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

What the first game do better than the second

ArchimondeArchimonde Junior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 62
edited January 14 in General Discussion
Greetings,

It was about six months, I decided to stop playing to TWWH2, waiting the release of TWW3.

But recently, I played again to the first TWW. Since the second opus, I’ve never touched this game. My main goal was to see how the series has progressed since 2016 and do some Steam achievements in the process. I thought I will be shocked by the improvements and the new features that are presents in the second game …

But NOT AT ALL!

What TWW1 do better than TWW2
- Dark atmosphere
- True Chaos Invasion, feeling a narrative progression and real threat
- Regional Occupation, making the game more loreful and prevent snowballing. Minors factions can more resist to invaders.
- Less powerful Magic, so less cheesy and more strategic
- Less powerful red tree skills for Lords, making the game less cheesy too

What TWW2 has fixed that lacked in TWW1
- Spell direction, the first thing I noticed and was really lacking!
- Races reworked - E.g. Wood Elves were uninteresting in TWW1 / Grudges for Dwarves were boring, etc.
- Less Quest missions - Really boring to do for unlocking legendary items. Now Legendary Lords have max. one or two.

And that's all … So not so much than I expected.

Often, I had more pleasure playing some Races, like Norsca or Vampire Counts, in the first game than in game two.

Did I miss some features? What is your personal opinion? Can you go back to TWW1?

Thanks for reading and please forgive my poor English.

Archimonde
«1

Comments

  • SerPusSerPus Registered Users Posts: 8,118

    Regional Occupation, making the game more loreful

    It isn't loreful in any way.
  • ArchimondeArchimonde Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 62
    edited January 14
    SerPus said:

    Regional Occupation, making the game more loreful

    It isn't loreful in any way.
    Unfortunately, yes.
    It is maybe not good for the sandbox part of the game, but better for the game progression and the storyline. Simply because the IA tend to less colonize ruins.

    For example
    Some minor factions, like Estalia could survive turn 100
    Norsca is not new Bretonnia
    Greenskins are raiding the Empire, not colonizing it.

  • RikRiorikRikRiorik Registered Users Posts: 11,614
    I actually don’t like that many things in TWW1 over TWW2. For me TWW2 is clearly the superior game. Better lighting in TWW1 for me. Also the regional occupation had it’s charms even though I prefer the current system if push comes to shove.

    I expect I will feel the same about TWW3 over TWW2. It being better in most aspects.

    That still doesn’t mean it can’t still be lacking in key aspects.
    Lord of the Undermountain and your friendly neighbourhood giant (Dwarf)
  • Clsmith88Clsmith88 Registered Users Posts: 220
    edited January 14
    SerPus said:

    Regional Occupation, making the game more loreful

    It isn't loreful in any way.
    Made lore sense with how Norsca is presented as a frozen, resource-scarce, monster-infested and daemon-touched hellworld where settled agriculture is impossible and the only Humans populating it have adapted and mutated to the environment over thousands of years. Now with the climate nonsense any weakling southerner can set up his own homestead in the corrupted snows while new towns spring up everywhere. I didn't get into warhammer fantasy lore until WH1's release, but you can't tell me that RO wasn't loreful inanyway when Norsca is a prime example of it making perfect loreful sense.
  • mw51630mw51630 Member Registered Users Posts: 2,158

    SerPus said:

    Regional Occupation, making the game more loreful

    It isn't loreful in any way.
    Unfortunately, yes.
    It is maybe not good for the sandbox part of the game, but better for the game progression and the storyline. Simply because the IA tend to less colonize ruins.

    For example
    Some minor factions, like Estalia could survive turn 100
    Norsca is not new Bretonnia
    Greenskins are raiding the Empire, not colonizing it.

    If you mean game progression/stroyline as "Game always ends with Dwarfs in charge of the mountains and Vampires in the fields," then sure.

