the reason why there is a such thing as skirmishers in warfare, they do it because it's a race gimmick and why no other race can do it. The reason for making it realistic is because players can logically infer what works and don't have to try guessing the opaque design intent of CA from the under-whelming in-game explanations of what units are for. Rule-based systems are infinitely superior to top-down design and reality is rule-based. Even when fiction and fantasy deviate from reality, they have to construct coherent rules to do so. That is not the case with the battle and unit design of Total War: Warhammer.

    Somehow further ranges were never a problem in previous TWs. They are a problem in this game because of the shooting mechanics, which are applied uniformly across all units that can shoot something. They don't fire in volleys and they aim for individual troops, which does make them very ineffective if they could shoot further. The shooting system is one of the things that really needs to change.

    Your argument boils down to muh realism dude. I'm not even exaggerating. Wood Elves aren't humans, get that through your head. If you really think all factions should have the same abilities and should be able to do the same thing and same strategies as well as each other then go play Shogun 2.

    As for the second paragraph, you're also wrong, because they use melee builds too against factions too, it's just they use certain builds like a tool. It's how the TT race played too for that matter... If you have to say "realism = easier to understand" then you've gone too far into the realm of catering to the lowest common denominator. It's not like people who play Total War are incapable of learning a **** game >_<

    Lastly yes, shooting at the corner of units is frankly idiotic as all hell but it only happens if you are using fire at will which you should almost never do anyways. But, again, previous total wars had extremely similar units because humans are not the same as elves dwarfs etc. Here it's different not because it's bad but because it facilitates different playstyles, and if you don't like that, again, too bad dude. Warhammer isn't about "everyone gets to do everything."
    The inferior races of this world will be crushed one by one, as our armies move from shore to shore, and hill to hill, and city to city-- and each of their cries will be as music to our ears, for we are the Druchii.
  • FrancisFrancis Member Registered Users Posts: 504
    edited September 2017



    CA could have chosen to depict a simulation of the realism inherent in the fiction of Warhammer, but it seems some people keep falling back on saying they are trying to imitate the tabletop despite the evidence to the contrary. Yes, CA have borrowed some things from the tabletop, but they have done so selectively and some things which would really make sense and make battles more in-depth have been left out. Magic doesn't seem powerful enough or risky enough, expendable units dying causes leadership to drop in other units when it shouldn't and so on.

    In fantasy fiction, the good kind at least, what is realistic is only what can exist in our world as well as the make-believe one and where it can not it obeys realism within the context of the setting.

    So, it disappoints me when someone makes the suggestion that because something is fantasy or genre fiction, that it doesn't have to make sense. The best always makes sense and the worst always treats the audience like idiots.

    I can't upvote this enough.

    A fantasy universe that breaks its own internal laws are always immersion breaking and usually poorly written. And there is hardly anything more infuriating than seeing fanboys trying to defend it with that dreaded phrase "it's fantasy, it doesn't have to be realistic".
  • Nyanko73Nyanko73 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,351
    Francis said:



    CA could have chosen to depict a simulation of the realism inherent in the fiction of Warhammer, but it seems some people keep falling back on saying they are trying to imitate the tabletop despite the evidence to the contrary. Yes, CA have borrowed some things from the tabletop, but they have done so selectively and some things which would really make sense and make battles more in-depth have been left out. Magic doesn't seem powerful enough or risky enough, expendable units dying causes leadership to drop in other units when it shouldn't and so on.

    In fantasy fiction, the good kind at least, what is realistic is only what can exist in our world as well as the make-believe one and where it can not it obeys realism within the context of the setting.

    So, it disappoints me when someone makes the suggestion that because something is fantasy or genre fiction, that it doesn't have to make sense. The best always makes sense and the worst always treats the audience like idiots.

    I can't upvote this enough.

