Total War: WARHAMMER- OFFICIAL : page 9 Vampire Counts

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Commander Cain**

Yeah the price is pretty surprising. I was going to wait a while while they fixed the bugs anyway (Rome 2 taught me not to pre order from them) so I figure that I will just wait for a package to be released with all the DLC's in a year or so after it's out.

I tend to do what I do with the Assassins Creed franchise and stay one title behind as the games are $15 instead of $80, plus there should be no bugs!

**Thunderfrog**

I like that each race is completely different. The Shogun issue is a valid one.

All those clans and you still just spam Ashigaru that are available to all of em with a few random samurai units sprinkled to taste.

I'm excited, but tempering it as best I can. Multiplayer in these games usually is touch and go, and unit balance is crap for the first four months.

Loan Sword Ashigaru anyone?

**reds8n**

http://moviepilot.com/posts/3627516?lt_source=external,manual

Total War: Warhammer sounds pretty exciting doesn't it? Combining the gameplay elements of the popular tabletop and online Warhammer game worlds with the tactical strategy of the Total War computer games, The Creative Assembly and Games Workshop have combined forces to create what is shaping up to be a highlight of the 2016 release schedule.

Richard Aldridge, The Creative Assembly games designer, spoke to WCCF at Paris Games Week this past weekend about Total War: Warhammer and revealed a little more about the upcoming game, including core factions and what kind of downloadable content we can expect when it releases next April.

The Core Factions & Campaigns

Regarding the various factions that appear in-game, despite earlier claims that the core factions would be comprised of Empire, Dwarves, Greenskins and Vampire Counts in Total War: Warhammer this doesn't mean that the Chaos Warriors will have fallen by the wayside.

"Chaos Warriors still got a very strong roster of units. All the factions have a sizeable roster, in fact; what we’re showing today at Paris Games Week of Dwarves and Greenskins, that’s just a small amount of what will be in the full game."
So whilst it sounds like Chaos Warriors will feature heavily, his comments do make it likely that the others may be more prevalent in-game.

Of the campaigns themselves Aldridge remained pretty tight lipped, saying only that mercenaries will feature in some form. We're going to have to wait for more information though, as campaign features will be announced by The Creative Assembly over "the next few weeks or months".

Trading Mechanics

When questioned whether for example Dwarves will be able to trade with the Vampire Counts Aldridge responded that Total War: Warhammer will feature elements typical to the Total War series such as diplomacy, trade, economy and technologies, though perhaps not in the same forms we've encountered them before. Cryptic.

He goes on to point out that the various strengths and weaknesses of the different races and factions will tie into how the diplomacy and trade elements play out in the coming game:

"Some races are more suited for certain things, such as Orcs. They’re not much of a diplomatic race, to work together they have the system of WAAGH where the Orc warlords are essentially trying to bring out Orcs and Goblins from the Badlands and form a big WAAGH to go rampaging around. Whereas the Empire is all about taking the Elector Counts from the different regions and trying to get them to work together."
Narrative & Gameplay

Something pretty interesting that came up was the specifics of the gameplay and setting, unlike some previous games Total War: Warhammer will be both a sandbox and single story based game, where the player can choose whether to complete or skip around certain quests if they don't fancy doing them.

"The great thing [is] it’s both. We do have a storyline for you to be involved with, we have the quests, you don’t have to complete them but if you do you’ll get items like Ghal Maraz, and if you’re successful you can equip Karl Franz with it."

Additionally the game will have a concrete narrative ending; though Aldridge didn't give much away it looks like there's an endgame involving Chaos and the Emperor Karl-Franz, but we're going to have to play our way through the game for more details about that.

Additionally, in keeping with previous games in the Total War series, there will be a multiplayer feature, incorporating elements of both single-battle and campaign modes.

DLC's & Lack Of Mod Support

You may know by now that there's not going to be modding support for Total War: Warhammer, something which has been subject to much contention in the fanbase. In response to why The Creative Assembly decided not to include this Aldridge explained:

"We’re working with this IP and we want to be authentic and we need to respect it."