    Folks seem to be retconning their own experiences with Game 1, because those campaigns all ended nearly the same way unless you the player actively fought to prevent them by snuffing out the VC or Dwarfs in the cradle. Isn't really loreful at all.
  • OldblackeyesOldblackeyes Registered Users Posts: 182
    edited January 14
    Better lighting and consequently atmosphere is about it for me. I l also felt it was often a bit more challenging, maybe it was just a matter of being less experienced but it definitely felt harder. It also had less OP abilities both in campaign and battle. I HATED the regional occupation, playing vamps and trying to deal with the South of the map was a boring grinding slog.
  • NeodeinosNeodeinos Registered Users Posts: 14,294

    Better lighting and consequently atmosphere is about it for me. I l also felt it was often a bit more challenging, maybe it was just a matter of being less experienced but it definitely felt harder. It also had less OP abilities both in campaign and battle. I HATED the regional occupation, playing vamps and trying to deal with the South of the map was a boring grinding slog.

    Yup, the lighting and atmosphere of the first game was amazing. Sad CA didn't go with something similar for WH3.

  • SerPusSerPus Registered Users Posts: 8,118
    Clsmith88 said:

    Norsca is presented as a frozen, resource-scarce, monster-infested and daemon-touched hellworld where settled agriculture is impossible

    And how is that not a climate thing?
    Clsmith88 said:

    Now with the climate nonsense any weakling southerner can set up his own homestead in the corrupted snows while new towns spring up everywhere.

    The problem is that AI ignores climate debuffs.



  • General_HijaltiGeneral_Hijalti Registered Users Posts: 4,916
    If Warhammer 2 had regional occupation (which isn't loreful at all) High Elves would only be able to occupy dark elf lands ans vice versa. Skaven only occupy lizardmen and vice versa.

    Empire, bretronia, Dwarfs, greenskins would all be screwed.


    Regional occupation made every game the same
  • Jote191Jote191 Registered Users Posts: 1,987
    Regional Occupation was kinda, how should say this..... terrible!!!
  • KoronusKoronus Registered Users Posts: 265

    If Warhammer 2 had regional occupation (which isn't loreful at all) High Elves would only be able to occupy dark elf lands ans vice versa. Skaven only occupy lizardmen and vice versa.

    Empire, bretronia, Dwarfs, greenskins would all be screwed.


    Regional occupation made every game the same

    Na Skaven with RO would be more of a totally different thing.
    Skaven would be able to settle everywhere but only as undercitys.
    So Altdorf could theorethically be at the same time Grade 5 Imperial Settlement as a Grade 5 Skaven Settlement.
    If the Skaven are noticed it would immediataly came to a fight between the overworldcityowner and the Skavens and the looser would be left in ruins.
    Additionally Skaven could willingly choose to reveal themselves first and go against the overworld
    But to prevent of abusement for 10 Rounds it will be clear that this settlement whas destroyed by Skaven and so everyone could attack them without needing to find the undercity.
  • kratostatickratostatic Registered Users Posts: 952
    Koronus said:

    If Warhammer 2 had regional occupation (which isn't loreful at all) High Elves would only be able to occupy dark elf lands ans vice versa. Skaven only occupy lizardmen and vice versa.

    Empire, bretronia, Dwarfs, greenskins would all be screwed.


    Regional occupation made every game the same

    Na Skaven with RO would be more of a totally different thing.
    Skaven would be able to settle everywhere but only as undercitys.
    So Altdorf could theorethically be at the same time Grade 5 Imperial Settlement as a Grade 5 Skaven Settlement.
    If the Skaven are noticed it would immediataly came to a fight between the overworldcityowner and the Skavens and the looser would be left in ruins.
    Additionally Skaven could willingly choose to reveal themselves first and go against the overworld
    But to prevent of abusement for 10 Rounds it will be clear that this settlement whas destroyed by Skaven and so everyone could attack them without needing to find the undercity.
    I mean a more involved undercity mechanic would have been very interesting, and your idea looks good. But that's got nothing to do with regional occupation.
  • JastalllJastalll Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,708
    The lighting in game 1 is nicer for Empire and Counts.

    Norsca is a lot more fun in game 1 when your enemies are weaker.


