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

TW Warhammer is too simplified

1810121314

Comments

  • ValeliValeli Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,008
    I'd add one more point to my above post, after-the-fact. I've read a few people say they prefer more choices because more micro-management = more realistic = more fun.

    I disagree strongly with that claim on several levels.

    If realistic = fun, then I'm sure someone can set up a nice sim for you where you have to wait for city hall (or the landed gentry, or parliament, or whatever) to review your decisions over a several week-to-month period. Then they may or may not approve, and you can move on (or not) to your next task afterwards.

    In this game, you too can reap the joy of having to obtain a minimum of 500 virtual signatures prior to altering tax levels, and you can deal with traffic congestion and riots in downtown Altdorf as the peasants and mercantile classes complain about the recent levies imposed to fund your war on neighboring Averland.

    I could ramble on, but the general point I'm facetiously making is that, despite being micro intensive and time consuming, this real-life sim is not particularly fun. Moreover, it's not even remotely close to the "realistic" choices people are asking for (which aren't all that realistic when it comes to representations of government and power).

    Streamlining this stuff away isn't necessarily bad, and streamlining shouldn't be used as a buzzword to imply "too dumb for me," "not fun," or anything else like that. Sure, streamlining isn't inherently good either. But it's not necessarily bad. There's a lot of reality representation that I don't want to deal with in a game. At all.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,179
    Valeli said:

    I'd add one more point to my above post, after-the-fact. I've read a few people say they prefer more choices because more micro-management = more realistic = more fun.

    I disagree strongly with that claim on several levels.

    If realistic = fun, then I'm sure someone can set up a nice sim for you where you have to wait for city hall (or the landed gentry, or parliament, or whatever) to review your decisions over a several week-to-month period. Then they may or may not approve, and you can move on (or not) to your next task afterwards.

    In this game, you too can reap the joy of having to obtain a minimum of 500 virtual signatures prior to altering tax levels, and you can deal with traffic congestion and riots in downtown Altdorf as the peasants and mercantile classes complain about the recent levies imposed to fund your war on neighboring Averland.

    I could ramble on, but the general point I'm facetiously making is that, despite being micro intensive and time consuming, this real-life sim is not particularly fun. Moreover, it's not even remotely close to the "realistic" choices people are asking for (which aren't all that realistic when it comes to representations of government and power).

    Streamlining this stuff away isn't necessarily bad, and streamlining shouldn't be used as a buzzword to imply "too dumb for me," "not fun," or anything else like that. Sure, streamlining isn't inherently good either. But it's not necessarily bad. There's a lot of reality representation that I don't want to deal with in a game. At all.

    They tried. Functional macromanagement is somewhat of a holy grail of game design. Usually it doesn't work:

    http://store.steampowered.com/app/410990/

    http://store.steampowered.com/app/352550/
  • Uh_OhUh_Oh Registered Users Posts: 397
    For the map we could easily have had small locations of interest that could be "occupied/flagged" or taken to increase our income/resources/some form of troop bonuses or discounts etc.

    They could have added roads to allow for faster speed around our own lands without needing traits & mods

    They could have added areas where specific units were recruitable such as in previous games (half heartedly in the game so far)

    We could have had more random events in the game other than just the current Horde warnings

    We could have had more customization with our Factions colours/banners etc

    Just all sorts of things to add to the immersion and make this game feel really special and loved by the Developer.

    And also why should we even be the ones coming up with ideas for their game? They should be wanting to make the best game the very best it can be! We should be sat here praising a game for all sorts of features that we didn't even think up, not having to beg for ones that should have been there from the off set.

    I feel these sorts of things would all add depth, whether you agree or feel it is the right sort of depth you would want from a TW game is up to you.
  • HorseWithNoNameHorseWithNoName Registered Users Posts: 1,001
    So is there a consensus that adding depth in the form of more viable options to the campaign "management" system without introducing new mechanics is a good thing (for example making it so that depending on your situation on the campaign map in terms of for example threat level, it is preferable to build either more economy or military instead of the current situation where you only really need one militarized province)?
  • Frederick_WilliamFrederick_William Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 783
    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    TeNoSkill said:


    -NOT many intersting mechanics like fertility , squalor , electorial council

    interesting, now... these are the things that killed Attila sales.

    If i had to bet, i would imagine rome 2 killed a lot of the potential sales. it's abysmal launch did a lot of harm to the reputation of CA, and is still felt today. Attila certainly had its issues to drive away customers, not to mention other subjective stuff for people not to buy it. but i can imagine a lot of people dont want to bother with TW again because of Rome 2.
    Nah, Rome 2 sold pretty well even before the EE. It was reported by IGN, among others. That it was a failure it's some kind of an urban legend.

    http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/05/09/sega-financials-reveal-total-war-rome-2-as-best-seller
    It was a financial success but a failure as a game, at least initially.
    That's an opinion. The professional score is quite good.


