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

(Idea/TheoryCrafting) Total War Warhammer 40k

AgentGBAgentGB Junior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 298
edited May 7 in Total War General Chat
These are just my thoughts/ideas on perhaps how a Warhammer 40k game can work. Please feel free to pick holes, seek out flaws, potential shortfalls, or outline expectations from what you would expect from a Warhammer 40k game if such a thing ever came to pass.

I will try to keep it relatively short as not to overburden the readers with too much text.

Initial Scope:


To see if it gains any traction and could possibly lead to a wider game, i thought a smaller focused area of the Imperium (Perhaps a single planet) would be a good start to nail down all the essential mechanics, game-play & balance etc, before expanding it into a more Grander Campaign encompassing a wider section of the Galaxy.

The Small Campaign Map (Planet Size):


I think this could be an opportunity to attempt something perhaps slightly more refreshing in the Total War series. Instead of the traditional campaign map & single army movement, that a pivot to the use of "Frontlines" be adopted to better convey the scale of warfare similar to that expected from modern warfare.

Unlike current Total War Campaigns, the battle would wage over a frontline using a grid/sector system, the UI could be given a digitized layout to give a feeling of a Commander viewing the status of the frontline through a digital screen with all available asset to them.

Below i use a poor example for a map, but just to get the idea across



To explain how this works: time in battles

1. Armies would project an aura of map control around them that would emit into adjacent grids. Thus giving a sense of a frontline.
2. The control emitted into adjacent grids would dictate the available deployment zone to those forces. Thus being able to emit more control on an adjacent grid could allow your forces to start in advantageous terrain & vice versa if you lack this projection.
3. Ideally it would be neater if it was similar to Close Combat in that you could be spending multiple turns attacking into 1 Grid attempting to clear the sector before being able to move on.
4. Armies are not destroyed when they lose, but merely fall back a grid in order to maintain a sense of a frontline. Since this is more about attritional warfare.
5. Manpower & Equipment are drawn from a force pool (In later expansions this could allow for Home/Forge Worlds to make up a grander campaign map but for this it will be abstract in that every turn you are being sent supplies to fund the war effort)
6. The Frontline System will always ensure that battles are huge & epic
7. Armies can move one grid at a time & not into the same grid as another friendly army, but can reinforce adjacent armies in another grid but only a certain amount of reinforcements can be sent while still being able to maintain their own frontage with the enemy.

E.g: an army directly adjacent to a friendly army will send 50% of its forces to aid, while an army 2 grids away will only send 25% of its forces to aid. If any army is more then 3 grids away, it will have a gap in their frontline thus cannot reinforce

8. Well established & connected Frontlines will give the advantage of being able to call upon more reinforcements from a nearby grid. If those reinforcements are called upon it can for a turn leave the sector reinforcing 50% or 25% under strength in its own sector.
9. In order to prevent stacking on the frontline (e.g keeping all your armies directly adjacent to each other in order to punch through & roll the enemy) controlled grids will reduce supply line cost & increase combat width.
10. Supply Line cost will increase dramatically when you control less regions thus making it more beneficial to picket your armies along the front. Since the more of this territory you control allows for better uninterrupted supplies between armies while a heavily concentrated force in a single area will affect supply throughput thus making it more costly to stack armies too close to each other. Thus making it quite situational and more calculated when the player or ai wishes to try & combine its might for a push
11. Combat Width, more frontage means that more units can deploy during the deployment phase that can give a sizable lead advantage. That means stacking armies one grid behind your advancing army would not be as beneficial to having an army adjacent to its side. They would merely come onto the battlefield later at a random time as reinforcements. While adjacent armies to the flank will offer either 50% or 25% of their forces depending on their distance. This will help to keep battles quite epic in its scale.
12. Reinforcements & Equipment are said to be shipped in from other Systems, events can be added that can see these disrupted (E.g Cadia as been overrun by the forces of Chaos at the Eye Of Terror, affecting your supply of fresh bodies to the front) Could also perhaps have edicts/decree that forces conscription on abstract planets at a cost of perhaps production of equipment that needs to be replaced. Landing pad facilities can be setup near front-lines to allow better replenishment. Perhaps attached to the army, that can also be targeted by enemy air power. Thus needing to be repaired if damaged.
13. In order to reduce the amount of battles being fought within a single turn, the frontline system will instead allow for fewer tedious battles and more grander battles, especially if you are only allowed to make one offensive move per turn with your forces. That will instead drag in all adjacent armies into the battle.
14. What i mean by one offensive move per turn, is something akin to Chess. So the player must plan an offensive over multiple turns instead of being able to attack with multiple armies on a single turn. This perhaps can be explained that there is only enough command & control, supplies etc to support one focused attack per turn. Hence why it leans on frontline forces assisting each other in these grander battles.
15. Special exception rules can be made for certain forces, perhaps with the Space Marines, but there deep strike ability may serve a better function as a reaction force or firemen for putting out fires when assisting the main Imperial Guard forces. In this, Space Marines would be more of an attachment force to certain Imperial Guard armies given their limited numbers, thus almost making them a Guard unit of sort if comparing it to historical Total War.
16. Artillery & Air support: This can be offered by adjacent armies within a battle as offmap support or certain region geography may lend itself better to the establishment of a temporary airfield. Artillery & Air Support similar to Fall of the Samurai can have effects on the battlefield and campaign related infrastructure, but would need to be somewhat automated similar to Hearts Of Iron. This could also allow for some neat sprite animations of aerial conflict raging above the frontlines on the campaign map & also during battle.
17. Since there wouldn't be much in the way of "economy building" but instead attempting to best allocate the resources provided, equipment like fighters/bombers would be a running cost in order to maintain air superiority & target enemy infrastructure relevant to what makes up an Armies Forward Operating Base (FOB) It could also perhaps be used to emit control within an area of grids to give an advantage to army deployment zones.
18. There should perhaps be an army cap, or see replenishment rate severely affected if exceeding the optimal infrastructure to support said armies.
19. Options to turn of the (1 attack per turn) so players could play against the intended design, or allow modders to experiment. Since curiosity if left unchecked could have the player feeling too constrained yet if allowed to see how it could affect gameplay if not toggle on will allow them to potentially like the initial design or thought process.

