- 11,059
- 2,262
Never bought from it but seen it before, looks legit, probably just moving keys between regions and that usual kind of shit.
Total War: Warhammer
- Thread starter Lleauaric
- Start date
Palum
what Suineg set it to
- 23,484
- 33,800
Anyway, I like the game but it's really not WH. Maybe there's a mod, but the fact that units rarely suffer meaningful losses in numbers or combat effectiveness until "the end" is silly. Also the turn to RT factor is just wacky. I'm sorry but a unit of slayers running into skeletons or other shit tier unit is going to mangle, break and overrun them in one round. In TW, the combat is a little too "slogging" for my taste. A full lance of grail knights should be able to charge through and one round some crossbowmen formed in 3 ranks, but instead they sit there fighting it out for seemingly minutes, or they continually retreat and come back... The game is way too heavily weighted towards attrition imo. There is almost intangible benefits to heavy cavalry charges into the flanks and shit like that.
Randin
Trakanon Raider
- 1,924
- 875
Daemons, Chaos Dwarfs, Ogre Kingdoms, and I'd be willing to bet we'll see Kislev as well. And hell, if we can get Norsca, then why not the Hobgoblin Khanate, or something?
The fact that minor factions are now an option does expand the possibilities a little.
The fact that minor factions are now an option does expand the possibilities a little.
- 1
Palum
what Suineg set it to
- 23,484
- 33,800
Well that's not to say there aren't eight round combats between specific unit types that are evenly matched. It's just that in WHFB, you can overpower and obliterate things in ways you can't in this TW version.
Karl Franz on Deathclaw should murder and break a cannon squad crew basically instantly unless he rolls ones. I think the biggest thing is charges seem meaningless in this game. They are super explodey in WHFB with the right units.
cyrusreij
Trakanon Raider
- 1,714
- 576
Yeah, I find your analysis amusing, considering the community is constantly grumbling how fast paced the combat is. But then again, they are TW fans first and WH second. I really don't think there is any winning trying to merge the two, CA cut a pretty good middle ground but hardcores from both communities will find faults regardless.
And it was always a trilogy. Game 3 is adding the Darklands/Mountains of Mourn, so pretty much exactly what Randin wrote for races. I am actually excited for all four of those. A lot of people think we will see a flushed out Araby during the second game which would be... interesting. Especially considering that Brettonia won the "crusade" and is currently controlling their territory on the Game 2 map.
And it was always a trilogy. Game 3 is adding the Darklands/Mountains of Mourn, so pretty much exactly what Randin wrote for races. I am actually excited for all four of those. A lot of people think we will see a flushed out Araby during the second game which would be... interesting. Especially considering that Brettonia won the "crusade" and is currently controlling their territory on the Game 2 map.
Azrayne
Irenicus did nothing wrong
- 2,161
- 786
I've never played either tabletop or any of the previous TW games, but I actually kind of think Palum has a point. As much as I enjoy the game as an overall product, I do find the combat frustrating sometimes, since it often feels like it's a huge pain in the ass to actually lock enemy units down and kill them, compared to other strategy games. Every battle seems to end with a solid chunk of the enemy army running away and escaping, and even the ones which are tilted in my favour fairly easily I have to set things up and lay my army out with the specific purpose of locking the enemy down and surrounding them if I want to actually kill the majority of them off, with half the battle being spent chasing down stragglers with low morale using flyers/cavalry.
Or maybe I just suck, I dunno. Always been pretty casual with strategy games, so I'm open to the possibility. But it takes away from the flow of the game a bit when you fight a huge epic battle and win, only to have 40% of the losing army run away, then you have to spend another turn chasing them down and fighting them again, only to have 40% of "them" survive, who you have to chase down the next turn...
Or maybe I just suck, I dunno. Always been pretty casual with strategy games, so I'm open to the possibility. But it takes away from the flow of the game a bit when you fight a huge epic battle and win, only to have 40% of the losing army run away, then you have to spend another turn chasing them down and fighting them again, only to have 40% of "them" survive, who you have to chase down the next turn...
Denaut
Trump's Staff
- 2,739
- 1,279
Morale is very core to the Total War games, and you actually want the enemy to rout and flee. This mechanic comes from the game's more historical siblings (where it is more in line with how real armies work), but the mechanic works just as well in TW as well. Fleeing units can be run down and killed without losing your troops in return, especially by cavalry or other fast units.
Furthermore, units can only escape once per turn. On the campaign map, after the battle you can "chase down" a fleeing army (if you have enough movement points remaining) and finish them off. When you win this second battle the entire army is annihilated. This mechanic benefits you as well if you lose a battle you can still make it out with some of your troops intact to rebuild.
- 1
Azrayne
Irenicus did nothing wrong
- 2,161
- 786
That's fair enough I guess, maybe it's a matter of taste, but personally I'd take gameplay over realism in this instance. I find watching the enemy lose morale and run away more frustrating than satisfying, as opposed to other strategy games where you can usually just wipe out most or all of the enemy if you play properly and have the superior army.
As for armies being annihilated after winning against them a second time, all I could say is that I'd swear I've had multiple times where I've engaged with and defeated the same army at least 3 times, because on the first two big chunks of the army escaped despite my winning the battle. It has been a while since I played heavily though, but even thinking back to when I sank a couple hours into a new campaign playing as VC's I could swear the exact same thing happened chasing a greenskin army (fight, win, 40%ish flee, chase, fight, win 40% flee, chase, fight, finally wipe out most of the enemy force and they finally disappear from the map). Might fire it up tonight and see for myself, I think I still have a save from around that time.
