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

3 Kingdoms to Cathay

12345679»

Comments

  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 15,440Registered Users
    There also isn't the same logical path for those other races. There's a nice, clear path to Cathay's inclusion. It's not necessarily one that will be taken, but it's absolutely there.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 3,943Registered Users
    Sure, anything could happen. CA could've got all excited about adding Cathay and then been given a clear "no" by GW. I'm still looking forward to the line up. At least as soon as the G3 map is released we will have our answer.
  • RikRiorikRikRiorik Posts: 5,867Registered Users
    The OP seems plausible and Cathay could indeed be added. If something is well made it will sell. The Vampire Coast certainly proves that thesis even if it playwise isn’t my cup of tea (or coffee in my case).

    I’d buy the ficticious Cathay I’ve concocted in my mind for sure.

    I don’t even think there’s a snowballs chance in the sun that it’ll happen because cynicism is what keeps my elation in check and stops me from being sad when my own conjurations of things to be turn out to be false.
    Lord of the Undermountain
    Favourite campaigns: Clan Angrund, Followers of Nagash and the new Huntsmarshall’s Expedition
  • Ares354Ares354 Posts: 1,802Registered Users

    @Ares354 You've been proven wrong. Trying to claim a 12 page thread in discussing Cathay doesn't count because reasons just doesn't cut it.

    So were amozons, Albion and every single minor race you can think of. I don't see why it matters. They were unlikely to be included then and they are unlikely now

    Cathay's certainly unlikely, but there's a definite logical path to its inclusion. It'd be a good add for game 3.
    What was proven ? That Cathay is a thing because 3k was success. Yes, Araby will be in game 2 because their land is on map, oh wait, they arent.
  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Posts: 5,374Registered Users
    edited August 19
    Ares354 said:

    Draxynnic said:

    Ares354 said:

    Draxynnic said:

    Ares354 said:

    Ares354 said:

    Sbygneus said:

    Ares354 said:

    The Chaos/mono gods are the main feature of the game. I'm saying Kislev isn't big enough in terms of ability to fight off Chaos. Empire is.. Cathay is, Kislev? No.


    Empire had no chance to push Chaos off from Kislev if there was not support from both HE and Dwarfs ? If Teclis wouldnt show up, Empire would fall. Kislev army faught too that day.
    Chaos rarely attacks, but when they do, it's the Empire and Dwarfs who are the guys who save the Old World. Kislev gets trampled over almost immediately. The Old World can't win without the Empire and Dwarfs.. without Kislev, I think they'd be ok.
    kislev tramped immediately? Read more fluff. I see you really invented an idea of forcing Cathay at the cost of removing Kislev. It shall NOT pass, you wont get Cathay this way because CA won't betray Warhammer. China might be big market but its customers would buy next game any way. I have nothing more to say about the obscure faction of Cathay.
    Cathay would compliment Kislev nicely.
    Cathay was born in minds od some people because of 3k. Why that faction was dead way before this game ? or even game 2? because 3k was not here.
    Nonsense, as usua in this thread. Cathay was being brought up way before 3k was even announced.
    Prove it.
    Three Kingdoms was announced January 2018.

    The map I posted earlier showing that Cathay could be included in a map that didn't include Ind or Nippon was make in October 2017, and was originally made when someone tried to make the argument that you couldn't include Cathay without including the entire Orient back then.

    Because I expect you won't take my word for it, here's a screenshot showing the timestamp (I've whited out the location because the location shows part of my real name and I'm not inclined to give it out THAT easily):


    That was prove ? That some random dude search hard some obscure faction to include ? Show me how MUCH more topic where created about Cathay and demands to inculde them after 3k and before it.
    Didn't have to search hard - it was in my documents folder, just a matter of checking the file creation date to show that I made it before the 3K announcement. Took less time to find it than it did to make the screenshot of it.

    But if you want hard searching... here's a thread I found with about ten minutes searching (although, admittedly, I probably have a better idea of which keywords to use than you would). Dated... January 2017, a year before 3K was announced.

    If that isn't enough proof that Cathay was being discussed well before Three Kingdoms, I don't know what is.
    If discussed and demanded same thing in your vocabulary?


    Let's look at the actual chain of posts here:
    Ares354 said:

    Cathay was born in minds od some people because of 3k. Why that faction was dead way before this game ? or even game 2? because 3k was not here.

