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

The WORST things about TWW2 (i.e. needing change; in a current version as of February 2019)

ThomassiniThomassini Registered Users Posts: 251
edited February 2019 in General Discussion
Hi!

As a disclaimer: I consider TWW2 among three best Total War games ever, and possibly also in Top10 best PC games in history.

Still, it isn’t perfect. Hence this thread. Let’s help CA focus it’s attention where it’s needed while it’s not too late. Remember, TWW3 is still in pre-production phase: WE CAN STILL INFLUENCE DESIGN DECISIONS. So let’s do it while we can. Please avoid listing some minor bugs, this thread is about major issues that need changing. I. e. design issues.

As in the title: what are THE WORST features of TWW2, as of current version (post-Vampire Coast)?

My picks:
1. CHAOS INVASION. It’s just horrible exercise in tedium, there is not much more to add. Otherwise, Chaos Warriors have negligible presence in the game.

2. FOOT LORDS. Implementation of foot lords is mostly botched and needs change. And no, giving them mounts is a bad solution.

3. MORTAL EMPIRES: CAMPAIGN MAP & GOALS. Both short- and long-term campaign goals in ME are horribly designed and tedious (they are competing with chaos invasion for the biggest tedium title). Campaign map beyond the Old World is too small and feels stitched at best. There is lack of meaningful interaction between Old and New World races (with the exception of Aranessa, Noctilus and Skaven in HellPit/Skavenblight). I could go on and on. I play ME only when I want to play Old World race and there is scant difference from the way I played it back in TWW1. For New World races it is mostly Vortex - why would I choose smaller, more cramped version of Vortex map without any interesting campaign goals?

4. HORDE GAMEPLAY. It could be interesting. As it is, it is just boring. It is less tedious than in TWW1, but still: waiting ages for growth, replenishment issues and completely ridiculous hide-and-seek game with AI clowns prancing around, recolonizing everything we have razed. Again, I could go on and on. Chaos Warriors at least need to be able to have settlements, and Beastmen need changes as well.


Ideas?
Tagged:
«13

Comments

  • Michael4537Michael4537 Registered Users Posts: 2,183
    edited February 2019
    I totally agree. Especially with the last one. I genuinely don't like the ME, and campaign victory conditions and story haven't been great since the beginning, aside from the Vortex campaign (which still suffers the tedium of "Chaos" invasions). IMO, the game would highly benefit from a series of campaign options available when starting a new campaign, including the option for a story vs. sandbox campaign, unit caps, and selectable regions of the map to play in, allowing us to have the whole world if we choose. Want a Lustria only campaign? Only pick the Lustria region. Want an Old World and neighbors campaign? Pick the Old World, Southlands, and Darklands. Happy with waiting out long end-turn times to play on a full-world map? Pick the whole dang map. This would solve the issues of 1) not everyone having computers that can handle a full-world map, 2) long end-turn waits (you'd still have to wait, but you could choose a smaller map to reduce waiting times, and 3) missing part of the Warhammer world.

    EDIT: More involved campaign mechanics would be awesome as well, and I hope that TW:W3 gets diplomacy similar to 3K.
  • Tokugawa IeyasuTokugawa Ieyasu Member Registered Users Posts: 124
    I personally think that what needs improvement is:

    1. The AI making decisions on the campaign map. The map should be part of your strategical movement of armies but its not too relevant at the moment.
    2. Diplomacy if 3K works as planned it should go in the same direction.
    3. A way to make special units truly special and relevant. Maybe the recruitment system of TOB finds a way into WH:TW.
    4. Campaign Goals overhaul and also the tedious chapter goals need some work too...razing/occupying/sacking x amount of cities needs to go.
    5. Battle AI (as always)
    6. More interaction and participation of allies / vassals.
  • GCRustGCRust Registered Users Posts: 604
    Spend some time producing some unique siege maps that the AI actually has an idea what to do with. You fight one siege battle, you've literally fought all of them.
  • AkiAmazAkiAmaz Registered Users Posts: 298
    1. Maps, as per OP and Michael4537.
    2. Sieges as per GCRust
    3. Campaign options as per Michael4537
    4. Improve diplomacy a bit, all I do now is NAP and trade agreements, the rest being pointless. Link it into campaign options and we are going somewhere.

    The above are my main dislikes about what is otherwise a super game.
  • GoatforceGoatforce Registered Users Posts: 3,585
    edited February 2019
    A thought about diplomacy in TW I had was to create diplomatic "hierarchies" or "blocs" (don't know how better to phrase this). By this I mean a faction will have different levels of diplomatic relation/options with different factions (I guess in a similar way to the climate system differentiating factions relations to the map).