As for armies being annihilated after winning against them a second time, all I could say is that I'd swear I've had multiple times where I've engaged with and defeated the same army at least 3 times, because on the first two big chunks of the army escaped despite my winning the battle. It has been a while since I played heavily though, but even thinking back to when I sank a couple hours into a new campaign playing as VC's I could swear the exact same thing happened chasing a greenskin army (fight, win, 40%ish flee, chase, fight, win 40% flee, chase, fight, finally wipe out most of the enemy force and they finally disappear from the map). Might fire it up tonight and see for myself, I think I still have a save from around that time.
- 11,059
- 2,262
You probably didn't have enough movement to chase on the same turn, then had to attack again on the next turn, and they fled again. I'm not sure if it affects it but I think doing the post battle resolution that involve killing people reduce the odds of them having enough to run away too. Maybe it doesn't but when it could be an issue I always did these instead of the usual(replenishment or more gold or whatever I forgot). Also killing more people in the battle seems to reduce the odds, especially if you kill their lord. This can be done by chasing down the runners with fast units.
I don't mind the routing in battles too much, it's kinda "realistic" and it's useful too, once whatever you were fighting runs away, you can either run them down if you have a fast unit for it, or just collapse onto another unit to get flanking bonuses. If you pincer them they'll eventually also try to run but since they have to run through you to run away, most of them will get decimated. Meanwhile I like running down demoralized units with cav or wolves or whatever, looks cool.
I also really appreciate it when you have good ranged units/artillery and you get units to route before they even reach your armies by destroying them from afar. Feels a lot better than having 5 surviving idiots charge into your full army.
I don't mind the routing in battles too much, it's kinda "realistic" and it's useful too, once whatever you were fighting runs away, you can either run them down if you have a fast unit for it, or just collapse onto another unit to get flanking bonuses. If you pincer them they'll eventually also try to run but since they have to run through you to run away, most of them will get decimated. Meanwhile I like running down demoralized units with cav or wolves or whatever, looks cool.
I also really appreciate it when you have good ranged units/artillery and you get units to route before they even reach your armies by destroying them from afar. Feels a lot better than having 5 surviving idiots charge into your full army.
Palum
what Suineg set it to
- 23,484
- 33,800
I mean don't get me wrong, some combats should be long. I just think when giant formations of shock cavalry smash into a single tier 1 infantry, it should be over a lot faster than it is.
Also, I find some monstrous creatures to be super dumb (well, also chariots). One mammoth or giant shouldn't be able to slowly chew through three blocks of halberdiers. I dunno somethings just weird.
Also, I find some monstrous creatures to be super dumb (well, also chariots). One mammoth or giant shouldn't be able to slowly chew through three blocks of halberdiers. I dunno somethings just weird.
swayze22
Elite
- 1,211
- 1,091
I agree with what you have said here that some units should wreck others "quicker" per se, but if you step back and look at the battles as a whole i don't agree with your time take. They are really quick.
I usually have it in slow motion or just on "play", the actual combat times are REALLY SHORT (ex. <10mins). That is a pretty short damn battle where thousands died.
When I pause it and screw around and then slow mo, pause, etc it takes much longer real time, but the units aren't actually moving real time...
(i'm still a TW noob though so)
I will add that it is weird that some "simulated" battles you can easily wipe out the enemy force (to zero) but when you actually fight those battles it is NEAR IMPOSSIBLE to chase down every unit and wipe them.
Sulrn
Deuces
- 2,159
- 360
This is one of the reasons (outside of consumer rights) I could never buy into TW:WH. Total War is an okay base to build a Warhammer game on, but the engine / mechanics still need some major overhauling to get a "real" Warhammer experience instead of a reskinned Atilla + magic.
Playing the middle ground between the two franchises is to be expected and encouraged, but when I watch the occasional video (Strategic or Tactical) on Youtube I don't see anything besides a modded Total War game. There's not enough Warhammer influence on the core mechanics of the game and I don't think you're really ever going to see that even with all three games combined.
zzeris
King Turd of Shit Hill
- 18,885
- 73,720
Palum, I'm also a huge SotHR fan. I thought we were entering a golden age of strategy games when it released and while we did(on other fronts), that game didn't get the support it deserved. I really enjoy TW games and I'm happy as hell this game has pushed the setting forward, but it is off-putting to watch strategically dominant units 'slog' through trash.
The expanded campaign setting has me really excited and the second game looks like a huge improvement on an already great game. I would also love a game with more WH influence but since GW has already fucked up the tabletop version, I'm just happy someone is doing quality work.
The expanded campaign setting has me really excited and the second game looks like a huge improvement on an already great game. I would also love a game with more WH influence but since GW has already fucked up the tabletop version, I'm just happy someone is doing quality work.
Palum
what Suineg set it to
- 23,484
- 33,800
Hedeon
Molten Core Raider
- 131
- 133
God, Shadow of the Horned Rat was amazing, it was my first taste of Warhammer, renting it from Blockbuster for the PS1 back in the day, I feel old thinking about it, ugh.
I need them to hurry up with the third game in the series so I can finally purchase this monster, I need my Ogre Kingdoms dammit. I've never really played any Total War games but I've been watching alot of TW:WH online and it calls to me, I just need an army to get behind to give me an excuse to spend the money on it, Beastmen kinda interest me but they are no Ogres, I need big dumb fast guys that hungry for all.
I need them to hurry up with the third game in the series so I can finally purchase this monster, I need my Ogre Kingdoms dammit. I've never really played any Total War games but I've been watching alot of TW:WH online and it calls to me, I just need an army to get behind to give me an excuse to spend the money on it, Beastmen kinda interest me but they are no Ogres, I need big dumb fast guys that hungry for all.