    A fantasy universe that breaks its own internal laws are always immersion breaking and usually poorly written. And there is hardly anything more infuriating than seeing fanboys trying to defend it with that dreaded phrase "it's fantasy, it doesn't have to be realistic".
    It's called the Diegesis and it works the same with any narrative. Every single fiction has its own set of rules and when those rules are broken, no matter what fantasy or sci fi like they were, the audience generally loses interest because it is seen as a betrayal to the story and its world as it was portrayed in the first place.

    And generally, a good writer or a good movie maker is the one who remains true to the original narrative. So I guess it works the same for games of any sort. It can be a good indicator of their quality.

    Team Yennefer

    "A blinding flash materialised into a transparent sphere, and inside it loomed a shape, assuming contours and shapes at frightening speed. Dandelion recognised it at once. He knew those wild, black curls and the obsidian star on a velvet ribbon. What he didn’t know and had never seen before was the face. It was a face of rage and fury, the face of the goddess of vengeance, destruction and death." - Time of contempt
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Registered Users Posts: 2,009
    edited September 2017
    @ArecBalrin
    That man knows what he is sayin.

    But they have imitated tabletop. Just look at the evidence.

    No dismounting
    No naval battles
    No unit formations
    Low design siege gameplay (they could have cut this too if settlements weren't such a integral part of the campaign)
    No landing flying units
    Severely limited battle types

    I mean I'm not not knocking the game, before someone thinks I'm persecuting CA or something. These are facts. They brought tabletop alive very well, with all the unique gameplay and units, but it unfortunately takes away a lot of aspects of a full total war game for lack of a better term.
    Post edited by KGpoopy on
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    Seldkam said:

    Wood Elves can skirmish nominally because many of their units can fire while moving and are slightly faster than most melee infantry in the game. This is only because they have explicitly been giving the abilities to do so; there is no reason why other races shouldn't be able to, except that CA designed battles to make it impossible without utterly unrealistic features like certain units being able to not only shoot behind them with bows(you try doing that) but do so while running.

    They don't skirmish for the reason why there is a such thing as skirmishers in warfare, they do it because it's a race gimmick and why no other race can do it. The reason for making it realistic is because players can logically infer what works and don't have to try guessing the opaque design intent of CA from the under-whelming in-game explanations of what units are for. Rule-based systems are infinitely superior to top-down design and reality is rule-based. Even when fiction and fantasy deviate from reality, they have to construct coherent rules to do so. That is not the case with the battle and unit design of Total War: Warhammer.

    Somehow further ranges were never a problem in previous TWs. They are a problem in this game because of the shooting mechanics, which are applied uniformly across all units that can shoot something. They don't fire in volleys and they aim for individual troops, which does make them very ineffective if they could shoot further. The shooting system is one of the things that really needs to change.

    Your argument boils down to muh realism dude. I'm not even exaggerating. Wood Elves aren't humans, get that through your head. If you really think all factions should have the same abilities and should be able to do the same thing and same strategies as well as each other then go play Shogun 2.

    As for the second paragraph, you're also wrong, because they use melee builds too against factions too, it's just they use certain builds like a tool. It's how the TT race played too for that matter... If you have to say "realism = easier to understand" then you've gone too far into the realm of catering to the lowest common denominator. It's not like people who play Total War are incapable of learning a **** game >_<

    Lastly yes, shooting at the corner of units is frankly idiotic as all hell but it only happens if you are using fire at will which you should almost never do anyways. But, again, previous total wars had extremely similar units because humans are not the same as elves dwarfs etc. Here it's different not because it's bad but because it facilitates different playstyles, and if you don't like that, again, too bad dude. Warhammer isn't about "everyone gets to do everything."
    Sorry to burst the bubble but apart from some race gimmicks, all races in Warhammer play virtually the same, more so than in most TW games, all due to the units themselves being reduced in their roles from a diverse army-based pattern to what were previously specialist-only: shock, sniper, flanker, sapper. Four, four roles.