    Yea... Rome 2 was HUGELY hyped, tons of preorders and day 1 buys. I'm sure No Man's Sky sold wonderfully as well, but neither was reviewed well, and created a massive amount of angry customers.

    Not really, No Man's Sky stopped selling once released. Rome 2 continued. No Man's Sky has less owner now than in the first days, something unheard of on Steam.
    professional score doesn't mean jack. there have been plenty of examples over the years where "professionals" gave good reviews on a not so good game. not to mention the possible biases that would come up while reviewing it. the issue doesn't happen with every game, but it does happen lessening their credibility.

    i never said Attila didn't sell as well only because of Rome 2. as my post said, it was one of the various reasons i stated why it didn't sell as well. Anyone trying to say i said that, or argue my post on that basis is arguing from a false stance. others may argue that, but i don't share that pov.

    Rome 2 had continual updates, and had some very good sales after its release.(was something like a third to half off in the christmas sale a few months later. which is pretty high that early in it's life) steam sales are always a good way to boost sales(some games make more money when they are on a very high sale then at release or regular price), as are obvious PR(patches and flc) moves to make people happier. they used EE as a means to start fresh and as a massive PR move.

    Rome 2 had a lot of issues. i wasn't that active on the forums then, or frequent them that often. I just had to boot the game up and play the game full of bugs, 5 min turn times, Ai that cant siege for its life, etc,. i don't need an echo chamber to know how bad it was at launch, and continued to be for a long time. I played other games at the time and spoke to plenty of people around the time. plenty of random people shared my pov on Rome 2's issues. CA/Sega got a lot of money from it's release(before steam had a refund system as well. many were stuck with the game because they couldn't get a refund. some could). they pretty much had to sink a lot of time and resources working on the game if they ever wanted to be successful in the future.



    anyways, i am not here to argue over rome 2 sales or why they would want to fix a game so i will stop with those comments. I'll make my original point one more time. Attila didn't sell well due to various reasons like the ones given above. i would also say Rome 2 stopped some people from buying future titles like Attila because of its launch. I am not saying it was the only reason. I am not saying it was the major reason. simply saying that some people moved on from CA/TW after rome 2, because of what happened.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,179

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    TeNoSkill said:


    -NOT many intersting mechanics like fertility , squalor , electorial council

    interesting, now... these are the things that killed Attila sales.

    If i had to bet, i would imagine rome 2 killed a lot of the potential sales. it's abysmal launch did a lot of harm to the reputation of CA, and is still felt today. Attila certainly had its issues to drive away customers, not to mention other subjective stuff for people not to buy it. but i can imagine a lot of people dont want to bother with TW again because of Rome 2.
    Nah, Rome 2 sold pretty well even before the EE. It was reported by IGN, among others. That it was a failure it's some kind of an urban legend.

    http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/05/09/sega-financials-reveal-total-war-rome-2-as-best-seller
    It was a financial success but a failure as a game, at least initially.
    That's an opinion. The professional score is quite good.


    Yea... Rome 2 was HUGELY hyped, tons of preorders and day 1 buys. I'm sure No Man's Sky sold wonderfully as well, but neither was reviewed well, and created a massive amount of angry customers.

    Not really, No Man's Sky stopped selling once released. Rome 2 continued. No Man's Sky has less owner now than in the first days, something unheard of on Steam.
    professional score doesn't mean jack. there have been plenty of examples over the years where "professionals" gave good reviews on a not so good game. not to mention the possible biases that would come up while reviewing it. the issue doesn't happen with every game, but it does happen lessening their credibility.
    Well then, there are many more cases of popular scores being out of whack for the most weird reasons. TW Warhammer itself has been subject to a review bombing from chinese customers for no reason other than lacking a translation. The aggregated professional score is a good measure of the value of a game from the point of view of the average gamer, which is actually the type of public journalists try to keep in mind when they write.

    i never said Attila didn't sell as well only because of Rome 2. as my post said, it was one of the various reasons i stated why it didn't sell as well. Anyone trying to say i said that, or argue my post on that basis is arguing from a false stance. others may argue that, but i don't share that pov.

    Rome 2 had continual updates, and had some very good sales after its release.(was something like a third to half off in the christmas sale a few months later. which is pretty high that early in it's life) steam sales are always a good way to boost sales(some games make more money when they are on a very high sale then at release or regular price), as are obvious PR(patches and flc) moves to make people happier. they used EE as a means to start fresh and as a massive PR move.

    Rome 2 had a lot of issues. i wasn't that active on the forums then, or frequent them that often. I just had to boot the game up and play the game full of bugs, 5 min turn times, Ai that cant siege for its life, etc,. i don't need an echo chamber to know how bad it was at launch, and continued to be for a long time. I played other games at the time and spoke to plenty of people around the time. plenty of random people shared my pov on Rome 2's issues. CA/Sega got a lot of money from it's release(before steam had a refund system as well. many were stuck with the game because they couldn't get a refund. some could). they pretty much had to sink a lot of time and resources working on the game if they ever wanted to be successful in the future.

