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

Does Anyone Else get Frustrated Thinking About The Potential of The Series?

SaborSabor Posts: 209Registered Users
Greetings fellow Warhammer Fans, I often start a post to gauge the thoughts and feelings of the community. Today is no exception, but I also am taking this opportunity to voice my frustration. I LOVE Total War: Warhammer, it is realistically everything I could ask for from a fantasy based strategy game. With several hundred hours under my belt I still get giddy when I think about hoards of undead charging a defensive artillery line or waves of armor clad warriors marching in unison to an exposed flank of an enemy army. I would easily put this trilogy in my top 10 games list of all time and am so dedicated to the series I have bought both collectors editions and repurchased digital copies for friends about 4-5 times. So what reason do I have to be frustrated?

With the release of Total War: Three Kingdoms I was happy about CA getting more money to continue Warhammer primarily. However the more I watched and played Three Kingdoms the more annoyed I began to feel. The game is great, the combat is fluid, the backgrounds are exceptional, and the campaign is the finest it has been in years. There is a few glaring issues that persist, but with the overseas market the sales chart was utterly shattered. CA pumped out an absolutely stellar game that people are raving about, they truly showed how much dedication, time, and effort can make a title shine. When I think about all the amazing features and mechanics in Three Kingdoms I grimace because if these features were implemented into Warhammer it would easily be a contender for game of the year.

I will often brainstorm when I am trying to make work go faster. I daydream of features that would work well within the trilogy. Epic siege battles that would make Lord of the Rings turn green with envy. Intricate diplomacy mechanics that would turn massive federations against one another or plunge entire continents into massive world wars. Extensive invasion mechanics that could come from any number of rosters such as a massive WAAAGH spawned around the world or huge stacks of Skaven burrowing out from beneath the surface of the earth in order of the council of 13. So my question today is that, does anyone feel anxious because of how many features they want to be implemented and once more how successful the game would be if they were implemented but no one is turning the ignition switch?
«1

Comments

  • CaesarSahlertzCaesarSahlertz Posts: 1,733Registered Users
    Eh, I don't really get frustrated over this kind of stuff. Mostly because I remind myself that added intricacies will mean an increase to both hardware and software requirements of the game, to the point that without a future gen rig, you wouldn't even be able to play the game.
  • Bonutz619Bonutz619 Posts: 852Registered Users
    edited July 30
    Everything you mentioned, I would love in the game. I'm sure CA would as well. But I'll say this: it all comes down to money. Companies are all about maximizing their profits while spending as little as possible.

    Warhammer is CA's most expensive IP by far and in order for all of these features you mentioned to be implemented, they would need a MASSIVE budget. Think of all the lords, factions, units, mechanics etc that are already implemented. Those weren't cheap to do by any stretch. Sega and CA are simply not willing to invest the insane amount of money needed for this kind of overhaul into 1 IP. Not to mention what a vast undertaking it would be in manpower and time alone.

    The way I see it, something's gotta give. In Warhammer's case, they decided to put most of their effort towards the battles as opposed to campaign, which I'm totally fine with. Warhammer TT is more centered around the battles anyways so I find this more thematic with the franchise. I'm not expecting a grand overhaul for the campaign or for sieges at this point.

  • FinishingLastFinishingLast Posts: 4,133Registered Users
    To a degree, yes. There is a lot of potential to this series that likely won't be tapped by CA and only partially tapped by the modding community due to restrictions.

    That being said, a game like 3K can have more if its budget focused on things like diplomacy and the campaign map and play because of how significantly cheaper it is to create an animate a bunch of human soldiers fighting other human soldiers. They have nothing to compare to the many strange and time-consuming units that the WH series has and will continue to have.

    It's easy for me to rationalize why some areas are more shallow because of the effort going into the units, but I can't get too upset about it because CA has still been supporting the series with both paid and free content. Sure, I'd much prefer if they released more DLC more frequently and would happily buy it. So my main disappointment in this isn't so much all of the potential wasted, it's the fact that CA probably could tap into a lot of it, but instead bend to negative pressure from those who are anti-DLC and voiced that there was too much DLC in game 1. These are the same people who are unlikely to buy any DLC let alone ongoing DLC across a series of games.

