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

My thoughts on upcoming DLC and the future of the TW:W Trilogy.

SeigmhaSeigmha Registered Users Posts: 20
edited September 2017 in General Discussion
Not what i expected to do sitting at lunch at work today, but sometimes when you feel you've glanced into the eternity of Chaos and felt true enlightenment, you just have to sit and write and get your thoughts out to the world. Ive seen a lot of speculative forum posts, but most have pertained to one piece of specific information vs taking in the picture as a whole. It seemed right to do that here.

I am fairly certain that based on TW:W 1 DLC expansions and current races, current map area of TW:W2 and the races that will more than likely occupy it, you could almost bet and guarantee looking at the remaining 8th ed army book roster that we are going to get Tomb Kings, Daemons of Chaos, and Araby (There is no way we are getting Vampire coast as its own thing, the most you could hope for is unit additions to VC in 2 in the form of a LL pack. Araby also mirrors the Bretonnia inclusion in 1) as DLC for the 2nd game. If you also take into account the kind of mirroring themes of the first two games in terms of chaos vs non chaos races, that we will be looking at a third TW:W consisting of Ogre Kingdoms, Chaos Dwarves, Cathay, and either Kingdoms of Ind or Nippon (with Ind being more likely for the initial addition due to its attachment to the main continent)

"But why would they do Cathay, Ind, and Nippon with so little lore/source material? Dumb post is dumb!"

So, i think that initially, the development cycle for the trilogy was this: Game 1 Old World, Game 2 New World, Game 3 Southlands. With the confirmed inclusion of Southlands in game 2, races that were probably planned for a later title are very likely to be included as DLC races. A good indicator of this occurring is the recent blog post citing the Mortal Empires campaign as being "much denser than originally envisioned in terms of race count"

What WAS the original vision for the TW:W trilogy? To see all 8th edition armies envisioned in their full glory. With all 4 starting races for the 2nd game out in the open, that only leaves us with Tomb Kings, Ogre Kingdoms, and Daemons of Chaos (we're talking main army books here, not necessarily current armies.) Precedent has already been set of them putting more minor factions into the game, or factions that never had an 'official' army such as the Norsca, so having discontinued armies in the game (in the form of Araby) isn't out of the question. This also set the precedent for using fanmade or experimental material for the basis of an army, example Norsca (which also includes Fimir in the army roster in game.)

GW has stated multiple times that they want each game to have its own, standalone, playable campaign, and the 'mega' campaign being a kind of glorious meta combination vs making it necessarily the main focus of each individual game. I don't think they would have put such painstakingly detailed mechanics as the Vortex and rituals, making them so much a heavy focus of game 2, if this were not the case. So with this in mind, based on remaining locations and the focus being gameplay/replayability (stated in the Mortal Empires blog) i don't think any chaos wastes/smaller locales will do for the setting of a third, standalone game.

"But the area is just too big! It won't fit with the other campaigns and they are too isolated!"

As mentioned in the blog, the Mortal Empires campaign will consist of a specially made map vs smashing the two campaign maps together. Its pretty obvious at this point that the third game and following meta campaign will have a similar map created specifically for this purpose as well, perhaps down scaling region sizes for less overhead (Im hoping for a full panable world map!)

"But what about Kislev! What about 4 chaos factions warring each other!?"

Kislev is already in the game, and i imagine a more likely scenario would be them getting a quality of life pass at some point with their current location in game intact, fitting with the lore and not overlapping/revisiting old campaign locations outside of the meta campaign. And personally, a game that consisted of WoC style armies trying to find one another and battle in a constant "i can't quite catch up to this enemy im trying to kill, oh great now he has three armies" scenario seems both boring and stale mechanically for an ENTIRE game.

I DO feel that the third mega campaign should be called "The End Times" and faction specific goals for uniting their own peoples sound cool (Like Grand Legion of the Everchosen, Host of the Eternity King, Undead Legions) , but i don't think mechanically this would be very interesting and would turn out more tedious than fun.

I would love to hear other peoples thoughts on this thus far, on things i may or may not have missed (i intentionally left out some of the other unofficial armies, as Hobgobbla Kahn could easily be rolled as an alternate Orc LL for the third setting)
«1

Comments

  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 7,761
    I guess in the the end all will depend on sales. Norsca has demonstrated that GW will let CA make up relatively new factions, so I'm sure they'll keep making them as long as people keep buying. If WH2 is a big success, we can expect Cathay and Nippon.
  • AngmirAngmir Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,253
    Xenos7 said:

    I guess in the the end all will depend on sales. Norsca has demonstrated that GW will let CA make up relatively new factions, so I'm sure they'll keep making them as long as people keep buying. If WH2 is a big success, we can expect Cathay and Nippon.

    we could maybe expect Cathay and Nippon if stars alighned perfectly ... and Chaos gods would be generous ...
    and we would achive world peace ... maybe.

    Seriously right now Chances for fleshed out Nippon and Cathay are about as high as 0,2% maybe right now.

    I hote for them - but then I dont have delusions about it.
  • SeigmhaSeigmha Registered Users Posts: 20
    with thoughts against these options, I'd love to hear what peoples predictions for a 4 faction game would be as alternatives that include actual, different factions vs old areas etc. I'm not the best at Warhammer lore so if there are ones i missed that would make sense from a gameplay, replayability, and location based argument, please add it in! i love theory-crafting the possibilities.
  • MorbidlyAbeastMorbidlyAbeast Registered Users Posts: 191
    I think one of two scenarios is likely. Either we get Cathay, Daemons, Ogre Kingdoms, Chaos Dwarves. Or we get Nurgle, Khorne, Tzeentch, Slaanesh and the chaos wastes and CA say "We know its not 4 different armybooks but try to understand how many Charlemagnes these daemon models would cost you if they were DLC!!!!"

  • SeigmhaSeigmha Registered Users Posts: 20
    I still just don't see them shirking diversifying the main army roster of the 3rd game in favor of something like that, just basing on previous attention to detail and DLC. Even in WH1 each army plays drastically differently, and while some of the alternate dlc/additional armies felt a little more clone like, they did have some additional or different units to keep them apart. The main takeaway from that for me though is that they waited until DLC to do stuff like that. I think its possible that we get both things eventually, maybe getting alternate factions for Daemons of Chaos in the forms of the four gods chosen armies, they seem like they would be much better suited for DLC (and also basing on the cranking out of DLC for game one, not that im complaining since i own all of it lol)
  • NyaxxyNyaxxy Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 222
    Cathay and Nippon isn't happening, lets be real. Sure I'd not complain if it did but it isnt going to.

