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

Total War: Warhammer is easily the best Total War i've played

12357

Comments

  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,466Registered Users

    Bel_Isar said:

    Bel_Isar said:

    Warhammer isn´t the best Total War yet but it has by far the most potential to gain that title. It just needs to be a bit fleshed out ... general battlefield diversity.

    I have to say this made me laugh out loud. Saying Warhammers battlefield diversity needs improvement when compared to previous TW is ludicrous.
    Previous Games had Rivers, Bridges, Settlements. Warhammer doesn´t have that, instead you fight on ever repeating battlefields in the Empire for example. Laugh if you need to, doesnt improve the amount of differend battlefields though...
    My apologies I thought you were referring to the armies themselves. I retract my statement and in that case I agree with you entirely.
    Well in regards the armies, I still have a problem: Warhammer does not have the diversity it pretends to. It's in one way the opposite of Shogun 2. Warhammer has a high diversity of units, but tiny diversity of roles for those units('anti-large' is not a role) and Shogun 2 has the lowest unit diversity of any recent game but it manages to squeeze as many different roles as possible into that roster.

    For example, Yari Samurai are not simply a higher-tier spear unit to Yari Ashiguru; they are used differently. Yari Samurai are reactionary, Yari Ashiguru are defensive: the former moves in response and has an ability to quickly recover stamina whilst the latter is deployed in anticipation to form a toggled spear wall.

    In Warhammer, the 'roles' go no further than 'X counters Y' and it's why the only two group formation options are 'melee first' and 'ranged first' because where the specific units are in the two lines don't matter as the only role they have is 'shock troop, to be used against Y' and there is little stamina cost for running, nor does it impact on combat effectiveness as much as in previous games.
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIPosts: 7,147Registered Users

    A fail to see any diversity in plugging a bottleneck and if the AI was smart it would simply avoid them since trying them is a good way to lose most of your army, even for the player unless one goes for maximum ranged cheese.

    To me, it was fun to see an AI block a bridge and force me to figure out what to do, especially since fording a river cost so many movement points.
    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
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 19,581Registered Users
    edited July 2017

    Bel_Isar said:

    Bel_Isar said:

    Warhammer isn´t the best Total War yet but it has by far the most potential to gain that title. It just needs to be a bit fleshed out ... general battlefield diversity.

    I have to say this made me laugh out loud. Saying Warhammers battlefield diversity needs improvement when compared to previous TW is ludicrous.
    Previous Games had Rivers, Bridges, Settlements. Warhammer doesn´t have that, instead you fight on ever repeating battlefields in the Empire for example. Laugh if you need to, doesnt improve the amount of differend battlefields though...
    My apologies I thought you were referring to the armies themselves. I retract my statement and in that case I agree with you entirely.
    Well in regards the armies, I still have a problem: Warhammer does not have the diversity it pretends to. It's in one way the opposite of Shogun 2. Warhammer has a high diversity of units, but tiny diversity of roles for those units('anti-large' is not a role) and Shogun 2 has the lowest unit diversity of any recent game but it manages to squeeze as many different roles as possible into that roster.

    For example, Yari Samurai are not simply a higher-tier spear unit to Yari Ashiguru; they are used differently. Yari Samurai are reactionary, Yari Ashiguru are defensive: the former moves in response and has an ability to quickly recover stamina whilst the latter is deployed in anticipation to form a toggled spear wall.

    In Warhammer, the 'roles' go no further than 'X counters Y' and it's why the only two group formation options are 'melee first' and 'ranged first' because where the specific units are in the two lines don't matter as the only role they have is 'shock troop, to be used against Y' and there is little stamina cost for running, nor does it impact on combat effectiveness as much as in previous games.
    Yari Samurai were orginially one of the most useless units until a patch gave them the Ashigaru's spearwall and let them actually have a useful role on the battlefield. Yeah, you're not going to convince me with revisionism like that.

    Also, way to miss the forest for the trees. In S2 you can play any faction in whatever way you like because they have all the same roster options as all other factions. That makes for such a low diversity that Avatar Conquest was introduced so it didn't have the most boring MP in the series.

    In TWWH you have to adapt to the strengths and weaknesses of the different factions. You cannot play GS like the VC and expect to win and you can't play WoC like Bretonnia. That's way more diversity than S2 EVER had.

  • Bel_IsarBel_Isar Posts: 653Registered Users

    MrJade said:

    Bel_Isar said:

    Bel_Isar said:

    Warhammer isn´t the best Total War yet but it has by far the most potential to gain that title. It just needs to be a bit fleshed out ... general battlefield diversity.

    I have to say this made me laugh out loud. Saying Warhammers battlefield diversity needs improvement when compared to previous TW is ludicrous.
    Previous Games had Rivers, Bridges, Settlements. Warhammer doesn´t have that, instead you fight on ever repeating battlefields in the Empire for example. Laugh if you need to, doesnt improve the amount of differend battlefields though...
    Bridge and River Crossing Battles were just Instawin types of deals since you were given a convenient bottleneck you could plug with little effort. In the older TW games they were even worse because the bridge was so narrow and the AI always crammed all its troops at once onto them. I'm not sad seeing them go.