    I feel like CA has taken the path to try and balance and please everyone, but it won't work. People like me are annoyed they aren't releasing more DLC and people who don't like DLC are still going to be just as upset that they are releasing DLC. I feel like they can't win that battle and instead chose the side that makes them less money. And that to me is baffling.
    Later
  • ThirdeyeThirdeye Posts: 112Registered Users
    Yeah, lot of potential there for growth, more features, and more nuance. But a fully loaded game would be taxing on all but the most expensive rigs, and as the technology changes the platform might have to be rebuilt from the ground-up to take advantage of the changes. And how long will players be interested when, say, VR gets real. Many players may jump to something new and shinny.
  • CaesarSahlertzCaesarSahlertz Posts: 1,733Registered Users
    Also worth noting is, that just because Warhammer might not be fully actualized during the current trilogy, does not mean that CA 8or others) won't ever expand upon the scope of Warhammer games. This trilogy will serve as a great starting point for CA to make potential future games in the setting, which can, with these games as a back-catalogue, further develop and implement many of the things that are currently missing.
  • LaindeshLaindesh Junior Member Posts: 1,559Registered Users
    Warhammer 2 is its own game with its own gameplay.
    The only thing i really want in Warhammer 3 is the vastly improved diplomacy in a way that makes warhammer a far more intriguing\fun place to navigate diplomacy wise. Not the "stomp everything" faceroll we got now.
  • PatriksevePatrikseve Member Posts: 1,637Registered Users
    For me it was really the opposite, I have never played a Total War for a long time that really hooked me like Warhammer, it has done an amazing jobb capturing the races, factions and wars across its world. It doesnt frustrate me that there is untapped potential it makes me happy for the future because its something they can tap into later. And games might never be fully as we want them but thats fine I think. I doubt the developer feel they are fully happy ever either, usually you just want to keep polishing it when you make something. Im pretty content at the moment. All I miss is a little day/night cycle campaignmap and some good night battles (in this case I would love day and night to have huge impacts on various armies giving buffs/negatives certain mechanics and such to take place to fully flesh that stuff out and making time of day vital depending on faction you fight and at what time (some factions will be far stronger at some time, others weaker, some netrual etc). The other stuff im hoping for are smaller things like a new confederation system to gain LL:s without sacrificing independent starting positions.

  • Bonutz619Bonutz619 Posts: 852Registered Users
    edited July 30

    To a degree, yes. There is a lot of potential to this series that likely won't be tapped by CA and only partially tapped by the modding community due to restrictions.

    That being said, a game like 3K can have more if its budget focused on things like diplomacy and the campaign map and play because of how significantly cheaper it is to create an animate a bunch of human soldiers fighting other human soldiers. They have nothing to compare to the many strange and time-consuming units that the WH series has and will continue to have.

    It's easy for me to rationalize why some areas are more shallow because of the effort going into the units, but I can't get too upset about it because CA has still been supporting the series with both paid and free content. Sure, I'd much prefer if they released more DLC more frequently and would happily buy it. So my main disappointment in this isn't so much all of the potential wasted, it's the fact that CA probably could tap into a lot of it, but instead bend to negative pressure from those who are anti-DLC and voiced that there was too much DLC in game 1. These are the same people who are unlikely to buy any DLC let alone ongoing DLC across a series of games.

    I feel like CA has taken the path to try and balance and please everyone, but it won't work. People like me are annoyed they aren't releasing more DLC and people who don't like DLC are still going to be just as upset that they are releasing DLC. I feel like they can't win that battle and instead chose the side that makes them less money. And that to me is baffling.

    Personally, I don’t buy that excuse from CA and I never have. No company would say no to more money because of a few rotten eggs on Steam, especially when their DLC is selling great.

    Not only that, but for every 1 person complaining about too many DLC’s, there were 50 saying how they want more so it really doesn’t add up.

    I just think that was some PR excuse to cover up another reason. Like perhaps 3K eating up more development resources.
  • Unknown6203Unknown6203 Posts: 789Registered Users
    For Warhammer i only need a few new features after 2 years they have made strides.