    They have already stated that the big boy campaign has longer end turn times and that there is nothing they can do about it. They are even cutting chunks off the vortex map including factions to make the world fit and try to mitigate end turn times.

    Game three is going to be a real test of scope in terms of how much stress they can put the engine under in terms of map size, settlement number and faction limit. We are likely to see the chaos wastes and just east of the words end mountains to include the ogre kingdoms. Game 3 won't have the same amount of new map in terms of scale, but it will be more dense, like the old world is in comparison to the new world. I don't believe for a second that CA have the resources or that their engine has the capability to fully create the entire Warhammer world. And can you imagine the end turn times for that game 3 combo map if they included Cathay, Ind, Nippon? It would run like ass and take long as hell to complete the end turn.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 7,761
    Don't underestimate the power of money, guys. Paradox has been churning DLC for Crusader Kings 2 for five years. They have added India, satanic cults and an Aztec invasion to a feudal middle age grand strategy game. If there is demand for something, a developer will look into it. It's their job.
  • wingren013wingren013 Registered Users Posts: 1,076
    edited September 2017
    In order of likelyhood (and I guess possible appearance)

    Game 2:

    Tomb Kings
    Dogs of War
    Araby
    Vampire Coast
    Amazons

    Albion and Sartosa are both too small to accommodate a playable faction and have even less fluff than Cathay does.

    Game 3:

    Daemons of Chaos - Guaranteed
    Ogre Kingdoms - Guaranteed
    Chaos Dwarfs - Effectively Guaranteed
    Tomb Kings - If not in game 2 for whatever reason then Guaranteed
    Hobgoblin Khanate
    Cathayan Expedition
    Kislev
    Cathay Proper
    Ind
    Hung
    Nippon
  • Floki816Floki816 Registered Users Posts: 23
    I think it will all depend on the dlc for game 2, if we start to see factions like Araby, Amazons, and Albion then I definitely think Cathay will be a reasonable option, but until then its very hard to say.
    image
  • FinishingLastFinishingLast Registered Users Posts: 4,803
    Xenos7 said:

    Don't underestimate the power of money, guys. Paradox has been churning DLC for Crusader Kings 2 for five years. They have added India, satanic cults and an Aztec invasion to a feudal middle age grand strategy game. If there is demand for something, a developer will look into it. It's their job.

    People say this a lot, but there was tons of demand for DLC for game 1. They could have done a lot more, but didn’t. My hope is that they will release more DLC as the previous game just had 2 lord packs and 2 races. Then the 2 preorder races which others might have, but I didn’t pay for. They could have done TEB, Middenland, Kislev, and lots of other smaller pieces. I know many hate the concept of DLC, but it gives me more content so I’d gladly have more. So no, I don’t think CA will do anything just for the money. Because they’ve already missed lots of those opportunities.
    SiWI: "no they just hate you and I don't blame them."
  • IntertriarriiaeIntertriarriiae Registered Users Posts: 387
    edited September 2017
    I think game 2 will be getting a lot of lord packs, the tomb kings, 2 daemon factions and some minor factions fleshed out. Like the vampire coast getting luthor harkon and be playable and possibly araby.

    Game 3 will be getting the other 2 daemon factions, chaos dwarfs, ogres and then will get some minor factions fleshed out. Chaos undivided will probably get a revisit.

    Kislev will be like norsca is now, a pre-order bonus.

    Just my thoughts though.
    Just tossing in my 2 heresies every once in a while.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 7,761

    Xenos7 said:

    Don't underestimate the power of money, guys. Paradox has been churning DLC for Crusader Kings 2 for five years. They have added India, satanic cults and an Aztec invasion to a feudal middle age grand strategy game. If there is demand for something, a developer will look into it. It's their job.

    People say this a lot, but there was tons of demand for DLC for game 1. They could have done a lot more, but didn’t. My hope is that they will release more DLC as the previous game just had 2 lord packs and 2 races. Then the 2 preorder races which others might have, but I didn’t pay for. They could have done TEB, Middenland, Kislev, and lots of other smaller pieces. I know many hate the concept of DLC, but it gives me more content so I’d gladly have more. So no, I don’t think CA will do anything just for the money. Because they’ve already missed lots of those opportunities.
    They were taken by surprise by the success of the game. You can clearly see the Beastmen DLC having a smaller budget than the Wood Elves one, with Norsca actually seeming the bigger of all. New content needs planning, but now they have the data from Warhammer 1 to plan upon.
  • SeigmhaSeigmha Registered Users Posts: 20
    The thing with the races that they 'could' have done is you need to ask yourself a major question. What differentiates those factions from other Empire races? Realistically there is very little. Norsca at least had enough in the realm of cool looking/unique appearance and function for units to get put in. I think that overall CA will focus on those factors when determining what to make as a DLC race, more so than "whats going to make us money", its "whats going to look/play unique and make all these factions have a different feel". With that said, i think Kislev still does have a strong possibility to be passed over with a quality of life update and given the units that make it unique (all that bear love) but i feel it's more likely to either be a FLC like Bretonnia was or at the very most an unlockable faction for battle play like Middenland. They did say in the Mortal Empires blog they were going to expand the LL start locations instead of having them all stacked on top of one another for the ME campaign map.

    Everyone talking about the map being simply 'too large' for them to do effectively, i think you underestimate the possibility that everything gets downscaled, and the easiest way they could do that and have the movement etc not being affected and made unrealistic, is to just modify the base move distance down to whatever the real scale would be. They wouldn't be making ME if they though people would gripe about turn time, they won't/aren't. As it is, it takes about 20-30 seconds a turn at the very most, usually when i'm at war, because i have limited turn movement on. If you wanna see whats going on, you're gonna have to deal with the wait time at that point.

    I'm not sure how they could have done 'more' for game one when they already heavily exceeded not only their own expectations but everyone else's for their development pacing.
  • async09async09 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 58
    edited September 2017
    I really liked the part about the performance and looks of the game. If it runs better than WH 1 it would be absolutely great!
  • Arthas_MenethilArthas_Menethil Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,143

    In order of likelyhood (and I guess possible appearance)

    Game 2:

    Tomb Kings
    Dogs of War
    Araby
    Vampire Coast
    Amazons

    Albion and Sartosa are both too small to accommodate a playable faction and have even less fluff than Cathay does.

