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

40k total war would def be nasty good (regardless of what others have been saying)

them_apples89them_apples89 Posts: 12Registered Users
I feel like when people downplay this idea they are assuming it has to be like Dawn of war which was heavily squad based like the table top game. In the fluff though though I think a modern total war game could pull it off. Multiple planets and sections you could take over - so much room for customization and tactical options.

It wouldn't need some advanced cover system, they already have terrain effects in place like wading through water or forests. I am sure modifiers could be used to make a workable cover system.

The only feature I think the engine would need is destructible environments (which are due for total war by now).

The total war engine is getting more and more powerful as time goes on IMO.

Sorry noob poster, used to be a big DoW modder though years ago
«1

Comments

  • CaesarSahlertzCaesarSahlertz Posts: 1,933Registered Users
  • dchip1dchip1 Posts: 536Registered Users
    Yeah I'd love a 40k total war game though I think it'd probably be the biggest redesign combat needed in the series. But hell they went from historical titles to crazy fantasy with flying monsters, walking zombie pirate ships, rat guys with lightening guns, and magic spells everywhere so I'm sure they could pull it off.

    I just got into 40k a year ago because of the Total War fantasy games and I'd love to see all the crazy factions and units done in the Total War style of big real time battles and turn based grand campaigns.
  • GingerRoeBroGingerRoeBro Senior Member Posts: 3,041Registered Users
    edited December 2018
    Yep I think it'll happen, people said that total war warhammer was a horrible idea and never happen or utterly fail..... :blush:

    The success that dawn of war 1 and its exspansions had makes me think it will eventually have a successor as.........

    40k Total War!

    Plus There's already a form of "campaign" already done in dark crusade and soulstorm that would be just great with a few adjustments :smile: .

    I mean really, we already got steam tanks, dwarf helicopters, Greater Daemon of Tzeentch, with handgunners, cannons, artillery and magic with all kinds of melee. Not that far of a stretch at this point to me to think they might try 40k.
    Plus they already had garrison able structures in empire and napoleon which were also destructible too (I think)
    Post edited by GingerRoeBro on
    Bigger Budget for game 3?

    They're gonna need it for all of the monogod glory.
    Which will be the "4 distinct gods representing the different aspects of Chaos such as Khorne, Slaanesh, Tzeentch, and Nurgle." :blush: ^CA quote

    Thank you CA for seeing them as what they truly are.
    Let the Games Begin!
    https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/The_Great_Game
  • Fear_The_WolfFear_The_Wolf Posts: 3,093Registered Users
    Two problems with this.

    First, people already have a measuring stick to be used as leverage against the game. You yourself pointed out the immediate comparison to DoW. And while DoW3 might have played without any of the weight and grit of the universe, feeling more like a glorified Star Craft clone with horrific balance issues, the other two (and their expansions) are remembered quite fondly. 2 for those who preferred the tactical side of things, 1 for those of traditional RTS preference. That fan base alone has existing expectations, on top of the already monumental expectations of a Total War and 40k fanbase. The hazard of entering in a popular franchise is never meeting impossible expectation.

    Compare this to Warhammer Fantasy. Warhammer Fantasy had been killed off and the wound was still fresh. CA didn't come in with impossible expectations, they were already the heroes sweeping in to resurrect the game. This is coupled with the extremely dated competition in the game industry it faced. 40K is still far from unpopular under any artistic medium.

    Second, the style of gameplay IS dependant on the squad based play. This was heavily represented on the TT. Units fought in formation in Warhammer Fantasy. Literal blocks of troops woth clearly defined movements and occupation area. Movement was almost a game of tetris. Units in 40k don't fight in formation. They rely on extremely flexible squad based cohesion. And apart from a few nid lists and Guard, were never fielded in the numbers you'd find in Warhammer Fantasy. You could heavily manipulate the movement system to make or break some fights in 40k.