    An example using the Empire: The highest level of diplo will always be with own faction, and would involve the ability to confederate (some races don't have this of course). Then will be factions like Bretonia, HEs and Dwarfs, who can be allied with etc - would be great to see some of the 3K things put in here. After that will be "neutrals", TKs and LM in this case, who you cannot ally with but you can trade and have non-aggression pacts with. Below that will be the factions with which the faction has no meaningful relations with (this is already implemented to an extent), and can only be at war with, WoC GS and BM for example. Perhaps they could also add a diplo state between always at war and neutral, not sure how it would work but DEs and Norsca could be put into it for Empire.

    It might be interesting if CA took inspiration from Amplitude and added in a "hostile" or "cold war" state, where you could attack tresspassing armies without triggering a war declaration.

    An idea if they add Nagash is that he might able to treat all Undead factions (that the player owns) as "high level", and be able to confed them.

    Haven't thought it through a great deal but it may help make diplomacy a bit more nuanced.
  • LennoxPoodleLennoxPoodle Registered Users Posts: 472

    I personally think that what needs improvement is:

    1. The AI making decisions on the campaign map. The map should be part of your strategical movement of armies but its not too relevant at the moment.
    2. Diplomacy if 3K works as planned it should go in the same direction.
    3. A way to make special units truly special and relevant. Maybe the recruitment system of TOB finds a way into WH:TW.
    4. Campaign Goals overhaul and also the tedious chapter goals need some work too...razing/occupying/sacking x amount of cities needs to go.
    5. Battle AI (as always)
    6. More interaction and participation of allies / vassals.

    Maybe the victory condition thing could be implemented by using something like the ToB victory system (meaning the 3 types of victory: build wide, build high or reach the historical/lorefull goals of your faction). It seemed to be a genuinly good idea to me.
  • steph74steph74 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,356
    My list:

    - ME world map: I want the same extent as Vortex for Lustria and Southland. Possibly with reduced areas ans less provinces, but be able to go around of Southlands with ship fo example.

    - Empire : only one start position = bad.

    - Faction selection in campaign or custom battle. Make a two steps selection: select the race first, then the faction!

    - Diplomacy: modify it so if you are allied with A and B, and A attacks B, you are not stuck in a situation where you always lose reliability.. There could a "neutral" option.

    - Lack of weather variety: add rain, fog, snow, wind, night battles, and with effect on gameplay (like Norsca not affected by snow as much as others)

    - Ruins : I don't like that you can only visit ruined cities. I'd like to see "land dungeons" a bit like the sea encounters, where you could go for exploration, possibly a puzzle or a battle agaisnt beastmen , orcs, etc to get some exp treasure, in random places, not have to raze a city first and then explore the ruins

  • Urza1234Urza1234 Registered Users Posts: 222
    Sieges mate.

    You start this thread and you dont mention sieges?
    Sieges.
  • tgoodenowtgoodenow Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 783
    I don’t find sieges terrible like everyone else does. Sieges have never been good in any total war game.

    Diplomacy is horrendously bad

    End turn times. Even in my i7-8700 and 1080ti, they’re almost as bad as diplomacy is. Playing with the faction unlocker makes me worried for what the final combined map is gonna look like.

    Trade- I don’t even know how this works atm but there should be a much better system

    Auto resolve - lol vampire coast is so OP
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 8,323
    Like pretty much all of this thread.
    Read all my replies as if we are having a pint and a good old time. I will always read your reply like that.
  • hanesdavhanesdav Registered Users Posts: 855
    I absolutely agree with OP.
  • GCRustGCRust Registered Users Posts: 604
    tgoodenow said:

    I don’t find sieges terrible like everyone else does. Sieges have never been good in any total war game.

    Diplomacy is horrendously bad

    End turn times. Even in my i7-8700 and 1080ti, they’re almost as bad as diplomacy is. Playing with the faction unlocker makes me worried for what the final combined map is gonna look like.

    Trade- I don’t even know how this works atm but there should be a much better system

    Auto resolve - lol vampire coast is so OP


    Sieges at least had SOME strategic depth to them. Granted my only other TW experience is Attila, but I still remember claiming my first major settlement as the Langobards by tying up the bulk of the defenders at the back walls while my Skirmishers captured towers on the other side of the town, allowing my Young Wolves to walk in and hit the defenders from behind.

    In TWW, you just throw a unit or two up towards the one section of walls you are allowed to attack (Sometimes you get lucky and get TWO sides of a wall to attack!) to draw enemy fire while your Siege Towers roll up to the walls unharassed.