    But that's still your experience. I had none of these problems, and many other gamers didn't also. I've shown you good professional scores, I've shown you how sales continued even before all the fuss on the boards... What I can say, believe what you want. Fact is SEGA and CA had reasons to be happy with Rome II performances on the market.

    anyways, i am not here to argue over rome 2 sales or why they would want to fix a game so i will stop with those comments. I'll make my original point one more time. Attila didn't sell well due to various reasons like the ones given above. i would also say Rome 2 stopped some people from buying future titles like Attila because of its launch. I am not saying it was the only reason. I am not saying it was the major reason. simply saying that some people moved on from CA/TW after rome 2, because of what happened.

    Sure, some people. People swear eternal vengeance for the most silly of reasons. But in the whole balance of things they matter very little.

  • hendo1592hendo1592 Registered Users Posts: 1,958
    edited February 2017
    Zergles said:

    1.

    4. Which is how war is in the Warhammer universe. Entire armies getting obliterated in seconds. The TT game is slow because it is a TT game. And Rome, Shogun, Attila, Empire etc all had battles that lasted a few more minutes because you know...Attila the Hun didn't know how to cast Flock of Doom. George Washington's 2nd in command wasn't a Gorbull. Marc Antony didn't ride a Demigryph. Charlegmain wasn't Leon.

    I get your point here -these are monsterous creatures, incredible magic spells and heros and lords (even some legendary), they aren't just humans fighting. But thinking about it, shouldn't that mean they should last longer because they are not just mere humans, after all those monsterous creatures and heros are going up against each other.

    Even if you don't like that point, looking at the lore, warhammer battles are not suppose to be played out this way. I am by no means a lore master but you do not have to read far in the lore to see arcade, quick battles are not the norm. Battles are known to take days even. Because of the caricature of these units I think there is a misconception the arcade style/quick short battles is fitting. Look at actual warhammer and it's not the case.

    One could argue and say, "well those battles that last days were large-scale battles." I would reply, isn't that what we are trying to create in TW? I don't want battles to last days but most certainly longer than 8min (not including "garbage time").

  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 29,161
    Here's a suggestion of how depth could be added by taking something from the WH universe instead of regurgitating old stuff:

    Have characters fall to Chaos, both named and stock (outside of faction leaders). Every character who spends a lot of time in corrupted territory or fighting Chaos forces has a chance of falling to the dark gods. It works by acquiring certain traits by chance, one after another every time he's in contact with strong corruption, starting with something like "Dark Whispers" then "Dark Desires" and finally "Allure of the Dark Gods" upon receiving the last trait the character and the stack he commands rebels and becomes an independent entity that is hostile to every other foce, including other chaos forces (he's hostile to them to prove his own mettle before the gods). Hero actions by the WoC might even increase the chance of that happening if their actions against another lord or hero are successful.

    Characters lost this way are gone for good.

    In turn the traits acquired might be purged if the character spends time away from those influences, taking longer for upper tiers of the trait.

    This should also only affect Humans, Elves and Undead. Greenskins who suffer chaotic corruption of this kind should instead lose the affected character (executed by his army for acting "un-orky") and a good portion of their men, simulating the leadership struggles following such an action. For Dwards it should work entirely different in that while Dwarfs are resistant to corruption, the affected character should suffer severe combat penalties from having to deal with the voices in his head and the army suffer a drop in morale until the influence is purged.

    I think something like this would not only be more lore-accurate, it would also be more interesting than sanitation and food distribution. It would also demonstrate that Chaos is not just a threat to people's lives but also their souls.

  • Frederick_WilliamFrederick_William Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 783
    i don't want to quote the giant wall. everyone has a reason for why they like or dislike something, it could be for the silliest reasons. reviews by regular people are not the best to judge either, as you pointed out one reason why. it is why your best best is to take in both sides, and watch game play for yourself and decide if it is worth it.

    some of those journalists have to keep in mind their future pay when they make reviews. both from the perspective of your average gamer, and the company that employs them. a bad review of a game(even if justified) can lead to them being let go, or the company no longer getting review copies to show off or talk about.(loss of money)



    what are you talking about good sales before all the fuss on the boards? the fuss started(mainly) after the release of the game. do you mean after and not before? i pointed out some reasons why the game continued to sell well after release. there are other reasons why it sold well as well, but i wont get into those.