Since Warhammer is the intellectual property of Games Workshop, not The Creative Assembly, there's a limit to how much CA can open the game up to the community, and so it doesn't look like there's going to be any scope for mods this time around, which is a shame as that's half the fun of PC.

It's not all bad though; we're still getting a bunch of DLCs, as well as some which will be free of charge for all players:

"There will be a number of DLCs and free DLCs for the community, adding content to the game over time. An example of the free ones is Wurrzag, a legendary lord for the Greenskin and everyone will get him for free. He obviously has his own quest to go on, a background story, something exciting for you to play with."
Chaos Warriors

Lastly Aldridge addressed the controversy around the fact that the Chaos Warriors were to be featured as a pre-order DLC pack rather than being incorporated as part of the game as standard.

According to Aldridge The Creative Assembly are taking all the negative feedback seriously and intend to address the problem come release date, but he was fairly cryptic about what the role of Chaos will be in Total War: Warhammer, and how the pre-order DLC fits into it:

"We understand that people expect Chaos to be in the game and Chaos will be in the game, regardless of whether you pre-purchased the DLC or not. Without giving away too much, they’re kind of the “baddies” of the game so they will feature. If you do decide to pre-purchase or maybe buy the DLC later on, that means you get additional playable legendary lords and additional units. So yeah, Chaos will be in the game, as it should be."
Hmm, whatever you say Aldridge, not sure if we're quite convinced yet.

**McNinja**

I wasn't aware they weren't going to include modding support, but I can forsee problems with that. GW obviously won't allow modding of their game/IP (because they have no idea how games work and what the communuties are like), and I have no doubt that the plethora of mods that will eventually make their way out will quickly be "cease and desist"-ed immediately.

**dragqueeninspace**

A wise man would avoid this at release and buy it once the DLC is bundled in.

**Moopy**

If you want to wait the many months for that to happen.

**Talys**

Moopy wrote:

Again, Day 1 DLC is bad. DLC in general is not.

As a software developer, I don't really agree with this. Day 1 DLC is just a way of selling the game cheaper than you want to, and stratifying the market. An example of day 1 DLC working is Forza: a game that is excellent without spending more money, but frankly, to unlock most of the coolest day 1 cars, it's unrealistic for most people to access them without spending more money.

The truth is, if DLCs were not well-accepted, the average base price of games would simply go up, especially for good games, because the market will bear higher prices. Let's be honest... a publisher would rather sell every copy at $90 with everything in it than $45 for an initial sale with enough day one options to take it to $150.

**dragqueeninspace**

Moopy wrote:
If you want to wait the many months for that to happen.

I don't want to wait but whatever encourages a company splitting a $30 game into three $15 chunks (not real figures) is to be avoided in my book. The game will still be the same in six months but in all likelihood less buggy and you will have a better idea if it sucks.

**Nvs**

There haven't been any cease and desist warnings for Dawn of War and their numerous mods. I'm not sure what they're expecting here. It's far more likely they simply don't have the desire/time to fully support a modding tool.

**jonolikespie**

Nvs wrote:
There haven't been any cease and desist warnings for Dawn of War and their numerous mods. I'm not sure what they're expecting here. It's far more likely they simply don't have the desire/time to fully support a modding tool.

To be fair GW's licencing policy in the says of Dawn of War and their licencing policy today must be VERY different.

**Thunderfrog**

Talys wrote:
Moopy wrote:

Again, Day 1 DLC is bad. DLC in general is not.

As a software developer, I don't really agree with this. Day 1 DLC is just a way of selling the game cheaper than you want to, and stratifying the market. An example of day 1 DLC working is Forza: a game that is excellent without spending more money, but frankly, to unlock most of the coolest day 1 cars, it's unrealistic for most people to access them without spending more money.