    Do people miss diversity or do they miss the cheese?
    I miss diversity and the expectation that the AI would handle it better in the next game, rather than simply cut the feature and say "Aw shucks, we just weren't good enough."
    A fail to see any diversity in plugging a bottleneck and if the AI was smart it would simply avoid them since trying them is a good way to lose most of your army, even for the player unless one goes for maximum ranged cheese.
    You can always cheese on the AI, you don´t need Bridges/Chokepoints for it, just bring a cheesy army-composition. Would you want to lock the Army-Composition aswell, so that you can´t bring armys, the Ai cant handle?

    On a certain point, the whole "limit the player, so the Ai has a chance" goes way to far, especially if you consider, that there is no way, you can make the AI compatible anyways.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 19,581Registered Users
    edited July 2017
    Bel_Isar said:

    MrJade said:

    Bel_Isar said:

    Bel_Isar said:

    Warhammer isn´t the best Total War yet but it has by far the most potential to gain that title. It just needs to be a bit fleshed out ... general battlefield diversity.

    I have to say this made me laugh out loud. Saying Warhammers battlefield diversity needs improvement when compared to previous TW is ludicrous.
    Previous Games had Rivers, Bridges, Settlements. Warhammer doesn´t have that, instead you fight on ever repeating battlefields in the Empire for example. Laugh if you need to, doesnt improve the amount of differend battlefields though...
    Bridge and River Crossing Battles were just Instawin types of deals since you were given a convenient bottleneck you could plug with little effort. In the older TW games they were even worse because the bridge was so narrow and the AI always crammed all its troops at once onto them. I'm not sad seeing them go.

    Do people miss diversity or do they miss the cheese?
    I miss diversity and the expectation that the AI would handle it better in the next game, rather than simply cut the feature and say "Aw shucks, we just weren't good enough."
    A fail to see any diversity in plugging a bottleneck and if the AI was smart it would simply avoid them since trying them is a good way to lose most of your army, even for the player unless one goes for maximum ranged cheese.
    You can always cheese on the AI, you don´t need Bridges/Chokepoints for it, just bring a cheesy army-composition. Would you want to lock the Army-Composition aswell, so that you can´t bring armys, the Ai cant handle?

    On a certain point, the whole "limit the player, so the Ai has a chance" goes way to far, especially if you consider, that there is no way, you can make the AI compatible anyways.
    Sorry, but I don't want battle setups that are exclusively made for AI abuse. Then you might as well add an invulnerability button to the game.

    How about people come up with ways to make such battles more interesting instead of reviving old cheese?

  • blaatblaat Junior Member Posts: 2,992Registered Users

    Bel_Isar said:

    MrJade said:

    Bel_Isar said:

    Bel_Isar said:

    Warhammer isn´t the best Total War yet but it has by far the most potential to gain that title. It just needs to be a bit fleshed out ... general battlefield diversity.

    I have to say this made me laugh out loud. Saying Warhammers battlefield diversity needs improvement when compared to previous TW is ludicrous.
    Previous Games had Rivers, Bridges, Settlements. Warhammer doesn´t have that, instead you fight on ever repeating battlefields in the Empire for example. Laugh if you need to, doesnt improve the amount of differend battlefields though...
    Bridge and River Crossing Battles were just Instawin types of deals since you were given a convenient bottleneck you could plug with little effort. In the older TW games they were even worse because the bridge was so narrow and the AI always crammed all its troops at once onto them. I'm not sad seeing them go.

    Do people miss diversity or do they miss the cheese?
    I miss diversity and the expectation that the AI would handle it better in the next game, rather than simply cut the feature and say "Aw shucks, we just weren't good enough."
    A fail to see any diversity in plugging a bottleneck and if the AI was smart it would simply avoid them since trying them is a good way to lose most of your army, even for the player unless one goes for maximum ranged cheese.
    You can always cheese on the AI, you don´t need Bridges/Chokepoints for it, just bring a cheesy army-composition. Would you want to lock the Army-Composition aswell, so that you can´t bring armys, the Ai cant handle?

    On a certain point, the whole "limit the player, so the Ai has a chance" goes way to far, especially if you consider, that there is no way, you can make the AI compatible anyways.
    Sorry, but I don't want battle setups that are exclusively made for AI abuse. Then you might as well add an invulnerability button to the game.

    How about people come up with ways to make such battles more interesting instead of reviving old cheese?
    how about stopping making CA apologist posts?

    snip

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

    the reason I prefer LOTR over warhammer fantasy and 40k

    I am dutch so if you like to have a talk in dutch shoot me a PM :)
  • Bel_IsarBel_Isar Posts: 653Registered Users

    Bel_Isar said:

    MrJade said:

    Bel_Isar said:

    Bel_Isar said:

    Warhammer isn´t the best Total War yet but it has by far the most potential to gain that title. It just needs to be a bit fleshed out ... general battlefield diversity.