    I would hope Sega and Ca are happy with how well Rome 2 is doing after all these years of patches and dlc. i would imagine they weren't too happy of what people thought of them after Rome 2's release.(though how much they care is debatable)

    if you never had the issue where the AI wouldn't use its siege equipment, or only those pushing it would use it, then the rest would attack the gates, then good for you.(wasn't fixed until EE time, roughly. don't remember which patch it was) If you never had a problem with armies at sea being better than navies, good for you.(something they continued to work on) if you never had the AI just derp out and not attack when they are suppose to, good for you. i am doubtful you never experienced these(especially the first 2), if you played Rome 2 from release and throughout its life. not to mention other issues here and there.

  • Lord_XelosLord_Xelos Registered Users Posts: 1,806
    edited August 2017
    It's the first constructive thing I've seen You write Ephraim. And I must say I love Your idea.

    I think it could be expanded a little aswell. Allow every troop (not only heroes) to be corrupted. This should lead to for example:
    - Purification Quest Lines in the campaign where hero need to visit certain places (new points of interest, reliquaries, etc. on the map) to be cured or join ranks of chaos or undead instead.
    - Desertion and joining enemy during battle for heavily tainted units (small chance but should happen during battle in unexpected way to really be a problem for the player). This way player will have to choose whether to continue prolonged campaign against pure evil or let his troops rest in some way. It also opens door for addition of features related to "stress" like for example paying for festivals to calm the masses or some kind of entertainment agents/locations for troops. Maybe some kind of encampment stance that allows for relieving the stress.
    - Of course respective mechanics could and should be created for evil races aswell (for VC's we already have that as they suffer casualties in non-corrupted land and are generally weaker in non-corrupted regions).

    P.S. Orcs are 100% resistant to the taint of chaos in Warhammer Universe. They can be manipulated (as they are stupid as ****) but they never succumb to the higher power. I think it's actually the only race that's 100% resistant to chaos influence. Even dwarfs may change (chaos dwarfs say hello).
    Post edited by BillyRuffian on
  • GaryBuseysGrinGaryBuseysGrin Registered Users Posts: 2,031
    ED managed to say something without sounding like nails on a chalkboard. Faith in humanity slightly less soiled.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,179
    edited February 2017

    i don't want to quote the giant wall. everyone has a reason for why they like or dislike something, it could be for the silliest reasons. reviews by regular people are not the best to judge either, as you pointed out one reason why. it is why your best best is to take in both sides, and watch game play for yourself and decide if it is worth it.

    some of those journalists have to keep in mind their future pay when they make reviews. both from the perspective of your average gamer, and the company that employs them. a bad review of a game(even if justified) can lead to them being let go, or the company no longer getting review copies to show off or talk about.(loss of money)



    what are you talking about good sales before all the fuss on the boards? the fuss started(mainly) after the release of the game. do you mean after and not before? i pointed out some reasons why the game continued to sell well after release. there are other reasons why it sold well as well, but i wont get into those.

    I would hope Sega and Ca are happy with how well Rome 2 is doing after all these years of patches and dlc. i would imagine they weren't too happy of what people thought of them after Rome 2's release.(though how much they care is debatable)

    if you never had the issue where the AI wouldn't use its siege equipment, or only those pushing it would use it, then the rest would attack the gates, then good for you.(wasn't fixed until EE time, roughly. don't remember which patch it was) If you never had a problem with armies at sea being better than navies, good for you.(something they continued to work on) if you never had the AI just derp out and not attack when they are suppose to, good for you. i am doubtful you never experienced these(especially the first 2), if you played Rome 2 from release and throughout its life. not to mention other issues here and there.

    Sorry, meant "after the fuss". Lapsus. And yeah, I played Rome 2 from release. I had early access as a reviewer, also. It was not the smoothest game out there, but absolutely not broken as some people make it sound. Not worse than Civ VI or HoI3 at release.

    edit: why on earth did you flag this? :p
  • Lord_XelosLord_Xelos Registered Users Posts: 1,806
    Did You just quote wall of text to add 1 line of Your own? Seriously, cut that spam and just add (...) in the between first and last word of the quote...
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,179
    edited February 2017

    Did You just quote wall of text to add 1 line of Your own? Seriously, cut that spam and just add (...) in the between first and last word of the quote...

    Oh well, folks are friendly 'round here...
  • Frederick_WilliamFrederick_William Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 783
    there is certainly a lot of hyberbole when it comes to what people think of Rome 2. the first impression is hard to get out of people's minds, even after all the improvements made.




    and i didn't flag you. i never do that on any forum unless it is a bot, or some very uber trolls. which from the posts we had back and forth, you are not one from my pov. even if someone is trolling, odds are i wont bother reporting. ive been on forums where there is no censorship or moderating for the most part, so i learned to deal with it.
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,143

    there is certainly a lot of hyberbole when it comes to what people think of Rome 2. the first impression is hard to get out of people's minds, even after all the improvements made.




    and i didn't flag you. i never do that on any forum unless it is a bot, or some very uber trolls. which from the posts we had back and forth, you are not one from my pov. even if someone is trolling, odds are i wont bother reporting. ive been on forums where there is no censorship or moderating for the most part, so i learned to deal with it.