    Diplomacy and Trade are both completely bare bones, but that's ultimately sort of in keeping with the setting. These sorts of things have been the barest hint of a whisper within the overall focus. I wouldn't object to more robust systems, but I don't see that as being a big priority. Total War Warhammer is ultimately meant to be about war - it being a more combat oriented title is to be expected. The problem is a big portion of the combat, ie the Sieges, aren't engaging.


    Turn Timers - I'm literally writing this post tabbed out from my Empire game as I wait for the turn timer to complete (Tabbed back in to see the Wood Elves offering me a military alliance. Nice to see the only thing needed to make them see reason is to kick Orion's head in 20 turns back). It's annoying, but sort of to be expected from the sheer mass of factions already present within the game. Only way I could really see reducing things is stopping the player from being introduced to factions seemingly at random. A Defensive Alliance with Lothern shouldn't just magically bring me into contact with the Exiles. Nor the Last Defenders via Hexoatl. Also reduce the AI's agent spam. Seriously Stirland, I'm glad you're still kicking 130+ turns in but do you really NEED all those Captains running aimlessly around the map?


    Auto-Resolve - it does need looked at. Not simply for the Vampire Coast, but it is the most grievous offender. Currently in the process of knocking out Saratosa (Get your filthy Vampiric Corruption OFF MY LAWN!), a minor settlement with no Garrison improvements saw a 50/50 balance of power against my 20 stack that included five units of Handgunners (One of whom is Rank 9) and two Hellstorm Rocket Batteries. Fought the battle, battle map generated a gigantic hill. Parked the Batteries on the top, the Handgunners in the middle, and my Infantry along the base. Infantry never had to fight.
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Registered Users Posts: 4,092
    GCRust said:

    Spend some time producing some unique siege maps that the AI actually has an idea what to do with. You fight one siege battle, you've literally fought all of them.

    AkiAmaz said:


    2. Sieges as per GCRust

    Urza1234 said:

    Sieges mate.

    You start this thread and you dont mention sieges?
    Sieges.

    My greatest wish for TWWH.
    It's a shame they took half the game and made it so unimpressive. Sieges need a serious overhaul. They are not up to the standard any other TW game has met so far.
    tgoodenow said:

    I don’t find sieges terrible like everyone else does. Sieges have never been good in any total war game.

    Sieges have never been perfect, sure. But they have never been a major let down as part of a TW game either. At least the maps were more interesting to play even with the AI unable to cope with it. As far as I can tell there is no major difference with how well the AI does. It's always poorly. The big difference between sieges of past total wars and now is how fun they are to play against other people. The community mod maps are incredibly fun with do in multiplayer. Vanilla maps are not.

    You may not mind them but they are an abomination to my eyes and the eyes of many others.
  • AriakkanAriakkan Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 48
    I think Diplomacy and Trade would need to be reworked completely.

    ME map / campaign / objectives / turn times should be def. revised.

    reg. turn times in ME: just horrendous with a cookie-cutter PC build. I have been able to reduce them by around 30% via mods and this hugely impacts the ME campaign (from a pure masoquist experience to just a huge pain in the ass mind you)

    Same for autosolve. There are some races which you just have to play literally 95% of the battles.

    I think new province / game mechanics should be included in the game. Population / Food? Something that makes the campaign experience more like a challenge vs. being a unit unlocker. Public order alone is just boring.

    Turn Times: just horrendous in ME with a cookie-cutter PC build. I have been able to reduce them by around 30% and this hugely impacts the ME experience (from a pure masoquist experience to just a pain the ass mind you)

    Armies and unit rooster. The gap is still huge between Old and New races. I just hope the 3rd game does not make the gap bigger...

    I personally do not see sieges as a problem though I would rather have Shogun 2 sieges to be honest.

    All in all I am concerned that TWWIII looks/feels dated, specially if the improvements we've seen in Three Kingdoms are truly revolutionary (and do work properly).

    We'll see.
  • blaatblaat Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,109
    @GCRust
    there is mod that blocks diplomacy during AI turns so that you can safely alt tab

    which is what CA should implement too IMHO

    snip

    It's much easier and more fun to get engrossed in lore that takes itself seriously and tries to make sense within its own frame of reference.

    the reason I prefer LOTR over warhammer fantasy and 40k

    I am dutch so if you like to have a talk in dutch shoot me a PM :)
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 17,642
    Not much, it's a great game. I just had a dream about it actually.