    This is also coupled with the same logic that killed mass formations in real world. We stopped lining up in blocks of mass fire infantry the moment the machine gun was invented. WW1 taught the world that war was changing, and then WW2 showed everyone how. 40k had WW1 and WW2 38k years ago. A simple automatic weapon is the least of your concerns when the enemy has weapons that can atomize you and your closest 30 buddies in an instant. When their version of a tank has 11 barrels of bad news, 3 of which can flatten a building, 6 of which are automatic grenade lauchers in practice, and 2 of which can punch through a bunker like paper. You simply dont form up against that unless you really hate your existence. Even the Imperial Guard, who act as the closest thing to a traditional first rank second rank fire (one of their orders is literally called such), form up in formations that vary from planet to planet. With only a few relying on concrete and disciplined formations and the rest being quite a bit more flexible. If none the less disciplined for it. Cadia broke before the guard did.

    All of this is to say that the traditional Total War format involving large formations of troops fighting over relatively featureless terrain in defined blocks wouldn't work. Maps would become of critical importance. When you hide in a treeline it no longer just hides the unit, the unit scatter and takes cover when firing out. City scapes, ruins or not, that allow troops to break off sight lines from stuff like a baneblade, and block melee engagements. The default "squad" size would be no larger than the current small setting for most factions and nearly all units. The changes here are mostly due to Melee engagments being only half the fight, and frequently playing second fiddle. With whole factions being able to offer only token melee resistance. Mobile ranged combat is primary, with melee playing an almost surgical role in offense and defense most of the time. Even Orks can run gunline, and you know your opponent is doing so when he brings a bucket to role dice with and a calculator.

    On a positive note, this would make siege maps similar to Rome 2, Attila, etc. actually worth while. But almost all maps you fight on woukd require an equal level of detail. Clustering at the gates doesnt work if it just means you'll catch a really big explosive on all your troops. Gotta scatter out and use the terrain to your advantage, and retreat when necessary.
  • them_apples89them_apples89 Posts: 12Registered Users

    Two problems with this.

    First, people already have a measuring stick to be used as leverage against the game. You yourself pointed out the immediate comparison to DoW. And while DoW3 might have played without any of the weight and grit of the universe, feeling more like a glorified Star Craft clone with horrific balance issues, the other two (and their expansions) are remembered quite fondly. 2 for those who preferred the tactical side of things, 1 for those of traditional RTS preference. That fan base alone has existing expectations, on top of the already monumental expectations of a Total War and 40k fanbase. The hazard of entering in a popular franchise is never meeting impossible expectation.

    Compare this to Warhammer Fantasy. Warhammer Fantasy had been killed off and the wound was still fresh. CA didn't come in with impossible expectations, they were already the heroes sweeping in to resurrect the game. This is coupled with the extremely dated competition in the game industry it faced. 40K is still far from unpopular under any artistic medium.

    Second, the style of gameplay IS dependant on the squad based play. This was heavily represented on the TT. Units fought in formation in Warhammer Fantasy. Literal blocks of troops woth clearly defined movements and occupation area. Movement was almost a game of tetris. Units in 40k don't fight in formation. They rely on extremely flexible squad based cohesion. And apart from a few nid lists and Guard, were never fielded in the numbers you'd find in Warhammer Fantasy. You could heavily manipulate the movement system to make or break some fights in 40k.

    This is also coupled with the same logic that killed mass formations in real world. We stopped lining up in blocks of mass fire infantry the moment the machine gun was invented. WW1 taught the world that war was changing, and then WW2 showed everyone how. 40k had WW1 and WW2 38k years ago. A simple automatic weapon is the least of your concerns when the enemy has weapons that can atomize you and your closest 30 buddies in an instant. When their version of a tank has 11 barrels of bad news, 3 of which can flatten a building, 6 of which are automatic grenade lauchers in practice, and 2 of which can punch through a bunker like paper. You simply dont form up against that unless you really hate your existence. Even the Imperial Guard, who act as the closest thing to a traditional first rank second rank fire (one of their orders is literally called such), form up in formations that vary from planet to planet. With only a few relying on concrete and disciplined formations and the rest being quite a bit more flexible. If none the less disciplined for it. Cadia broke before the guard did.

    All of this is to say that the traditional Total War format involving large formations of troops fighting over relatively featureless terrain in defined blocks wouldn't work. Maps would become of critical importance. When you hide in a treeline it no longer just hides the unit, the unit scatter and takes cover when firing out. City scapes, ruins or not, that allow troops to break off sight lines from stuff like a baneblade, and block melee engagements. The default "squad" size would be no larger than the current small setting for most factions and nearly all units. The changes here are mostly due to Melee engagments being only half the fight, and frequently playing second fiddle. With whole factions being able to offer only token melee resistance. Mobile ranged combat is primary, with melee playing an almost surgical role in offense and defense most of the time. Even Orks can run gunline, and you know your opponent is doing so when he brings a bucket to role dice with and a calculator.