    I have to say this made me laugh out loud. Saying Warhammers battlefield diversity needs improvement when compared to previous TW is ludicrous.
    Previous Games had Rivers, Bridges, Settlements. Warhammer doesn´t have that, instead you fight on ever repeating battlefields in the Empire for example. Laugh if you need to, doesnt improve the amount of differend battlefields though...
    Bridge and River Crossing Battles were just Instawin types of deals since you were given a convenient bottleneck you could plug with little effort. In the older TW games they were even worse because the bridge was so narrow and the AI always crammed all its troops at once onto them. I'm not sad seeing them go.

    Do people miss diversity or do they miss the cheese?
    I miss diversity and the expectation that the AI would handle it better in the next game, rather than simply cut the feature and say "Aw shucks, we just weren't good enough."
    A fail to see any diversity in plugging a bottleneck and if the AI was smart it would simply avoid them since trying them is a good way to lose most of your army, even for the player unless one goes for maximum ranged cheese.
    You can always cheese on the AI, you don´t need Bridges/Chokepoints for it, just bring a cheesy army-composition. Would you want to lock the Army-Composition aswell, so that you can´t bring armys, the Ai cant handle?

    On a certain point, the whole "limit the player, so the Ai has a chance" goes way to far, especially if you consider, that there is no way, you can make the AI compatible anyways.
    Sorry, but I don't want battle setups that are exclusively made for AI abuse. Then you might as well add an invulnerability button to the game.

    How about people come up with ways to make such battles more interesting instead of reviving old cheese?
    Flyers can cross rivers and flank the defenders
    Magic can disrupt formations, might even add a "Magic bridge" spell, so you can flank with regular troops
    Artillery can be pretty Helpfull, especially for the Empire, with their lack of fliers or the Dwarfs with their lack of Magic.
    Deepstrike for units like Dwarf-Miners (would actually even give them back some of their tt-rules/fluff)
    Summoning of Units for Chaos-Factions

    It´s not like there never has been any idea about less cheesy Chokepoints, some of those things are even in the game already. Not to mention the ability of like half of the Factions, to access the underway to minimize their exposure to that kind of battles.

    It´s more those "the ai can´t handle anything"-argument wich gets rather old... Not even mentioning here, that this argument becomes rather invalid for MP anyways
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 19,581Registered Users
    edited July 2017
    Fliers unsupported are cannon-fodder, magic strikes, with few exceptions deal less damage than an artillery piece and magic bridges aren't going to get implemented (there's for one no TT equivalent to it and for two no way of making this work mechanically). Summoning has too short a range and outside Raise Dead is way too expensive and never cost-effective anyway.

    You see, none of that stuff would un-cheese bridge battles.

    I would also like to add that even if the AI brought mass artillery and skirmishers, it could never succesfully force a defended river crossing in the older games, especially no R1/M2.

    The only thing I could think of would be to make the bridges and crossing much wider and the river to become practically pure scenery (like it already is on some maps).

    It´s not like there never has been any idea about less cheesy Chokepoints, some of those things are even in the game already. Not to mention the ability of like half of the Factions, to access the underway to minimize their exposure to that kind of battles.

    Well, all the more reason to not have them in since the factions you'd most want to keep out of your lands (GS and BM) could just bypass your blocking army anyway.

    It´s more those "the ai can´t handle anything"-argument wich gets rather old... Not even mentioning here, that this argument becomes rather invalid for MP anyways

    Except that's just 5% of the playerbase.

  • hendo1592hendo1592 Posts: 1,537Registered Users
    I just though how cool it would be to do "wind attacks" or bombardment spells for a bridge battle. Monsters would play a huge roll in breaking through formations too.

    I don't consider bottleneck areas cheese, it's just using terrain to your advantage. Bridge battles do seem much wider in TWW2 (at least the one in the fortress gates battle-I'm not sure if many saw it yet ;) ). I hope units still have areas to cross on some of the bridge maps (shallow water) but those areas make it so units move very slowly through (keeping the bridge a viable option), and give some units an advantage in crossing-CA already said skinks move fast in water.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 19,581Registered Users
    edited July 2017
    hendo1592 said:

    I just though how cool it would be to do "wind attacks" or bombardment spells for a bridge battle. Monsters would play a huge roll in breaking through formations too.

    I don't consider bottleneck areas cheese, it's just using terrain to your advantage. Bridge battles do seem much wider in TWW2 (at least the one in the fortress gates battle-I'm not sure if many saw it yet ;) ). I hope units still have areas to cross on some of the bridge maps (shallow water) but those areas make it so units move very slowly through (keeping the bridge a viable option), and give some units an advantage in crossing-CA already said skinks move fast in water.

    Bottleneck cheese is the lamest there is because all you have to do is set up your units in a wall and then do nothing but wait for the enemy to bloody their noses. An RTS should never reward passive and overly defensive gameplay.


  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,466Registered Users

    Bel_Isar said:

    Bel_Isar said:

    Warhammer isn´t the best Total War yet but it has by far the most potential to gain that title. It just needs to be a bit fleshed out ... general battlefield diversity.

