Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 17, 2017, 06:39:04 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
Donate! | Subscribe! | Shop: Amazon

***DONATION DRIVE 2 HAS BEGUN:
CLICK HERE TO BURN MONEY***
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  PC/Console Gaming  |  Topic: Total Warhammer 0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Total Warhammer  (Read 14675 times)
Big Gulp
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3060


on: January 15, 2015, 10:54:22 AM

Accidentally/purposely leaked.  

Like an abused wife I'll be buying this on day one.  Creative Assembly keeps hurting me, BUT YOU DON'T KNOW THEM LIKE I DO.  I anticipate a festival of DLC where every minor (ie, interesting) faction will be locked behind a paywall.
Mortriden
Terracotta Army
Posts: 344


Reply #1 on: January 15, 2015, 11:36:41 AM

I will most likely also buy this... then let it sit uninstalled for weeks while I work up the courage.  If they make a 40k version I may not be seen for months.

It's like calling shenanigans.  But you say "jihad" instead. - Llava
They are out there, but they are bi-products of funny families. If you know funny old people, see if they have daughters. -Paelos
Yes my seed is that strong. I literally clap my hands and women are with child. -Paelos
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17199


Reply #2 on: January 15, 2015, 12:17:07 PM

I'm assuming an RTS?

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
jakonovski
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4384


Reply #3 on: January 15, 2015, 12:18:12 PM

Ha, I give 50/50 chances that GW will have gone under before that thing sees the light of day.

Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 26600

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #4 on: January 15, 2015, 12:47:49 PM

They've flubbed every game after Medieval 2. They keep thinking their fans want more streamlining, or they at least say they do. The least fun part of a TW game is playing the battle maps over and over. I loved the large scale battle management, economics, towns, and agents on the big map. I could choose to influence certain battles with my intervention but let the regular ones play out as expected.

Rome took that out back and shot it. There's almost nothing you can do to influence battles anymore unless they are close. You are very unlikely to have heroic moments with the new system. It all comes down to a numbers game, and you're better off letting the CPU play out all the battles than getting involved unless it's 50-50. But most of the time it's completely outnumbered fights you don't want to play.

They killed off doing family lines. They killed off doing town windows and cool buildings. They killed up meaningful upgrades. They made it mostly about battles except the battles aren't that fun. Go figure. Basically they've taken the parts that differentiate them from any other battle simulator, and they murdered it with a gleeful smile.

Fuck them. I'm not going to be fooled anymore. They are now on the same basis as Ubisoft. Prove it well after release, because I'm never buying anything they do at release again.

CPA, Sports blogger, Mount and Blade enthusiast
Braves by the Numbers, my sports blog
Teleku
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8912

http://tinyurl.com/d89qk7g


Reply #5 on: January 15, 2015, 01:45:10 PM

Stop being such a hipster elitist.  Rome 2 is perfect for some people!   why so serious?


Seriously though, I thought Shogun 2 was the best game they did since the original Rome.  Everything about that was gravy.  Which is why Rome 2 turning out the way it did hurt so much.

Are these games mod friendly at all?  Seems like it actually wouldn't be too hard to make a turn based approximation of the table top game using the battle engine.  Take out the RTS, and a lot of the mechanics are pretty similar already.

"My great-grandfather did not travel across four thousand miles of the Atlantic Ocean to see this nation overrun by immigrants.  He did it because he killed a man back in Ireland. That's the rumor."
-Stephen Colbert
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280

Auto Assault Affectionado


Reply #6 on: January 15, 2015, 01:52:05 PM

Rome 2 is allegedly good now after all the patching, or so I read.

The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT.
Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
koro
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2234


Reply #7 on: January 15, 2015, 01:59:57 PM

I have heard that even after all the patches it's still a pile of shit.
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 26600

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #8 on: January 15, 2015, 02:07:28 PM

Rome 2 is allegedly good now after all the patching, or so I read.

I've played it. I love these games. It's playable but not fun. I wouldn't say it's good. About 5 hours into a game you realize you're not even playing most of the battles, and city sieges boil down to you stomping garrisons unless an army just happens to be in the neighborhood or making their last stand. And even then it's still mostly a numbers game.

I gave up.

CPA, Sports blogger, Mount and Blade enthusiast
Braves by the Numbers, my sports blog
IainC
Developers
Posts: 5743

Wargaming.net


WWW
Reply #9 on: January 15, 2015, 02:31:35 PM


I've played it. I love these games. It's playable but not fun. I wouldn't say it's good. About 5 hours into a game you realize you're not even playing most of the battles, and city sieges boil down to you stomping garrisons unless an army just happens to be in the neighborhood or making their last stand. And even then it's still mostly a numbers game.