So in the below Example you can see The Cadian 180th Stalking Tigers are attacking into an adjacent grid. The Ultramarine 1st Company have been attached to them to help them punch through and secure the grid. The dotted line is the potential reinforcements that can assist in the assault from the Praetorian Guard & Salamander attached to them, but will only offer up to a max of 25% of their forces to the battle. This because the Praetorian Guard do still need to picket their frontline. During the turn phase, if the Orks were to counter attack against the Praetorians, they would have 25% less of their forces to hold back the green tide.



Obviously i have not added such stuff like air support to the map, since idk if it should be assigned to an army, much like Hordes work in WH2, or if it should be an asset on the campaign map. E.g abandoned airfield. That can be utilized.

Battles:


This is where i perhaps get a bit controversial & break from the tabletop. Since i don't see how you can have both grand battles while still retaining control over squad size units similar to table top. Since ideally i would like to see Titans raging across the battlefield too, and for the Titans to seem significant, there would need to be thousands of troops participating in a battle, to the point a company of space marines looks underwhelming in its sheer size.

https://secondworldwar.co.uk/index.php/army-sizes-a-ranks/86-army-units-a-sizes

For this to work, Imperial Guard regiments if attempting to fulfill a 20 unit cap would mean each unit would need to be the size of a company. So a single Regiment would consist of 8 units made up of 200 men each with each company. Unlike other Total War games, each unit consisting of a company would need to have multiple weapon platforms within a single unit.

They would also need stances for each unit. E.g
1. Dig In ( All Tanks & Infantry will entrench themselves
2. Shoot & Scoot ( All models within a unit will attempt to assault an objective while utilizing cover)
3. Overwatch (All models bearing long ranged weaponry will be brought to the forefront of the unit & will attempt to use their ranged advantage, similar to tabletop that if you don't move you get to fire twice)
4. Reckless Charge (All close quarter combat models will be brought to the forefront of the unit. E.g Jump Packs etc with additional speed boost that allow them to close the range quicker
5. Mount/Dismount (basically for motorized infantry, so you can move around a flank & deploy units form Rhinos etc)

In regards to Space Marine units. Well only a single Company of 100 men can consist of a single unit, That would of course include all the relevant equipment to that company within a single unit. That means a player could only have 10 Ultramarine units if attempting to deploy the whole chapter. But then these guys are meant to be the special forces, so although looking relatively small in size, should have a significant impact compared to their Imperial Guard forces. I'm not sure how i feel about players deploying "Space Marine Armies" seems like that would drag the scale of the conflict down to company sized conflicts & under values the worth of Space Marines. I'm off the notion that displaying their rarity improves their worth & makes them feel more valued.

Will try to add some pictures to better communicate what i mean at a later date.