    Game 3:

    Daemons of Chaos - Guaranteed
    Ogre Kingdoms - Guaranteed
    Chaos Dwarfs - Effectively Guaranteed
    Tomb Kings - If not in game 2 for whatever reason then Guaranteed
    Hobgoblin Khanate
    Cathayan Expedition
    Kislev
    Cathay Proper
    Ind
    Hung
    Nippon

    I only have one issue with that and that's the Amazons their island is literally not on the Vortex map. CA could have left the Island as ruin but they didn't add it at all.
    So...the Light's vaunted justice has finally arrived. Shall I lay down Frostmourne and throw myself at your mercy, Fordring?

  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIRegistered Users Posts: 7,165
    edited September 2017
    Xenos7 said:

    Don't underestimate the power of money, guys. Paradox has been churning DLC for Crusader Kings 2 for five years. They have added India, satanic cults and an Aztec invasion to a feudal middle age grand strategy game. If there is demand for something, a developer will look into it. It's their job.

    CKII is a totally different beast than TW. It's DLC pricing is insane. Buy the Viking expansion to play as Norse Pagans, but sold separately is the music and the flags and the units!

    CIN won't happen as mentioned above, unless the ME map is 97% the size of the two maps combined and plays with little to no lag. If the map is similar to the datamine map or has some noticeable chunks taken off, it won't happen.

    We really need to see if TEB or Araby makes the cut for NWE. If neither does, CIN is a 100% never happening. If both do, then we may need to revisit this.
    Post edited by MrJade on
  • Ol_NessieOl_Nessie Registered Users Posts: 4,310
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIRegistered Users Posts: 7,165
    edited September 2017
    ben8vtedu said:

    @MrJade CID?

    Cathay, Ind, and Nippon. I goofed.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 7,761
    MrJade said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Don't underestimate the power of money, guys. Paradox has been churning DLC for Crusader Kings 2 for five years. They have added India, satanic cults and an Aztec invasion to a feudal middle age grand strategy game. If there is demand for something, a developer will look into it. It's their job.

    CKII is a totally different beast than TW. It's DLC pricing is insane. Buy the Viking expansion to play as Norse Pagans, but sold separately is the music and the flags and the units!
    And still it works. Paradox has been growing steadily, acquired Triumph Studios of Age of Wonders fame, is publishing Eugen and Obsidian and got on the Swedish NASDAQ a year ago. For all the people crying insanity, going heavy on the DLC front seems to pay. CA has still plenty of room left.
  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Registered Users Posts: 11,023
    Xenos7 said:

    MrJade said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Don't underestimate the power of money, guys. Paradox has been churning DLC for Crusader Kings 2 for five years. They have added India, satanic cults and an Aztec invasion to a feudal middle age grand strategy game. If there is demand for something, a developer will look into it. It's their job.

    CKII is a totally different beast than TW. It's DLC pricing is insane. Buy the Viking expansion to play as Norse Pagans, but sold separately is the music and the flags and the units!
    And still it works. Paradox has been growing steadily, acquired Triumph Studios of Age of Wonders fame, is publishing Eugen and Obsidian and got on the Swedish NASDAQ a year ago. For all the people crying insanity, going heavy on the DLC front seems to pay. CA has still plenty of room left.
    It's hard to say sometimes whether a policy of extreme DLC is actually working or whether it's just not costing them TOO much, at least in the short term. There'll always be a few whales, but there is a growing number of people who are boycotting Paradox due to their heavy DLC. It's hard to say which is having a stronger effect on their profits, just that they're doing well enough for now.
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIRegistered Users Posts: 7,165
    Xenos7 said:

    And still it works. Paradox has been growing steadily, acquired Triumph Studios of Age of Wonders fame, is publishing Eugen and Obsidian and got on the Swedish NASDAQ a year ago. For all the people crying insanity, going heavy on the DLC front seems to pay. CA has still plenty of room left.

    We don't know if it works. There's been a lot of backlash recently, especially with how bad the last 2 expansions for CKII are and the Stellaris fiasco. The question is we don't know if they changed their pricing if it would do well or not.

    Recent Paradox games have also been trending down in average score.
  • DerPhonixDerPhonix Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 589
    Seigmha said:

    I am fairly certain that based on TW:W 1 DLC expansions and current races, current map area of TW:W2 and the races that will more than likely occupy it, you could almost bet and guarantee looking at the remaining 8th ed army book roster that we are going to get Tomb Kings, Daemons of Chaos, and Araby (There is no way we are getting Vampire coast as its own thing, the most you could hope for is unit additions to VC in 2 in the form of a LL pack. Araby also mirrors the Bretonnia inclusion in 1) as DLC for the 2nd game. If you also take into account the kind of mirroring themes of the first two games in terms of chaos vs non chaos races, that we will be looking at a third TW:W consisting of Ogre Kingdoms, Chaos Dwarves, Cathay, and either Kingdoms of Ind or Nippon (with Ind being more likely for the initial addition due to its attachment to the main continent)

    And what about the DLC races for game 3?

  • DerpyRoxasDerpyRoxas Registered Users Posts: 3,348
    DerPhonix said:

    Seigmha said:

    I am fairly certain that based on TW:W 1 DLC expansions and current races, current map area of TW:W2 and the races that will more than likely occupy it, you could almost bet and guarantee looking at the remaining 8th ed army book roster that we are going to get Tomb Kings, Daemons of Chaos, and Araby (There is no way we are getting Vampire coast as its own thing, the most you could hope for is unit additions to VC in 2 in the form of a LL pack. Araby also mirrors the Bretonnia inclusion in 1) as DLC for the 2nd game. If you also take into account the kind of mirroring themes of the first two games in terms of chaos vs non chaos races, that we will be looking at a third TW:W consisting of Ogre Kingdoms, Chaos Dwarves, Cathay, and either Kingdoms of Ind or Nippon (with Ind being more likely for the initial addition due to its attachment to the main continent)

    And what about the DLC races for game 3?

    If you get Ogres, DoW will be surely on the way.
    And if things get great, Cathay has a chance.
    But just Cathay, Ind and Nippon are too far and lacks knowledge on military (Nippon is Shogun 2, come on)
    Any White Dwarf Army could be implemented, Hobgoblin Khanate included.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 7,761
    MrJade said:

    Xenos7 said:

    And still it works. Paradox has been growing steadily, acquired Triumph Studios of Age of Wonders fame, is publishing Eugen and Obsidian and got on the Swedish NASDAQ a year ago. For all the people crying insanity, going heavy on the DLC front seems to pay. CA has still plenty of room left.