    I have to say this made me laugh out loud. Saying Warhammers battlefield diversity needs improvement when compared to previous TW is ludicrous.
    Previous Games had Rivers, Bridges, Settlements. Warhammer doesn´t have that, instead you fight on ever repeating battlefields in the Empire for example. Laugh if you need to, doesnt improve the amount of differend battlefields though...
    My apologies I thought you were referring to the armies themselves. I retract my statement and in that case I agree with you entirely.
    Well in regards the armies, I still have a problem: Warhammer does not have the diversity it pretends to. It's in one way the opposite of Shogun 2. Warhammer has a high diversity of units, but tiny diversity of roles for those units('anti-large' is not a role) and Shogun 2 has the lowest unit diversity of any recent game but it manages to squeeze as many different roles as possible into that roster.

    For example, Yari Samurai are not simply a higher-tier spear unit to Yari Ashiguru; they are used differently. Yari Samurai are reactionary, Yari Ashiguru are defensive: the former moves in response and has an ability to quickly recover stamina whilst the latter is deployed in anticipation to form a toggled spear wall.

    In Warhammer, the 'roles' go no further than 'X counters Y' and it's why the only two group formation options are 'melee first' and 'ranged first' because where the specific units are in the two lines don't matter as the only role they have is 'shock troop, to be used against Y' and there is little stamina cost for running, nor does it impact on combat effectiveness as much as in previous games.
    Yari Samurai were orginially one of the most useless units until a patch gave them the Ashigaru's spearwall and let them actually have a useful role on the battlefield. Yeah, you're not going to convince me with revisionism like that.

    Also, way to miss the forest for the trees. In S2 you can play any faction in whatever way you like because they have all the same roster options as all other factions. That makes for such a low diversity that Avatar Conquest was introduced so it didn't have the most boring MP in the series.

    In TWWH you have to adapt to the strengths and weaknesses of the different factions. You cannot play GS like the VC and expect to win and you can't play WoC like Bretonnia. That's way more diversity than S2 EVER had.
    Off the top of my head, I knew you were wrong, but I checked anyway and loaded up Shogun 2. Yes, you are wrong. Yari Samurai do not have the Yari Ashigaru spear wall(yari wall) ability, nor does the tech tree unlock it for them. Where I was wrong was in saying that Yari Samurai had the Second Wind ability which recovers stamina, when they actually have the Rapid Advance ability. Please keep being personal and accusing others of revisionism though, if only to further cement what we already think of you.

    Where you're going with the rest of your post is incomprehensible. The faction differences in TW:W make very little actual difference, because if they did then the AI would be unable to do anything. As they all require and are only capable of the same narrow set of flank-focused tactics with 'X beats Y so charge X at Y', the AI is able to manage. I wish it were better but defending the game as it currently is will not lead to that if CA shares your opinion on it.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,466Registered Users

    hendo1592 said:

    I just though how cool it would be to do "wind attacks" or bombardment spells for a bridge battle. Monsters would play a huge roll in breaking through formations too.

    I don't consider bottleneck areas cheese, it's just using terrain to your advantage. Bridge battles do seem much wider in TWW2 (at least the one in the fortress gates battle-I'm not sure if many saw it yet ;) ). I hope units still have areas to cross on some of the bridge maps (shallow water) but those areas make it so units move very slowly through (keeping the bridge a viable option), and give some units an advantage in crossing-CA already said skinks move fast in water.

    Bottleneck cheese is the lamest there is because all you have to do is set up your units in a wall and then do nothing but wait for the enemy to bloody their noses. An RTS should never reward passive and overly defensive gameplay.

    These are the highest rated RTS games of all time: http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/genre/metascore/real-time/pc?view=condensed

    Going down the list, every single one on the first page by metascore which I have played ALL enable a strong defensive play and many even require it or you lose in the first few moments. It's the first thing any tactician should be expected to do, first make themselves invincible and then plan an attack. As there is no chance of that, there are no well-considered attacks which are possible in a Total Warhammer battle.

    A bottleneck is not cheese, it's a necessity for tactical diversity. It's also a risk to the defender too, at least in a game which is designed first for tactical diversity.
  • PhilBowlesPhilBowles Senior Member Posts: 1,215Registered Users

    Can someone please explain to me what is actually good about the battles in Total Warhammer? I don't think a stripped-down shrunken click-fest on terrible maps and an AI no better than several games ago is good at all.

    Basically, they play like tabletop Warhammer - more faithfully so than I'd expect. They're also an advance over recent TW titles:

    - battle speeds are a bit slower (in part because the AI allows you time to set up rather than rushing forward suicidally)

    - Different types of units are emphasised, which affects the way battles play. Traditionally in Total War games, there's little relevant difference between unit width vs. unit depth - it's sufficiently unimportant that it doesn't warrant mention in the encyclopedia or in tutorials. In Warhammer, true to the tabletop game, it can be very important in battle outcomes simply because the game emphasises shock units far more than any previous TW game. Your defensive units need to be able to withstand charges, your melee units need to be able to hold ground in battle, and your AP units and shock units need good frontage to maximise their damage output. The importance of being the one doing the charging also makes it important to deploy in lines that allow you to lap round the opponent, rather than just having the usual clumped fixing force to the fore and your cavalry doing all the charging in the flanks. It's not necessarily more sophisticated tactically, but it's different from past TW games, closer to the tabletop game, and happens to look pleasing as the resulting formations tend to look closer to the ones you see in traditional wargames than the usual 'archers, infantry, cavalry and artillery' blocks typical of Total War.