    On a positive note, this would make siege maps similar to Rome 2, Attila, etc. actually worth while. But almost all maps you fight on woukd require an equal level of detail. Clustering at the gates doesnt work if it just means you'll catch a really big explosive on all your troops. Gotta scatter out and use the terrain to your advantage, and retreat when necessary.

    while you make some good point about the squad movement, I don't think the other issues are as big as you make it seem. TW warhammer is already fitted with huge spells and explosions, cannons, even machine guns now and walkers - it wouldn't be such a stretch to make a 40k game. Obviously the engine would be updated, but not a total overhaul. It is a total war game not a close quarters tactical game. In the fluff 40k battles were enormous. If anything total war could really realize the whole space marines low number eliteness and the tyranids and orks high number swarming tactics. There is a ton of flexibility and uniqueness in 40k armies that would be amazing in total war.

    There is literally already Mortars and dwarf flame cannons, 40k is not such a stretch really out side of a better cover system. It would be total war 40k not total war : dawn of war
  • them_apples89them_apples89 Posts: 12Registered Users
    Also to add to this you got chameleon skinks firing on the move like marine scouts not in a block formation. The code is already there. These things don't require an engine overhaul. Throw a few bells and whistles in there and a massive dynamic map with multiple planets and territories, bonuses for owning stuff etc, different loadouts etc = greatest game ever made
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,859Registered Users
    edited December 2018
    Oh boy do I want this.

    Y'all think I'm an Ogres fan just wait till you see me in full on Tyranid hype mode;




    I had a 2,000 pt army of these bad boys back in the day.

    While we're here I'll point out that the Tyranids don't really represent anything new from my perspective.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • them_apples89them_apples89 Posts: 12Registered Users

    Oh boy do I want this.

    Y'all think I'm an Ogres fan just wait till you see me in full on Tyranid hype mode;




    I had a 2,000 pt army of these bad boys back in the day.

    While we're here I'll point out that the Tyranids don't really represent anything new from my perspective.

    It would be unreal. In general a campaign map in the 40k uni would be madness. The scale and epicness would be a new level of savagery
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,859Registered Users
    edited December 2018
    Thing is Warhammer 40k is a much better representation of Warhammer than WHFB because it's just massively over the top. The Tyranids are a perfect example of that, they're massively over powered, they infect a planet to the point where once they land it'll take thousands of years to eradicate them, they can evolve to counter weapons used against them in the same battle, they are an a single mind spread across multiple galaxies determined to consume everything. And y'know what? Everything else in WH40k is on that same level of madness. The Tyranids are massively over powered, but they fight the Tau? Get blown to bits, Imperial Guard? Just as numerous full of fanatics with guns, Space Marines? Delicious DNA but boy do they pack a punch.

    WHFB can't have that, they've got 1 planet. They can't have it consumed till it's nothing but a lifeless rock.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • TaitleachTaitleach Posts: 72Registered Users
    I'm agree with Fear_The_Wolf. Total War gameplay dosen't fit modern fight.

    Better waiting a new Dawn of war (Who don't suck like the III)
  • Fear_The_WolfFear_The_Wolf Posts: 3,093Registered Users
    Taitleach said:

    I'm agree with Fear_The_Wolf. Total War gameplay dosen't fit modern fight.

    Better waiting a new Dawn of war (Who don't suck like the III)

    Not exactly what I was getting at.

    There are problems inherent to the current set up of Total War in regards to how 40k would fit in. Especially on the battle maps. But with a drastic overhaul of the battle system, not so different from how Total War Warhammer and Total War Empire don't play at all alike, there is potential. The idea of a 40k game is there. Total War 3K is also changing it up quite a bit. There's a trend going on in Total War, which renders the idea of a 40k game believable if only by virtue of the possibility of them massively altering the battle system to accommodate.
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Posts: 801Registered Users
    Sure it would be good and it wouldn't be hard to do. As you said battle wise there isn't much difference compared to TW:W and even campaign wise it's not difficulty because there is no need for stellar warfare a campaign on a single planet would be enough like Relic did it with Kronus in Dark Crusade if GW give them the right to create a own conflict or just use one of the existing once.