    We don't know if it works. There's been a lot of backlash recently, especially with how bad the last 2 expansions for CKII are and the Stellaris fiasco. The question is we don't know if they changed their pricing if it would do well or not.

    Recent Paradox games have also been trending down in average score.
    Stellaris has 1 million and 350.000 owners according to Steamspy. It has a Very Positive fan score on Steam and a 78 professional score on Metacritic (dragged down by the trolling 20 of Tom Chick. Actually I'm the author of the highest-score professional review on that list). It is the fastest selling Paradox game ever, just like Warhammer for CA. Stellaris is a great success, and Paradox is doing very well. As of now, these are the facts.
  • MadmageMadmage Registered Users Posts: 76
    Seigmha said:

    I am fairly certain that based on TW:W 1 DLC expansions and current races, current map area of TW:W2 and the races that will more than likely occupy it, you could almost bet and guarantee looking at the remaining 8th ed army book roster that we are going to get Tomb Kings, Daemons of Chaos, and Araby (There is no way we are getting Vampire coast as its own thing, the most you could hope for is unit additions to VC in 2 in the form of a LL pack. Araby also mirrors the Bretonnia inclusion in 1) as DLC for the 2nd game.

    Umm, Araby didn't have an 8th edition army roster... It had a roster from Warmaster, a closely related but separate game to WHFB. Bretonnia, while outdated from not having an update since 5th or 6th edition, at least had the benefit of having a full army roster; one which CA needed to expand.


    Seigmha said:

    If you also take into account the kind of mirroring themes of the first two games in terms of chaos vs non chaos races, that we will be looking at a third TW:W consisting of Ogre Kingdoms, Chaos Dwarves, Cathay, and either Kingdoms of Ind or Nippon (with Ind being more likely for the initial addition due to its attachment to the main continent)

    In one breath you say there has to be mirroring of chaos vs non-chaos races but look at the first game: You had Empire, Vampire Counts, Dwarfs, Greenskins as base game. Chaos came as DLC or a pre-order bonus. Already your whole premise is out the window. As for the DLC/FLC route of new races and not just factions like Skarsnik, we had in order Chaos, Beastman, Wood Elves, Bretonnia, Norsca. Here you are a bit closer to the mark if you view it as Beastman "mirrors" Wood elves and Bretonnia "mirrors" Norsca. Except Norsca can also be counted as a pre-order bonus for game 2. Further, the initial mortal empires map won't have Norsca as a faction because the development teams working on game 2, the Norscan DLC and presumably the combined map campaign were at different periods of the development cycle and couldn't fit it in. Thus, any such claims of a developmental vision is tenuous at best. Finally, there is still a 3 vs 2 in the favour of Chaos because Warriors of Chaos were a form of day 1 DLC.

    Seigmha said:


    "But why would they do Cathay, Ind, and Nippon with so little lore/source material? Dumb post is dumb!"

    So, i think that initially, the development cycle for the trilogy was this: Game 1 Old World, Game 2 New World, Game 3 Southlands. With the confirmed inclusion of Southlands in game 2, races that were probably planned for a later title are very likely to be included as DLC races. A good indicator of this occurring is the recent blog post citing the Mortal Empires campaign as being "much denser than originally envisioned in terms of race count"

    Another logic problem crops up. If CA's intent was to cover all 16 playable races of WHFB, Chaos Dwarves and Ogre Kingdoms are no longer part of the game with the presumed plan you present above. A point you then bring up in the next quote. Further, by the time you get to Southlands, you can only provide Tomb Kings as a new race. While I kind of find them cool, if people claim WH3 selling the game on purely focusing on Chaos factions as ludicrous, I can't imagine a game based around the TK even if it is something involving the rise of Nagash or whatever.

    Now you could say a Southlands game could've thrown in Araby from the get go to make it slightly more palatable, ok, that leaves you with 2. Or you could hold off Skaven from being included in the New World which again breaks your idea of symmetry on the Chaos vs non chaos because then you'd only have 2 "good races" vs 1 evil somewhat chaos influenced faction (Dark Elves).
    Seigmha said:


    What WAS the original vision for the TW:W trilogy? To see all 8th edition armies envisioned in their full glory. With all 4 starting races for the 2nd game out in the open, that only leaves us with Tomb Kings, Ogre Kingdoms, and Daemons of Chaos (we're talking main army books here, not necessarily current armies.) Precedent has already been set of them putting more minor factions into the game, or factions that never had an 'official' army such as the Norsca, so having discontinued armies in the game (in the form of Araby) isn't out of the question. This also set the precedent for using fanmade or experimental material for the basis of an army, example Norsca (which also includes Fimir in the army roster in game.)



    GW has stated multiple times that they want each game to have its own, standalone, playable campaign, and the 'mega' campaign being a kind of glorious meta combination vs making it necessarily the main focus of each individual game. I don't think they would have put such painstakingly detailed mechanics as the Vortex and rituals, making them so much a heavy focus of game 2, if this were not the case. So with this in mind, based on remaining locations and the focus being gameplay/replayability (stated in the Mortal Empires blog) i don't think any chaos wastes/smaller locales will do for the setting of a third, standalone game.

    I agree just the Chaos wastes being added is unlikely, but at the least a large portion of the Darklands would be.
    Seigmha said:

    "But the area is just too big! It won't fit with the other campaigns and they are too isolated!"

    As mentioned in the blog, the Mortal Empires campaign will consist of a specially made map vs smashing the two campaign maps together. Its pretty obvious at this point that the third game and following meta campaign will have a similar map created specifically for this purpose as well, perhaps down scaling region sizes for less overhead (Im hoping for a full panable world map!)

    It is a very likely scenario but not necessarily guaranteed. Before the announcement of the ME map, I always thought the easiest solution would be to reduce the speed through High Seas areas considerably to allow the continents to be located much closer to where they should be but without sacrificing the actual travel time.
    Seigmha said:


    "But what about Kislev! What about 4 chaos factions warring each other!?"

    Kislev is already in the game, and i imagine a more likely scenario would be them getting a quality of life pass at some point with their current location in game intact, fitting with the lore and not overlapping/revisiting old campaign locations outside of the meta campaign. And personally, a game that consisted of WoC style armies trying to find one another and battle in a constant "i can't quite catch up to this enemy im trying to kill, oh great now he has three armies" scenario seems both boring and stale mechanically for an ENTIRE game.

