what the hell? its been one year theres literally no point in a sequel like that yet. give us expansion packs.
[QUOTE=LeonS;51887580]what the hell? its been one year theres literally no point in a sequel like that yet. give us expansion packs.[/QUOTE]
From the getgo they've said it's going to be 3 separate Warhammer [I]games[/I].
Weren't they talking about merging them in some fashion though?
[QUOTE=Warborq;51887709]Weren't they talking about merging them in some fashion though?[/QUOTE]
I don't trust CA to be able to pull something like that off.
[QUOTE=bdd458;51887712]I don't trust CA to be able to pull something like that off.[/QUOTE]
idk they've already managed to modify the existing campaign map with the wood elves and all
If that's all the DLC for Warhammer 1 I'm going to be really disappointed. I was expecting at least Skaven in this one before moving on. I was originally hoping for Tomb Lords also but apparently that's planned for game #2.
[QUOTE=Warborq;51887709]Weren't they talking about merging them in some fashion though?[/QUOTE]
Yup. All the games are going to be stand alone expansions which can be merged together like Fall of the Sams in Shogun 2.
The map is going to be fucking massive when it's all said and done.
When are the Skaven coming?
You can't have fun without the possibility of blowing away half of your own army in the process.
[QUOTE=DETrooper;51887719]idk they've already managed to modify the existing campaign map with the wood elves and all[/QUOTE]
Did they add new regions? Or did they just assign existing regions to the Wood Elves? Curious since I don't plan on buying the faction DLC, nor have I played the game in earnest since May. And in either case that's small scale stuff, I really doubt CA is going to be able to pull of what they're saying well.
See any previous Total War game, and the general downward slope the series has been in.
[QUOTE=bdd458;51891642]Did they add new regions? Or did they just assign existing regions to the Wood Elves? Curious since I don't plan on buying the faction DLC, nor have I played the game in earnest since May. And in either case that's small scale stuff, I really doubt CA is going to be able to pull of what they're saying well.
See any previous Total War game, and the general downward slope the series has been in.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, the downward trend where the games have steadily been getting better since Rome II's release.
[QUOTE=Broguts;51891732]Ah yes, the downward trend where the games have steadily been getting better since Rome II's release.[/QUOTE]
Warhammer is the weakest in the series. It has some neat new experiments (the RPG aspects and agents in battle is really great for example) but is just boring. The campaign is boring (It's like the antithesis to Attila, where they give you a lot of stuff to micromanage, here they give you literally nothing. Where's my tax slider for instance?). Not nearly enough buildings or building slots. Region Gifting/Trading really needs to make a comeback.
The battles go by way too fast, little details such as officers, bannermen, and musicians are missing (Not like they've been in the series since Empire or anything). Don't even get me started on what are easily the shittiest sieges in the series (I'd rather play Empire's 5 billion star forts to this shitfest). With that too is the lack of settlement battles. Unit collision is missing (though has been for some time). Guard mode is back in Warhammer at least.
[editline]1st March 2017[/editline]
oh and for some reason the UI takes off like 10-30 FPS in the recent titles so idk what the fuck is up with that, maybe CA could look into something as basic as not having a UI that chops a decent amount of your FPS off as well.
[QUOTE=bdd458;51891642]Did they add new regions? Or did they just assign existing regions to the Wood Elves? Curious since I don't plan on buying the faction DLC, nor have I played the game in earnest since May. And in either case that's small scale stuff, I really doubt CA is going to be able to pull of what they're saying well.
See any previous Total War game, and the general downward slope the series has been in.[/QUOTE]
Athel Loren was already on the map but it had no regions in it (it was essentially a big mountain, completely uncrossable)
Leaks (that were pretty much on-point regarding race pack releases up until now) say that the next game will focus on Lustria and Ulthuan and with it High Elves, Dark Elves, and Lizardmen I believe. Given that Bartholomew says 'And with Bretonnia, we’re bringing our time in the Old World to a close. [...] It’s time to travel to new lands and discover new races.' Very possible that they'll bring in Skaven/Clan Pestilens as a fourth faction here and then start putting in the Skaven in Warhammer 1. That seems like the most efficient way to bring them in – not sure though when Tomb Kings would come in, I don't think they've ever come to Lustria, have they? They're only around south of the Old World, right? I'm not to savvy on them but I'm looking forward to seeing them in action.
Given how good CA's work with the Beastmen and other monster-y models has been, I'm really looking forward to seeing their work on Lizardmen and Skaven.
Gotta agree with bdd458 though, I hope they'll start making the base game more complex with its expansions/sequels, the lack of Squalor or Tax Sliders or other stuff kinda made the gameplay a bit shallow despite the charm and diversity of factions of their Warhammer rendition.
In my opinion, biggest flaw with Warhammer is the siege battles. They're are extremely boring and done [I]super[/I] fast. The fact that you can only attack two walls at a time as the maximum is depressing. I miss the huge sieges of medieval 2 (I haven't played any titles besides Warhammer after) where you could attack from every angle, and where the entire battle could be decided on the frantic defenses of the walls.
[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;51894568] The fact that you can only attack two walls at a time as the maximum is depressing. I miss the huge sieges of medieval 2 (I haven't played any titles besides Warhammer after)[/QUOTE]
Oh the sieges have been complete shit post med 2, sadly.
[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;51897156]Oh the sieges have been complete shit post med 2, sadly.[/QUOTE]
Not nessecarily, while none reach the level of Medieval 2's sieges - Attila's are probably my second favorite in the series. Nothing beats burning everything to a crisp.