    If I'd add anything it'd be a more complex campaign map. As is that whole stage is a tad simple.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • Fraxure022Fraxure022 Registered Users Posts: 82
    I want the game to not feel like Frankenstein’s Monster. Right now, it’s like playing two games stapled together. I want to invest my time in something cohesive. I -love- the Southlands and Lustria, but on the ME map they feel so tacked on. Shrink the old world down, get rid of some of that empty space, and upsize the rest of the world.

    As others have said, there is very little meaningful interaction between the old factions and the new ones, and that’s a shame. The Skaven should be terrorizing the Empire.

    Fix. The. Lighting. Dear goodness, this drives me up the wall. I love how much more colorful Warhammer 2 is, but wow do the old races look terrible in their portraits.

    Optimize turn times for the AI, as well as load times. This ones a no-brainer. I feel like I spend more time reading on my phone while the game loads than I do actually playing the game.

    Also, it’s a minor nitpick, but I hate my cities not changing over to my faction when I conquer them. Give us the option to do that, or at least let modders mess with it please.

    This is, to me at least, the best memoir Warhammer Fantasy is ever going to get. Games Workshop -literally- destroyed it, so please, take the time to do it right and give every faction and every place in the Warhammer world equal love and care.
  • GCRustGCRust Registered Users Posts: 604
    blaat said:

    @GCRust
    there is mod that blocks diplomacy during AI turns so that you can safely alt tab

    which is what CA should implement too IMHO


    Eh, it's all good. At this point in the game the Chaos crisis basically has all the "Order" races that haven't already unify against the threat. Thanks to alliances and what not I'm pretty much at war with anyone I was going to be at war with. Only real remaining diplomatic matter that I'd deal with is Saratosa trying to peace out.
  • Cronik2kCronik2k Registered Users Posts: 89
    1. Better Siege Mechanics and Maps
    2. Better A.I in open field or siege battles and definitely on the campaign map
    3. All the old world races to be brought up to date, including rites and their mechanics revised
    4. More cut scenes, story, lore and more varied campaign goals
    5. ME map to be complete and not stitched together
    6. Better diplomacy options, inparticular being able to gift a settlement to an ally or use it as a bargaining tool.

    But the thing I actually want the most would be all races to have at least 4 LL's, ROR's and if not complete unit rosters, very close to it. And of course Araby and DOW races to be released before WH3.


  • Gilgamesh1Gilgamesh1 Registered Users Posts: 599
    agree with OP on all! but i would like some more Ghorgon in there
  • NyxilisNyxilis Registered Users Posts: 3,398
    My top few.

    1. Horde gameplay. It's just a slog. It's symptomatic of a few things. One, old race design when they didn't quite have a grasp on certain things yet and were still feeling out the IP as a whole. But slow replenishment, limited to few armies compared to other races, whackamole recolonization, and overall lackluster map mechanics. I don't enjoy playing the Beastmen for this reason.

    2. Diplomacy, I mostly consider it pointless. Excluding the HE, I have otherwise found it pointless. I become way more powerful without allies, taking their stuff, and not hobbled by random wars they drag me into. Confederation isn't reliable enough for most of the factions for me. Now you can say, "You just want only the best way to win." No, I want other ways of winning to be comparable. Allies in this game are a danger, a nuisance, and I can fight whole wars with allies never showing up. It's also fairly shallow overall. Trade is really the most I do.

    3. AR, yes I know it's slanted to trying to draw me into a battle, or make it worth more my while to do so. But, I still don't like having to fight every piddly battle verus certain races despite my army being full, and all elites. Vs one that isn't even complete, full, and loses as much as I do. Especially when I can start the battle and just leave. My artillery and ranged units killing it all before it even reaches my front lines. Some races are quite unfairly penalized here as some are just overwhelmingly better by the blasted algorithm.

    4. Roster holes & Lords, lumping these two together. Some armies are mostly complete. Sure, I would like the missing units for them but for others it's way worse. Either units that have been in their armies since ancient editions are missing. Or they just in general actually need the units to better perform. With lords, just want more and I want do not want to see more Tretch's or Gorsts. Yes yes, Tretch was well designed, that's not the point with him.

    5. Three Kingdoms, not that it exists or anything. But it straight up proved they could do several things that are in fact something dear to Warhammer or simply just better. Retinues can go a long way for this. Banners were a big thing on the TT and that they are not here is one very irksome thing for me.
  • InquisitornInquisitorn Registered Users Posts: 98
    There is only one MAJOR grievance: Pathfinding on the campaign map: Why isn't it possible to send a hero/lord to another landmass without the pathfinding logic either failing or choosing a path over land dozens of turns longer than a sea/land path terrain would?
  • AvartAvart Registered Users Posts: 79
    Nice one.
    Noone mentions heroes spamming campaign actions..All have passive agents mod on and have forgotten how annoying the ai can be?