    Like others said CA faced the same reactions when they announced TW:W and its their biggest success and takeing into account that the 40K fanbase is larger than the WH:FB fanbase I doubt that it would fail to find its customers especially now that CA learnd from TW:W what is important to the fanbase and whats less important because there are quiet some differences compared to the historical fans.
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Posts: 4,092Registered Users

    Sure it would be good and it wouldn't be hard to do. As you said battle wise there isn't much difference compared to TW:W and even campaign wise it's not difficulty because there is no need for stellar warfare a campaign on a single planet would be enough like Relic did it with Kronus in Dark Crusade if GW give them the right to create a own conflict or just use one of the existing once.

    Like others said CA faced the same reactions when they announced TW:W and its their biggest success and takeing into account that the 40K fanbase is larger than the WH:FB fanbase I doubt that it would fail to find its customers especially now that CA learnd from TW:W what is important to the fanbase and whats less important because there are quiet some differences compared to the historical fans.

    I wouldn't say it's the same reaction. The entire premise of TW:WH40K doesn't fit with anything a total war game is at it's core. The reaction to TW:WH was just the fanatical historical fans freaking out about maybe not getting a new historical title in the next 4 years. CA always wanted to make a WH:FB game. The technology just wasn't there back then.
  • HoneyBunHoneyBun Senior Member Posts: 4,508Registered Users
    This would make me extremely happy!

    They are making an FPS. Who knew a company could have a mid-life crisis ...

  • Raul77Raul77 Posts: 27Registered Users
    It's gonna happen. It's not even hard for them to design and program.

    As for formations they never fought skaven with alith anar. What line? 😂

    Smaller unit and it's going to be amazing.

    GW will just need to see the $ and OT will happen.
  • TayvarTayvar Posts: 10,592Registered Users
    edited December 2018
    Well Total War: Warhammer 3 is not out yet, CA had not even finished with the current Trilogy, and Total War Games was never featuring a modern/futuristic setting, and there are reasons for that.
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Posts: 801Registered Users

    Sure it would be good and it wouldn't be hard to do. As you said battle wise there isn't much difference compared to TW:W and even campaign wise it's not difficulty because there is no need for stellar warfare a campaign on a single planet would be enough like Relic did it with Kronus in Dark Crusade if GW give them the right to create a own conflict or just use one of the existing once.

    Like others said CA faced the same reactions when they announced TW:W and its their biggest success and takeing into account that the 40K fanbase is larger than the WH:FB fanbase I doubt that it would fail to find its customers especially now that CA learnd from TW:W what is important to the fanbase and whats less important because there are quiet some differences compared to the historical fans.

    I wouldn't say it's the same reaction. The entire premise of TW:WH40K doesn't fit with anything a total war game is at it's core. The reaction to TW:WH was just the fanatical historical fans freaking out about maybe not getting a new historical title in the next 4 years. CA always wanted to make a WH:FB game. The technology just wasn't there back then.
    Wasn't there also an arguement that fantasy "doesn't fit with anything a total war game is at it's core"?
    I don't see any reason why 40K wouldn't be doable and a good choice once TW:W is finished.
    I bet if there where wider modding options there would be already 40K mods.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,859Registered Users
    Tayvar said:

    Well Total War: Warhammer 3 is not out yet, CA had not even finished with the current Trilogy, and Total War Games was never featuring a modern/futuristic setting, and there are reasons for that.

    What are those reasons exactly?
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • Fear_The_WolfFear_The_Wolf Posts: 3,093Registered Users
    I think the point you're missing, and the point I was making, is that Total War 40k would be strange if it still involved blocks of units comprising a 20 stack in the basic movements we have in a current Total War game.