    I couldn't finish a grand campaign for 6 months.

    And you say hyperbole.
    "As a sandbox game everyone, without exception, should be able to play the game exactly as they see fit and that means providing the maximum scope possible." - ~UNiOnJaCk~
  • Frederick_WilliamFrederick_William Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 783
    edited February 2017

    there is certainly a lot of hyberbole when it comes to what people think of Rome 2. the first impression is hard to get out of people's minds, even after all the improvements made.




    and i didn't flag you. i never do that on any forum unless it is a bot, or some very uber trolls. which from the posts we had back and forth, you are not one from my pov. even if someone is trolling, odds are i wont bother reporting. ive been on forums where there is no censorship or moderating for the most part, so i learned to deal with it.

    I couldn't finish a grand campaign for 6 months.

    And you say hyperbole.
    ...what?

    there have been plenty of posts or videos over the years that were full of hyperbole regarding Rome 2. there have been plenty of posts exaggerating an issue. that comment has nothing to do with the fact that people had one issue or another with the game, and the expressed it without exaggerating the truth. i never said something like what you wrote was automatically hyperbole or untrue. tbh i wouldn't be suprised if a lot of people had the issue you had.
  • HorseWithNoNameHorseWithNoName Registered Users Posts: 1,001
    Ok, back on topic. I also think the fall to Chaos mechanic is a good idea. I'd like to add that chaotic influence should either affect the whole stack or disable the "swap out lord"-option, as I don't think incentivising lord swapping is a good idea. I'd also like to keep such a mechanic as simple as possible, so I don't like questlines that make you run over the map.
  • BambusekBambusek Member Registered Users Posts: 186
    eh, squalor and sanitation again... I guess they may come back in one way or another when Skavens show up, but I suspect it will be more similar to vampiric/chaos corruption than how it worked in Rome 2 or Attila. And squalor and sanitation mechanics are not fitting for this game anyway.

    "My Emperor, Chaos hordes are gathering on the north, undeads march from Sylvania, Greenskins and Beastmen are rampaging. We must muster armies to defend ourselves!"

    "Silence! Our people live in filth, spend all the money in treasury to clean the cities"

    No, don't see scene like that happening.

  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIRegistered Users Posts: 7,165
    Depth can be added again by requiring certain resources. It certainly made me play different in Shogun when I didn't have iron.

    Give more either/or options to Lords and Heroes.

    Give armies traits like in RII (the only good new feature). This makes sense in lore too, what with everyone's army and it's background. Give them either/or traits also.

    Fall to Chaos mechanic.
    Thrones of Britannia: 69/100
    Warhammer II: 73/100
    Warhammer: 79/100
    Attila: 70/100 [Age of Charlemagne: 72/100]
    Rome II: 49/100
    Shogun II: 93/100 [Fall of the Samurai: 95/100]
    Napoleon: 58/100
    Empire: 53/100
    Medieval II: 90/100 [Kingdoms: 90/100]
    Rome I: 88/100
    Medieval I: 92/100
    Shogun I: 84/100
  • CanuoveaCanuovea Registered Users, Moderators Posts: 14,873
    What might be interesting too... and I'm spitballing here... is make there something you can do to effect the chance of getting some kind of negative campaign debuff like "Unhappy populace" or "Poof the Skaven showed up and stole people" or "Disease" or whatnot. Maybe even positive ones. Certain buildings might decrease that chance, maybe having duplicate buildings (all weaving huts for instance) increase the chance for something like that. Maybe having a Coaching Inn will make the unhappy populace evens less likely too... something like that. Maybe make those campaign effects have more impact?
    -Forum Terms and Conditions: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest
    -Using all caps is the equivalent of shouting. Please don't.
    -The "Spam" flag is not a "disagree" flag. Have a care.
    -...No, no the "Abuse" flag isn't a "disagree" flag either!
    -5.7 Summon a moderator if someone seems to be out of line, or use the report button. Do NOT become another party to misbehaviour
  • theedge634theedge634 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,983
    edited February 2017

    HoneyBun said:


    I see.

    So your position is that 'current campaign gameplay in TW:WH is the best we have ever had and cannot be improved'.

    That is a perfectly valid opinion and you have made it very clear. However I do not think it is right to then go further and simply dismiss all those who disagree.

    I believe that campaign gameplay in WH is less deep than in previous titles. I regret this and hope that over the series, CA address the issue.

    Sorry, but not only it this not my argument, this is also a more than transparent attempt to get around actually having to engage my points. Why argue when you can turn your opponent into a cartoon character for easy dismissal, amirite?