    Also .. hero cap for some factions and mechanics around...Army cap.. etc.. Just remove all the cap.Or make it equal.

    20 heroes cap must be ideal for everyone.

    I have a lot of ideas but not in the mood to write them down at the moment.
  • HeinarcHeinarc Registered Users Posts: 15
    1. Campaign map AI. Major empires should be able coordinate several armies both attacking or defending (the invasion armies do not behave too bad in this regard). In the current state, campaigns are over by turn 70 in terms of challenge, because nothing will ever be a lethal threat once you stabilized a few provinces.

    2. End turn times and loading times. Not easy to fix given the ambition of the game, but absolutely necessary nonetheless. As stated above, it is a very real fun killer especially in mortal empires.

    3. Meaningful victory conditions. They should represent the core objectives of your faction, yet remain both simple and challenging

    For examples for Lizardmen, i'd propose :
    -Build 3 of the 4 following landmarks : Golden Tower of the Gods (Golden Tower); Stellar Pyramids of the Southern Skies (Hexoalt lvl5); Vaults of the Old Ones (Itza lvl 5) ; Temple of the Eclipse (Tlaxtlan)
    - Control a minimum of 10 geomantic locus
    - Skaven factions must not control more than 10 provinces
    - Chaos and beastmen armies must not control more than 100 units

    4. As an option for a new campaign, give a background income bonus to random order/chaotic/neutral factions (so you could sort of customise your experience)
  • Bonutz619Bonutz619 Registered Users Posts: 1,440
    edited February 2019
    Agree with you on everything, OP.

    Here's my added list:

    1. Horrible siege AI
    2. Boring, cookie-cutter siege maps.
    3. Can't turn off fire from watchtowers that I control. It's annoying chasing routing units on a siege map outside the city and my garrisoned towers hit my own guys in the process. The only way to turn it off is to remove my unit from the tower area which takes forever.
    3. Lack of open battle map variety. Fighting on the same hill gets dull after a while.
    4. No use of Amanar after winning the final battle (wtf)
    5. Vamptide
    6. Cut off mortal empires map. Would love to get the whole thing.
    7. Barebones diplomacy. No region trading and no ability to select amount of money you would like to pay.
    8. Optimization all around.

    Otherwise, the game is superb.
  • karge068karge068 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,258
    edited February 2019
    Agreed

    Also old world factions need an overhaul, including wood elves, even though they are DLC. Amber needs a rework.

    Also would be nice to be able to set some more parameters at the start of the campaign, like boost certain factions.

    Eg Im playing Empire and Im in the mood for a greentide, I could nerf dwarfs and buff some greenskin factions

    I could have random greenskin doomstacks appear every X turns

    ALSO VAMPTIDE needs to be addressed
  • ErathilErathil Registered Users Posts: 632
    1. Sieges need more depth, scale, and complexity.
    2. Turn lengths get kind of ridiculous (but I don't really think there's anything to be done about this).
    3. Older races feel lacking in polish and depth compared to newer ones.
    4. Chaos Invasion is annoying rather than scary or challenging (we really need an end-game challenge that DOESN'T focus around spawning a half dozen stacks of elite armies on you).
    5. The Late Game becomes a slog. There needs to be something (other than the Chaos Invasion) to raise stakes and difficulty in the final stages of the campaign.
    6. Diplomacy is bare-bones, and the AI's diplomacy is frequently baffling. It could use some more depths.
    7. Wood Elves need another LL, preferably Ariel or the Sisters of Twilight.
  • RazmirthRazmirth Registered Users Posts: 2,193
    I think your main points sum up my beefs with the game. ALl in all its fantastic. It’s just some small changes that would make it that much better.

    Minor gripes mainly. And greenskins revamp. Ohhhh man how we need that. Can’t wait.
  • CrossilCrossil Registered Users Posts: 5,955
    Greatest issue for me is no Red Duke and Boris Todbringer, yet.

    THEY'RE RIGHT THERE!!!

    Also Surtha Ek.
    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT
  • RazmirthRazmirth Registered Users Posts: 2,193
    edited February 2019
    Crossil said:

    Greatest issue for me is no Red Duke and Boris Todbringer, yet.

    THEY'RE RIGHT THERE!!!

    Also Surtha Ek.

    Red duke is a must include. Especially by game 3. I mean, they already went out of the way to create the legendary blood dragon lord with customized skill tree. Red duke is literally a copy and paste of that for the most part I imagine.

    And Toddbringer would be a great alternative to the regular empire start.
Sign In or Register to comment.