Terrain/Battlefield

1. It would need to be out of this world. Hence why i think attempting to do a grander campaign that encompassing many different planets with different environments could stretch CA resources too thin & could result in a knock off effect to gameplay. So keeping it focused to a single planet allows for assets to be reused and also better hand crafted, instead of cookie cutter settlements, and more a ToB real battle map to campaign map relation.
2. The destruction to terrain would need to be biblical & further more if possible stay there permanently, to really show case that the battlefield is almost undergoing a form of terraforming through utter destruction, almost like seeing the green fields of France turned into mud & craters as you fight back & forth over this frontline.
3. Similar to Company of Heroes, units will need to automatically take advantage of cover provided, but would need to be more advanced, since a unit (company) will consist of multiple squads/platoons acting as a single unit.
4. Battle system would need to altered to take into consideration rear hits to armour, scout snipers pinning down infantry within a "unit" but yet the tanks/armour within that unit will be unaffected. I understand that quite complicated & unlikely to happen, but you know, worth trying :P
5. Needs a gritty feel to it
6. Sound effects of troops talking like zealot, with blood curdling screams. any humour needs to be dark & grim lol
7. Laz fire & bolt rounds light up the battlefield, dark & grim.

Unit composition


Similar to Hearts Of Iron, perhaps give the player ability to play around with the composition of their company sized units So you can mix the ratio of the unit composition to either better suit long ranged engagements, melee engagements, armour engagements.

So for example if i wanted to turn one company (one unit) into a more motorized unit with support tanks, or a melee orientated unit. So if the default unit was always 1/3rd or all these these type, and most you could specialize a single unit too was to go 2/3rd. E.g 2/3rd Motorized & 1/3rd Tanks as fast moving flanking unit. So pretty much how most company sized unit ratio today are different from company to company in their make up off weapon platforms and troop types. esepcailly if it was done similar to the Tabletop point spending on "armies" although they seem to be more company sized in the amount of models present if Imperial Guard.

To give a better example of this, imagine being able to mix swords, spears and archers into a single unit and then further modifier their ratios.

Special Characters


Legendary Characters along with their command squad and their abilities can be assigned to a unit (company) that impact the composition ratio of that unit while transferring all those abilities to that unit. The Special character would not be a single entity but assigned to a unit, and present on the battlefield, but would not have individual control, they would fight with that unit for the duration of that battle.

To give an example of this, imagine in Warhammer 2 if you had to instead assign Grimgor to a unit of Black Orcs

Note: I'm not against other ideas for how battles should be conducted, if it should be at a similar scale of DoW etc, but this is my own personal take. Some may just want a re-skinned Warhammer 2. I'm very opened minded to how all of this can be tackled, for the greater good.

Also i'd quite like to see naval battles too for this, its completely primed for Total War to do it and do it well, but i think nailing down the basics with limited scope and building out from that with expansions could help to keep quality high.

This is the sort of scale i'm after below in this picture



Post edited by AgentGB on

Comments

  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,845
    edited May 7
    Interesting read.

    Sometimes ago I made my own thoughs about the matter.

    Scope:
    Personal I came to the conclusion that a single Planet would be too small. Adding new races would end up with DoW story telling "and now that race showed, somehow, up, for some... reason" (not that I hate DoW, quite the opposite but the writing was clearly in service of the gameplay/contend).
    Doing the whole of 40k Universe in one go, would end up with a Empire at War like scale, where every Planet is conquered in one space and one land battle. I would hate for either defend or lose fortress worlds like Cadia, in one battle, instead of proper campaigns.
    Hence my conclusion would be:
    Sector.
    Would require Space combat (thou I would argue that a TW 40k should also feature space battles anyway), but I think it gives a good compromise in terms of being big enough to have plausible multiple races and "small" enough that every planet can have its own surface and consist for example of 3-12 provinces (random number are random).
    In light of the Wh trilogy, and 40k would also need a trilogy at least, this also would open up the possibility of easily expanding the map with new races.
    One could start in the Ultimar Sector, with Ultramarines, guard, chaos, orcs and Tyrannids, and then add Baal or the area close to the Tau or or or in the next part.


    THE SMALL CAMPAIGN MAP (PLANET SIZE):
    I really like your system. I haven't though it through as much you do, but I thought something similar for WW1. Away from the "modern" TW since Rome I, back to the "old school" system of TW with sectors and a supply cap for limiting battles per turn.
    Thou personally I would like to have that kind of scope on multiple planets.
    In my own personal drafts, I also had an emphasis on the "landing" of the armies. Aka a big strategic decision would have been, "how do I land on a planet and when do I attack space ports?".
    Example:
    Planet X has a big Hive City with a huge space port, allowing to bring in the most heavy of units. It has a smaller Space port, capable of transferring most units. And then it has open desert space with not real infrastructure at all.
    If you have a Imperial Gaurd Army in Orbit, with Grav troops, infantry and Leman Russ Tanks and perhaps even a Baneblade, you maybe want to have the big Space port instantly. But being the main Port is heavy defend and that army could only deplay its infantry when landing. Those would stand poor chances taking anything but the empty desert.
    Luckly you have a 2nd army of space marines nearby that is able to bring more heavy units into the combat instantly even for landings without port.