I gave up.

That was pretty much my experience too. I thought it would be awesome and then realised after I'd got a little way into it that I was basically playing it like a Civ mod and I'd be having more fun if I just set up a Civ game with some very specific parameters.

- And in stranger Iains, even Death may die -

SerialForeigner Photography.
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 37711

Prevent all damage that would be dealt to you and other troops you control.


WWW
Reply #10 on: January 15, 2015, 02:52:27 PM

I gave up after the shitshow that was Shogun 2. The battles, which to me were the best part of the game, had turned into hyper-fast twitchy fests that were over after 1 clash of the lines. They seemed to lack any of the tactical finesse of the other games, even Empire. And it was crashy and filled with a memory leak, and this was a year after the game's release. I didn't even bother with Rome and it seems like I made a good choice with that. Wahammer? Had this come after Medieval Total War 2, I'd have been all over it. Fuck Creative Assembly now. They got a lot of making up to do.

Sky
Terracotta Army
Posts: 29150

I love my TV an' hug my TV an' call it 'George'.


WWW
Reply #11 on: January 15, 2015, 03:10:00 PM

Better than Cyanide?

HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 37711

Prevent all damage that would be dealt to you and other troops you control.


WWW
Reply #12 on: January 15, 2015, 03:46:58 PM

In the same way that herpes might be better than AIDS but really only slightly.

Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 26600

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #13 on: January 15, 2015, 03:53:14 PM

If they would go back and just do a graphical update to Medieval 2 with some new factions, and basically nothing else? It would sell better than anything new they've done.

CPA, Sports blogger, Mount and Blade enthusiast
Braves by the Numbers, my sports blog
Speedy Cerviche
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2422


Reply #14 on: January 16, 2015, 10:06:50 AM

Previously they have bounced back a bit after a serious flop... So I wonder if TW Attila will be polished?

I would concur that the studio has really gone downhill since Sega bought it.
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 26600

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #15 on: January 16, 2015, 10:25:25 AM

Previously they have bounced back a bit after a serious flop... So I wonder if TW Attila will be polished?

I would concur that the studio has really gone downhill since Sega bought it.

I'm assuming you mean Shogun 2 after empire? While I agree it was a bounce back, I still hated Shogun 2 for the same reasons. They stripped out the management parts of the game I liked, and the game refused to run after a few hours of play due to memory leaks.

CPA, Sports blogger, Mount and Blade enthusiast
Braves by the Numbers, my sports blog
Speedy Cerviche
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2422


Reply #16 on: January 16, 2015, 12:53:31 PM

I kind of liked the simplification direction which was started in Napoleon, and then Shogun 2. For the Medieval 2 style of the older games, by late game the micromanagement of all the unit recruiting/replenishment, then buildings , agents, cities got tedious.
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 26600

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #17 on: January 16, 2015, 01:04:06 PM

Running an empire isn't supposed to be easy.  why so serious?

The problem I have with their direction is it puts too much emphasis on battles, which with the way AI fucks up constantly has been the weakest part of the game since Medieval 2.

CPA, Sports blogger, Mount and Blade enthusiast
Braves by the Numbers, my sports blog
Speedy Cerviche
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2422


Reply #18 on: January 16, 2015, 01:15:38 PM

Yeah that's when Shogun 2 started getting tedious, especially on legendary difficulty, just an endless wave of AI stacks coming at you. It was satisfying to overcome that with a weaker starting clan, but not something you would want to do over an over. The naval battles were especially boring and tedious.
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 26600

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #19 on: January 16, 2015, 01:19:43 PM

Exactly, there needs to be balance, and there just wasn't. My idea of empire building is that you focus early on battles as a growing general, but as you expand over time your duties gear towards more administation. This is how it would work in real life. I want the game experience to match that. Not to say you can't as an emperor go out and influence battles, but not all of them.

However, you absolutely can dictate city growth and management. That's much more my speed. The current system doesn't allow that gameplay anymore. Buildings are so streamlined as to be totally useless, and corruption/fatigue or whatever they call it is crippling. Gone are the days you could build up your way to glory. It's all about micromanaging pissed off people.

CPA, Sports blogger, Mount and Blade enthusiast
Braves by the Numbers, my sports blog
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280

Auto Assault Affectionado


Reply #20 on: January 16, 2015, 02:06:18 PM

Well, I think the Total War series has always been meant to be more of a wargame than a 4X empire builder - I mean, it's right there in the name. I don't think the games were ever really great at doing the builder side of it, myself, and the main novelty of the series is the 'realistic' take on RTS battles.