    ...That's about it. Game 1 is just barebones when compared to game 2. Especially playing the factions that got revamped. Imagine playing Greenskins, WEs, Beastmen in their WH1 incarnation after playing the revamps, that would be a huge downgrade. Even Dwarfs, Vampires and Empire. No runes, no Forge, no Elector Counts and units, no Empire wide events, no Bloodlines, no Kemmler in Bretonnia. Just Offices, Grudges and Raise Dead as mechanics.

    And while regional occupation did slow/stop AI blobs, it did so at far too high a cost. The game is better off without it. And hell the presence of AI blobs isn't a problem, the same factions being said blobs 80% of the time is the problem. But that's another discussion.
  • GreenColouredGreenColoured Registered Users Posts: 5,829
    I actually agree with TC about magic being weaker in game 1 being a good thing.

  • mewade44mewade44 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,844
    Definitely agree with better dark atmosphere and regional occupation.
  • ASyrianASyrian Registered Users Posts: 1,268
  • Rubz2293Rubz2293 Registered Users Posts: 550
    Less overpowered **** ranged units and single entities.

    WH1 might possibly have less bugs than WH2,but with CA you never know.
  • ArchimondeArchimonde Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 62
    edited January 15
    ASyrian said:


    That's why I asked for your opinion and if I forget something important.
    But sadly, nowadays, people prefer criticize other opinions that create and argue their own.

    But anyway, I can go to the following conclusions:

    Region Occupation (TWW1) or Climate Occupation (TWW2) are still debated. The community is divided. Nothing new.

    Excepting reworked factions, and of course I already pointed the improvement, nobody tells me another good argument.

    I noticed TWW2 is closer to TWW1 that everybody thinks. The improvements were too limited in opinion.
    It seems that TWW3 will change more things : Siege reworked, new diplomacy features, magic systeme, etc.

    Have a good day !

    Archimonde
  • ArchimondeArchimonde Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 62
    edited January 15
    Rubz2293 said:

    Less overpowered **** ranged units and single entities.

    WH1 might possibly have less bugs than WH2,but with CA you never know.

    Yes, good point. TWW2 was more buggy than TWW1.

    But I forget one thing in favor of TWW2 ; DLCs are far more better and nobody can deny that.
  • MalikvanIsztarMalikvanIsztar Registered Users Posts: 24
    Warhammer 1 had better and darker atmosphere yes but Regional Occupation was the worst thing in the entire game. You weren't allowed or even you were limited to fight your nemesis while destroying other factions was impossible becasue you destroy their city and couldn't capture it and some other faction could leaving you to point 1 again. I played greenskins and I finished game in turn 437 because of this **** 'Regional occupation" system. I prefer system as it is in Warhammer 2 and those who do not agree are either trolls or people who do like to destroy fun for others. This game chronology is not lorewise because it is sandbox game mostly for fun direction and its lore is about factions and units plus some juicy stories made by GW and CA that's all. Do not "destroy game" becasue you prefer "regional occupation" for damn "lore" sake.
  • Rubz2293Rubz2293 Registered Users Posts: 550

    Rubz2293 said:

    Less overpowered **** ranged units and single entities.

    WH1 might possibly have less bugs than WH2,but with CA you never know.

    Yes, good point. TWW2 was more buggy than TWW1.

    But I forget one thing in favor of TWW2 ; DLCs are far more better and nobody can deny that.
    Not was more buggy. Is still more buggy.
  • MaedrethnirMaedrethnir Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 15,075
    I liked that settlements changed their visuals after capture in Game1.
  • General_HijaltiGeneral_Hijalti Registered Users Posts: 4,916
    Koronus said:

    If Warhammer 2 had regional occupation (which isn't loreful at all) High Elves would only be able to occupy dark elf lands ans vice versa. Skaven only occupy lizardmen and vice versa.

    Empire, bretronia, Dwarfs, greenskins would all be screwed.