[QUOTE=Glent;51891958]Athel Loren was already on the map but it had no regions in it (it was essentially a big mountain, completely uncrossable)[/QUOTE]
Ah, thanks! I'd assume that's a decent amount of work but CA also has tools developed to add regions into the campaign map so I'm not sure.
[QUOTE=Selek;51892124]
Given how good CA's work with the Beastmen and other monster-y models has been, I'm really looking forward to seeing their work on Lizardmen and Skaven.
Gotta agree with bdd458 though, I hope they'll start making the base game more complex with its expansions/sequels, the lack of Squalor or Tax Sliders or other stuff kinda made the gameplay a bit shallow despite the charm and diversity of factions of their Warhammer rendition.[/QUOTE]
The one thing I definitely can't fault the game on is it's Art direction and team - they did a fantastic job bringing the tabletop models to life in game. And tbh the gameplay is more than a bit shallow it IS shallow. There's nothing to do on the campaign side except build armies to do more battles. You just have to fight corruption, which is like a single building chain. There's no real strategic choices to be made on the campaign side. Which is sad, and I hope that for the next historical title they have actual depth there.
[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;51897156]Oh the sieges have been complete shit post med 2, sadly.[/QUOTE]
Personally I loved Attila's sieges. I actually find it a bit mind boggling that they didn't carry them over to Warhammer, as well as some other stuff like abandoning settlements. I also liked governors and the political system from Attila but I don't know if that stuff would translate great to Warhammer.
[QUOTE=Glent;51898488]Personally I loved Attila's sieges. I actually find it a bit mind boggling that they didn't carry them over to Warhammer, as well as some other stuff like abandoning settlements. I also liked governors and the political system from Attila but I don't know if that stuff would translate great to Warhammer.[/QUOTE]
Haven't played Attila, but I think it could apply pretty well to certain factions like the Empire and Bretonnia, as well as the Orks with warbands?
:EDIT:
Fucking Autocorrect, I did not want to say apple.
[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;51897156]Oh the sieges have been complete shit post med 2, sadly.[/QUOTE]
Haven't played any of the newer games (only played Rome II for a little bit, really couldn't get into it), but it's not like sieges in Med 2 weren't broken.
I just want lizardmen
[QUOTE=bdd458;51891805]Warhammer is the weakest in the series. It has some neat new experiments (the RPG aspects and agents in battle is really great for example) but is just boring. The campaign is boring (It's like the antithesis to Attila, where they give you a lot of stuff to micromanage, here they give you literally nothing. Where's my tax slider for instance?). Not nearly enough buildings or building slots. Region Gifting/Trading really needs to make a comeback.
The battles go by way too fast, little details such as officers, bannermen, and musicians are missing (Not like they've been in the series since Empire or anything). Don't even get me started on what are easily the shittiest sieges in the series (I'd rather play Empire's 5 billion star forts to this shitfest). With that too is the lack of settlement battles. Unit collision is missing (though has been for some time). Guard mode is back in Warhammer at least.
[editline]1st March 2017[/editline]
oh and for some reason the UI takes off like 10-30 FPS in the recent titles so idk what the fuck is up with that, maybe CA could look into something as basic as not having a UI that chops a decent amount of your FPS off as well.[/QUOTE]
totally disagree on almost every front
warhammer's campaign is the most interesting that TW has been in years, the variance in gameplay between races is enormous and I've had more fun with it than I've had with any of the others, and i've been playing since the original shogun
gifting regions being missing is annoying, but there is nothing that I want less of than micromanagement of settlements in a game that is meant to be about war - warhammer does not need tax sliders
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51900119]totally disagree on almost every front
warhammer's campaign is the most interesting that TW has been in years, the variance in gameplay between races is enormous and I've had more fun with it than I've had with any of the others, and i've been playing since the original shogun
gifting regions being missing is annoying, but there is nothing that I want less of than micromanagement of settlements in a game that is meant to be about war - warhammer does not need tax sliders[/QUOTE]
"It's called total WAR all this other gameplay stuff gets in the way"
None of that shit with factions matters when there's nothing to do and they keep taking away strategic layers and all you have to do is just build more and more armies. The tax slider for example was a nice trade-off, tax high and gain more money - but at the expense of public order. Tax low and get more public order, but less money. Tax in middle regions and have a more balanced payoff. It's a very simple thing that gives the player agency and control over their empire, allowing for a bit more strategy. Without that slider, you lose that agency and choice. The game starts railroading you the way it wants to be played.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51900119]but there is nothing that I want less of than micromanagement of settlements in a game that is meant to be about war [/QUOTE]
This is the least legitimate argument I've ever heard besides "It's called [B][I][U]EUROPA[/U][/I][/B] Universalis" whenever anyone brings up something not Europe focused in EU4
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51900119]warhammer does not need tax sliders[/quote]
You do know half of the challenge of a Total War game is trying to keep a stable government and economy to support your armies right? It's not just stomping the crap out of the brain dead AI. (Even on very hard when they have all their cheats)
I've read somewhere that this sequel will be integrated into the first game, so there'll be one massive map or something like that. Grain of salt, of course
So what's the point of buying the first or second game then.
[QUOTE=jonu67;51902339]So what's the point of buying the first or second game then.[/QUOTE]
They'll probably only integrate if you own both. So if you buy the second, you'll be missing map-regions and factions from the first. At least, that makes sense.
[QUOTE=Riller;51902489]They'll probably only integrate if you own both. So if you buy the second, you'll be missing map-regions and factions from the first. At least, that makes sense.[/QUOTE]
So sort of like the original Dawn of War used to do, where you had to have the original games to have the races from said games in the next game.
Yeah, so if that stuff is true, these sequels are actually more like expandalones. Depending on how much content is included in them, that could be pretty great.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