    For me 2 things are primordial.

    1-Better diplomacy options, including liberate,gift,buy/sell regions. this will increase playability ad make the campaign more fun whit things to do between battles.

    2-Ppdate WH1 factions to WH2 standarts and use let say Tomb Kings as the benchmark for all WH3 races that way Wh1,WH2 and WH3 factions will be one par.

    Another thing that **** me off, is stop whit the useless unshielded variants and useless variants like Skin Cohorts. make roster unique if there are variants at least differentiate them in stats so both can hold a place in the battlefield.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,059Registered Users
    I don't let games frustrate me. The purpose is recreation not recragetion.

    The reality is the game is excellent. It could improve almost endlessly but it's property excellent right now.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • BoombastekBoombastek Posts: 1,997Registered Users
    edited July 30
    Bonutz619 said:

    Everything you mentioned, I would love in the game. I'm sure CA would as well. But I'll say this: it all comes down to money. Companies are all about maximizing their profits while spending as little as possible.

    Warhammer is CA's most expensive IP by far and in order for all of these features you mentioned to be implemented, they would need a MASSIVE budget. Think of all the lords, factions, units, mechanics etc that are already implemented. Those weren't cheap to do by any stretch. Sega and CA are simply not willing to invest the insane amount of money needed for this kind of overhaul into 1 IP. Not to mention what a vast undertaking it would be in manpower and time alone.

    The way I see it, something's gotta give. In Warhammer's case, they decided to put most of their effort towards the battles as opposed to campaign, which I'm totally fine with. Warhammer TT is more centered around the battles anyways so I find this more thematic with the franchise. I'm not expecting a grand overhaul for the campaign or for sieges at this point.

    You compare 3K and warhammer like both this game was released in same time.

    Since release of Warhammer past 3 years.

    To OP Warhammer 3 isnt even annonced, so my bet 3K is testing polygon for Warhammer 3.

    CA stated they are surprised with such 3K success. They expect a less sales. So CA isn't compare warhammer and 3K.

    Developers said 3K in other weith category.
  • BoombastekBoombastek Posts: 1,997Registered Users
    Laindesh said:

    Warhammer 2 is its own game with its own gameplay.
    The only thing i really want in Warhammer 3 is the vastly improved diplomacy in a way that makes warhammer a far more intriguing\fun place to navigate diplomacy wise. Not the "stomp everything" faceroll we got now.

    But on Legendary difficult in 3K the easiet strategy to expande is stomp everything face roll.

    Idk but diplomacy in 3K on legendary not working as was presented on E3.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Posts: 7,623Registered Users
    edited July 30
    Game is near perfect.

    What I want is more content: DoW, Araby, Kislev etc (coming i hope)

    And a few gameplay fixes:

    Sieges changed to make ai deploy its AI troops outside the walls and archers on them.
    Max cap any resistance 70%
    Have AI not waste its ammo on bad targets
    Economy fixes (so HEs cant have miilions in income)


    In short i am extremly happy with what CA has done.
    Read all my replies as if we are having a pint and a good old time. I will always read your reply like that.
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Posts: 4,092Registered Users
    I get frustrated by how awful sieges are in every aspect and how amazing they could've been had CA not cheaped out on them.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,059Registered Users

    I get frustrated by how awful sieges are in every aspect and how amazing they could've been had CA not cheaped out on them.

    I quite like current sieges.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • ArneSoArneSo Posts: 1,150Registered Users
    The only change I want for game 3 is settlements finally changing their skins again! HE living their best life inside a stinky orc camp is just ridiculous... same goes for Dwarfs, Empire and simply every other Race in the game.

    It’s a sandbox game and when Playing HE I want to establish new colonies. As Dwarfs I want to rebuild the old Karaz Ankor and whipe our all greenskins from the world. As VC I want to form a dark empire of the night.