The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT.
Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 26600

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #21 on: January 16, 2015, 02:26:29 PM

Well, I think the Total War series has always been meant to be more of a wargame than a 4X empire builder - I mean, it's right there in the name. I don't think the games were ever really great at doing the builder side of it, myself, and the main novelty of the series is the 'realistic' take on RTS battles.

The battles in Medieval 2 are fun. You siege cities and storm castles. You can defend a castle with 300 men against a force of 1500, and win through strategy.

I agree that I don't want TW to be a 4x empire game like we know of. But it is a 4x game still. It needs to polish those elements. It's supposed to be a blending of the 4x games with the RTS battles. I feel it's unbalanced right now.

CPA, Sports blogger, Mount and Blade enthusiast
Braves by the Numbers, my sports blog
Speedy Cerviche
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2422


Reply #22 on: January 16, 2015, 02:28:06 PM

Exactly, there needs to be balance, and there just wasn't. My idea of empire building is that you focus early on battles as a growing general, but as you expand over time your duties gear towards more administation. This is how it would work in real life. I want the game experience to match that. Not to say you can't as an emperor go out and influence battles, but not all of them.

However, you absolutely can dictate city growth and management. That's much more my speed. The current system doesn't allow that gameplay anymore. Buildings are so streamlined as to be totally useless, and corruption/fatigue or whatever they call it is crippling. Gone are the days you could build up your way to glory. It's all about micromanaging pissed off people.

I remember before RTW2 release what you're describing is how they were talking about the design direction. Generals more important, you can only directly control where you have a general, but less overall stacks all over map, less, but more decisive battles (expanding on army zone of controls). On the administration side they were trying to make it more interesting with regional centres, and divided provinces.

Anyway, they talked a good game, but in the end, the whole thing flopped because the execution was dismal. I haven't really been paying attention to if anything is going to be different in this upcoming Attila game.
Hoax
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7307

l33t kiddie


Reply #23 on: January 16, 2015, 02:46:07 PM

I thought Shogun 2 was great fun personally.

A nation consists of its laws. A nation does not consist of its situation at a given time. If an individual's morals are situational, then that individual is without morals. If a nation's laws are situational, that nation has no laws, and soon isn't a nation.
-William Gibson
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 26600

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #24 on: January 16, 2015, 02:48:57 PM

I remember before RTW2 release what you're describing is how they were talking about the design direction. Generals more important, you can only directly control where you have a general, but less overall stacks all over map, less, but more decisive battles (expanding on army zone of controls). On the administration side they were trying to make it more interesting with regional centres, and divided provinces.

Anyway, they talked a good game, but in the end, the whole thing flopped because the execution was dismal. I haven't really been paying attention to if anything is going to be different in this upcoming Attila game.

I remember that. They tried to make Generals more important, but ended up making them faceless assholes you couldn't care less about with no family line. The politics aspect of the game is laughable. It's like it got tacked on really late in the process because they remembered they fucked up family trees, but you don't even actually try to make your faction successful. If you do that you risk war! I mean, it's completely counter intuitive compared to the last game.

CPA, Sports blogger, Mount and Blade enthusiast
Braves by the Numbers, my sports blog
Teleku
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8912

http://tinyurl.com/d89qk7g


Reply #25 on: January 16, 2015, 03:20:17 PM

I thought Shogun 2 was great fun personally.
Ditto (as I mentioned before).  I felt Shogun 2 was one of their best releases.  I also had zero technical issues with it, so maybe that helps me out over some of the people here.

"My great-grandfather did not travel across four thousand miles of the Atlantic Ocean to see this nation overrun by immigrants.  He did it because he killed a man back in Ireland. That's the rumor."
-Stephen Colbert
Phildo
Contributor
Posts: 5148


Reply #26 on: January 16, 2015, 03:24:50 PM

Long loading times aside, Shogun 2 was (mostly) fantastic.
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 37711

Prevent all damage that would be dealt to you and other troops you control.


WWW
Reply #27 on: January 16, 2015, 03:27:38 PM

Well, I think the Total War series has always been meant to be more of a wargame than a 4X empire builder - I mean, it's right there in the name. I don't think the games were ever really great at doing the builder side of it, myself, and the main novelty of the series is the 'realistic' take on RTS battles.