    A squad of Space Marines is 10 dudes, so the map would need to be scaled in. And before you argue that we could still have units of 100 plus sizes, not a chance in hell. Space Marine Chapters hardly ever number more than 1000. And while I'm all for fudging the numbers some, every game has done it so far, there is a limit. You want to claim 250 Space Marines died, as in DoW, on the field? Well that would cripple a Space Marine Chapter but sure, suspension of disbelief. I'll pretend they were just incapacitated and rapidly revived. You field multiple armies of 20 Tacticals Marine Units of 60 and I am absolutely calling ****. **** one of these armies is horseshit, let alone 2 or 3. The scale doesn't match the setting. We could leave Space Marines at God Tier outnumbered 100 to 1 in each fight, to match the scale of the lore. But there's a reason TT doesn't go that rout, it would be impossible to balance. So scale the setting in. 10 Marines per 1 squad. Other faction go somewhere between that number and 50 men to an infantry unit, like Imperial Guard.

    So now we've got smaller battles among smaller numbers of troops. Well that's great. Smaller maps means more time to develop that which is on the map. Could add things like functional cover. Especially since we're dealing with smaller units that will encounter tanks capable of leveling a hillside in a single shot. Or evaporate swaths of reality. Or suck you into the warp. Or flaying you alive, armor and all, via Gauss Flayers. So cover on a smaller map with less units. Putting emphasis on fine tuned tactics and micro decisions.....wait this is starting to sound like DoW2.

    See the problem?

    Personally, as I pointed out above, I AM NOT OPPOSED TO THIS. If we had DoW2 / Mark of Chaos sized and styled battles but with Total War Campaign Maps and some form of Total War army development I would play the hell outta that game. But the current battle system does not fit the setting. That's the argument.
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Posts: 801Registered Users
    Thats also no fitting arguement because WH:FB also used less models than TW:W uses.
    There is Warhammer Epic as an example of how 40K in larger scale looks like and it look pretty much like TW:W from the scale.
  • TayvarTayvar Posts: 10,592Registered Users

    Tayvar said:

    Well Total War: Warhammer 3 is not out yet, CA had not even finished with the current Trilogy, and Total War Games was never featuring a modern/futuristic setting, and there are reasons for that.

    What are those reasons exactly?
    The reason is that many modern/futuristic features are very different from the Total War formula.
  • Fear_The_WolfFear_The_Wolf Posts: 3,093Registered Users

    Thats also no fitting arguement because WH:FB also used less models than TW:W uses.
    There is Warhammer Epic as an example of how 40K in larger scale looks like and it look pretty much like TW:W from the scale.

    You are very good at attempting to dodge what I actually put down. In Warhammer Fantasy, there is no measuring stick for unit sizes, other than that Total War is actually short changing it. Armies in Fantasy Lore are larger in general with no one particular faction having a problem with fielding the numbers we see in game. Even Elves fall back on the "as much as the plot demands" argument. 2000 deaths in battle no one bats an eye.

    40k does have that problem. There are limits to the Chaos Legions, though maybe not Demons. There are limits to the Space Marines. The Eldar. The Dark Elder exist within a specific and limited section of their cut of the webway. Tau are **** miniscule in number compared to their competitors. This isn't just a population measurement. They take to field in numbers indicative of this.

    If the Space Marines deploy an entire chapter, something that rarely occurs save the most desperate situations, it's still only 1000 guys. This number can of course be manipulated to fit the game, and changes depending on the Chapter. Raven Guard having far less and Black Tenplar having far more. But it changes only so far before it becomes untenable. Even the most Elite factions in a TW game can burn 1000 guys in a single fight let alone a campaign. That's like condeming the entire Ultramarine faction to death in one go. While a welcome prospect, it doesn't fit. They need the smaller more condensed fights. And if the Space Marines, flagship of the 40k franchise, operate in those numbers other factions are bound to 2 options. One, we make the disparity between unit strength and numbers huge. Imagine if every Chaos Space Marine was a hero option in TWW. Two, we make the game fit the narrative limits of the numbers factions field. Which, since the **** lore establishes these numbers, is the safer option. Yea, I'd like to see 10 First Company Veterans hold off a million Tyranids. No, its not good gameplay. This is in conjunction with the novel of reasons I wrote above this entry.

    And again, I like the idea of TW 40k. Just adopt the smaller tactical battles of DoW 2. Scale up the maps just enough tk accomidate the larger armies you'll see. But instead of building in the battle, you bring to fight with what you built.