    - morale is 'stickier' (units can break, reform, re-enter the battle and break again, where in the last couple of entries units usually took a while to break, but when they did they collapsed altogether)

    - commanders are more relevant for their leadership than in any game since Shogun 2

    - Guard mode is an available option by default (sadly loose formation, other than skirmish mode, has been lost)

    - the AI isn't cleverer at using its units, but is a bit more advanced in other areas - it doesn't run everywhere getting exhausted as in nearly every past entry (at least from Shogun 2 onwards, but I think I recall it in older ones. The older games just didn't make it as easy to check on the interface). It can use siege equipment more-or-less appropriately, and will wait until you come into an appropriate distance to engage.

    - It uses a true line of sight system. It's only the third game in the series to do so, and of those Rome 2 was not only a bad game, the AI was never trained to make effective enough use of the line of sight system for it to be relevant. The downside with Warhammer is that maps are mostly too open for it to be relevant, as in general Warhammer battle maps are topographically simpler than those in Rome 2 or Attila.

    There are also a few improvements over specific entries - over Rome 2 and Attila in having fewer unit button-spam abilities, but making the abilities that exist more situational and relevant (as in Shogun 2).

    Above all, though, I think you're asking the wrong question. These are Total War games. Everyone on the thread is familiar with at least some of the past games, complete with their inadequate AI, in some cases high speed, and in most cases no need for tactics more sophisticated than 'charge, cycle, charge' to win the game. It's less that Warhammer battles are significantly better than past TW battles than that they aren't any worse in most respects - they incorporate most of the better elements of past TW games (e.g. they play broadly like Shogun 2 but with Rome 2 line of sight rules and Attila-quality AI, which generally seems better than Shogun 2 AI, and with a slower game pace than the preceding three games) without losing a great deal, and add a number of additional features like magic and fliers. Some of these features are to an extent cosmetic, but when they're coming at no cost to gameplay why not see them as an added bonus?
  • PhilBowlesPhilBowles Senior Member Posts: 1,215Registered Users
    edited July 2017

    Bel_Isar said:

    Bel_Isar said:

    Warhammer isn´t the best Total War yet but it has by far the most potential to gain that title. It just needs to be a bit fleshed out ... general battlefield diversity.

    I have to say this made me laugh out loud. Saying Warhammers battlefield diversity needs improvement when compared to previous TW is ludicrous.
    Previous Games had Rivers, Bridges, Settlements. Warhammer doesn´t have that, instead you fight on ever repeating battlefields in the Empire for example. Laugh if you need to, doesnt improve the amount of differend battlefields though...
    Bridge and River Crossing Battles were just Instawin types of deals since you were given a convenient bottleneck you could plug with little effort. In the older TW games they were even worse because the bridge was so narrow and the AI always crammed all its troops at once onto them. I'm not sad seeing them go.

    Do people miss diversity or do they miss the cheese?
    River crossing battles were a reward for good placement on the campaign map - choke points didn't magically appear on the battle map. It's supposed to be easier to hold a ford than an open area, and in Shogun 2 it was often an actual necessity because it was the only way for a single stack to beat much larger armies. You could still be overwhelmed by weight of numbers, enough attacking ranged units to cause your line to break, or cavalry attacks from across the river (which the Shogun 2 AI was smart enough to achieve, albeit usually piecemeal with one or two units at a time).

    The AI wasn't great at handling them, it's true, but it's not great at handling sieges either - should those be removed? CA's shown that it can at least make some improvements to boost AI performance in specific battle types.

    Lack of map diversity is Warhammer's big flaw on the battlefield, I'd say - it's pretty much as bad as Shogun 2's endless open fields with the occasional hill somewhere fairly useless.

    It's not just river crossings - forest is either absent or tends to be arranged along the flanks of an obvious open corridor - fighting within forest doesn't really happen, and it's not placed usefully to obscure line of sight for ranged troops - it's just somewhere to park vanguard units or cavalry for a one-time shock attack,

    Hills aren't as variable in elevation as in past games and at least in my experience don't provide as much of an advantage fighting downhill as they should. They too tend to have stereotyped placement in or close to deployment zones - there's no moving to take and hold a strategically relevant elevated position. It rather defeats the point of gunpowder weapons (other than mortars and rockets) having to fire ahead while arrows can be fired in an arc if there's never anything getting in the way of firing in a straight line. The only time I've seen the difference be relevant is in battles against Dwarf garrisons, because for some reason they default to having cannon and organ guns they can't actually use until you're right on top of them.