    All this is simply not possible when settlements just stay the same....
  • GwydionGwydion Senior Member Posts: 2,160Registered Users
    Sabor said:

    Greetings fellow Warhammer Fans, I often start a post to gauge the thoughts and feelings of the community. Today is no exception, but I also am taking this opportunity to voice my frustration. I LOVE Total War: Warhammer, it is realistically everything I could ask for from a fantasy based strategy game. With several hundred hours under my belt I still get giddy when I think about hoards of undead charging a defensive artillery line or waves of armor clad warriors marching in unison to an exposed flank of an enemy army. I would easily put this trilogy in my top 10 games list of all time and am so dedicated to the series I have bought both collectors editions and repurchased digital copies for friends about 4-5 times. So what reason do I have to be frustrated?

    With the release of Total War: Three Kingdoms I was happy about CA getting more money to continue Warhammer primarily. However the more I watched and played Three Kingdoms the more annoyed I began to feel. The game is great, the combat is fluid, the backgrounds are exceptional, and the campaign is the finest it has been in years. There is a few glaring issues that persist, but with the overseas market the sales chart was utterly shattered. CA pumped out an absolutely stellar game that people are raving about, they truly showed how much dedication, time, and effort can make a title shine. When I think about all the amazing features and mechanics in Three Kingdoms I grimace because if these features were implemented into Warhammer it would easily be a contender for game of the year.

    I will often brainstorm when I am trying to make work go faster. I daydream of features that would work well within the trilogy. Epic siege battles that would make Lord of the Rings turn green with envy. Intricate diplomacy mechanics that would turn massive federations against one another or plunge entire continents into massive world wars. Extensive invasion mechanics that could come from any number of rosters such as a massive WAAAGH spawned around the world or huge stacks of Skaven burrowing out from beneath the surface of the earth in order of the council of 13. So my question today is that, does anyone feel anxious because of how many features they want to be implemented and once more how successful the game would be if they were implemented but no one is turning the ignition switch?

    You have no idea... im right there with you man....

    I literally play the med 2 BOTET version of the warhammer world just as much as this game and if this game didn't have mod support I literally wouldn't play it.... thank GOD for mod support or id have honestly shelved this game or only play it sparsely.

    the list goes on of all the things about this game that make me salty even though warhammer total war is a dream come true....

    epic battle maps? No... flat ground with trees and hills sprinkled in - fixed by mods
    epic settlement maps? No... none at ALL. - fixed by mods.
    epic sieges? no... copy and paste layouts shared by all races - fixed by mods.

    unit rosters more filled out... even with units that would literally take 5 seconds to make like black orcs with shields? no - fixed by mods.

    battles that last longer than 4 minutes after the two armies actually meet? no. fixed by mods.

    4-6 Triple AAA quality legendary lords that are PROMINENT in the lore for each race, that are even cooler than CA's? fixed by ONE GUY modding.

    More technologies for each race especially ones that need it like old world races- mods

    A more true to lore... and fixed warhammer 2's awfully stupid color saturation problem that warhammer 1 didn't have? fixed by dryrain mods.

    i can type pages.... 150(ish) mods worth in fact.... its just rage inducing to see all the potential that could be as big as starcraft or something if they just had taken the time to do everything the justice it deserved.


    PLEASE CA!!! Chaos Warriors need a faction that is not horde only by the time the trilogy is finished! We beg of you!

    Just Realized this topic has been viewed more, the topic of " Limiting Race Expansion/ Colonization Expansion" alone than more than half of the stickied things at the top of the forum... I hope you are too CA and I mean that in a positive way from a huge fan!

    Please improve sieges! Add racial flavor and ACTUALLY make them "deeper rather than wide" copy and paste with different art needs to go!
  • HarlecHarlec Posts: 293Registered Users
    Yes, the sieges aren't that great. Maybe in Part 3 they go here the extra mile.
    Also I am not a fan of fixed city skins.
    Diplomacy needs definitifly an update. I hate it that I can't trade citys and general magic items.
    Also Co-op campaigns are boring as hell with there "paint the map to win" mechanic.
    But that's it.
    If i would list all positiv things .... that list would be a lot longer.
  • MarkerMarker Posts: 897Registered Users
    edited July 30
    YES.
    What frustrates me is that they pump out Game one fast, pump out DLC's fast without any kind of feedback first and then Pump out Game two fast, and now we are stuck with Unfinished game one with Unfinished DLC's. Probably because of some disappointing mini-campaigns, nobody asked for and because of Budged, It feels very Rushed with likely no return other than some Update and Tweaks, since people are politicly crying correct over DLC for DLC while Units and Lords cost money to make and u already paid for that half DLC u accepted.
    Now singleplayer and multiplayer is degrading since they are doing things right now or even better than it should have been in game one, things get more unbalanced with every DLC to come.