The truth is, if DLCs were not well-accepted, the average base price of games would simply go up, especially for good games, because the market will bear higher prices. Let's be honest... a publisher would rather sell every copy at $90 with everything in it than $45 for an initial sale with enough day one options to take it to $150.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

In my mind, most DLC comes after a developer hits their minimum viable product by a deadline in development. After that, they break the rest into packaged chunks when it could be part of the game period. PS4 and XB1 are showing that no, the market does NOT want a 80$ disc sold with a game. So you get corporate talking heads that think 60$ plus DLC is a sweet ride to take. Look at Evolved. Take a game and charge a fortune for DLC. No matter how fun it seems, it falls apart. No one wants to keep getting gouged.

Day 1 "content" DLC means that those same resources could have gone into making a better base product. Instead, you hurt the base game to make another 15$ on something that should have been included anyways. Day 1 "faster unlockables" DLC or things like skins/costumes isn't so terrible I suppose.

**VictorVonTzeentch**

Isnt this DLC argument, the same argument that has been happening for years now (I know it has for the past couple Total War games)? If day one DLC was really as disastrous to the Video Game market as everyone says its is, than surely that would be reflected? Which except for the odd title occasionally, it has no ill consequence.

**Talys**

@Thunderfrog - I understand where you are coming from, and I get the distaste for DLC from the player perspective. The fact is though, the cost of developing top notch product and meeting player expectations has steadily increased over the years, without a relative increase in price of he vase product. Plus, the risk is so high that the publisher wants revenues of hundreds of millions for a top title, or at least the potential thereof. Publishers would ideally like to sell all their games for $80-$100+, but instead settle for $50 plus $80 for optionals that could have been included.

Keep in mind I'm not talking about expansions to a game, which technically fall under DLC now, but are really a separate category.

@victor - what it's actually come down to is that the base game is what you pay if you don't really like the game that much, and the DLCs are what you buy if you really love the game. So in a way, it becomes a way to reward the publisher for writing a great game.

In the end calculus, most fans that are willing to pay for their games do not mind paying $100 or more in the life cycle of the game **if they love the game** (exclusive of major content expansions). As is evidenced by this being the normal industry practice, rather than the exception. Also, unlike hobby pricing and GW, this has been subjected to extremely rigorous focus groups, market testing, research, gradual introduction to players, etc. For fans, things like a 'Season Pass' are proven sellers.

**Moopy**

dragqueeninspace wrote:

I don't want to wait but whatever encourages a company splitting a $30 game into three $15 chunks (not real figures) is to be avoided in my book. The game will still be the same in six months but in all likelihood less buggy and you will have a better idea if it sucks.

It's interesting you put it that way, as it makes me think of Shogun 2, Rise of the Shogun and Fall of the Shogun. Those last two gave you different ways to play the game and were really entertaining. They "weren't meant to be in the game to begin with" (not your words, but ones bandied about by people who are seem to think that everything should be in the game or it's somehow magically bad or wrong), and gave it a lot of extra millage.

I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a High Elf vs Dark Elf expansion (ala Rise of the Samurai), etc.... Brits vs Tomb Kings, Skaven vs Lizardmen, whatever. Considering that every army is getting unique models, effects, dialog, economies, diplomacy, story arcs, heros, animations (+ animation rigs) and unique units... that's going to take a ton of time and a huge leap forward for CA which has just been human+ costume change till now.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Talys wrote:

As a software developer, I don't really agree with this. Day 1 DLC is just a way of selling the game cheaper than you want to, and stratifying the market. An example of day 1 DLC working is Forza: a game that is excellent without spending more money, but frankly, to unlock most of the coolest day 1 cars, it's unrealistic for most people to access them without spending more money.

The truth is, if DLCs were not well-accepted, the average base price of games would simply go up, especially for good games, because the market will bear higher prices. Let's be honest... a publisher would rather sell every copy at $90 with everything in it than $45 for an initial sale with enough day one options to take it to $150.

I'm a designer to retrained as an artist for games. Thank you for this perspective!

**TedNugent**

Announcing stripping out the Chaos race for a pre-order bonus months before release is just a spit in the face.