    There's also not a lot in the way of 'hazardous' terrain it's unwise to fight in - in the last two games, in which all infantry apparently wore waders, everyone could walk across any type of water body, but suffered a malus for doing so. There are a couple of swampy maps in Sylvania, but in those maps basically everything is swamp - there's no way of using that terrain to your advantage or your opponent's disadvantage since everyone suffers the same malus.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,466Registered Users
    The AI doesn't run everywhere getting exhausted for two reasons: 1- running has almost zero impact on stamina now and stamina has next to no impact when actually in combat or even move speed any more. 2- The AI is no longer seeking advantageous terrain as most terrain in the battle maps is uniform and flat, with gradients that require getting the camera low down to even notice. This same bland map design make the line-of-sight more a cumbersome exploit, always used by the AI instead of a tactical layer as it was even in the mess that was Rome 2. In Warhammer it means you're constantly having to tell units to do the thing you just ordered them to because there are a split-second loss of LoS on a ridge where at no other time does LoS come into play.

    Almost everything else you talk about Phil seems to describe a completely different game to the one I am playing.
  • PhilBowlesPhilBowles Senior Member Posts: 1,215Registered Users
    edited July 2017

    The AI doesn't run everywhere getting exhausted for two reasons: 1- running has almost zero impact on stamina now and stamina has next to no impact when actually in combat or even move speed any more. 2- The AI is no longer seeking advantageous terrain as most terrain in the battle maps is uniform and flat, with gradients that require getting the camera low down to even notice. This same bland map design make the line-of-sight more a cumbersome exploit, always used by the AI instead of a tactical layer as it was even in the mess that was Rome 2. In Warhammer it means you're constantly having to tell units to do the thing you just ordered them to because there are a split-second loss of LoS on a ridge where at no other time does LoS come into play.

    Almost everything else you talk about Phil seems to describe a completely different game to the one I am playing.

    You're right that exhaustion appears to matter less even when it happens, but it's not just a case of the map problems. In past games the AI would default to run everywhere, and the Shogun 2 maps were as flat and lacking in complexity as the Warhammer ones. The AI would run in siege attacks, when there was no relevance to having terrain advantages because all they were doing was reaching and scaling the wall, and did so from the start - not just once they were in missile range to close the gap. There have evidently been coding improvements to at least some degree. I recall situations in Rome 2 and I think in Medieval II when units would literally run on the spot.

    In Rome 2 LoS wasn't an exploit used by the AI because the AI was incapable of using the LoS system at all. I haven't noticed Warhammer's AI being any better in that regard, I have to say.
  • LestaTLestaT Senior Member Posts: 3,236Registered Users
    I'll have to say that my only major dislike about Warhammer is the minor settlement battles (first 2 levels without walls).

    Minor setttlement should be like Rome II or Attila where it does not have full walls but some actual defensive positions to give the chance for defenders to defend.
  • IchonIchon Senior Member Posts: 4,744Registered Users
    Bel_Isar said:


    Previous Games had Rivers, Bridges, Settlements. Warhammer doesn´t have that, instead you fight on ever repeating battlefields in the Empire for example. Laugh if you need to, doesnt improve the amount of differend battlefields though...

    River choke points in most TW that had them were atrocious due to suicidal AI. It was basically isntawin so long as the numbers disparity wasn't so huge to get overrun during the first charge.

    However there were a few river maps with 3 crossing points in Rome 2 and I think even a couple in Shogun 2 that had potential. 2 wide crossings and a small bridge or ford which were occasionally interesting when reinforcing armies entered the field and with 40 vs 40 could be interesting in Warhammer.

    The main issue though with maps has little to nothing to do specifically with chokepoints as that was only one type and rather rare type of field battle in those TWs that had river crossings in battle maps.

    MTW2 had the best battle map terrain of the entire TW- battles could occur in giant bowls with forest covering most of the lower slopes but a handful of clearings with some buildings, actually required some scouting and advancing using terrain to cover or exploit weaknesses was quite possible. Then there were actual hills not just slopes, many times multiple hills in one map where if an opposing army rushed they might make the big hill in the middle but safer course would be to go for a medium hill near the big hill so the rushing army isn't tired but its ranged can cover the lower slops of the big hill. Most of the big hills had at least 2 ridges leading up with some forest so armies forced to attack vs a defender on the hill top had at least a couple ways to try and approach the situation. Then there were often large buildings to use to cover a flank or rocky fields that seriously impacted any units trying to charge where archers or skirmishes could be placed with light infantry covering. Then there were actually impactful terrain bonuses to units. Yes even in current Warhammer Giants don't fight as well in forests but the malus is quite small compared to MTW2 (where it might have been a bit too high but somewhat more than current is needed).

    Also in some mods for MTW2 the maps are just amazing (battlefields- not the sieges shown most often on youtube) there are actual mountains with roads zig zag up to elevated ledges, giant boulders strewn slowing movement in some approaches, opening to a valley with forests and fields with churches, houses, random buildings all on varied slopes. If only had such a battle map with Wood Elves in Warhammer...
    YouTube, it takes over your mind and guides you to strange places like tutorials on how to talk to a giraffe.
  • cooldudecooldude Junior Member Posts: 13Registered Users
    edited July 2017
    I agree.

    The thing that puts Warhammer: Total War(WTW) above the rest is the different play styles and mechanics that are accompanied by each faction. I also like that it is more narrative driven than the previous TW titles. I like stories in my video games, and I'm glad Creative Assembly(CA) is putting more of a focus on it.
  • tgoodenowtgoodenow Senior Member Posts: 777Registered Users
    It's very good, I just wish it was a bit more challenging. Confederations make the game too easy; but without them the AI doesn't expand.
  • Lin_HuichiLin_Huichi Posts: 195Registered Users
    Xenos7 said:

    Sindriss said:

    Medieval II is a superior game in every way. This is not opinion but fact.