    Regional occupation made every game the same

    Na Skaven with RO would be more of a totally different thing.
    Skaven would be able to settle everywhere but only as undercitys.
    So Altdorf could theorethically be at the same time Grade 5 Imperial Settlement as a Grade 5 Skaven Settlement.
    If the Skaven are noticed it would immediataly came to a fight between the overworldcityowner and the Skavens and the looser would be left in ruins.
    Additionally Skaven could willingly choose to reveal themselves first and go against the overworld
    But to prevent of abusement for 10 Rounds it will be clear that this settlement whas destroyed by Skaven and so everyone could attack them without needing to find the undercity.
    Given that orca couldn't settle anywhere with ir, skaven wouldn't be able to either
  • ThomashuThomashu Registered Users Posts: 463
    As a Total War player (since Rome 1), I hated Regional Occupation.

    In Total War, we always had the freedom to conquer whatever city we liked.

    Not only Regional Occupation was affecting the replayability of the game, it was also making each race more predictable.
  • OldblackeyesOldblackeyes Registered Users Posts: 182
    I didn't really comment on what 2 did better just only on what 1 did better. In terms of 2's improvements, just off the top of my head;

    better faction diversity, better and more faction specific campaign mechanics, better battle mechanics ie murderous prowess, more varied start positions, faster turn times, several qol improvements such as camera settings and directional wind spells, battles at sea, sea treasures.

    I liked the narrative and cutscenes of the vortex if not the battles it created. Quest battles were generally better, skrolks zombie horde battle was awesome.
  • IamNotArobotIamNotArobot Registered Users Posts: 5,272
    Regional Occupation is the worst mechanic ever.
  • ArchimondeArchimonde Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 62

    I didn't really comment on what 2 did better just only on what 1 did better. In terms of 2's improvements, just off the top of my head;

    better faction diversity, better and more faction specific campaign mechanics, better battle mechanics ie murderous prowess, more varied start positions, faster turn times, several qol improvements such as camera settings and directional wind spells, battles at sea, sea treasures.

    I liked the narrative and cutscenes of the vortex if not the battles it created. Quest battles were generally better, skrolks zombie horde battle was awesome.

    “Better faction diversity” - No, here are the playable factions in the base game in TWW2 (High Elves, Dark Elves, Skavens, Lizardmen, Bretonnia and Dwarves) and here are the factions in TWW1 (Empire, Greenskins, Dwarves, Vampire Counts, Bretonnia and Warriors of Chaos if you preorder). Not a clear difference. TWW2 without TWW1 doesn’t offer that much for a diversity.

    “Better faction mechanics” - Yes, all factions are in a better state now than before.

    "More varied stat positions" - Yes, I completely agree. Maybe the better argument I had heard for the moment.

    "Faster turn times" - No, TWW1 is clearly faster due to the number of factions.

    "Battle at sea" - Yes, it is a nice improvement due to the Great Ocean in TWW2. But in TWW1, you rarely fight at sea, so it’s not an important feature ...

    "Sea treasures" - No and yes in the same time - Despite being a good idea, the sea battles don’t vary (always fighting Vampire Coast), occur too much and are too much beneficial for the player.

    Have a nice day !
  • OldblackeyesOldblackeyes Registered Users Posts: 182

    I didn't really comment on what 2 did better just only on what 1 did better. In terms of 2's improvements, just off the top of my head;

    better faction diversity, better and more faction specific campaign mechanics, better battle mechanics ie murderous prowess, more varied start positions, faster turn times, several qol improvements such as camera settings and directional wind spells, battles at sea, sea treasures.

    I liked the narrative and cutscenes of the vortex if not the battles it created. Quest battles were generally better, skrolks zombie horde battle was awesome.

    “Better faction diversity” - No, here are the playable factions in the base game in TWW2 (High Elves, Dark Elves, Skavens, Lizardmen, Bretonnia and Dwarves) and here are the factions in TWW1 (Empire, Greenskins, Dwarves, Vampire Counts, Bretonnia and Warriors of Chaos if you preorder). Not a clear difference. TWW2 without TWW1 doesn’t offer that much for a diversity.

    “Better faction mechanics” - Yes, all factions are in a better state now than before.