    Three Kingdoms actually might present an even better way to approach the recruitment system as well. Remains to be seen. But as the game is RIGHT NOW, not what it could be, 40k could not work.
  • AbmongAbmong Posts: 1,139Registered Users
    @Fear_The_Wolf I don't think it would be weird at all. If we're talking comparisons with TW:WH it would just be like someone fielding 20 small elite units instead of the larger meat shield units.

    One unit in an SM army would = 1 squad of 10 marines. An army stack of 20 units would be effective 1 SM company with some Tanks and vehicles added.

    image

    Battle maps don't need to be smaller at all.

    The asymmetry can just be fixed with unit stats hp. armour etc. 1 squad of 10 SM would be roughly equal to 1 platoon of Imp guards and so on.
    Total War: Warhammer IV - Cathay, Ind, Nippon, Khuresh (+ Lost Vampire Bloodlines, Monkey kingdom DLC) :#
  • Fear_The_WolfFear_The_Wolf Posts: 3,093Registered Users
    Abmong said:

    @Fear_The_Wolf I don't think it would be weird at all. If we're talking comparisons with TW:WH it would just be like someone fielding 20 small elite units instead of the larger meat shield units.

    One unit in an SM army would = 1 squad of 10 marines. An army stack of 20 units would be effective 1 SM company with some Tanks and vehicles added.

    image

    Battle maps don't need to be smaller at all.

    The asymmetry can just be fixed with unit stats hp. armour etc. 1 squad of 10 SM would be roughly equal to 1 platoon of Imp guards and so on.

    Yea one army stack of 20 units = 1 SM company. Sounds great and would be the optimal way of building the army set ups.

    Okay that's 100 Space Marines. I have a unit of Empire Swordsmen with more than 100 models in it. If we take into consideration Dreadnaughts, Rhinos, any armored support, and hell if we supplement with 9th and 10th company you still take up about as much real estate on the current maps as half of a current army. Being generous because we have at most 100 guys on the field including the guys operating the tanks. We could cut the map size in half and you'd still have as much play as a full stack in the TWW does. Rather then twist it to fit, embrace the idea of having fights between only 100-500 guys rather then 1000-3000 guys.

    Scale the maps down accordingly, and add in the detail necessary to facilitate the difference in tactics made necessary by most weapons carried by infantry in 40k making lightning cannons look like children's toys. Cover, buildings, functional terrain, and ways to conceal and advance those surgical melee assaults that can make or break a fight in 40k. That sort of thing. Because keeping the current system will frequently devolve into two armies just standing trading shots with one another until one side quits twitching. That would be boring.
  • CrossilCrossil Posts: 4,999Registered Users
    edited December 2018
    I would by far prefer an RTS over Total War.

    And if you think they'll build up maps with such grand designs for a game that requires serious redesign to its gameplay already when they didn't do that already in Fantasy you're fooling yourself.
    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Posts: 801Registered Users
    @Fear_The_Wolf 40K has far more "bodies" available than FB. Lorewise there haven been whole chapters wiped out or nearly wiped out in battles, than there are chapters who are so scattered around the universe that their real numbers aren't clear and widley surpass the codex strength while others haven't reached full strength in a long time. CSM can vanish into the warp like DC and rarely really die. Just because SM are the "race" with the lowest body count doesn't mean 40K can't be done, lets see how they do OK because they will be the most similar faction to SM. Even Eldar and DE are far more numerous than the whole FB universe, and I would love to see some Harlequins jumping around and try to not get eaten by some cute Nids.

    And just because Ultrasmurfs are so freaked about the codex I would like to see them get extinct any day, they just deserve it. The less a chapter cares about the codex the more fun it is.
  • them_apples89them_apples89 Posts: 12Registered Users
    edited December 2018
    Crossil said:

    I would by far prefer an RTS over Total War.

    And if you think they'll build up maps with such grand designs for a game that requires serious redesign to its gameplay already when they didn't do that already in Fantasy you're fooling yourself.

    where else will they rein-invest all this money they have made? they can't just go back to old history games, which are cool but have sort of ran their time already. Updating the engine for some firepower would open up new worlds for games, 40k, ww2, modern..etc...and THEY have, vamp coast armies feature walker, cannons, machine guns and even a mega cannon lol.