    I'm sure there are lots of peer reviewed studies confirming it...

    Actually, Med II was the game that made me almost swear off the saga (which is among my favorite of all times). The countless micro-armies raiding your territory every turn, the terrible manual replacements, it was all so grindy I've still nightmares about it. I'm so happy the series was streamlined, coming Empire, and was so happy about automated transports and leader-only armies in Rome II that I easily forgave the bugs at release.
    Vice versa. I was eventually gutted by the linear army management, puddle deep city system and all round streamlined campaign experience which slaughtered my game time, for a veteran (Medieval 1) its too much. There is little strategy at all now making the newer games dirt easy leading to boredom very quickly. Battles against the AI with no context are uneventful as there is no time to view the units before it collapses from the wind.

    Shogun 2 was the last total war that actually engaged and defeated me. Its not my favourite, but it is the masterpiece.

    I realised this after playing Total war battles: Kingdoms and being horrified that it reminded me of Rome 2.
  • GoslingGosling Senior Member Posts: 1,887Registered Users
    Really? Med 2 and R1 were pretty easy, I found.
    "I'm gonna stomp 'em to dust. I'm gonna grind their bones. I'm gonna burn down dere towns and cities. I'm gonna pile 'em up inna big fire and roast 'em. I'm gonna bash heads, break faces, and jump up and down on the bits that are left.


    An' den I'm gonna get really mean."

    Grimgor Ironhide, Black Orc Warboss.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 19,581Registered Users
    edited July 2017

    Bel_Isar said:

    Bel_Isar said:

    Warhammer isn´t the best Total War yet but it has by far the most potential to gain that title. It just needs to be a bit fleshed out ... general battlefield diversity.

    I have to say this made me laugh out loud. Saying Warhammers battlefield diversity needs improvement when compared to previous TW is ludicrous.
    Previous Games had Rivers, Bridges, Settlements. Warhammer doesn´t have that, instead you fight on ever repeating battlefields in the Empire for example. Laugh if you need to, doesnt improve the amount of differend battlefields though...
    Bridge and River Crossing Battles were just Instawin types of deals since you were given a convenient bottleneck you could plug with little effort. In the older TW games they were even worse because the bridge was so narrow and the AI always crammed all its troops at once onto them. I'm not sad seeing them go.

    Do people miss diversity or do they miss the cheese?
    River crossing battles were a reward for good placement on the campaign map - choke points didn't magically appear on the battle map.
    Yeah, sorry, but that's like saying taking candy from a toddler is a reward for having a discerning eye. No-brainer tactics are never rewarding. They're insulting to the player and only appealing for people who want cheap victories. You also didn't need to be all that clever to make use of them because the AI would always run headfirst into your waiting armies.

    Stop pretending the older games needed masterful strategies to beat. The primitive AI was its own greatest enemy.

  • Mogwai_ManMogwai_Man Posts: 2,939Registered Users

    Bel_Isar said:

    Bel_Isar said:

    Warhammer isn´t the best Total War yet but it has by far the most potential to gain that title. It just needs to be a bit fleshed out ... general battlefield diversity.

    I have to say this made me laugh out loud. Saying Warhammers battlefield diversity needs improvement when compared to previous TW is ludicrous.
    Previous Games had Rivers, Bridges, Settlements. Warhammer doesn´t have that, instead you fight on ever repeating battlefields in the Empire for example. Laugh if you need to, doesnt improve the amount of differend battlefields though...
    Bridge and River Crossing Battles were just Instawin types of deals since you were given a convenient bottleneck you could plug with little effort. In the older TW games they were even worse because the bridge was so narrow and the AI always crammed all its troops at once onto them. I'm not sad seeing them go.

    Do people miss diversity or do they miss the cheese?
    River crossing battles were a reward for good placement on the campaign map - choke points didn't magically appear on the battle map.
    Yeah, sorry, but that's like saying taking candy from a toddler is a reward for having a discerning eye. No-brainer tactics are never rewarding. They're insulting to the player and only appealing for people who want cheap victories. You also didn't need to be all that clever to make use of them because the AI would always run headfirst into your waiting armies.

    Stop pretending the older games needed masterful strategies to beat. The primitive AI was its own greatest enemy.
    So true, people try and recall previous total war titles with rose colored lenses. Even in Shogun 2 (which I liked) had its issues with AI, one of the most notorious of which was how the AI recklessly throw its general into harms way.

    Attila which some people praise for its in depth mechanics was still plagued by atrocious AI behavior.
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Posts: 9,989Registered Users

    Bel_Isar said:

    Bel_Isar said:

    Warhammer isn´t the best Total War yet but it has by far the most potential to gain that title. It just needs to be a bit fleshed out ... general battlefield diversity.