    If people want a more engaging campaign they should first know what kind of depth they actually want (so not half-baked suggestions like "moar bulding options!") and then remember that they're not the only people playing it. Making suggestions that would rather obviously alienate a lot of people have little hope of getting attention.

    There, succinct enough?
    I'm gonna be frank here. I'm not sure you know what your own argument is. You've reframed it a couple of times now, and it overall seems a bit inconsistent.

    At the point you said this, is where I picked up my argument against you as it is flat out wrong.

    Didn't I just say "How much you enjoy a game is independent of how deep it is" ?


    Instead of admitting that it is incorrect you attempted to support it with this:

    It's actually funny that Rome2, that much-bashed title, increased the depth of the series in a very simple way by allowing allied territory to be counted towards the player's victory conditions. Previous TW titles just boiled down to player vs everyone else, now it was possible to actually prop up another faction and let them win the game for you.
    Which again shows that "complexity" and "depth" are not correlated. Having a thousand valves to tweak means little if there's one optimal pipeline towards winning the game.


    Which first off has you making up your own narrative of what strategic depth (in the video game sense) actually means. I would personally state that what this site (http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/LewisPulsipher/20111219/90810/What_is_Depth_in_Games.php) states is a far more apt.

    Which games have depth? I think most people would agree that chess and go are deep games. And that Candyland and Tic-Tac-Toe (Noughts and Crosses), and most “social network” games are not at all deep. Depth apparently has something to do with the complexity of decision making.


    A notion that DIRECTLY relates complexity to depth and seems far more spot on than your interpretation in my opinion.

    Even if we ignore this creation of terms we still end up with a conflated and flat out wrong point. Many people play 4x games specifically for the complexity. The ship builder is often just a complex and unneeded option which is not necessarily directly correlated to achieving the end goal, but is rather there for a fun experience for the user.

    Again, platformers and mystery games have unnecessary "complexity" in your sense in that they have puzzles as little valves to tweak before achieving the the end goal of the singular pipeline of the end of the level.

    Flight simulators have unnecessary complexity such as fuel mixture switches and other advanced dashboard controls as toggles for user enjoyment.

    Complexity IS DIRECTLY correlated to user experience in the eyes of many gamers, or many video games just plain wouldn't exist. Many people consider HOI2 the best in the series specifically because it was the most complex.

    Am I speaking Chinese? Didn't I say that depth of a game can be gleaned from how many viable ways there are to achieve a goal? Also, once again, we are talking about depth. Enjoyment and depth are not fixed correlations. Super Mario Bros has a much bigger salesbase than any Paradox title (Mario alone can almost carry an entire platform by his lonesome, no Paradox title can claim that acumen).


    Then we got this little rose here. Of course in a basic sense this could be right, people do enjoy both, and Super Mario Bros and the Hearts of Iron series are enjoyable to people. But let's be honest and realistic here, we're talking about a Total War game that is being created from a tabletop war game in an adult setting.

    These are 2 COMPLETELY different crowds that the games are aiming for, or at least that they likely should be aiming for. How many people truly and honestly enjoy both games? I don't know a single person who plays both, though maybe there's a whole crowd of them out there somewhere. There tends to be a specific type of crowd (for adults) that plays things like Smash Bros/Super Mario Bros/JRPGs, and they aren't really into violent grimdark fantasy, at least where I'm from.

    I just don't think this is a reasonable point to make. People expect different things out of different games. If TWW was marketed as a platformer for kids that some adults tend to get a kick out of as well, sure knock the complexity to 1. But it's a strategy game, or at least marketed as one, in the strategy game world both streamlining and complexity can work, but user enjoyment isn't fully independent of the level of complexity for most users.

    I mean, I really enjoyed the movies Zootopia and Apocalypse Now. That doesn't mean that I want Zootopia to have more psychological horror, and Apocalypse Now to have more kids friendly jokes. It also doesn't mean that because I enjoyed both, that enjoyment within each genre isn't somewhat dependent upon what entails that genre.

    If you are within a genre, there are certain aspects of that genre that people expect, and those aspects CAN be directly correlated to the user experience.




    Now here's the fun part:

    See, that's a perfect misrepresentation of my argument. I literally said that there must be meaningful alternative roads to the goal, not just a bunch of mechanics that only add busywork or illusionary choices which all lead down the same, worn-out path anyway. That also means your griping about "more victory conditions" is off since I was explicitely talking about all the roads that lead to victory. Civilisation has only really one goal, dominating all other factions, but gives you several means to achieve this.


    What!?... Yea sure that was kind of in your implications... but that DEFINITELY was not the point you were making above. The point that you were EXPLICITLY making was that complexity is meaningless, and independent of depth if the goal is the same. Now the point is you want meaningful decisions?... Well yea, no ****... no one wants useless decision making, TWW is already filled to the brim with it why would anyone want more?