**Joyboozer**

Talys wrote:
@Thunderfrog - I understand where you are coming from, and I get the distaste for DLC from the player perspective. The fact is though, the cost of developing top notch product and meeting player expectations has steadily increased over the years, without a relative increase in price of he vase product. Plus, the risk is so high that the publisher wants revenues of hundreds of millions for a top title, or at least the potential thereof. Publishers would ideally like to sell all their games for $80-$100+, but instead settle for $50 plus $80 for optionals that could have been included.

Keep in mind I'm not talking about expansions to a game, which technically fall under DLC now, but are really a separate category.

@victor - what it's actually come down to is that the base game is what you pay if you don't really like the game that much, and the DLCs are what you buy if you really love the game. So in a way, it becomes a way to reward the publisher for writing a great game.

In the end calculus, most fans that are willing to pay for their games do not mind paying $100 or more in the life cycle of the game **if they love the game** (exclusive of major content expansions). As is evidenced by this being the normal industry practice, rather than the exception. Also, unlike hobby pricing and GW, this has been subjected to extremely rigorous focus groups, market testing, research, gradual introduction to players, etc. For fans, things like a 'Season Pass' are proven sellers.

Sorry Talys, while thinking everyone should pay higher prices for everything seems to be your thing, day 1 DLC is only accepted by the majority for the same reason broken games being released is accepted, the consumer has no choice. Thats not approval and doesn't indicate it's a popular choice.

**NinthMusketeer**

Price of an AAA game 10 years ago = Price of an AAA game now.

Price of developing an AAA game 10 years ago < Price of developing an AAA game now.

The costs to develop a game are much higher than they used to be, but the cost of said games has stayed largely flat. DLC makes up the difference. This is why DLC will stay no matter how much players complain, because the alternative is to not afford making the games in the first place. Or in other words; the price for everything goes up over time and that includes games. If it is not worth the money to you then simply don't buy it, and if you oppose DLC on principle then make a well-reasoned argument as to why it is bad and what the developers could do instead. Otherwise it is just more of the same broken record.

Personally, the price seems justified to me as it looks like there is a huge amount of content available. And the way I see it, I have the option to get the game for less if I don't want Chaos included. If I do want Chaos, I can preorder or pay the full price by getting the DLC. I will probably end up doing the latter when I get the game sometime after release, as games these days tend to be pretty buggy at launch.

**Joyboozer**

hmm, interesting, here in Australia we're always being told you have to pay more, if you don't like it don't buy it.
Perhaps it's also true that if you can't sell it cheap enough don't create it?
I purchased the saintly Transformers Devastation. I refer to it as saintly as it performed three miracles.
The price was $39 Au. That's right they managed to sell the game in Australia without tripling the price.
No day 1 patch to fix a broken game. I was actually shocked I could put in the disc and the game just started.
The only DLC was some skins. I didn't have to buy more episodes or a season pass.
3 impossible things. Excellent game. No tacked on multiplayer. No wasted multi million dollar marketing campaign. Just a good solid game I've put a hell of a lot of time into playing.
This was how they did things 10 years ago.

**NinthMusketeer**

Joyboozer wrote:
hmm, interesting, here in Australia we're always being told you have to pay more, if you don't like it don't buy it.
Perhaps it's also true that if you can't sell it cheap enough don't create it?
I purchased the saintly Transformers Devastation. I refer to it as saintly as it performed three miracles.
The price was $39 Au. That's right they managed to sell the game in Australia without tripling the price.
No day 1 patch to fix a broken game. I was actually shocked I could put in the disc and the game just started.
The only DLC was some skins. I didn't have to buy more episodes or a season pass.
3 impossible things. Excellent game. No tacked on multiplayer. No wasted multi million dollar marketing campaign. Just a good solid game I've put a hell of a lot of time into playing.
This was how they did things 10 years ago.