    I have to say this made me laugh out loud. Saying Warhammers battlefield diversity needs improvement when compared to previous TW is ludicrous.
    Previous Games had Rivers, Bridges, Settlements. Warhammer doesn´t have that, instead you fight on ever repeating battlefields in the Empire for example. Laugh if you need to, doesnt improve the amount of differend battlefields though...
    Bridge and River Crossing Battles were just Instawin types of deals since you were given a convenient bottleneck you could plug with little effort. In the older TW games they were even worse because the bridge was so narrow and the AI always crammed all its troops at once onto them. I'm not sad seeing them go.

    Do people miss diversity or do they miss the cheese?
    River crossing battles were a reward for good placement on the campaign map - choke points didn't magically appear on the battle map.
    Yeah, sorry, but that's like saying taking candy from a toddler is a reward for having a discerning eye. No-brainer tactics are never rewarding. They're insulting to the player and only appealing for people who want cheap victories. You also didn't need to be all that clever to make use of them because the AI would always run headfirst into your waiting armies.

    Stop pretending the older games needed masterful strategies to beat. The primitive AI was its own greatest enemy.
    Give me the odd river battle over blank canvas #9213 that we currently have. At least it adds variety to the open plains we have to fight in even in high mountain ranges.
    "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~
  • SniperBob177SniperBob177 Posts: 289Registered Users
    Only just come back to PC, but played the Original Shogun 1 at the time on a P133.

    Brought the new PC for TWW specifically ~15 years on, but been steadily collecting a back catalogue of TW from steam sales.

    Been enjoying Rome 2 Emperor Edition as Sparta this weekend.

    Playing this one feels more like TWW.

    Originally brought Attila but couldnt get into it.

    -------

    Think TWW is the best so far, enjoy the game mechanic of TW, but warhammer really brings it up. (Then again I always found history dull!!)

    Would like to see another fantasy element in future TW releases. But World War 1 or 2 could be good.

    Lol TW 40k!!
  • CPTANTCPTANT Posts: 42Registered Users
    Good riddance to chokepoints

    In Rome you justp lace a phalanx on a bridge or in the narrow settlement streets, such skill.

    In medieval 2 you could easily kill 4 mongol stacks using one army holding a bridge. Balistas just murdered those tightly packed troops. Or use those Turkish grenade throwers.


    The only thing I dislike about TW:WH maps is that I can't see **** when my army is in a forest.
  • seienchinseienchin Senior Member Posts: 4,571Registered Users
    CPTANT said:

    Good riddance to chokepoints

    In Rome you justp lace a phalanx on a bridge or in the narrow settlement streets, such skill.

    In medieval 2 you could easily kill 4 mongol stacks using one army holding a bridge. Balistas just murdered those tightly packed troops. Or use those Turkish grenade throwers.


    The only thing I dislike about TW:WH maps is that I can't see **** when my army is in a forest.

    Both are valid complaints for Rome and Medieval 2 but pretty unrelated to bridge battles overall. It makes sense that the defender gets a bonus - that is why river crossings were so difficult - but in Shogun 2, rome 2 and Attila bridge battles were more engaging and less easy due to having alternative crossing paths.

    In the end its again the question that ironically also plagued warhammer fantasy until the end:
    Simulation aspects vs gameplay aspects

    Sure bridge battles make it easier for the player but then again that is exactly what happend in real life warhammer all the time so why scrap it?
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 19,581Registered Users

    Bel_Isar said:

    Bel_Isar said:

    Warhammer isn´t the best Total War yet but it has by far the most potential to gain that title. It just needs to be a bit fleshed out ... general battlefield diversity.

    I have to say this made me laugh out loud. Saying Warhammers battlefield diversity needs improvement when compared to previous TW is ludicrous.
    Previous Games had Rivers, Bridges, Settlements. Warhammer doesn´t have that, instead you fight on ever repeating battlefields in the Empire for example. Laugh if you need to, doesnt improve the amount of differend battlefields though...
    Bridge and River Crossing Battles were just Instawin types of deals since you were given a convenient bottleneck you could plug with little effort. In the older TW games they were even worse because the bridge was so narrow and the AI always crammed all its troops at once onto them. I'm not sad seeing them go.

    Do people miss diversity or do they miss the cheese?
    River crossing battles were a reward for good placement on the campaign map - choke points didn't magically appear on the battle map.
    Yeah, sorry, but that's like saying taking candy from a toddler is a reward for having a discerning eye. No-brainer tactics are never rewarding. They're insulting to the player and only appealing for people who want cheap victories. You also didn't need to be all that clever to make use of them because the AI would always run headfirst into your waiting armies.

    Stop pretending the older games needed masterful strategies to beat. The primitive AI was its own greatest enemy.
    Give me the odd river battle over blank canvas #9213 that we currently have. At least it adds variety to the open plains we have to fight in even in high mountain ranges.
    Blank canvas? Are you playing exclusively in the badlands? Everywhere else has anything but blank canvas maps.

  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIPosts: 7,147Registered Users

    Blank canvas? Are you playing exclusively in the badlands? Everywhere else has anything but blank canvas maps.

    Compared to most old TWs, these maps are very sparse. Little hills, small forests, lots of wide corridors.
    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
Sign In or Register to comment.