    Norsca was a Pre-Order bonus for game 2/game 1 DLC and they aren't part of game 2's content (non-playable in game 2, and the factions you are supposed to play are not present) beyond the combined map and even then only at a later date. Explain why CA could not go that route for Kislev, which fits all the criteria you outlined based on Norsca to justify Araby but then illogically ignore so as not to include Kislev. An argument could be made that releasing a pre-order bonus Kislev could help incentivise customers to go back and buy Warhammer 1 to fully exploit this. The Combined map as is, is a selling point for people to buy the previous games, and thus adding another faction to the first game would elongate the sales life cycle of the first game which is something they've already produced.
    Seigmha said:


    I DO feel that the third mega campaign should be called "The End Times" and faction specific goals for uniting their own peoples sound cool (Like Grand Legion of the Everchosen, Host of the Eternity King, Undead Legions) , but i don't think mechanically this would be very interesting and would turn out more tedious than fun.

    Except that the distant factions of Cathay, Ind and Nippon were mere afterthoughts in End Times and easily rolled over via Chaos and Greenskins. I honestly was surprised they weren't crushed by the destruction of the chaos moon. Instead, they got the more ignonimous death of being destroyed off screen by Chaos and Greenskins where as the Lizardmen at least got to go down in a somewhat blaze of glory before fleeing in spaceships.


    My own theory is that game 3 will be a slight departure from the previous two by virtue that multiple factions from previous games will be included. I wouldn't be surprised to see an updated Warriors of Chaos roster thrown in if you bought it previously (again, more incentive for people to go buy the stuff already out there they might not have picked up). Neferata in the Silver Pinnacle. Moving Grimgor to the Blasted Lands where he originally came from. A new beastman starting location with the missing units people clamour for (again more interest for those who haven't bought it yet) and so forth.
  • SeigmhaSeigmha Registered Users Posts: 20
    edited September 2017
    DerPhonix said:



    And what about the DLC races for game 3?

    Khuresh, Hobgoblin Khanite, Ind, few others but those seem most likely to me.
    Madmage said:


    Umm, Araby didn't have an 8th edition army roster... It had a roster from Warmaster, a closely related but separate game to WHFB. Bretonnia, while outdated from not having an update since 5th or 6th edition, at least had the benefit of having a full army roster; one which CA needed to expand.

    As you yourself states, Bretonnia didn't have an 8th edition army roster either, and while i understand the argument of having a full army roster making it more likely, the inclusion of Norsca flatly dissolves this argument.

    In one breath you say there has to be mirroring of chaos vs non-chaos races but look at the first game: You had Empire, Vampire Counts, Dwarfs, Greenskins as base game. Chaos came as DLC or a pre-order bonus. Already your whole premise is out the window. As for the DLC/FLC route of new races and not just factions like Skarsnik, we had in order Chaos, Beastman, Wood Elves, Bretonnia, Norsca. Here you are a bit closer to the mark if you view it as Beastman "mirrors" Wood elves and Bretonnia "mirrors" Norsca. Except Norsca can also be counted as a pre-order bonus for game 2. Further, the initial mortal empires map won't have Norsca as a faction because the development teams working on game 2, the Norscan DLC and presumably the combined map campaign were at different periods of the development cycle and couldn't fit it in. Thus, any such claims of a developmental vision is tenuous at best. Finally, there is still a 3 vs 2 in the favour of Chaos because Warriors of Chaos were a form of day 1 DLC.

    Again, as you state in your own quote, Chaos is a 'DLC' for game one, and not technically part of the core gameplay. I.E., unless i buy the dlc, the main 4 races have the mirrored theme going. Norsca is technically still a DLC for game one, with its inclusion being purely in Mortal Empires only, the general gist i get is that you can pretty much count all races from game one as ME 'booster' races, in the same vein as the WH40K Dawn of War franchise games hooking into one another.
    Madmage said:


    Another logic problem crops up. If CA's intent was to cover all 16 playable races of WHFB, Chaos Dwarves and Ogre Kingdoms are no longer part of the game with the presumed plan you present above. A point you then bring up in the next quote. Further, by the time you get to Southlands, you can only provide Tomb Kings as a new race. While I kind of find them cool, if people claim WH3 selling the game on purely focusing on Chaos factions as ludicrous, I can't imagine a game based around the TK even if it is something involving the rise of Nagash or whatever.

    I never once said that the 3rd game would be centered around TK, nor do i think that. It will with certainty be included as DLC in game 2 due to the map area involved.
    Madmage said:


    Now you could say a Southlands game could've thrown in Araby from the get go to make it slightly more palatable, ok, that leaves you with 2. Or you could hold off Skaven from being included in the New World which again breaks your idea of symmetry on the Chaos vs non chaos because then you'd only have 2 "good races" vs 1 evil somewhat chaos influenced faction (Dark Elves).

    Southlands is already in WH2, its on the steam page, its on the map reveal, its in the game.

    Direct quote from Steam page:

    About Total War™: WARHAMMER® II:

    The second in a trilogy and sequel to the award-winning Total War: WARHAMMER, Total War: WARHAMMER II brings players a breathtaking new narrative campaign, set across the vast continents of Lustria, Ulthuan, Naggaroth and the Southlands. The Great Vortex Campaign builds pace to culminate in a definitive and climactic endgame, an experience unlike any other Total War title to date.

    Honestly this was a big factor in determining that the rest of the WH map would be in game 3, due to Southlands being resized to fit in not only the main WH2 campaign but however it ends up resized in WH3.
    Madmage said:


    I agree just the Chaos wastes being added is unlikely, but at the least a large portion of the Darklands would be.

    Darklands would pretty much need to be included in full for the 3rd map to hook into the meta campaign and feel normal. I can see Chaos Wastes being added, just not being the focus of the 3rd game. We already have some dips into the Wastes in game one, and that area is utterly boring to be in, even as Chaos Warriors.
    Madmage said:


    It is a very likely scenario but not necessarily guaranteed. Before the announcement of the ME map, I always thought the easiest solution would be to reduce the speed through High Seas areas considerably to allow the continents to be located much closer to where they should be but without sacrificing the actual travel time.