  • uriakuriak Posts: 3,421Registered Users
    edited July 30
    This is mostly the point of these forums. Both for hopes and disappointment, I'm fairly certain most of us active here have dwelled more on what the game could be rather than what is it. It's understandable but still quite unwarranted.

    I've come to realize that CA and TW games are not that "big" games, actually. I mean, they are certainly not indie games in the 20-30 euros range, but we are not talking about some of the mammoth games released by the big studios.

    I've come to enjoy the games mostly with mods, too, more on the AI side, but I can get behind the frustration with the battle maps. I applaude the modders behind, this, because for having modded a bit myself I know it's really a tiring endeavour, and I've yet to update quite simple mods because I've not enough faith in the game to be bothered with this anymore.

    Anyway, truth to be told, there are a lot of things that could be done, and actually they don't make unanimity. Just something as "specific" as sieges, for instance.
    Some just want more complicated maps, others would rather have a good siege AI, other would want to avoid most sieges in general.

    It's fairly certain that work on the AI behind the scene could bring huge QoL in many aspects, but... sieges, AI, and many things are not truly sellable. Units, are however. Flashy units. Just consider the **** off people about HE new units because they were mostly archers.

    So I guess, and this will sound heretic, that maybe, mods have cheapened our perception of what is worth paying in a game, alas. Mods can bring new subfaction, refine AI build orders, add unit restriction, add new events, landmarks, new units made from existing ones, new maps.
    Each of this things could be done by CA, and I really think it's better to include stuff in the base game because mods have a lifecycle of their own and are not all compatible, but from their viewpoint, few of these are sellable, outside of the big incremental release, aka TWW3.

    Maybe we have to realize that the public is not large enough for the game we hope for. And the wider the public, the less important some "warhammer" elements are, too.
  • CrossilCrossil Posts: 4,301Registered Users
    The only thing I despair about is lands being in placeholders hands rather than in hands of their rightful rulers. Most other things can be worked on, more or less.
    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Posts: 4,092Registered Users

    I get frustrated by how awful sieges are in every aspect and how amazing they could've been had CA not cheaped out on them.

    I quite like current sieges.
    And I just can't understand why.
    One of lifes greatest mysteries.
  • sandercohensandercohen Posts: 153Registered Users
    I think the game is already extremely good, definitely one of the best games I've played in recent years.

    Still, the warhammer universe being as expansive as it is, TWW will never truly feel complete. There are always more mechanics, lords, units and factions to be added. No matter how much CA does for the game, its fan base will never be satiated.

    Do I get frustrated? No, actually I'm very happy about the state that TWWII is in right now. I'm very happy we get to see Warhammer III in the coming years and i'm grateful that it has been confirmed we're getting a GS and empire overhaul/rework. The game can only get better.
  • FinishingLastFinishingLast Posts: 4,133Registered Users
    Bonutz619 said:

    To a degree, yes. There is a lot of potential to this series that likely won't be tapped by CA and only partially tapped by the modding community due to restrictions.

    That being said, a game like 3K can have more if its budget focused on things like diplomacy and the campaign map and play because of how significantly cheaper it is to create an animate a bunch of human soldiers fighting other human soldiers. They have nothing to compare to the many strange and time-consuming units that the WH series has and will continue to have.

    It's easy for me to rationalize why some areas are more shallow because of the effort going into the units, but I can't get too upset about it because CA has still been supporting the series with both paid and free content. Sure, I'd much prefer if they released more DLC more frequently and would happily buy it. So my main disappointment in this isn't so much all of the potential wasted, it's the fact that CA probably could tap into a lot of it, but instead bend to negative pressure from those who are anti-DLC and voiced that there was too much DLC in game 1. These are the same people who are unlikely to buy any DLC let alone ongoing DLC across a series of games.