    But I admit that has little to do with what you are proposing, but I wanted to mention it anyway. ^^




    UNIT COMPOSITION:
    Interesting. I would have gone with the more "classic" DoW 2 principle of equipping units with special and heavy weapons. Meaning: here is troop "Alpha with flamer and rocket launcher, I will give them a Melta and Multimelter".
    Judging by TW WH, CA would probably make them rather "proper" units aka you recruit devastators with heavy bolters or lasercannons, rather then to chose they weapons for them for each battle.
    Personal I don't see the Sergeant weapons to have much importance in a scale we are talkig about. hence I don't see many options being translated here. Thou it could be a "race trait" of SM of having the options to also equip Sergeants of units with Special weapon, while the gaurd would not be able to do so.
    Also I would adjust the sizes of units in comparison:
    guard Infantry squad: 100 men
    SM: 10 SM
    Orks: 160 Boys

    Overall I would use the lore not the TT for balance/scale.

    SPECIAL CHARACTERS
    I would tend to let them fight alone or to join units like they did in DoW (and was once announced for TW WH but canceled). Or perhaps also make this a case to case study for the races/characters.
    A Imperial officer could came in a command unit, rather focusing on buffing and using special abilities (artillery strike for example), while a SM Captain would be a master fighter cable of charging into melee combat and perform roughly like strong melee lords in TW WH do.



    A topic which I find most difficult, and I don't have 100% good answer for and would like your thoughs is the following:
    In Warhammer Fantasy one armybook was one race. In 40k we have the problem, that alot of the races are subfactions of each other.
    The big one being the Imperium of Man.
    Now on one hand: simply playing as "Imperium of Man" and getting access to all of its armies (guard, SM, SoB, Mechanicus, Knights, Titans...) would be hard to balance (and hard to make given how many and how many different units we are talking about), since you have so many options that you can match any enemy in both quantity and quality at the same time.
    On the other hand:
    having them separate races would lead to cadia conquering Ultamar and Blood Angels to conquer Krieg, which isn't exactly "lore friendly".
    Also not all 40k armies have they own navies and hence they may be tricky to do, for my version at least (thou in a 1 Planet solution it would raise the question that DoW already raise: why does the imperial navy deliver both gaurd and SoB, so they can fight each other on the planet surface?).
    Post edited by SiWI on
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,340
    I don't see 40k working in TW. But I have previously given it a thought (partly for a table top campaign) to get around some of the issues SiWi mentions.

    So to represent the Imperium you have them originally holding the world. A small handful of their special forces such as a detachment of Space Marines and such but mostly Militia guard. This keeps it rather balanced as all the other factions build up as well.

    Then there could be two resources, escalation which would let them unlock and call-in one off special forces such as Space marine chapters (this would also allow more DLC to be sold) and Knights.

    Then the standard resource say requisition for bringing in standard Imperial Guard units, again allows them to sell DLC to include other planets forces such as DKoK.

    Of course there is similar problems for most races as they don't really use standard currency to recruit units.
  • AgentGBAgentGB Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 298
    SiWI said:

    Interesting read.

    Sometimes ago I made my own thoughs about the matter.

    Scope:

    Personal I came to the conclusion that a single Planet would be too small. Adding new races would end up with DoW story telling "and now that race showed, somehow, up, for some... reason" (not that I hate DoW, quite the opposite but the writing was clearly in service of the gameplay/contend).
    Doing the whole of 40k Universe in one go, would end up with a Empire at War like scale, where every Planet is conquered in one space and one land battle. I would hate for either defend or lose fortress worlds like Cadia, in one battle, instead of proper campaigns.
    Hence my conclusion would be:
    Sector.
    Would require Space combat (thou I would argue that a TW 40k should also feature space battles anyway), but I think it gives a good compromise in terms of being big enough to have plausible multiple races and "small" enough that every planet can have its own surface and consist for example of 3-12 provinces (random number are random).
    In light of the Wh trilogy, and 40k would also need a trilogy at least, this also would open up the possibility of easily expanding the map with new races.
    One could start in the Ultimar Sector, with Ultramarines, guard, chaos, orcs and Tyrannids, and then add Baal or the area close to the Tau or or or in the next part.