    I actually mentioned something similar in my more recent post, and i think this is the correct line of thinking for the 'how are they doing it' from a performance standpoint. But we'll just have to see once ME is out :)
    Madmage said:


    Norsca was a Pre-Order bonus for game 2/game 1 DLC and they aren't part of game 2's content (non-playable in game 2, and the factions you are supposed to play are not present) beyond the combined map and even then only at a later date. Explain why CA could not go that route for Kislev, which fits all the criteria you outlined based on Norsca to justify Araby but then illogically ignore so as not to include Kislev. An argument could be made that releasing a pre-order bonus Kislev could help incentivise customers to go back and buy Warhammer 1 to fully exploit this. The Combined map as is, is a selling point for people to buy the previous games, and thus adding another faction to the first game would elongate the sales life cycle of the first game which is something they've already produced.

    I DO think they could do this with Kislev. I merely meant to stave off the arguments that Kislev would be one of the main 4 factions for game 3, which is one of the theories people have been posting.
    Madmage said:


    Except that the distant factions of Cathay, Ind and Nippon were mere afterthoughts in End Times and easily rolled over via Chaos and Greenskins. I honestly was surprised they weren't crushed by the destruction of the chaos moon. Instead, they got the more ignonimous death of being destroyed off screen by Chaos and Greenskins where as the Lizardmen at least got to go down in a somewhat blaze of glory before fleeing in spaceships.

    This is true, i just think the name sounds cool and would fit the theme for a grand war to end all wars on the world, regardless of its lore implications for what has 'actually' happened. :)
    Madmage said:


    My own theory is that game 3 will be a slight departure from the previous two by virtue that multiple factions from previous games will be included. I wouldn't be surprised to see an updated Warriors of Chaos roster thrown in if you bought it previously (again, more incentive for people to go buy the stuff already out there they might not have picked up). Neferata in the Silver Pinnacle. Moving Grimgor to the Blasted Lands where he originally came from. A new beastman starting location with the missing units people clamour for (again more interest for those who haven't bought it yet) and so forth.

    I still personally don't think that they will make the focus of the game the old areas. In the meta campaign for 2, and even 3, i do believe they will move around stuff to more logical areas for more interesting start gameplay and better co-op campaign experience, i just don't think it will be the focus of game 3. Otherwise, whats the 'real' drive of getting game 3 for owners of the previous 2? "Oh, you get a few new units and some new start locations on a different version of the map, but not really because its the same areas."

    Nope, that argument only works in conjunction with the Meta Campaign, as thats essentially all the Meta Campaign is doing is giving you the old areas on an updated map, play who you want, with new mechanics. They are already doing it in the game as a 'bonus' not as the 'focus'.

    Still, some great feedback from everybody!

    EDIT: Just to preemptively put it here, here is a great repository in another post for all 'official' Norsca army material
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/190768/norsca-army-list-from-official-sources/p1
  • MadmageMadmage Registered Users Posts: 76
    Seigmha said:

    Madmage said:


    Umm, Araby didn't have an 8th edition army roster... It had a roster from Warmaster, a closely related but separate game to WHFB. Bretonnia, while outdated from not having an update since 5th or 6th edition, at least had the benefit of having a full army roster; one which CA needed to expand.

    As you yourself states, Bretonnia didn't have an 8th edition army roster either, and while i understand the argument of having a full army roster making it more likely, the inclusion of Norsca flatly dissolves this argument.
    I'm not arguing Bretonnia should be included over Araby. I am arguing your reasoning behind your conclusions are out of step.
    Seigmha said:


    In one breath you say there has to be mirroring of chaos vs non-chaos races but look at the first game: You had Empire, Vampire Counts, Dwarfs, Greenskins as base game. Chaos came as DLC or a pre-order bonus. Already your whole premise is out the window. As for the DLC/FLC route of new races and not just factions like Skarsnik, we had in order Chaos, Beastman, Wood Elves, Bretonnia, Norsca. Here you are a bit closer to the mark if you view it as Beastman "mirrors" Wood elves and Bretonnia "mirrors" Norsca. Except Norsca can also be counted as a pre-order bonus for game 2. Further, the initial mortal empires map won't have Norsca as a faction because the development teams working on game 2, the Norscan DLC and presumably the combined map campaign were at different periods of the development cycle and couldn't fit it in. Thus, any such claims of a developmental vision is tenuous at best. Finally, there is still a 3 vs 2 in the favour of Chaos because Warriors of Chaos were a form of day 1 DLC.

    Again, as you state in your own quote, Chaos is a 'DLC' for game one, and not technically part of the core gameplay. I.E., unless i buy the dlc, the main 4 races have the mirrored theme going. Norsca is technically still a DLC for game one, with its inclusion being purely in Mortal Empires only, the general gist i get is that you can pretty much count all races from game one as ME 'booster' races, in the same vein as the WH40K Dawn of War franchise games hooking into one another.

    The mirroring you brought up was on a chaos vs non-chaos basis however. In large part, the initial release of the first game can be seen as VC vs Empire, and Greenskins vs Dwarfs with non-playable factions thrown around. However, due to Bretonnia being a FLC, it should now be considered core to the first game and that creates an "imbalance" in the whole mirroring argument in general.

    Yes, I think your comparison to Dawn of War 1 is very appropriate to the model CA is going for.
    Seigmha said:


    Madmage said:


    Another logic problem crops up. If CA's intent was to cover all 16 playable races of WHFB, Chaos Dwarves and Ogre Kingdoms are no longer part of the game with the presumed plan you present above. A point you then bring up in the next quote. Further, by the time you get to Southlands, you can only provide Tomb Kings as a new race. While I kind of find them cool, if people claim WH3 selling the game on purely focusing on Chaos factions as ludicrous, I can't imagine a game based around the TK even if it is something involving the rise of Nagash or whatever.

    I never once said that the 3rd game would be centered around TK, nor do i think that. It will with certainty be included as DLC in game 2 due to the map area involved.
    No, but you wrote that game 3 would have centered around the Southlands and game 2 was the New World in what you suspected was CA's original vision of the trilogy. If this were true, then the only WHFB 8th edition army that could be introduced under those conditions would be the Tomb Kings unless Skaven were held off the New World game 2 or New World would only represent the elven conflict to allow the introduction of Southlands' Lizardmen.
    Seigmha said:


    Madmage said:


    Now you could say a Southlands game could've thrown in Araby from the get go to make it slightly more palatable, ok, that leaves you with 2. Or you could hold off Skaven from being included in the New World which again breaks your idea of symmetry on the Chaos vs non chaos because then you'd only have 2 "good races" vs 1 evil somewhat chaos influenced faction (Dark Elves).