    I feel like CA has taken the path to try and balance and please everyone, but it won't work. People like me are annoyed they aren't releasing more DLC and people who don't like DLC are still going to be just as upset that they are releasing DLC. I feel like they can't win that battle and instead chose the side that makes them less money. And that to me is baffling.

    Personally, I don’t buy that excuse from CA and I never have. No company would say no to more money because of a few rotten eggs on Steam, especially when their DLC is selling great.

    Not only that, but for every 1 person complaining about too many DLC’s, there were 50 saying how they want more so it really doesn’t add up.

    I just think that was some PR excuse to cover up another reason. Like perhaps 3K eating up more development resources.
    Oh yeah, as I've said many times, the excuse is BS. Doesn't change that they've publically said it.
    Later
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,059Registered Users

    I get frustrated by how awful sieges are in every aspect and how amazing they could've been had CA not cheaped out on them.

    I quite like current sieges.
    And I just can't understand why.
    One of lifes greatest mysteries.
    They're big, they're bloody, they're simple, and most importantly they work.

    The only thing they aren't is as pretty as they could be.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • DaGangsterDaGangster Junior Member Posts: 852Registered Users
    I do think often of potential features and updates that could be added. I am pleased for the most part with every update and new addition that comes out.

    Team Vampire Counts

    "Many players cannot help approaching a game as an optimization puzzle. What gives the most reward for the least risk? What strategy provides the highest chance – or even a guaranteed chance – of success? Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game."

    - Soren Johnson
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Posts: 4,092Registered Users

    I get frustrated by how awful sieges are in every aspect and how amazing they could've been had CA not cheaped out on them.

    I quite like current sieges.
    And I just can't understand why.
    One of lifes greatest mysteries.
    They're big, they're bloody, they're simple, and most importantly they work.

    The only thing they aren't is as pretty as they could be.
    I find they have too many problems with the gates, the walls, the pocket ladders, the towers, the cookie cutter layouts inside and out and the sheer monotony of it to say sieges are anything but a disappointment.

    They aren't big. It doesn't matter if they are bloody. They most definitely are simple, overly simple, mind numbingly simple. Most unimportantly they work, sure. It's kinda the bare minimum you need. I wouldn't set the bar at basic functionality if you want good sieges.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,059Registered Users

    I get frustrated by how awful sieges are in every aspect and how amazing they could've been had CA not cheaped out on them.

    I quite like current sieges.
    And I just can't understand why.
    One of lifes greatest mysteries.
    They're big, they're bloody, they're simple, and most importantly they work.

    The only thing they aren't is as pretty as they could be.
    I find they have too many problems with the gates, the walls, the pocket ladders, the towers, the cookie cutter layouts inside and out and the sheer monotony of it to say sieges are anything but a disappointment.

    They aren't big. It doesn't matter if they are bloody. They most definitely are simple, overly simple, mind numbingly simple. Most unimportantly they work, sure. It's kinda the bare minimum you need. I wouldn't set the bar at basic functionality if you want good sieges.
    Previous games sieges were pretty but didn't work. Except for Shogun which had even simpler sieges. TWW's working is a massive improvement over past games. They are big, they fit 40 vs 40 just fine. Sieges in general are bloody, grinding affairs. That TWW's are bloody, grinding affairs should come as no surprise.

    I can have big, brutal siege battles in TWW. I like the sieges.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Posts: 7,623Registered Users
    AI does not fight in sieges. Must fix for wh3
    Read all my replies as if we are having a pint and a good old time. I will always read your reply like that.
  • uriakuriak Posts: 3,421Registered Users
    It varies, but the AI certainly doesn't really know what to do of some units types in sieges. TBh cav, chartios and arty are complicated for the player too, because sieges. are. cramped. And unless you design a city to be just a large field, it will be that way.

    In any case, there is list of desiderata and only a few will be fullfilled. CA priority is to add the main missing factions. Ironically, would the aim of the trilogy not be so completionnist, we'd have maybe more robust features instead. They could have made the starting 5 factions way more distinct instead.
Sign In or Register to comment.