    Nonsense, as usua in this thread. Cathay was being brought up way before 3k was even announced.

    Ares354 said:

    Prove it.

    You didn't ask for proof that Cathay was being demanded, just that people had it in mind prior to 3K. That has been conclusively demonstrated.

    Besides, if we are going to debate over linguistic technicalities... in an economic sense, "demand" is the combination of desire for a product or service and the willingness and capacity to pay for that product. I don't think anybody expects Cathay to come for free, whether it's rolled into the price of TWW3 or a separate DLC. Thereby, discussion of it on the forum equals people who are willing to buy it if it was produced, and therefore discussion does equal demand. QED.

    (PS: I would note that it's certainly true that 3K has led to an upsurge of attention, but that's to be expected. Thrones caused an upsurge in attention on Albion too, and that's arguably even more anachronistic.)
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 15,440Registered Users
    Ares354 said:

    @Ares354 You've been proven wrong. Trying to claim a 12 page thread in discussing Cathay doesn't count because reasons just doesn't cut it.

    So were amozons, Albion and every single minor race you can think of. I don't see why it matters. They were unlikely to be included then and they are unlikely now

    Cathay's certainly unlikely, but there's a definite logical path to its inclusion. It'd be a good add for game 3.
    What was proven ? That Cathay is a thing because 3k was success. Yes, Araby will be in game 2 because their land is on map, oh wait, they arent.
    You claimed Cathay wasn't discussed before 3K. This is factually false. You asked for a standard of proof that was met but you yourself refuse to meet.

    Simply put you are on an objective level wrong.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • Ares354Ares354 Posts: 1,802Registered Users

    Ares354 said:

    @Ares354 You've been proven wrong. Trying to claim a 12 page thread in discussing Cathay doesn't count because reasons just doesn't cut it.

    So were amozons, Albion and every single minor race you can think of. I don't see why it matters. They were unlikely to be included then and they are unlikely now

    Cathay's certainly unlikely, but there's a definite logical path to its inclusion. It'd be a good add for game 3.
    What was proven ? That Cathay is a thing because 3k was success. Yes, Araby will be in game 2 because their land is on map, oh wait, they arent.
    You claimed Cathay wasn't discussed before 3K. This is factually false. You asked for a standard of proof that was met but you yourself refuse to meet.

    Simply put you are on an objective level wrong.
    I claim two thing, that Cathay was not discussed before 3k, and was not demanded before 3k. In one, I was proven wrong, in second I was not.

    Because of 3k, every Cathay fanboy will now sacrifice even race with bigger Lore for their "child"
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 18,359Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    edited August 20
    Stop the personal bickering in the chitchat. Stay on thread topic and don't express derogatory remarks about opposing opinions or their authors.


    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 15,440Registered Users
    RikRiorik said:

    The OP seems plausible and Cathay could indeed be added. If something is well made it will sell. The Vampire Coast certainly proves that thesis even if it playwise isn’t my cup of tea (or coffee in my case).

    I’d buy the ficticious Cathay I’ve concocted in my mind for sure.

    I don’t even think there’s a snowballs chance in the sun that it’ll happen because cynicism is what keeps my elation in check and stops me from being sad when my own conjurations of things to be turn out to be false.

    I'm hopeful it'll happen. Realistically it's unlikely, but it could be a pure positive.

    If it doesn't s'all good, but hopefully it does.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 3,943Registered Users
    Ares354 said:

    Ares354 said:

    @Ares354 You've been proven wrong. Trying to claim a 12 page thread in discussing Cathay doesn't count because reasons just doesn't cut it.

    So were amozons, Albion and every single minor race you can think of. I don't see why it matters. They were unlikely to be included then and they are unlikely now

    Cathay's certainly unlikely, but there's a definite logical path to its inclusion. It'd be a good add for game 3.
    What was proven ? That Cathay is a thing because 3k was success. Yes, Araby will be in game 2 because their land is on map, oh wait, they arent.
    You claimed Cathay wasn't discussed before 3K. This is factually false. You asked for a standard of proof that was met but you yourself refuse to meet.

    Simply put you are on an objective level wrong.
    I claim two thing, that Cathay was not discussed before 3k, and was not demanded before 3k. In one, I was proven wrong, in second I was not.