    Southlands is already in WH2, its on the steam page, its on the map reveal, its in the game.
    Yes, I am well aware of what is included in game 2. I am arguing your premise that the original vision was game 2 would be New World, and Southlands would be game 3 is flawed from the get go even prior to game 2 information being released because it would fail to cover Chaos Dwarfs and Ogre Kingdoms. It would leave a Southlands only game with only the TK as the sole new "race" unless they also cut out factions from your believed New World game. You are using this premise to more or less justify the rest of your OP.

    Seigmha said:


    Darklands would pretty much need to be included in full for the 3rd map to hook into the meta campaign and feel normal. I can see Chaos Wastes being added, just not being the focus of the 3rd game. We already have some dips into the Wastes in game one, and that area is utterly boring to be in, even as Chaos Warriors.

    The new ruins mechanic does allow the possibility of adding something features to spice up the Chaos wastes besides the few quest battles located therein. Right now, it's purpose is for chaos to have a somewhat safe area to retreat to and to limit how quickly respawning Chaos armies can get back to the front lines.

    Seigmha said:

    I DO think they could do this with Kislev. I merely meant to stave off the arguments that Kislev would be one of the main 4 factions for game 3, which is one of the theories people have been posting.

    Fair point to make. I am also of the same mind for the reasons I wrote.
    Seigmha said:

    I still personally don't think that they will make the focus of the game the old areas. In the meta campaign for 2, and even 3, i do believe they will move around stuff to more logical areas for more interesting start gameplay and better co-op campaign experience, i just don't think it will be the focus of game 3. Otherwise, whats the 'real' drive of getting game 3 for owners of the previous 2? "Oh, you get a few new units and some new start locations on a different version of the map, but not really because its the same areas."

    Nope, that argument only works in conjunction with the Meta Campaign, as thats essentially all the Meta Campaign is doing is giving you the old areas on an updated map, play who you want, with new mechanics. They are already doing it in the game as a 'bonus' not as the 'focus'.

    If game 3 includes the Darklands, which it must in some form to allow the Ogre Kingdoms and Chaos Dwarfs to be included, then what is stopping some of the factions from previous games to exist there? We see Wood elf, Greenskin, Beastmen and a few others in game 2. While yes, they are currently unplayable, it doesn't necessarily mean that CA might not change it. However, the basis of my argument is because I don't see them having enough content for a game 3 based on Darklands/chaos wastes alone. They need to add content/features to incentivize customers to buy the game at full price. One way I suspect they could accomplish this is by introducing new starting locations for old armies in the 3rd game's own campaign and combined trilogy map. Obviously, if they make the game more of a standalone expansion at a lower price point, this would be moot. Despite the opinions of many that game 2 is a standalone expansion, pre-order sales indicate the complaint is a meaningless one. However, I think selling a game with only Demons of Chaos, Ogre Kingdoms and Chaos Dwarfs as playable doesn't have that broad of an appeal.

    As for Cathay, Ind, Nippon, I am skeptical they'll be included because of the constraints the designers have imposed on themselves (attempting to limit map size and/or number of factions). They could certainly go back and cut regions from the Old World and New World in one form or another, but I think that would be counter productive because those regions are far more relevant and important to what constitutes Warhammer.
  • SeigmhaSeigmha Registered Users Posts: 20
    edited September 2017
    Madmage said:


    I'm not arguing Bretonnia should be included over Araby. I am arguing your reasoning behind your conclusions are out of step.

    Not entirely sure how, but ok. My main point with it was the inclusion of 3 (5 if you count day 1 WoC and pre-order Norsca) major race inclusions into the base game, three of which have 8th edition army books at that point. If Daemons of Chaos and Tomb Kings were the first 2 for game 2, having Araby for the third seems to make sense (with a possiblity of preorder for 3 being Vampire Coast or Amazon, more likely Amazon, i know i said earlier VC wouldn't be in but really, anything goes at this point as long as its interesting.)
    Madmage said:


    The mirroring you brought up was on a chaos vs non-chaos basis however. In large part, the initial release of the first game can be seen as VC vs Empire, and Greenskins vs Dwarfs with non-playable factions thrown around. However, due to Bretonnia being a FLC, it should now be considered core to the first game and that creates an "imbalance" in the whole mirroring argument in general.

    Yes, I think your comparison to Dawn of War 1 is very appropriate to the model CA is going for.
    This is true and a miswording on my part. I should have worded it more from a standpoint of "Two ideologically opposed and generally at war with one another more than other races factions." Greenskins are certainly not chaos, and Vampire Counts from a gameplay standpoint aren't either since they gen their own corruption. So really the only source of Chaos from a gameplay perspective is WoC/Beastmen/Norsca.
    Madmage said:


    No, but you wrote that game 3 would have centered around the Southlands and game 2 was the New World in what you suspected was CA's original vision of the trilogy. If this were true, then the only WHFB 8th edition army that could be introduced under those conditions would be the Tomb Kings unless Skaven were held off the New World game 2 or New World would only represent the elven conflict to allow the introduction of Southlands' Lizardmen.
    - - -
    Yes, I am well aware of what is included in game 2. I am arguing your premise that the original vision was game 2 would be New World, and Southlands would be game 3 is flawed from the get go even prior to game 2 information being released because it would fail to cover Chaos Dwarfs and Ogre Kingdoms. It would leave a Southlands only game with only the TK as the sole new "race" unless they also cut out factions from your believed New World game. You are using this premise to more or less justify the rest of your OP.

    I wrote that i think that was the original vision of the trilogy, just my opinion. Regardless of my opinion though, CA have said that game one heavily exceeded their initial scope for the development of the game, thats a quote and a fact of the matter.. DLC for Ogre Kingdoms could have easily come in on WH1 if they expanded the map east and that would have been that. Even Southlands could have just ended up covering the top half (and still might in the ME map if the datamine holds up to its release) and it would have still held the necessary races in the game. Daemons can realistically go into any of the three games, but i have a feeling they will be a big threat of game two when chaos is attracted to the Vortex. It just rings true to me. As far as the 8th edition army issue, thats true, and part of the crux of the discussion for 'what is really going to go into Game 3?' Using that logic still, four seperate chaos armies doesn't make sense. From a sales standpoint, reusing assets as the focal point of the game doesn't make sense either. Thats my whole reasoning behind what armies will be in 3, based on already included armies.
    Madmage said:


    The new ruins mechanic does allow the possibility of adding something features to spice up the Chaos wastes besides the few quest battles located therein. Right now, it's purpose is for chaos to have a somewhat safe area to retreat to and to limit how quickly respawning Chaos armies can get back to the front lines.