    Have characters fall to Chaos, both named and stock (outside of faction leaders). Every character who spends a lot of time in corrupted territory or fighting Chaos forces has a chance of falling to the dark gods. It works by acquiring certain traits by chance, one after another every time he's in contact with strong corruption, starting with something like "Dark Whispers" then "Dark Desires" and finally "Allure of the Dark Gods" upon receiving the last trait the character and the stack he commands rebels and becomes an independent entity that is hostile to every other foce, including other chaos forces (he's hostile to them to prove his own mettle before the gods). Hero actions by the WoC might even increase the chance of that happening if their actions against another lord or hero are successful.

    Characters lost this way are gone for good.

    In turn the traits acquired might be purged if the character spends time away from those influences, taking longer for upper tiers of the trait.

    This should also only affect Humans, Elves and Undead. Greenskins who suffer chaotic corruption of this kind should instead lose the affected character (executed by his army for acting "un-orky") and a good portion of their men, simulating the leadership struggles following such an action. For Dwards it should work entirely different in that while Dwarfs are resistant to corruption, the affected character should suffer severe combat penalties from having to deal with the voices in his head and the army suffer a drop in morale until the influence is purged.

    I think something like this would not only be more lore-accurate, it would also be more interesting than sanitation and food distribution. It would also demonstrate that Chaos is not just a threat to people's lives but also their souls.


    Yea, sure... Cool stuff there. None of this really applies to this notion though:

    Having a thousand valves to tweak means little if there's one optimal pipeline towards winning the game.


    The optimal pipeline doesn't change, so in reality... it's just nonsensical complexity, needless and useless complication on the road to the games required military victories. Or at least, that's what your earlier posts suggested.


    I've never suggested I want "city management" complexity in this game. In fact, that is absolutely the opposite of what I want. I've stated the things that I think should be overhauled. We can agree or disagree, but I don't see the difference in wanting a deeper resource system, or a more complex recruitment system, or better diplomacy, and a corruption system that affects characters.

    To me, they both seem right in the same pocket of mechanics that bring complexity, without changing the end goal.



    Listen, if you want to re-frame and refine your arguments, that's absolutely fine. But stop blaming the reader for what is clearly an issue with writing the point clearly and understandably. I'm 100% fine with disagreeing with more "city management", and viewing it as a feature which conflates the purpose of the game, and in fact is a notion I agree with. I only take issue with the idea that people who want more complex decision making are somehow advocating for the incorporation of meaningless decisions.
    Post edited by theedge634 on
  • Lord_XelosLord_Xelos Registered Users Posts: 1,806
    Perfect analysis of his inconsistency.

    As for on-map resources: YES PLEASE!! That is a good way of adding complexity without changing the end goal by forcing You to take more important aspects into account while making strategic decisions.
  • theedge634theedge634 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,983

    Perfect analysis of his inconsistency.

    As for on-map resources: YES PLEASE!! That is a good way of adding complexity without changing the end goal by forcing You to take more important aspects into account while making strategic decisions.

    I have no idea why CA would go through all the trouble of making not only a myriad of resources and resource buildings, but even map graphics that show that certain provinces have abundant resources, only to give us an extremely limited and meaningless trade system. Resources could be directly tied into equipping units as well, something that would add some much more interesting IMO complexity to the recruitment system.

    I've thought of the notion of resources being gathered and transported regularly by the forces of order, while many of the more disorderly and horde-like factions can raid and encamp resource regions to gain extra material for themselves. Also resource after battles by scavenging a certain percentage of the defeated opponents equipment and melting it down (or reusing it) is an interesting idea as well.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 29,161
    edited February 2017
    @theedge634

    I repeated myself often enough. If you don't get it after all that explanation and still see fit to distort it, whatever, other people got it, that's enough for me.

    As for my suggestion regarding falling to Chaos, noticed how that's something that most people can agree on would be a good addition to the game? Because that's something that not only fits into the universe TWWH takes place in but also adds meaningful complexity WRT character development and interaction all in one package. Characters in TWWH are after all the major new addition to the TW gameplay. Older games didn't have characters as varied and malleable. They also didn't have factions as varied as TWWH, the other major addition to the series.

    You see, some complexity is removed, but added in other places. So all this griping about "dumbing down" is fallacious and short-sighted.

    Sanitation and similar ideas in contrast do not fit quite as neatly because that's simply something people don't associate with Warhammer. Sure, the Skaven and Nurgle worshipers might spread diseases, but that should be portrayed in a faction specific way that adds to their gameplay rather than having wheat farms fill cities with dung like in TWA.