I'm with you on the buggy launches, I think that is a poor way to do business and has a reasonable solution (push the release back a week/do more stress testing). But in regards to the content and the price that is exactly what I am saying; a game of that length would have been $30 with all the DLC included 10 years ago. (Sidenote; looks to be $50 on Steam)

[edit] This is getting very off topic... Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.

**Joyboozer**

I don't think we do really disagree, we both think there's a better way to do things and we both like games, it's win win!

**Orlanth**

Formosa wrote:
Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
DLC makes this a a game with an effective release date one year after the formal one.

So it looks like I will be playing Warhammer Total War late 2017 then.

Dont understand this mentality to computer games, would you consider it to be an unfinished game if they never released the future content?

Yes, when they make a game and willingly remove parts of the game to sell back to you and they are on the disc, that's essentially holding me to ransom for content I've already paid for, now if they release a 20+ hour dlc and add loads of content a few months after release and it's a gig download or something, I'm fine with that.

This plus cost has a lot to do with it.
Most of all there are so many games out there, and I take my time with my games, especially the RPG and strategy titles. I am seldom in a hurry to get a game anywhere near release date. There are exceptions but they are rare and always for games without DLC. Creative Assembly also has a history of underdelivering at launch. Though this is Sega's fault more than Creative Assembly's.

**Moopy**

Agreed on that. Rome didn't start out well. However, I believe that someone can learn from their mistakes and aren't damned to repeat them every time. I'll be picking up the game in the next few days. We'll find out if my trust will be rewarded in a few months.

**Yodhrin**

Moopy wrote:
Having a game 6 months out on preorder... made me wonder why?

With so many people torrenting or stealing games because they feel like sticking it to "the man" (whichever straw man they feel like sticking), it's caused companies to push their preorders out farther in an attempt to capture as much revenue as possible before it hits the shelves. Once it's been released then it's pretty much up for free that same day, so this is a direct result that we'll see more often.

Equine dung.

I find it genuinely sad how many consumers are willing to swallow this line being pushed by all parts of the entertainment industry to excuse every single one of their gakky anti-consumer practices; piracy is not making game companies charge £50 for a PC game, piracy is not making companies run ridiculously convoluted preorder schemes months out from release with gated content based on retailer or crowdfunder-esque "stretch goals", piracy is not at fault for companies introducing draconian always-online DRM systems, piracy is not the reason companies are dumping server-browsers and community-run servers for multiplayer games, nor is it the reason many companies dumped mod-support, and neither is it responsible for companies adopting ridiculous "fee2pay" systems for games where they charge full-price then add microtransations anyway.

You know why it's patently obvious why piracy is not responsible for those things? Because A; despite the constant bleating of the entertainment industry, they're continuing to make comically large amounts of money, and B; these companies have obvious motives for doing all of those things whether piracy existed or not.

Whether you think piracy is right or wrong morally is irrelevant, feel and express whatever view you like on that score, but getting ordinary punters like you to swallow and repeat the company line that piracy is making the poor ickle multi-million-dollar corporations do the nasty-wasty things honest *lipwobble* is the entire reason they're saying it - not because it's true, but because they hope that they can exploit your moral outrage so you and more like you will happily step in and defend their abysmal behaviour.

Prices are going up and fee2pay models are becoming more prevalent because they want more money. Preorder schemes are being expanded because they're a marketing ploy designed to exploit flaws in human thinking. Always-online DRM and the removal of server-browsers are happening because companies want control of your entire experience and most importantly the ability to end that experience when they choose to; they don't want you to keep playing the games you enjoy, they want you to buy the latest and greatest game in the series whether you need it or not. Companies dropped mod support because they don't want community content competing with their DLC, not unless they can act as gatekeepers and charge money.

And the saddest thing of all is you're only hurting yourself(and the rest of us) in the long run. Again, moral considerations aside, facts are facts; piracy can't be stopped - no encryption will stand up to crackers when the game must at some point decrypt itself in order to function, there's always a way in. Even always-online is no barrier to a determined cracker; the plethora of private servers for active MMOs and online FPS games are testament to that. So you're slowly bartering away your consumer rights and the prospects of reasonable pricing models for nothing - in the end, legitimate consumers(who have always been the real target of "anti-piracy" efforts) will pay more for less, the corporations will pocket all the extra money, and the people that pirated games will still be pirating games.