    I totally agree with you, i know deep down its far too small on the scale, and would ofc like it to go bigger, but my thought process was to try and start at the smallest level, try to put myself in the shoes of one of these devs and work through the shortfalls at this level before moving it wider. Tbh, i'm no Italian Spartacus when it comes to displaying knowledge on the Lore, and after watching his Videos on the specific subject, his take on a wider galaxy is similar to yours. Wholeheartedly support this direction, and as you say, if it could be worked into a trigilogy so the scope can be better tackled, yeah that would be excellent.

    Yeah i understand what you mean by DoW story telling, in that a bunch of races having randomly shown up for a mexican stand off, which i don't mind, but i'd prefer if it was later expanded out that like you said, a Planet as a certain amount of provinces, or if using my example, a certain amount of Grids, that could allow for that escalation if you're the invading force. Although Provinces could still work well enough, its just i think to better replicate the scale of conflict, a frontline system would convey this better perhaps then individual armies moving around with movement points.

    I would like to see Space Battles, but due to BattleFleet Gothic already having the licence for that, it may initially be difficult for CA to use this unless they partnered up with those Devs for a kinda "Marvel" cooperation from which you see with the multiple movie studios, something could also be done with Relic perhaps, that would also allow them to all reuse the models & save alot of man hours. But yeah, i totally agree, would really need naval battles in there to seal the deal for a grander conflict.

    I mean the idea was to start with a much smaller conflict from which to refine, so something simple like Imperial Guard Versus Orcs, with Space marine attachments to the main forces.



    THE SMALL CAMPAIGN MAP (PLANET SIZE):
    I really like your system. I haven't though it through as much you do, but I thought something similar for WW1. Away from the "modern" TW since Rome I, back to the "old school" system of TW with sectors and a supply cap for limiting battles per turn.
    Thou personally I would like to have that kind of scope on multiple planets.
    In my own personal drafts, I also had an emphasis on the "landing" of the armies. Aka a big strategic decision would have been, "how do I land on a planet and when do I attack space ports?".
    Example:
    Planet X has a big Hive City with a huge space port, allowing to bring in the most heavy of units. It has a smaller Space port, capable of transferring most units. And then it has open desert space with not real infrastructure at all.
    If you have a Imperial Gaurd Army in Orbit, with Grav troops, infantry and Leman Russ Tanks and perhaps even a Baneblade, you maybe want to have the big Space port instantly. But being the main Port is heavy defend and that army could only deplay its infantry when landing. Those would stand poor chances taking anything but the empty desert.
    Luckly you have a 2nd army of space marines nearby that is able to bring more heavy units into the combat instantly even for landings without port.

    But I admit that has little to do with what you are proposing, but I wanted to mention it anyway. ^^



    Yeah thanks man, obviously you can see i spent the most time here trying to think this through, and as you note, does take some influence from WW1, since the feeling you get from some of the 40k battles is that it is a meat grinder, although not heavily focused on ranged since 40k allows for alot of close quarter combat.

    I think using the idea you mentioned in "Scope" is actually really good, in that some planets would have limited regions/grids depending on planet size or in terms of Stellaris "Tile blockers" that would restrict the amount of regions on a planet, thus a mountainous planet would only over few areas that an army could properly be fielded.

    But as you mention, with the wide variety of different planet types, it could also help reduce workload if each planet was restricted to a certain amount of regions, since i think alot of detail would need to go into planet surfaces to really give that sense of 40k. That is also why i initially brought the scope down to a single planet, so that the initial "mini campaign map" could really be fleshed out in detail instead of all planets looking a bit samey.

    Yeah i think in the Italian Spartacus & Indy video, they were talking about "escalation" which you're kinda implying, which i also like too. Its something i'm open minded too On the space port, yeah i'm not too well versed in the Lore to understand this too much, if that the equivalent of Stellaris Space Fort so to speak. Don't get me wrong, i've collected the models and know a thing or two about tabletop, but i don't know the lore in & out like Italian.


    UNIT COMPOSITION:
    Interesting. I would have gone with the more "classic" DoW 2 principle of equipping units with special and heavy weapons. Meaning: here is troop "Alpha with flamer and rocket launcher, I will give them a Melta and Multimelter".
    Judging by TW WH, CA would probably make them rather "proper" units aka you recruit devastators with heavy bolters or lasercannons, rather then to chose they weapons for them for each battle.
    Personal I don't see the Sergeant weapons to have much importance in a scale we are talkig about. hence I don't see many options being translated here. Thou it could be a "race trait" of SM of having the options to also equip Sergeants of units with Special weapon, while the gaurd would not be able to do so.
    Also I would adjust the sizes of units in comparison:
    guard Infantry squad: 100 men
    SM: 10 SM
    Orks: 160 Boys

    Overall I would use the lore not the TT for balance/scale.



    Yeah i understand this is complete heresy, and even then i didn't expect folks to like this take much, especially when folks would be looking for it to pay homage to the tabletop. That said, Its a tabletop game, and somewhat restricts itself, even in comparison to some of the lore, as you mention Lore may be the better crutch to lean on, although tabletop fans may be looking closer to something that pay homage to tabletop, E.g Squad control level.

    I'm totally open to this, i mean perhaps another way of doing it, could be similar to close combat from which you rotate troops in from the force pool as you need them or are required, yet maintain their level & load out. It just i find it quite odd if a guard unit size of a 100 men were made up with nothing but Las guns, unless as you mention, similar to DoW you can give a certain ratio of that unit different weapon types/platforms. The "proper units" although closer to table top i would fear bring down the entire scale of the battle or increase the amount of micro if having to control multiple squads only making up a company sized out. Hence me attempting to round it up to company sized units.

    I mean tbh, i'm not even sure of the answer here, something akin to Dow but Scaled up could work, i'm completely opened minded to this. Also i noticed Italian Spartacus talked about having units progress from say 2nd Company into the 1st Company which would make sense.

    On the multiple different types of weapons, yeah i understand it could be overbearing to go through reequipping units before a battle, especially if the ai cannot keep up. Could cause some balance issues, but i also understand that a major Tabletop thing when spending points. Perhaps it could work if each army was limited to a certain amount of points that could be spent, so of these points are precious it could perhaps only be applied to a certain amount.

    So in your example if a Guard Squad of 100 men is worth (170 points) to give them some Plasma guns or perhaps reequip them with chainswords & pistols, it would increase the cost by 30 points, that would see a ratio of these units reequipped. If an Army max point Total is say 1800 points, that would give the player agency to design that specific army maybe. Although with the sheer amount of weapons, as you say, Plasma pistols, Krak grenades etc, i think perhaps having some of it as doctrines /race traits may be the way to go. Tbh we need to put more thought into this. The same with some of my previous feedback to your ideas, i need to put more thought in how it could be tackled. But i'm enjoying this theorizing.


    SPECIAL CHARACTERS
    I would tend to let them fight alone or to join units like they did in DoW (and was once announced for TW WH but canceled). Or perhaps also make this a case to case study for the races/characters.
    A Imperial officer could came in a command unit, rather focusing on buffing and using special abilities (artillery strike for example), while a SM Captain would be a master fighter cable of charging into melee combat and perform roughly like strong melee lords in TW WH do.



    Yeah dude, i understand this isn't really the best direction, even when writing it, i knew it was bad idea, but when trying to paint the image of the sheer scale of it, Trying to make certain characters individual units like Commissars, Company Captains, Chapter Masters, they would seem microscopic on the battlefield, and take up an entire unit card, yet i completely understand why they should be a single entity. At the time of writing it, the best solution i could come too, was to make them an attachable unit, to lessen the micro. Yet it really does break some Tabletop foundations. Its something we'd have to put more thought into & see where the compromise it, yet i'm not against the tried and tested individual entity either, it was more just trying to keep within a theme of grand battles.




    A topic which I find most difficult, and I don't have 100% good answer for and would like your thoughs is the following:
    In Warhammer Fantasy one armybook was one race. In 40k we have the problem, that alot of the races are subfactions of each other.
    The big one being the Imperium of Man.
    Now on one hand: simply playing as "Imperium of Man" and getting access to all of its armies (guard, SM, SoB, Mechanicus, Knights, Titans...) would be hard to balance (and hard to make given how many and how many different units we are talking about), since you have so many options that you can match any enemy in both quantity and quality at the same time.
    On the other hand:
    having them separate races would lead to cadia conquering Ultamar and Blood Angels to conquer Krieg, which isn't exactly "lore friendly".
    Also not all 40k armies have they own navies and hence they may be tricky to do, for my version at least (thou in a 1 Planet solution it would raise the question that DoW already raise: why does the imperial navy deliver both gaurd and SoB, so they can fight each other on the planet surface?).



    Looking forward to this bit, since i pondered this aswell.

    I think massive concessions would need to be made in order to balance this out. I'm kinda personally leaning towards Imperial Guard regiments from different planets being pulled together to fight, especially since when certain Imperial Guard regiments have their niches & advantages. Although would be difficult to single these out as "single player-able factions" since they all come under the same umbrella, and would produce inconsistency if you could attack fellow Imperium members. I'm more leaning towards the Imperium being either somewhat of a single faction (which players may not like if wanting to playing specifically as a single army type. E.g Cadia, Pretoria, or Ultramarines) although a compromise could be fount if you aren't controlling the whole Imperium yourself and instead realistically make up a small sector of it from which to play your part. That could work.