  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIRegistered Users Posts: 7,165
    I mean, there is some dumbing down. You have an infinite transshipping capacity since Rome II.
    Thrones of Britannia: 69/100
    Warhammer II: 73/100
    Warhammer: 79/100
    Attila: 70/100 [Age of Charlemagne: 72/100]
    Rome II: 49/100
    Shogun II: 93/100 [Fall of the Samurai: 95/100]
    Napoleon: 58/100
    Empire: 53/100
    Medieval II: 90/100 [Kingdoms: 90/100]
    Rome I: 88/100
    Medieval I: 92/100
    Shogun I: 84/100
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 29,161
    edited February 2017
    MrJade said:

    I mean, there is some dumbing down. You have an infinite transshipping capacity since Rome II.

    You can only call it "dumbed down" if the former system in place allowed for advanced and sophisticated strategies and current one doesn't, which I would heavily dispute. Since combat navies and transports are now separate entities, it allows for actual convoys and escort battles. Which means the new system added to the gameplay instead of substracting.

    Also, I don't think it was very impressive to see entire fullstacks fitting onto one single warship no matter the size.

  • ErminazErminaz Senior Member Las Vegas, Nevada, USARegistered Users Posts: 5,710

    Here's a suggestion of how depth could be added by taking something from the WH universe instead of regurgitating old stuff:

    Have characters fall to Chaos, both named and stock (outside of faction leaders). Every character who spends a lot of time in corrupted territory or fighting Chaos forces has a chance of falling to the dark gods. It works by acquiring certain traits by chance, one after another every time he's in contact with strong corruption, starting with something like "Dark Whispers" then "Dark Desires" and finally "Allure of the Dark Gods" upon receiving the last trait the character and the stack he commands rebels and becomes an independent entity that is hostile to every other foce, including other chaos forces (he's hostile to them to prove his own mettle before the gods). Hero actions by the WoC might even increase the chance of that happening if their actions against another lord or hero are successful.

    Characters lost this way are gone for good.

    In turn the traits acquired might be purged if the character spends time away from those influences, taking longer for upper tiers of the trait.

    This should also only affect Humans, Elves and Undead. Greenskins who suffer chaotic corruption of this kind should instead lose the affected character (executed by his army for acting "un-orky") and a good portion of their men, simulating the leadership struggles following such an action. For Dwards it should work entirely different in that while Dwarfs are resistant to corruption, the affected character should suffer severe combat penalties from having to deal with the voices in his head and the army suffer a drop in morale until the influence is purged.

    I think something like this would not only be more lore-accurate, it would also be more interesting than sanitation and food distribution. It would also demonstrate that Chaos is not just a threat to people's lives but also their souls.

    Would this come with more tools to fight against corruption? Would switching generals allow for the one not in an army to become "purified" or do I have to create a new army just to sit back in "uncorrupted" lands doing nothing?
    Tacitus Quotes:
    Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace.

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

    I found Rome a city of filth covered marble and left it a pile of rubble. - Me
  • theedge634theedge634 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,983

    @theedge634

    I repeated myself often enough. If you don't get it after all that explanation and still see fit to distort it, whatever, other people got it, that's enough for me.

    As for my suggestion regarding falling to Chaos, noticed how that's something that most people can agree on would be a good addition to the game? Because that's something that not only fits into the universe TWWH takes place in but also adds meaningful complexity WRT character development and interaction all in one package. Characters in TWWH are after all the major new addition to the TW gameplay. Older games didn't have characters as varied and malleable. They also didn't have factions as varied as TWWH, the other major addition to the series.

    You see, some complexity is removed, but added in other places. So all this griping about "dumbing down" is fallacious and short-sighted.

    Sanitation and similar ideas in contrast do not fit quite as neatly because that's simply something people don't associate with Warhammer. Sure, the Skaven and Nurgle worshipers might spread diseases, but that should be portrayed in a faction specific way that adds to their gameplay rather than having wheat farms fill cities with dung like in TWA.

    I quoted you only... there's no misrepresentation. Those are things you said, and points you made. That's the bed you made, I don't know why you refuse to lay in it. As I said, it's fine, we all change are arguments as we refine them, I just don't understand the pure denial, it was laid out for you quite clearly and concisely that your overarching thesis shifted as we progressed the discussion.

    Again, I have no problem with that, but don't sit there and act as if people are making up narratives, that's what you wrote; copy, paste, and quote.


    I still have no idea why you keep regurgitating sanitation, I have never once stated support for human specific city management or complexity, and I think that most in this thread are more concerned about complex decision making in other areas, but I digress.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 29,161
    edited February 2017
    Since I'm not in charge of designing this game, I can't give you any definite answers. This is just food for thought for an idea to deepen character-based gameplay.

    It could be something like, send character X to a temple for spiritual purification which might take a while and make the character more resistant to the taint for a period of time when he returns, but there might also be other ways. Maybe even risky ones like sending the character with his army off to tear down herdstones and chaos idols if there are any which might either free him of the taint or deepen it. Certain character traits might even influence how easily a character acquires taint and how easily he can get rid of it again. All possibilities to flesh them out.

This discussion has been closed.