    I agree they could do a passover on Chaos Wastes with some ruins, and they may for the meta campaign to give you a reason to actual go and conquer the region vs just wiping out Chaos there. Im very curious to see the different mechanics for settlement in ME.
    Madmage said:


    If game 3 includes the Darklands, which it must in some form to allow the Ogre Kingdoms and Chaos Dwarfs to be included, then what is stopping some of the factions from previous games to exist there? We see Wood elf, Greenskin, Beastmen and a few others in game 2. While yes, they are currently unplayable, it doesn't necessarily mean that CA might not change it. However, the basis of my argument is because I don't see them having enough content for a game 3 based on Darklands/chaos wastes alone. They need to add content/features to incentivize customers to buy the game at full price. One way I suspect they could accomplish this is by introducing new starting locations for old armies in the 3rd game's own campaign and combined trilogy map. Obviously, if they make the game more of a standalone expansion at a lower price point, this would be moot. Despite the opinions of many that game 2 is a standalone expansion, pre-order sales indicate the complaint is a meaningless one. However, I think selling a game with only Demons of Chaos, Ogre Kingdoms and Chaos Dwarfs as playable doesn't have that broad of an appeal.

    You may very well be right that we may eventually see LLs in the new areas of the game. However, i don't think this will be for the main campaign of WH2, and will instead be part of the pass over for new LL locations in ME to give players different play experiences and start positions. My biggest reasoning behind this is the fact of the Vortex mechanic in 2. What motivations do these other factions have? What is their stake in the vortex? I could see reasons for TK and DoC easily explained, but some of the other factions are more iffy. I guess it is possible, we'll just have to see. You're right that just DoC, OK, and CD don't have broad appeal on their own, which is why i made the assumption i did about OK, CD, Cathay, and either Ind or Nippon. Could also have Hobgoblin Kahnite, i'll admit i don't know much about the lore on how different they would seem/play. I'm still open to alternatives for what races would be game 3, but i still strongly feel that Cathay at the very least will be one of them, even if its the most easterly part of the map for that game. The other option for a faction is Daemons of Chaos for 3, and thats still a strong possibility, it just leaves me stumped for the total DLC cycle for 2 if that ends up being the case.
    Madmage said:


    As for Cathay, Ind, Nippon, I am skeptical they'll be included because of the constraints the designers have imposed on themselves (attempting to limit map size and/or number of factions). They could certainly go back and cut regions from the Old World and New World in one form or another, but I think that would be counter productive because those regions are far more relevant and important to what constitutes Warhammer.

    The map constraints ARE the biggest limiting factor here, but i still think with some re scaling and over all redesign that it could still work. Could do smaller provinces or even have provinces down away with all together (as far as the claiming multiple cities per province, just have the province capital) and that would allow for the majority of factions to still be present. They are already heavily changing the capture and settlement requirements to allow for lore friendly total world conquest for ME, so i don't think this is out of the question. I'm really interested to see JUST how much slower ME turn time ends up being before really passing a final judgment on the 3rd meta campaign
  • gholingholin Member Registered Users Posts: 1,361
    Araby and Tomb Kings make sense to be included. Both can have unique playstyles and fill in an empty void on the map (two quarters of the Southlands that currently have no starting locations) Plus there's all the support for these two and the fact that CA has hinted in both their inclusions. Both have official and semi-official rosters (Warmaster is a subsidiary of GW).

    I hope CA continues to flesh out the Old World as well. That is my greatest disappointment of TWW1 (A game I've played more hours in than any other TW game or any other game period, and I'm still playing it) Karak Kadrin, Middenland, Knights of the White Wolf and Panther, Halfling units, Marius Lietdorf, Kislev, Tilea and Estalia, all of these have such potential to add to the game and make more unique experiences. People would buy them!

    In some games, DLC is predatory, but I feel like this game is one of the few that really provides value in every one, even for people who don't buy them. Anyone complaining doesn't really have a leg to stand on. It'd be impossible to do this kind of scale without needing to charge us, for any developer. I'll buy every for TWW trilogy. They extend the game and give me wonderful new characters and races to play with.

  • SeigmhaSeigmha Registered Users Posts: 20
    gholin said:

    Araby and Tomb Kings make sense to be included. Both can have unique playstyles and fill in an empty void on the map (two quarters of the Southlands that currently have no starting locations) Plus there's all the support for these two and the fact that CA has hinted in both their inclusions. Both have official and semi-official rosters (Warmaster is a subsidiary of GW).

    I hope CA continues to flesh out the Old World as well. That is my greatest disappointment of TWW1 (A game I've played more hours in than any other TW game or any other game period, and I'm still playing it) Karak Kadrin, Middenland, Knights of the White Wolf and Panther, Halfling units, Marius Lietdorf, Kislev, Tilea and Estalia, all of these have such potential to add to the game and make more unique experiences. People would buy them!

    In some games, DLC is predatory, but I feel like this game is one of the few that really provides value in every one, even for people who don't buy them. Anyone complaining doesn't really have a leg to stand on. It'd be impossible to do this kind of scale without needing to charge us, for any developer. I'll buy every for TWW trilogy. They extend the game and give me wonderful new characters and races to play with.

    As far as the Old World updates, i unfortunately think based on the blog post and wording that they are only going to update the old world through ME and the subsequent meta campaign in 3. We may still get some DLC inclusions like Norsca or maybe even standalones that tie into all three games still, but other than that i don't think they will do too much heavy reworking.

    As far as the DLC is concerned, i love the approach they have taken here, in that people that don't pay still get to experience the lore and world being fleshed out with the DLC races still acting as AI controlled factions, but giving the option to not only support development but also play those factions if you want to. Thus everyone gets something out of it. The only grip i would have is the price point for some of them, but to be fair Beastment and Wood Elves did give us standalone story campaigns, although after playing the Beastmen campaign i dont think it was worth a full 20$. I bought mine on sale though for close to 10$, and that seemed about right for the campaign content. I guess with being able to play in multiplayer the value does go up.
Sign In or Register to comment.