    So for example if playing Ultramarines, i believe the Ultramarines run their own planet and the PDF/Imperial units there, so you could perhaps have it so, that you're looking after the Ultramar Sector, almost like a Duchy of something bigger, and the only time you can see yourself attacking a fellow Imperial world is if it completely fallen to Chaos perhaps maybe.

    I'm not sure here, but i understand folks are gonna wanna be able to choose Blood Angels or Space Wolves as their "Main Faction" which imo is really hard to digest when attempting to encompass something on such a huge scale when chapters only make up a 1000 men. For it to work, Such chapters would need some method of being able to partner up or obtain Imperial Guard units to act as the lion share of the forces. I think it would be more getaway able for "Black Templars" since they barely follow the codex.

    Overall though, i think the whole blue on blue things would need to be made impossible to achieve, that they are just permanent allies. Atleast to start with, unless folks clamour for unfriendly lore versus matchups. I mean the general hope is that, with Necrons, Nids, Orks etc that the Imperium would have enough on their plate before wanting to go rouge and attack each other hopefully.


    Tbh i need to re-read what you've written and further process it, and brain storm how it could be tackled with the Total War formula, and i understand the last few of my ideas are reaching abit, but only because of the theme of big epic battles from lore that kinda tramples over some of the tabletop scale that doesn't transfer too well into a game going for scale unless bringing the scale down to DoW size but with campaign map. And although DoW is a great game & pioneered something closely resembling the tabletop, it doesn't get the scale of conflicts from lore as potentially close as a Total War game could perhaps get it.
  • AgentGBAgentGB Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 298
    edited May 7
    Commisar said:

    I don't see 40k working in TW. But I have previously given it a thought (partly for a table top campaign) to get around some of the issues SiWi mentions.

    So to represent the Imperium you have them originally holding the world. A small handful of their special forces such as a detachment of Space Marines and such but mostly Militia guard. This keeps it rather balanced as all the other factions build up as well.

    Then there could be two resources, escalation which would let them unlock and call-in one off special forces such as Space marine chapters (this would also allow more DLC to be sold) and Knights.

    Then the standard resource say requisition for bringing in standard Imperial Guard units, again allows them to sell DLC to include other planets forces such as DKoK.

    Of course there is similar problems for most races as they don't really use standard currency to recruit units.

    Haha!! indulge me then!! haha!

    Yeah i know its a massive undertaking. Yeah i was kinda moving away from currency and more to the quote " Life is the Emperor's currency, spend it well" lol

    Yeah Italian Spartacus mentions Escalation, i mean if wanting to keep it closer to the tabletop could have it that certain units deploy onto the battlefield during different phases/turns depending on the situation. I like the idea of calling in special units, as attachments. See i was thinking less requisition and more like drawing forces from a limited force pool, let say from external planets, so these forces are being shipped in, but then requisition achieve the same thing from a mechanic stand point.

    I think depending on the race, but for most races, the currency seems to be Manpower & Equipment. So in that regard would the economy be a toss up between either directing Manpower to Fighting units or to the Production of said equipment? Similar to HOI, in which you either send your work forces to factory output or throwing them into the front ranks. I think the biggest worry here is that the player will optimally preserve their forces allowing for higher production, unless seeing high losses in all battles were the norm, or else the ai would not be able to keep up.


    Anyway in both these replies, you can see my thoughts are quite Ad Hoc, and not entirely well thought out. Just theory crafting and spit balling, to see how these obstacles could be tackled, i'm always for the better idea, so i'm not entrenched with anyone of my ideas i've put forward.
    Post edited by AgentGB on
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Registered Users Posts: 902
    I don't think you need much changes to get a working 40k game with the tw engine.
    Its not about how things work, its about how convincing it looks and if the 40K atmosphere is represented.

    Yes a single planet where landmass could be added if needed would be enough, Kronus for Dark Crusade is a good example, I don't think we need an approach like Soul Storm.

    Nah, the campaign gameplay is fine you don't need to make something different from tw. Just call the territorial centers strategic positions, supply camp, landing spot or something like that instead of cities and everything is fine. It's more important that it looks grim dark than to represent a massive scale war.

    40K has a paradox because in the lore the wars are on a massive scale but the TT on the other hand has a smaller scale than fantasy. So the already existing scale would be a good compromise between lore and table top and wouldn't need much changes engine and gameplay wise. If Titans are to large, fine than cut them out or make them like Queen Bess as a single per faction unit. Better have a good representation than having non because it can't be made complete.