    Realism is not the same as realistic and realism works. Where there is no realism, there needs to be a coherent set of rules replacing it and this game with it's 'X beats Y' just doesn't have it.
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Registered Users Posts: 2,009

    Seldkam said:

    Wood Elves can skirmish nominally because many of their units can fire while moving and are slightly faster than most melee infantry in the game. This is only because they have explicitly been giving the abilities to do so; there is no reason why other races shouldn't be able to, except that CA designed battles to make it impossible without utterly unrealistic features like certain units being able to not only shoot behind them with bows(you try doing that) but do so while running.

    They don't skirmish for the reason why there is a such thing as skirmishers in warfare, they do it because it's a race gimmick and why no other race can do it. The reason for making it realistic is because players can logically infer what works and don't have to try guessing the opaque design intent of CA from the under-whelming in-game explanations of what units are for. Rule-based systems are infinitely superior to top-down design and reality is rule-based. Even when fiction and fantasy deviate from reality, they have to construct coherent rules to do so. That is not the case with the battle and unit design of Total War: Warhammer.

    Somehow further ranges were never a problem in previous TWs. They are a problem in this game because of the shooting mechanics, which are applied uniformly across all units that can shoot something. They don't fire in volleys and they aim for individual troops, which does make them very ineffective if they could shoot further. The shooting system is one of the things that really needs to change.

    Your argument boils down to muh realism dude. I'm not even exaggerating. Wood Elves aren't humans, get that through your head. If you really think all factions should have the same abilities and should be able to do the same thing and same strategies as well as each other then go play Shogun 2.

    As for the second paragraph, you're also wrong, because they use melee builds too against factions too, it's just they use certain builds like a tool. It's how the TT race played too for that matter... If you have to say "realism = easier to understand" then you've gone too far into the realm of catering to the lowest common denominator. It's not like people who play Total War are incapable of learning a **** game >_<

    Lastly yes, shooting at the corner of units is frankly idiotic as all hell but it only happens if you are using fire at will which you should almost never do anyways. But, again, previous total wars had extremely similar units because humans are not the same as elves dwarfs etc. Here it's different not because it's bad but because it facilitates different playstyles, and if you don't like that, again, too bad dude. Warhammer isn't about "everyone gets to do everything."
    Sorry to burst the bubble but apart from some race gimmicks, all races in Warhammer play virtually the same, more so than in most TW games, all due to the units themselves being reduced in their roles from a diverse army-based pattern to what were previously specialist-only: shock, sniper, flanker, sapper. Four, four roles.

    Realism is not the same as realistic and realism works. Where there is no realism, there needs to be a coherent set of rules replacing it and this game with it's 'X beats Y' just doesn't have it.
    Are you going to tell me Chaos plays the same as the wood elves with a straight face?
    Dwarves and Norsca fight the same?

    Take away the gimmicks and you still have major differences. It depends on what you mean by gimmicks too. Which is unclear.
  • corvus_codexcorvus_codex Junior Member SpainRegistered Users Posts: 3,072
    Dark Elves siegue!!


    Team Skavens

    image

    "Brother Skavens! Consider this... Until the coming of Vermek Skab, the Council of Thirteen placed me in command of this army"
    - Grey Seer Thanquol, ruthlessly taking command of the Nuln Invasion force
  • chrissher7chrissher7 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    KGpoopy said:

    @ArecBalrin
    That man knows what he is sayin.

    But they have imitated tabletop. Just look at the evidence.

    No dismounting
    No naval battles
    No unit formations
    Low design siege gameplay (they could have cut this too if settlements weren't such a integral part of the campaign)
    No landing flying units
    Severely limited battle types

    I mean I'm not not knocking the game, before someone thinks I'm persecuting CA or something. These are facts. They brought tabletop alive very well, with all the unique gameplay and units, but it unfortunately takes away a lot of aspects of a full total war game for lack of a better term.

    Agreed. He seems to equate some tabletop features lacking to them not trying to intimate the tabletop at all which it just wrong.


Sign In or Register to comment.