**TedNugent**

I think the point is that it was within bad taste.

**jonolikespie**

I really don't want to get dragged into a debate about piracy and DRM and all that, so here is my rather blunt take on all this:

Does Chaos being a DLC faction hurt me, the consumer?

Yes.

Will this impact my decision to buy when the time comes?

Yes.

I could not give half a crap about the why, all I care about is how much value I get for my money, and that is really all any customer should care about.

**reds8n**

**Javin**

I do not plan to buy this until a few months after release. Bugs are always terrible the first few months of an EA game. DLC takes a few months to make the game complete. Price also drops considerably after a few months.

For me, the DLC news kills any hype to go out and purchase immediately.

**reds8n**

http://news.softpedia.com/news/total-war-warhammer-reveals-campaign-map-in-new-grimgor-ironhide-trailer-496726.shtml

Video game developer The Creative Assembly and publisher SEGA are delivering a new major trailer for their upcoming Total War: Warhammer, which is centered around the Ork warlord Grimgor Ironhide and offers a first look at the campaign map that gamers will be able to explore.

The game will cover a lot of fantasy ground, ranging from the Badlands to the Chaos Wastes, all of it rendered in careful detail by the development team based on the setting created by Games Workshop.

The Creative Assembly has been largely quiet about the strategic layer mechanics of its coming Total War: Warhammer but has promised that unique elements will be offered for each faction, allowing them to express their personality.

For the Orcs, it seems that their Waaagh means that they need to be constantly engaged in combat and might suffer penalties if they fail to engage the enemy constantly.

Gamers will also be able to play as the Empire, the Vampire Counts, and the Dwarfs, with each of the races featuring their unique commanders that will shape how they approach both settlement development and actual combat.

Grimgor Ironhide is one of the most powerful Black Orcs and a capable commander with a powerful lust for combat.

The Creative Assembly states he " maintains a tough, elite retinue of Black Orc warriors around him. This is the hard-as-nails mob known as da Immortulz, a moniker earned due to their habit of surviving almost impossible battles. On the whole Grimgor much prefers Black Orcs to any other kind of greenskin, but plenty of weedier types have snuck into his camp when the steely gaze of his single eye is fixed elsewhere."

Total War: Warhammer is the first fantasy installment in the series

The Creative Assembly has long used real-world history as inspiration for its strategy titles, as seen in experiences like Rome, Medieval or Attila.

With the new Warhammer game, the studio is trying to take the fantasy universe and create a wide range of gameplay experiences around it, making sure that the resulting title is balanced and reflects the lore created by Games Workshop.

When it comes to the tactical battles, The Creative Assembly is making magic a powerful tool that can dominate certain phases of combat but comes associated with major risks for those who wield it.

Each faction will also have a variety of units to choose from, with the classic regiments of trained men and creatures joined by powerful heroes and by a range of legendary beasts that have the power to turn the tide of any engagement on their own.

Total War: Warhammer will be launched on April 28 of next year and will be offered only on the PC.

Gamers can place a pre-order so that they get access to the a playable version of the Chaos race, which will be only present as an AI controlled enemy for those who do not get the downloadable content pack that enables them.

Post-launch DLC for Total War: Warhammer will introduce more Legendary Lords and other content for gamers and SEGA and The Creative Assembly are planning to create a trilogy of titles based on the fantasy universe.

**Davylove21**

I definitely won't be pre-ordering, because I don't want to promote the anti-consumer practices that have become all too common in the gaming industry. I am excited though, and I hope that they can work their heads around a 40K Total War after this.

**reds8n**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/35039142/total-war-to-be-a-big-part-of-pc-gamings-future

PC only for the foreseeable future.