    Units could be done like in TWW with just different recruitment option or they try to get back to the upgrade options or improve on what the do with the GS rework. I don't think there is a need to want stuff that the engine can't handle when the existing options will still be enough for interessting and fun gameplay.

    No you don't need an add to unit button, it works fine in TWW and not every hero could be added to a unit in DoW so while it would be neat it isn't neseccary to enjoy the 40K atmosphere.

    Factions should be fine they are pretty clear except the Imperium and even there you have distinct organisations, Adeptus Mechanicus, Adeptus Astartes, Inquisition and Imperial Guard should cover most of their armed forces. The Officio Assassinorum would be used by most of them except the Adeptus Astartes and the Adeptus Custodes rarely leaves Terra.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,419
    I think it can work for a simple reason, after the current trilogy we need something huge to take its place and I believe WH40k can do this.

    It would be easy enough to artificially bring down the range of weapons to make them similar to that of WHFB.

    I think we would overall get smaller units sizes but almost infinitely more detail going to the point of a player being able to change load outs for single models.

    A story around something similar to Gladius would work, a single planet that has an objective that persuades all the major factions to attempt to take control.

    The story and lore of 40k in my opinion is huge in scope and will allow for some detailed and emotional narratives.

    Personally I think only a 40k game could take the place of the current trilogy.
  • AgentGBAgentGB Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 298
    edited May 22
    Just some extra thinking about it.

    @GettoGecko Yeah i get what you mean, could quite easily use the current campagin map infrastructure, and the idea of have map asset like lading pad etc, does sound neat, but as you say their a paradox between the lore & the TT. On Titans, i'd be content with them being end an end boss battle

    I mean personally, i would like to see them do something completely unorthodox with the map, almost go Close Combat style with it but not quite.

    in that:
    - All battlefield damage is persistent and can create cover as an effect
    - Maps start off pristine, and get ravaged over time as the frontline shift back & forth
    - When you go into battle, outside of the sky box on the flanks of the map you can see the frontline with background cast units simulating trench lines firing at each other while your section of the battle will then come apparent that your pushing a certain section of the frontline, and then if using the reinforcement idea i mentioned early, can pull an additional 50% reinforcements from each flank at the expense of leaving your flank armies weaker, so the ai happens to push that flank in the same turn, they'll be 50% down in manpower. Which make me wonder if they should change how game turns are conducted, especially with this map type system, that all commands are executed at the same time.
    - This way you could potentially have smaller more table top unit sizes if the scale of the battle could be simulated as just background atmosphere in that your armies to your side are never sitting idle that there still activity. Just think it would be odd to have single roaming armies walking about maybe. Hence the more grid like map



    To further explain how the turn system could work

    - All moves from all factions, for example if there were 3 factions all turns are executed at the same time
    - If you go into "Overwatch" in your turn you can choose to personally defend two battles (2 actions)
    - If you choose to attack, you can only do this once in a turn (1 action)
    - This way a player can defend from two attacks from two factions within a turn
    - If you choose to attack, you can only fight that battle for that turn leaving an opportunity for the ai to win an auto-resolve elsewhere since you aren't present to lead the defence.
    - Could be done in a way i guess, that if wanting to be the blood angels faction, you're choosing the best place to reinforce the main imperial guard lines, if wanting to narrow the scale
    - could make stuff like kill teams exception to this rule

    I don't mind if they follow tabletop unit sizes, so longs there the good old button to increase unit scale alot
  • AgentGBAgentGB Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 298
    Also how grim dark would you go? comical grim and dark or nightmarish grim and dark? like imperial guard corpses from the previous battle still rotting on the barbwire? Chilling blood curdling screams, all the meantime the Commissar making threats to keep the men attention focused to the task. Think in a lot of the recent fan made movies on space marines, Astartes and another one i forgot the name, felt pretty grim and dark.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,419
    AgentGB said:

    Also how grim dark would you go? comical grim and dark or nightmarish grim and dark? like imperial guard corpses from the previous battle still rotting on the barbwire? Chilling blood curdling screams, all the meantime the Commissar making threats to keep the men attention focused to the task. Think in a lot of the recent fan made movies on space marines, Astartes and another one i forgot the name, felt pretty grim and dark.

    I think they should go full dark, allowing the world to be detailed through dark narrative at key events. The way Chaos Marines produce new warriors is pretty awful and generally what they do to a populous. Mind you, what the Empire does isn't much better. Narratives can be used to introduce new factions..

    I saw it all..

  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,340
    Well I guess they can't go full dark, they have to put blood in a DLC afterall lol
Sign In or Register to comment.