    Because of 3k, every Cathay fanboy will now sacrifice even race with bigger Lore for their "child"
    Cathay was talked about before 3K; no one here is demanding Cathay.

    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/156153/warhammer-far-east-cathay-nippon-ind-and-beyond/p1

    The difference here is as far as I can see those that support Cathay are part of the forum that rarely, if ever, demand anything from CA. However, there are those who create constant threads about changes they are demanding from CA.
  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Posts: 5,374Registered Users
    edited August 20

    Ares354 said:

    Ares354 said:

    @Ares354 You've been proven wrong. Trying to claim a 12 page thread in discussing Cathay doesn't count because reasons just doesn't cut it.

    So were amozons, Albion and every single minor race you can think of. I don't see why it matters. They were unlikely to be included then and they are unlikely now

    Cathay's certainly unlikely, but there's a definite logical path to its inclusion. It'd be a good add for game 3.
    What was proven ? That Cathay is a thing because 3k was success. Yes, Araby will be in game 2 because their land is on map, oh wait, they arent.
    You claimed Cathay wasn't discussed before 3K. This is factually false. You asked for a standard of proof that was met but you yourself refuse to meet.

    Simply put you are on an objective level wrong.
    I claim two thing, that Cathay was not discussed before 3k, and was not demanded before 3k. In one, I was proven wrong, in second I was not.

    Because of 3k, every Cathay fanboy will now sacrifice even race with bigger Lore for their "child"
    Cathay was talked about before 3K; no one here is demanding Cathay.

    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/156153/warhammer-far-east-cathay-nippon-ind-and-beyond/p1

    The difference here is as far as I can see those that support Cathay are part of the forum that rarely, if ever, demand anything from CA. However, there are those who create constant threads about changes they are demanding from CA.
    I demand Archmages! And Slann improvements!

    All else are... suggestions.

    (Unless, of course, you consider "demand" to be in the economic sense.)
  • Ares354Ares354 Posts: 1,802Registered Users

    Ares354 said:

    Ares354 said:

    @Ares354 You've been proven wrong. Trying to claim a 12 page thread in discussing Cathay doesn't count because reasons just doesn't cut it.

    So were amozons, Albion and every single minor race you can think of. I don't see why it matters. They were unlikely to be included then and they are unlikely now

    Cathay's certainly unlikely, but there's a definite logical path to its inclusion. It'd be a good add for game 3.
    What was proven ? That Cathay is a thing because 3k was success. Yes, Araby will be in game 2 because their land is on map, oh wait, they arent.
    You claimed Cathay wasn't discussed before 3K. This is factually false. You asked for a standard of proof that was met but you yourself refuse to meet.

    Simply put you are on an objective level wrong.
    I claim two thing, that Cathay was not discussed before 3k, and was not demanded before 3k. In one, I was proven wrong, in second I was not.

    Because of 3k, every Cathay fanboy will now sacrifice even race with bigger Lore for their "child"
    Cathay was talked about before 3K; no one here is demanding Cathay.

    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/156153/warhammer-far-east-cathay-nippon-ind-and-beyond/p1

    The difference here is as far as I can see those that support Cathay are part of the forum that rarely, if ever, demand anything from CA. However, there are those who create constant threads about changes they are demanding from CA.
    Nah, thing like Cathay is more important player then Kislev, Cathay can be extended and so on are not demands, only suggestion that because of 3k, we should just abandon DoW and Kislev in favor of Cathay.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 15,440Registered Users
    I definitely see a possibility CA implements Cathay as part of a broader strategy.

    T'would be good.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 3,943Registered Users
    Ares354 said:

    Ares354 said:

    Ares354 said:

    @Ares354 You've been proven wrong. Trying to claim a 12 page thread in discussing Cathay doesn't count because reasons just doesn't cut it.

    So were amozons, Albion and every single minor race you can think of. I don't see why it matters. They were unlikely to be included then and they are unlikely now

    Cathay's certainly unlikely, but there's a definite logical path to its inclusion. It'd be a good add for game 3.
    What was proven ? That Cathay is a thing because 3k was success. Yes, Araby will be in game 2 because their land is on map, oh wait, they arent.
    You claimed Cathay wasn't discussed before 3K. This is factually false. You asked for a standard of proof that was met but you yourself refuse to meet.

    Simply put you are on an objective level wrong.
    I claim two thing, that Cathay was not discussed before 3k, and was not demanded before 3k. In one, I was proven wrong, in second I was not.