    "More varied stat positions" - Yes, I completely agree. Maybe the better argument I had heard for the moment.

    "Faster turn times" - No, TWW1 is clearly faster due to the number of factions.

    "Battle at sea" - Yes, it is a nice improvement due to the Great Ocean in TWW2. But in TWW1, you rarely fight at sea, so it’s not an important feature ...

    "Sea treasures" - No and yes in the same time - Despite being a good idea, the sea battles don’t vary (always fighting Vampire Coast), occur too much and are too much beneficial for the player.

    Have a nice day !
    I slightly disagree on faction diversity Even with just the base game you can still play against all the game 1 factions.
    I'd be interested to see a comparison of turn times game 1 vs 2. It may be just my ailing memory but I feel like post potion of speed game 2 was quicker. You certainly get more for your money in that regard I.e. more factions per second.

    I would also add larger and more diverse rosters, although that is DLC dependent.
  • KoronusKoronus Registered Users Posts: 265

    Koronus said:

    If Warhammer 2 had regional occupation (which isn't loreful at all) High Elves would only be able to occupy dark elf lands ans vice versa. Skaven only occupy lizardmen and vice versa.

    Empire, bretronia, Dwarfs, greenskins would all be screwed.


    Regional occupation made every game the same

    Na Skaven with RO would be more of a totally different thing.
    Skaven would be able to settle everywhere but only as undercitys.
    So Altdorf could theorethically be at the same time Grade 5 Imperial Settlement as a Grade 5 Skaven Settlement.
    If the Skaven are noticed it would immediataly came to a fight between the overworldcityowner and the Skavens and the looser would be left in ruins.
    Additionally Skaven could willingly choose to reveal themselves first and go against the overworld
    But to prevent of abusement for 10 Rounds it will be clear that this settlement whas destroyed by Skaven and so everyone could attack them without needing to find the undercity.
    I mean a more involved undercity mechanic would have been very interesting, and your idea looks good. But that's got nothing to do with regional occupation.
    I just wanted to show that General Hijalti is wrong because he said:
    Skaven only occupy lizardmen
    and I wanted to show that Skaven would not be only with Lizardman but everywhere.
    That and with this idea the Skaven danger would be actually more feasonable. Because right now you actually now very obvious where the skaven are because they are the only one that leave ruins behind as beast man make it visitable with being a blood ground and Norsca and WoC leave shrines and the rest has no real reason to make a ruin.
    So RO would actually make Skaven more believeable as it is not uncommon for ruins to be there and with the idea you do not have as a skaven to decide between creating undercities and expanding their regions.
  • NihtantuelNihtantuel Registered Users Posts: 174
    Regional occupation sucks all the balls that are found across the world. You can't defend it with 'Lore'.

    If Norscans, Empire and Estalia can occupy jungle cities - regional occupation doesn't work. Same applies to Sudenburg. The mere existence of those defeats the argument entirely.

    Greenskins can literally live anywhere. For them it is just an arbitrary mechanic.

    The dead do not care. Literally. Neferata and Walach Harkon both have their keeps in the mountains.

    High Elves owned most of the world at one point. Including literal elven cities built in Norsca and the fact that Kislev was an elven colony before it became a human city. It is clear that to them the climate thing didn't mean jack at their hay day.

    Lizardmen are literally able to manipulate the geological composition of the land around them, if they happened to conquer the Empire - they would just turn it into the jungles (which in itself is kind of an arbitrary thing that jungles are in fact their habitat, when they can literally morph land as they please, but whatever, we are dealing with fantasy here).

    Dark Elves are living in the worst land imaginable. If they can live there - they can easily adapt to life literally anywhere else on the planet.

    Dwarves living in the mountains is literally just an extremely old fantasy trope. There is no reason humans can't live in dwarven cities. Which is precisely the reason even the lore acknowledges that they do, much like dwarves live in the human cities and lands with no distinct decrease in the quality of life or the alcohol level. Josef Bugman lived in human lands, not in dwarven mountains.
Sign In or Register to comment.