    As for the numbers thing, that is hardly a game breaking reason to not make 40k total war. there are plenty of ways around that.

    I think after hammer 3 people will be even more believing in a 40k game.
  • AbmongAbmong Posts: 1,139Registered Users
    @GettoGecko True.

    @Fear_The_Wolf Spacemarines count in the tens, if not hundreds of thousands. 1 chapter is roughly 1,000 Spacemarines. According to lore there are 1,000 chapters. Thats about 1 million Spacemarines give or take. Some chapters are not at full strength, but there are also others that don't follow the codex astartes (Spacewolves and Black Templars etc) and have more than 1,000 Spacemarines.

    There are other elite forces like the Sisters of Battle who are divided into six Orders, each numbering tens of thousands of Battle Sisters, and many Orders Minoris, each containing thousands of Sisters themselves. That's not including the Lesser Orders Militant. Altogether they number milions of Sisters of battle.

    The Traitor Legions number anywhere from 10,000 to more than 250,000 each. There's 9 Traitor Legions, so about 2 million Chaos Spacemarines not including the smaller warbands. CSM replenish their lost ranks with gene seeding the same as SM. But CSM seed cultists and slaves with their original Traitor Legion seed or the seeds havested from fallen loyalist SM they've killed. They also occationally get recruits from SM newly turned to Chaos worship.

    Then there's the Imperial Guard regiments... They're not standardized but there are tens of thousands of regiments, each with tens of thousands of soldiers numbering Billions in total.

    The "endangered" Eldar population counts in the billions, Each Craftworld having a population of a few billion. Even the decimated Craftworlds like Iyanden and Altansar count their populations in the millions. Each Craftworld can field tens of thousands of Eldar Guadians if not more like hundreds of thousands. There are hundreds of aspect shires on each of the smaller Craftworlds. Thousands on the larger ones.

    An small Ork Waaagh! has thousands of Orks. A Great Waaagh! has millions.

    Each Tyrannid Hive fleet number a few billion nids, split into tendrils each numbering millions of organisms.

    40K numbers are astronomical when compared to WHFB so millions lost in a single battle isn't uncommon. Entire SM chapters have been known to be lost to a single battle and multiple chapters lost in a war.

    ie Six Blood Angels successor chapters were destoyed in the Devastation of Baal during the 3rd Tyrannic War(against Hive Fleet Leviathan).
    Total War: Warhammer IV - Cathay, Ind, Nippon, Khuresh (+ Lost Vampire Bloodlines, Monkey kingdom DLC) :#
  • DarkLordOfDarknessDarkLordOfDarkness Posts: 240Registered Users
    edited December 2018
    Might be a little off topic, but am I the only one, who prefers WHFB and AoS (oh sigmar, you'll all kill me, won't you?) over 40K?
    Post edited by DarkLordOfDarkness on
  • CrossilCrossil Posts: 4,999Registered Users

    Crossil said:

    I would by far prefer an RTS over Total War.

    And if you think they'll build up maps with such grand designs for a game that requires serious redesign to its gameplay already when they didn't do that already in Fantasy you're fooling yourself.

    where else will they rein-invest all this money they have made? they can't just go back to old history games, which are cool but have sort of ran their time already. Updating the engine for some firepower would open up new worlds for games, 40k, ww2, modern..etc...and THEY have, vamp coast armies feature walker, cannons, machine guns and even a mega cannon lol.
    Because I don't really like Total War by any measure. I like Dawn of War and compared to Total War Warhammer I consider it a superior franchise and looking at shortcuts they took in Total War Warhammer I'd much prefer them not doing 40k because they'll just do more shortcuts than even with Fantasy.

    I known it's conceptually possible to imagine a total war 40k game but I don't consider that it'll be as impressive as Dawn of War had done 40k because the Total War format is already being stretched for Fantasy. Siege battles are significantly downplayed from historical titles and the campaign map took a long, long time to get some depth in. Taking into account that core tenets of 40k are also significantly different from any other games CA made it stands to reason they'll, again make shortcuts.

    At least Dawn of War had entire engagements you could have but Total War limits you to whatever troops you bring to the battle, which to me is a massive downgrade from bttles in Dawn of War.

    Hell, I'd probably prefer RTS Fantasy game over TWW.
    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT
Sign In or Register to comment.