    Because of 3k, every Cathay fanboy will now sacrifice even race with bigger Lore for their "child"
    Cathay was talked about before 3K; no one here is demanding Cathay.

    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/156153/warhammer-far-east-cathay-nippon-ind-and-beyond/p1

    The difference here is as far as I can see those that support Cathay are part of the forum that rarely, if ever, demand anything from CA. However, there are those who create constant threads about changes they are demanding from CA.
    Nah, thing like Cathay is more important player then Kislev, Cathay can be extended and so on are not demands, only suggestion that because of 3k, we should just abandon DoW and Kislev in favor of Cathay.
    Can someone decipher please.
  • FinishingLastFinishingLast Posts: 4,122Registered Users

    Ares354 said:

    Ares354 said:

    Ares354 said:

    @Ares354 You've been proven wrong. Trying to claim a 12 page thread in discussing Cathay doesn't count because reasons just doesn't cut it.

    So were amozons, Albion and every single minor race you can think of. I don't see why it matters. They were unlikely to be included then and they are unlikely now

    Cathay's certainly unlikely, but there's a definite logical path to its inclusion. It'd be a good add for game 3.
    What was proven ? That Cathay is a thing because 3k was success. Yes, Araby will be in game 2 because their land is on map, oh wait, they arent.
    You claimed Cathay wasn't discussed before 3K. This is factually false. You asked for a standard of proof that was met but you yourself refuse to meet.

    Simply put you are on an objective level wrong.
    I claim two thing, that Cathay was not discussed before 3k, and was not demanded before 3k. In one, I was proven wrong, in second I was not.

    Because of 3k, every Cathay fanboy will now sacrifice even race with bigger Lore for their "child"
    Cathay was talked about before 3K; no one here is demanding Cathay.

    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/156153/warhammer-far-east-cathay-nippon-ind-and-beyond/p1

    The difference here is as far as I can see those that support Cathay are part of the forum that rarely, if ever, demand anything from CA. However, there are those who create constant threads about changes they are demanding from CA.
    Nah, thing like Cathay is more important player then Kislev, Cathay can be extended and so on are not demands, only suggestion that because of 3k, we should just abandon DoW and Kislev in favor of Cathay.
    Can someone decipher please.
    Waaah I don't want Cathay!
    I am incredibly mad and angry at whatever someone insinuated could possibly, but not likely, happen in the WH series today and CA must answer for this with an explanation of why they might possibly, but didn't do this!!!
  • Arthas_MenethilArthas_Menethil Senior Member Posts: 5,263Registered Users

    Ares354 said:

    Ares354 said:

    Ares354 said:

    @Ares354 You've been proven wrong. Trying to claim a 12 page thread in discussing Cathay doesn't count because reasons just doesn't cut it.

    So were amozons, Albion and every single minor race you can think of. I don't see why it matters. They were unlikely to be included then and they are unlikely now

    Cathay's certainly unlikely, but there's a definite logical path to its inclusion. It'd be a good add for game 3.
    What was proven ? That Cathay is a thing because 3k was success. Yes, Araby will be in game 2 because their land is on map, oh wait, they arent.
    You claimed Cathay wasn't discussed before 3K. This is factually false. You asked for a standard of proof that was met but you yourself refuse to meet.

    Simply put you are on an objective level wrong.
    I claim two thing, that Cathay was not discussed before 3k, and was not demanded before 3k. In one, I was proven wrong, in second I was not.

    Because of 3k, every Cathay fanboy will now sacrifice even race with bigger Lore for their "child"
    Cathay was talked about before 3K; no one here is demanding Cathay.

    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/156153/warhammer-far-east-cathay-nippon-ind-and-beyond/p1

    The difference here is as far as I can see those that support Cathay are part of the forum that rarely, if ever, demand anything from CA. However, there are those who create constant threads about changes they are demanding from CA.
    Nah, thing like Cathay is more important player then Kislev, Cathay can be extended and so on are not demands, only suggestion that because of 3k, we should just abandon DoW and Kislev in favor of Cathay.
    Can someone decipher please.
    Waaah I don't want Cathay!
    Orcs? and so far from Auckland.
    So...the Light's vaunted justice has finally arrived. Shall I lay down Frostmourne and throw myself at your mercy, Fordring?

Sign In or Register to comment.