The "realistic" battles were what drew me to the series. They were great in Medieval 2 and I even liked Empire (but I have a soft spot for that time period). From Napoleon on, the battles have been shortened, combat is now insanely deadly so that battles are over in less than 10-15 minutes and often way shorter than that. There seems no real ebb and flow to battles anymore, it's just crash into each other once then watch one side evaporate.

Teleku
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8912

http://tinyurl.com/d89qk7g


Reply #28 on: January 16, 2015, 03:55:02 PM

Hmm, thats a fair criticism.  Units do seem to break way to fast now.  I still loved the game as I mentioned, but I will grant that I'd have preferred if the combat pace was a bit slower.

"My great-grandfather did not travel across four thousand miles of the Atlantic Ocean to see this nation overrun by immigrants.  He did it because he killed a man back in Ireland. That's the rumor."
-Stephen Colbert
Comstar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1759


WWW
Reply #29 on: January 17, 2015, 05:12:30 AM

Rome Total War 2 after a years worth of patches is pretty good I found.

Please change the thread title to Total War: Hammer.

Defending the Galaxy, from the Scum of the Universe, with nothing but a flashlight and a tshirt. We need tanks Boo, lots of tanks!
tazelbain
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6603

tazelbain


Reply #30 on: January 17, 2015, 08:10:44 AM

Please change the thread title to War: Totally Hammered.

"Me am play gods"
NowhereMan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5905


Reply #31 on: January 20, 2015, 08:23:02 AM

I think one of the problems Rome 2 had was that they tried to really overhaul the Campaign Map in a way that doesn't really fit with traditional 4x thinking without really making that very clear. They removed the obvious branches for buildings, so which building line you pick doesn't make an enormous impact or if it does is a choice made very early on so that there's no late game deliberation about what to do with a city. They tried to replace that with choosing regional capitals and managing development levels over provinces (so that higher level buildings have negative effects so you're actively penalised for trying to tech up everything).

Now I'm not sure if this mechanic is a great idea or not but the implementation was terrible, primarily because it requires a pretty huge mindset change in a large aspect of gameplay that isn't really communicated to the player beyond the punishment of constant rebellions. Now it's possible that a player will respond to this by going, 'Damn this really isn't working. All that corruption, etc. is really upping unrest I better demolish some of my awesome buildings and take the tech hit to solve that,' but it's far, far more likely they're going to want to protect their shiny tech that a lifetime of gaming has taught them they should want and instead keep battering their head against that wall until they go 'fuck this game, it's bullshit'. This never gets explained to the player because there's no real guidance post tutorial and the tutorial doesn't cover any of the later game ideas or issues. And in the meantime they've removed the more obvious areas of strategic choice.

Also the general mechanic was crap, they totally removed the family management side of things. Hell in Rome it was pretty meaningless but at least the family tree and similar things let the players tell their own stories regarding the generals. This one could have worked better if there was some way of showing a general's relation to the faction and maybe involving them more in the politics side of things (getting them into elections that takes them out of the field for a bit but brings them back with better administrative traits). Of course that couldn't happen because they're focused on battles not governing.

"Look at my car. Do you think that was bought with the earnest love of geeks?" - HaemishM
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 26600

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #32 on: January 20, 2015, 08:48:09 AM

Generals in Rome had retinues, families, traits, positions of power. They were openly explained and readily apparent. Events would happen around them.

In Rome 2 you get a dumbed down version of that. You literally don't give a shit about any of your generals. When one dies, he's immediately replaced by one of three other robots. You probably can't even figure out where he died or who cares. It's a huge miss on their part. In Rome 1, losing your best general to battle or old age was enormous. Entire cities could rebel because of his death. Holds on areas could be lost. Armies could desert. In Rome 2? NEXT MAN UP!

The city management penalties were too big and stupid. You have to know that players love to improve and improve. And yet, in this game they have to plan way in advance exactly how they want to set up their province and likely destroy buildings and reset those goals as they go. That's not fun. That's not even how cities worked. It's ridiculous to think that having a larger fishing yard would be good, but a huge fishing yard would suddenly cause a gigantic penalty to your popular support in a region you entirely own.

CPA, Sports blogger, Mount and Blade enthusiast
Braves by the Numbers, my sports blog
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10284


Reply #33 on: January 20, 2015, 09:07:40 AM

The combined QA powers of games workshop and creative assembly will be something to behold.

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ­assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 37711

Prevent all damage that would be dealt to you and other troops you control.


WWW
Reply #34 on: January 20, 2015, 11:53:28 AM

Maybe they can get Cyanide in to do UI design and really produce a complete turd.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  PC/Console Gaming  |  Topic: Total Warhammer  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC