And there it is, after months of rumors. No release date set yet, but some preliminary gameplay sequences towards the end of the video. If they manage to pull off the scope of the setting with transitions from space to ground this seamlessly, we might have something great on our hands here.
Edit: The game will be multiplatform, PS5 and Xbox current gen included. Make of that what you will.
Think it was pretty much a given that it was 40K or Star Wars when they spoke about basically making a new/rebuilt engine to deal with a new style of combat and Medieval 3 was their big historical title. Be interesting to see how this compares with DOW4 and how the TW format works with a greater emphasis on firepower. If it's anything like the past couple of Warhammer games then I'll try not to judge it based just on its state at release and let the post-launch team who usually takes over do their thing. Console release... I don't know how they pull that off without the UI suffering a lot of compromises to make it more controller friendly.
I think DoW is tactical, while Total War is grand strategy and will bring in logistics and development requirements. I haven't played a Total War game for a long time, but I sank and awful lot of time into the original Shogun.
The idea of this being something that works across whole sectors rather than individual planets or continents is very exciting for me
How do we think this is going to compare with DoW4 that we are also expecting? They look to scratch the same itch.
I'd assume that the focus will be different. DoW will be in-deph planetside battles while TW will be more shallow on that front because it has to cover a bigger strategic framework on a galactic level.
I'm really looking forward to this, assuming they can make a game that is both true to 40K and true to the Total War series.
My main concern is how long it will take to get to a stage where we have many fleshed out factions and huge maps to play on. After all the Total War Warhammer series took 3 games and who knows how much DLC to get to where we are now.
As for Dawn of War 4, I think both games can coexist successfully. Sure, they're both strategy games but the gameplay of the two series is different enough to each potentially have a fanbase.
The screen shots so far look like they're just blocks of troops moving and shooting around in formations like the pre-modern-ranged-weapons TW games.... which is very stupid and bad to be honest. Hopefully it's not so much like that and more like Steel Division or even simply DoW at larger scale... I'm fine with the action being less micro-managing of individual units/abilities than Dawn of War but if it's visually troops marching around in the open spraying each other for extended periods of time that ain't doing much for muh immersion.
RustyNumber wrote: The screen shots so far look like they're just blocks of troops moving and shooting around in formations like the pre-modern-ranged-weapons games.... which is very stupid and bad to be honest. Hopefully it's not so much like that and more like Steel Division or even simply DoW at larger scale...
To be fair, that is basically how battles are portrayed in the art and arguably on the tabletop; big formations of soldiers just rushing each other and using their guns at close range, artillery be damned.
I'm more interested in the strategic layer myself. I wasn't too impressed by the tactical battles, but that small snippet of the sector map is what really got my attention.
I don't think I've seen something like that since Empire At War.
To be fair, that is basically how battles are portrayed in the art and arguably on the tabletop; big formations of soldiers just rushing each other and using their guns at close range, artillery be damned.
Which is fine sometimes, but play the DoW1 remaster and tell me it looks like a modern game and true to setting just having to squads standing in open terrain static firing at each other. It doesn't have to be Men of War Assault Squad 2 level of detail (which incidentally has some pretty cool and extensive 40k mods) but I'm sure they can do better than "black powder troops from previous games but they're space marines now" style fights.
The game RUSE (alas a great game but unloved/abandoned before its time!) has most of the action occur on a cool table top map with models on chits to represent units, but you could zoom in and have it come to life with fairly realistic terrain and units (albeit the tanks zooming along at mad speeds)
Looks like a mobile game. If you search Creative Assembly videos on YT, people aren't happy with them and haven't been for a long time. This will likely just be bad, sorry.
The interesting bit for me is whether the different factions actually have different play mechanisms. Sure Guard and Orks fit well into the classic 4x mould of expansion and holding of worlds. However if I go marines, will I be deploying multiple full chapters on every battlefield? Will the Eldar be garrisoning subjugated Imperial worlds with millions of warp spiders?
Hopefully not, and marines and Eldarxwill be more about the surgical strikes being made in the context of larger conflicts, possibly even between other main combatants.
It is good to see they it’s not just mirrored Imperium vs Chaos
Flinty wrote: The interesting bit for me is whether the different factions actually have different play mechanisms. Sure Guard and Orks fit well into the classic 4x mould of expansion and holding of worlds. However if I go marines, will I be deploying multiple full chapters on every battlefield? Will the Eldar be garrisoning subjugated Imperial worlds with millions of warp spiders?
Hopefully not, and marines and Eldarxwill be more about the surgical strikes being made in the context of larger conflicts, possibly even between other main combatants.
It is good to see they it’s not just mirrored Imperium vs Chaos
Would certainly expect this to be the case, they've done this in the fantasy games. Different factions play very differently and have unique mechanics.
Dunno... CA's business model of dicing and diming their customers for all they're worth annoys and bores me to death. So I'll probably pass either way.
Honestly I didn't feel "diced and dimed" by Warhammer Total War at all.
Yes there's a lot of DLC (that goes on sale very regularly if you're willing to wait); however much of that is whole new factions worth of content.
And its not like "ancient human faction with a reskin" its entirely new spell effects, monsters, animations, faction art, species etc...
Most RTS games have 2 maybe 3 distinct factions (heck these days you seem to get 2 and an endless promise of the 3rd maybe appearing at some point if sales remain just strong enough).
Beyond that you really don't see many games going with many more; so for TW Warhammer to have 24 is bonkers. Esp when many of them have multiple decently distinct (campaign wise) subfactions within that.
So yeah I've no problem at TW Warhammer launching with 4 core factions and expanding. Dawn of War did that over 3 games; most 4X games do similar - even back to the golden age of gaming you'd have had to have had 20 expansion packs to reach that number for a classic game like Red Alert or Starcraft.
So yeah not a problem and honestly freaking hyped about this.
Overread wrote: Honestly I didn't feel "diced and dimed" by Warhammer Total War at all.
Yes there's a lot of DLC (that goes on sale very regularly if you're willing to wait); however much of that is whole new factions worth of content.
And its not like "ancient human faction with a reskin" its entirely new spell effects, monsters, animations, faction art, species etc...
Most RTS games have 2 maybe 3 distinct factions (heck these days you seem to get 2 and an endless promise of the 3rd maybe appearing at some point if sales remain just strong enough).
Beyond that you really don't see many games going with many more; so for TW Warhammer to have 24 is bonkers. Esp when many of them have multiple decently distinct (campaign wise) subfactions within that.
So yeah I've no problem at TW Warhammer launching with 4 core factions and expanding. Dawn of War did that over 3 games; most 4X games do similar - even back to the golden age of gaming you'd have had to have had 20 expansion packs to reach that number for a classic game like Red Alert or Starcraft.
So yeah not a problem and honestly freaking hyped about this.
Sorry, what was that? i couldn't hear you over the " TOoo DiffIcUlt TO AniMate NightMaW" from CA.
To be fair, that is basically how battles are portrayed in the art and arguably on the tabletop; big formations of soldiers just rushing each other and using their guns at close range, artillery be damned.
Which is fine sometimes, but play the DoW1 remaster and tell me it looks like a modern game and true to setting just having to squads standing in open terrain static firing at each other. It doesn't have to be Men of War Assault Squad 2 level of detail (which incidentally has some pretty cool and extensive 40k mods) but I'm sure they can do better than "black powder troops from previous games but they're space marines now" style fights.
The game RUSE (alas a great game but unloved/abandoned before its time!) has most of the action occur on a cool table top map with models on chits to represent units, but you could zoom in and have it come to life with fairly realistic terrain and units (albeit the tanks zooming along at mad speeds)
I mean, what do you want? How do you think marines will fight? There is nearly no gameplay footage, but from the one shown, it's a big open bridge. How should they be shooting when on a 400m wide bridge?
Dawn of war 1 - move and operate in bricks,
Dawn of war 2 - largely move and shoot in a close knit brick but dynamically adapt to the terrain they're stood in. This is a fair point to take but I dare say not possible with stuff like 30 man units etc.
Dawn of war 3 - honestly bleached it from my brain
Space marine 1 and 2 dont have a cover system, wonder why.
Chaos gate and mechanicum encourage cover but dont limit to it.
I think CA's biggest challenge here will be meeting expectations of the 40k fans that may not be familiar with the Total War franchise or how CA operates as a development studio as of late (this could be an entirely separate and very long topic in itself).
I'm cautiously optimistic, but also concerned that 40k will starve Medieval 3 of resources and manpower. Historical TW fans have been hungry for a solid title for a long time.
Dawn of war 2 - largely move and shoot in a close knit brick but dynamically adapt to the terrain they're stood in. This is a fair point to take but I dare say not possible with stuff like 30 man units etc.
Why not? I'd settle for this. Craters, obstacles, ruins etc. are plenty to simulate cover. Go a step further and have them garrison buildings, shoot from rooftops and so on. Have this interact with destructible terrain, so there is a trade-off that makes it mechanically interesting. It's not hard to think of ways to make this work, it's just that this level of granularity is often dismissed at a conceptual level, while it has been done plenty of times already in much older games.
Red alert 2 and later command and conquer games had decent systems for garrisioning buildings.
Hell, even empire total war allowed you to build trenches when on the defensive.
And most total war games have units in forest take less damage from ranged weapons.
You could easily place those forests mechanics within ruin/rubble areas.
I'll have to see what kind of specs they want for it. If it's gonna require a very expensive PC I'll pass. I'm past the phase of my life where I want to pay that much for video games.
Probably too much to ask for the first instalment but I hope at some point they do space battles. The sea battles in Empire and Napoleon were really fun, and it'd essentially just need to be that but in space.
Billicus wrote: Probably too much to ask for the first instalment but I hope at some point they do space battles. The sea battles in Empire and Napoleon were really fun, and it'd essentially just need to be that but in space.
Or just copy/paste Rogue Trader's space battles, but on a bigger scale.
Massive battles are a good thing, but also small band of adventureres moving in a huge enviroment would be awesome (the same in the Fantasy Battle universe, noone is doing a Mordheim mod...)
I did wonder if this was coming. Trailer looks promising.
My first thought was ‘sweet’.
My second was ‘ugh, I wonder how long I’ll need to wait for somebody to mod out all of the primaris’.
Third was ‘oh gak, the fallout over the inevitably ruinous DLC pricing model is going to be spectacular .’
Overread wrote: Honestly I didn't feel "diced and dimed" by Warhammer Total War at all.
Yes there's a lot of DLC (that goes on sale very regularly if you're willing to wait); however much of that is whole new factions worth of content.
This. As someone who has played and followed the TWW games since number 1 CA has given an absurd amount of post-launch support for the TWW games, endless reworks to improve old factions and bring them in line with the newer content. So on the free updates alone they've done really well by the fans. As for DLC, well I suppose they could just launch-and-done the game like the olden days and we never get anything new for it again. Who the hell wants that? Compared to all the other C-tier PC titles that have endlessly nickel and dimed 40k DLC CA have been saints by comparison.
I mean, what do you want? How do you think marines will fight? There is nearly no gameplay footage, but from the one shown, it's a big open bridge. How should they be shooting when on a 400m wide bridge?
It's not that one specific screen, it's all of them indicating the gameplay looks like it will just be total war melee battles but they have guns. Just looking at 30 seconds of Steel Division 2 gameplay shows you what the games battles roughly ought to look like, if they're trying to differentiate from the more classic RTS style of DoW4. Vaguely blobbing huge units as Orks across the open would be fun and thematic, SMs and Eldar really ought to look like actual real life fire-and-manoeuvre to a large degree.
AS someone who has just started slowly putting together a force in LI for the Solar Auxillia - I'd freaking love GW to launch a 40K version. I've to get huge legions of Eldar and Tyranids on the table!
Game made also for console…. Ooofff
Yeah, I’d short my expectations.
Galactic map looks cool though
Dow4 not looking that hot, and this has signs of a product for the masses
Almost every Total War game has been in pre industrial times. They haven't even been a Total War game that even covered World War One yet. Yet now there have a Total War game about this very advanced science fiction setting. I want them to pull it off, but I will not get my hopes up.
Overread wrote: Honestly I didn't feel "diced and dimed" by Warhammer Total War at all.
Yes there's a lot of DLC (that goes on sale very regularly if you're willing to wait); however much of that is whole new factions worth of content.
This. As someone who has played and followed the TWW games since number 1 CA has given an absurd amount of post-launch support for the TWW games, endless reworks to improve old factions and bring them in line with the newer content. So on the free updates alone they've done really well by the fans. As for DLC, well I suppose they could just launch-and-done the game like the olden days and we never get anything new for it again. Who the hell wants that? Compared to all the other C-tier PC titles that have endlessly nickel and dimed 40k DLC CA have been saints by comparison.
I mean, what do you want? How do you think marines will fight? There is nearly no gameplay footage, but from the one shown, it's a big open bridge. How should they be shooting when on a 400m wide bridge?
It's not that one specific screen, it's all of them indicating the gameplay looks like it will just be total war melee battles but they have guns. Just looking at 30 seconds of Steel Division 2 gameplay shows you what the games battles roughly ought to look like, if they're trying to differentiate from the more classic RTS style of DoW4. Vaguely blobbing huge units as Orks across the open would be fun and thematic, SMs and Eldar really ought to look like actual real life fire-and-manoeuvre to a large degree.
I'll stop bleating on about this after this post but you're still highlighting the issue with a lot of the negative noise online: there are "it wont be like a total war game" and "it wont be a proper 40k game". Both of them actually cite the same reasons but from the other side of the fence:
- unit formations are a reason it can't be a total war game because they shouldn't move in formations, they should be free flowing into terrain and skirmising and you can't possibly approximate that with the way units are presented in total war. These people believe the setting is bad for a total war game which ks what they want.
- unit formations are a reason it cant be a 40k game because they'd be ducking into cover and firing at targets round corners and other military style maneuvers like modern day ranged units would operate, which doesn't work in formations like will be used in a total war game. These people believe the total war format is bad for 40k which is what they want.
Conclusion: neither group actually wants a 40k total war game, because their stance is based off preconceptions of their prior efforts, blurring real life military sim into their assumptions and misinterpreting fluff and head canon when applying bias. It could well be that CA have units that move in loose rectangle which allows traditional total war play, and adapt dynamically to the cover available in the field as an approximation. Any more granular unit manipulation is likely not appropriate for the scale. Rigid square blocks ignoring walls isn't likely appropriate for the setting, but a token effort to meet in the middle is acceptable imo.
Putting the console parts aside I've faith in CA. I recall the launch of Warhammer TW. IT was a massive revolution for a TW game.
Till then the only magical effects were a bit of fire on catapults and arrows; they never did tornadoes throwing models in the air or huge spell effects of any kind.
They'd never animated anything that wasn't a horse/camel/elephant or human. Basically living things you can get real animation packs for or create with suits on animals/people and pingpongballs.
Now they've got dragons, medusa, hydra, whatever the heck a slaanesh fiend is (seriously the animations on those are amazing).
Honestly going from Fantasy Warhammer to Scifi Warhammer is a SMALLER step than from reality to fantasy. Esp when you consider that a huge chunk of 40K is basically a hybrid mix of WW1 and WW2 battletypes.
The Imperial Guard literally fights like a WW1 army. Even their tanks are designed like WW1 tanks.
So yeah mechanically I think they can 100% do it, I've no problems with that side of things at all. My only concern is the desire to make it work on consoles and PCs at the same time and that's because if you look at past attempts (including the only AoS game ever made on pc/console thus far); its generally failed at worst and been lackluster at best. At least for fully live-action RTS games.
CK3 and Stellaris are kind of hybrids that, to my eye, lean closer to TBS than RTS. However they do show that there have been advances.
RustyNumber wrote: The screen shots so far look like they're just blocks of troops moving and shooting around in formations like the pre-modern-ranged-weapons games.... which is very stupid and bad to be honest. Hopefully it's not so much like that and more like Steel Division or even simply DoW at larger scale...
To be fair, that is basically how battles are portrayed in the art and arguably on the tabletop; big formations of soldiers just rushing each other and using their guns at close range, artillery be damned.
It isn't, though. There's a difference between simply having large numbers in one area, and fighting as a block of soldiers in a formation.
If you look at a lot of epic scale art, it does portray imperial warfare as big blocks of troops grinding forward over obstacles, rather than modern tactical movement. Orks will certainly just green wave it, and a large proportion of their troops are melee focussed anyway, so why not move in blocks.
Marines in a lot of cases don’t need to hug cover quite as much give. Their armour, so it’s only Eldar that would look a bit weird smashing forward in brutish blocks of troops.
On the other hand, the videos have made quite the focus on orbital strikes demolishing the cityscape, making me wonder what degree of destructible terrain will play a part in the game. If they can do that level of fidelity, I can see them making the troop blocks a bit less rigid. I vaguely recall that you were able to disperse an our troops into a skirmish formation to reduce effectiveness of incoming arrows maybe back in the first Shogun? Or was it the first Medieval that came in to, so it’s not like the games have only ever worked as strict dense troop blocks.
Will it be perfect? Almost certainly not. Will it cover the key points of the background and feel of the wider epic scale game? Looks like it.
The 40k games released recently have been really good in my view, especially in the way they stick close to the setting, aesthetic and lore, so I’m quite confident tablet can manage this time as well, especially with a studio that has successfully delivered the fantasy setting.
Flinty wrote: If you look at a lot of epic scale art, it does portray imperial warfare as big blocks of troops grinding forward over obstacles, rather than modern tactical movement.
40k art commonly depicts the right sort of scale to have massive battles with lots of stuff tightly packed together, but within that they're not fighting like they're a 50-strong group (or however many) of Napoleonic line infantry who are all one single huge unit as it appears the game is going for, it's still them being grouped at a squad level operating using more modern tactics than a big block formation with firing lines.
I was expecting that rather than do this which is basically the lazy way of just slapping a 40k theming ontop of the big blocks of rank & file warfare soldiers the series goes for, they'd have done something actually more appropriate to the setting like perhaps what epic 40k does or legionnes imperialis, where units are a combination of several squads together in proximity. The amount of troops would still the same to a unit, but that small amount of extra separation between them would provide a better semblance of what 40k combat typically involves rather than just one huge block.
Hopefully when they reveal more it turns out that there's more to it than it seems from this very brief bit of gameplay, at least.
The screenshots look like they're PRE-ALPHA. That's where you start and get A LOT gets changed between that stage and final release. You might as well criticize them for the ork killa kan clipping through terrain in the front left. WHICH IS FINE BECAUSE IT'S PRE ALPHA.
Ahem.
Having played TW:Warhammer 1-3 (about 15 years?), I'm completely excited over this! Utterly excited. I can't wait to be still playing this when I've retired. TW:Warhammer had such insane amount of replayability, unique factional economies, and different fighting styles, I have complete confidence in what comes next.
Apparently GW does too considering they build their Cathay faction for Warhammer: Old World around modeling work CA did for TW:W.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Wonder if the let’s face almost inevitable success of this might lead us to Proper Epic once more.
Or if the game engine works well enough, I can see them doing a Horus Heresy game.
People are complaining 40k only has 4 factions at launch, thst would actually be more than half of the HH range. Narratively I get it, in reality it'd be 80%+ of battle using mirrored sprites and units. A marine-off isnt a good video game for a general crowd.
I think a Total War Horus Heresy campaign would be cool. Maybe not so fun in skirmish play as Marines vs Marines but a story driven campaign could work. If Total War 40K takes off I could see the Heresy being done as an expansion or spin off game.
Not that we’ll have to worry about that for some time to come. Creative Assembly will be busy with the 40K version for the next few years.
It's just way way too early to start making judgements about how it plays based on 15 seconds of trailer, some screengrabs, and empty hype statements from producers.
Billicus wrote: It's just way way too early to start making judgements about how it plays based on 15 seconds of trailer, some screengrabs, and empty hype statements from producers.
So true we basically have nothing to go on - most of the chatter is about the concerns of going pc and console with a genre that has historically done poorly with such conversions. Until we get real reviews, gameplay videos, in person testing and so forth its all just guesswork. Heck we don't even know unit rosters or how the campaign map will work or anything.
Suffice to say for myself, whilst I've concerns about the console aspect; TW Warhammer has been a sheer dream come true so I have faith that CA will do well with the 40K setting.
And if it all fails as a result of all the console stuff; then at least they got it out of their system before Medieval 3!
The screenshots look like they're PRE-ALPHA. That's where you start and get A LOT gets changed between that stage and final release. You might as well criticize them for the ork killa kan clipping through terrain in the front left. WHICH IS FINE BECAUSE IT'S PRE ALPHA.
They *chose* to depict everything in those images. Why would they depict the troops as rank-and-file if they were instead planning on implementing them in a more realistic fire-and-manoeuvre manner? Of course initial/concept art to the finished product differs substantially all the time and I hope in this case that is true but I'm still basing my judgement on how the game creators chose to depict their game.
I don't know why the console aspect has people bothered, the only foreseeable issue would be if they need a "dumbed down" UI appropriate for controllers that is shared between all versions.
According to several Total War content creators who saw the game about six months ago, it was totally different when they saw it and it is still very much in alpha, and changing in sweeping ways, constantly. I wouldn't read much into almost anything we are shown this early.
The screenshots look like they're PRE-ALPHA. That's where you start and get A LOT gets changed between that stage and final release. You might as well criticize them for the ork killa kan clipping through terrain in the front left. WHICH IS FINE BECAUSE IT'S PRE ALPHA.
They *chose* to depict everything in those images. Why would they depict the troops as rank-and-file if they were instead planning on implementing them in a more realistic fire-and-manoeuvre manner? Of course initial/concept art to the finished product differs substantially all the time and I hope in this case that is true but I'm still basing my judgement on how the game creators chose to depict their game.
I don't know why the console aspect has people bothered, the only foreseeable issue would be if they need a "dumbed down" UI appropriate for controllers that is shared between all versions.
Ah yes, that classic realism simulator, warhammer 40,000.
I don't know why the console aspect has people bothered, the only foreseeable issue would be if they need a "dumbed down" UI appropriate for controllers that is shared between all versions.
It's not just the UI but also how that UI impacts the game.
Units in TW Warhammer, esp hero mages, have quite a lot of control options going on with them. They can have a full roster of spells on one side and abilities on the other plus their regular commands in the middle. That's quite a bit for a console to cover. Plus panning and zooming around the map is typically slower on console controllers over PC and mouse (esp when there's a mini map to click on). This can result in a console RTS experience having slower game pacing to give the console user time to react; it can result in simpler unit setups and fewer units to control to keep the attention load lighter.
On console this prevents the player getting overwhelmed, but on PC can end up making for a less engaging experience since they are left with longer empty gaps.
Now TW games aren't click-fests like starcraft, they are somewhat slower by nature. So its not inherently an entirely bad nor impossible thing to work into a TW game. However again I still note that its generally not worked well. Heck look at the AoSRTS game that was launched not that long ago. They clearly put loads of effort and work into it; visually it looked great. It sunk like a lead weight on sales and failed to grab either market. Granted this doesn't prove that it can't work; but it just adds to the list of console RTS experiences that just never really worked all that well.
With respect to console support, let’s wait and see.
Current gen consoles support mouse and keyboard. So, the game could still be designed with mouse and keyboard as the primary input device.
However, since most console players use a controller, those will be supported as well, of course.
But that does not necessarily lead to an inferior game.
For one, modern control schemes and intelligent menues, e.g. ring menues, could make controlling a complex game manageable.
Also, if cross play is not mandatory, the game could be designed with the strentgh of each plattform in mind. Although, the cost associated with individual designed editions makes this prospect unlikely.
Finally, if you are playing on PC, mods are a thing which allows players to customize the game to their linking.
Therefore, I‘m not too concerned.
If anything, as slower pace for the real time part could become a boon once I get old ?
The screenshots look like they're PRE-ALPHA. That's where you start and get A LOT gets changed between that stage and final release. You might as well criticize them for the ork killa kan clipping through terrain in the front left. WHICH IS FINE BECAUSE IT'S PRE ALPHA.
They *chose* to depict everything in those images. Why would they depict the troops as rank-and-file if they were instead planning on implementing them in a more realistic fire-and-manoeuvre manner? Of course initial/concept art to the finished product differs substantially all the time and I hope in this case that is true but I'm still basing my judgement on how the game creators chose to depict their game.
I don't know why the console aspect has people bothered, the only foreseeable issue would be if they need a "dumbed down" UI appropriate for controllers that is shared between all versions.
Ah yes, that classic realism simulator, warhammer 40,000.
That's a strawman there, he quite clearly meant that style would be more "realistic" to what the setting is. 40k isn't about a style of combat focusing on big blocks of rank-and-file formation warfare troops.
Hopefully it does change but I don't find the "It's pre-alpha!" part enough to be sure it will, as while it does mean things aren't done yet, that sort of thing may very well be what they have chosen to do regardless and there's no garuntee it receives significant changes. Quite often "pre-alpha" gameplay doesn't end up that obviously different from the final product, like look at the pre-alpha footage for Total War Warhammer, what was shown didn't have weren't glaring issues or drastic changes compared to the final version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnO2Pil0hOI
The screenshots look like they're PRE-ALPHA. That's where you start and get A LOT gets changed between that stage and final release. You might as well criticize them for the ork killa kan clipping through terrain in the front left. WHICH IS FINE BECAUSE IT'S PRE ALPHA.
They *chose* to depict everything in those images. Why would they depict the troops as rank-and-file if they were instead planning on implementing them in a more realistic fire-and-manoeuvre manner? Of course initial/concept art to the finished product differs substantially all the time and I hope in this case that is true but I'm still basing my judgement on how the game creators chose to depict their game.
I don't know why the console aspect has people bothered, the only foreseeable issue would be if they need a "dumbed down" UI appropriate for controllers that is shared between all versions.
Ah yes, that classic realism simulator, warhammer 40,000.
That's a strawman there, he quite clearly meant that style would be more "realistic" to what the setting is. 40k isn't about a style of combat focusing on big blocks of rank-and-file formation warfare troops.
Hopefully it does change but I don't find the "It's pre-alpha!" part enough to be sure it will, as while it does mean things aren't done yet, that sort of thing may very well be what they have chosen to do regardless and there's no garuntee it receives significant changes. Quite often "pre-alpha" gameplay doesn't end up that obviously different from the final product, like look at the pre-alpha footage for Total War Warhammer, what was shown didn't have weren't glaring issues or drastic changes compared to the final version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnO2Pil0hOI
There is no formal explanation for how 40k troops fight, they're just applying present day logic and a few fluff snippets and expecting something. Why would a civilisation that has to burn a candle and pray to an oven to make a toasted sandwich adopt modern 21st century fighting techniques?
The screenshots look like they're PRE-ALPHA. That's where you start and get A LOT gets changed between that stage and final release. You might as well criticize them for the ork killa kan clipping through terrain in the front left. WHICH IS FINE BECAUSE IT'S PRE ALPHA.
They *chose* to depict everything in those images. Why would they depict the troops as rank-and-file if they were instead planning on implementing them in a more realistic fire-and-manoeuvre manner? Of course initial/concept art to the finished product differs substantially all the time and I hope in this case that is true but I'm still basing my judgement on how the game creators chose to depict their game.
I don't know why the console aspect has people bothered, the only foreseeable issue would be if they need a "dumbed down" UI appropriate for controllers that is shared between all versions.
Ah yes, that classic realism simulator, warhammer 40,000.
That's a strawman there, he quite clearly meant that style would be more "realistic" to what the setting is. 40k isn't about a style of combat focusing on big blocks of rank-and-file formation warfare troops.
Hopefully it does change but I don't find the "It's pre-alpha!" part enough to be sure it will, as while it does mean things aren't done yet, that sort of thing may very well be what they have chosen to do regardless and there's no garuntee it receives significant changes. Quite often "pre-alpha" gameplay doesn't end up that obviously different from the final product, like look at the pre-alpha footage for Total War Warhammer, what was shown didn't have weren't glaring issues or drastic changes compared to the final version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnO2Pil0hOI
There is no formal explanation for how 40k troops fight, they're just applying present day logic and a few fluff snippets and expecting something. Why would a civilisation that has to burn a candle and pray to an oven to make a toasted sandwich adopt modern 21st century fighting techniques?
I honestly do not know how how you can seriously say that. That's the sort of thing I'd expect someone who hasn't actually engaged with the 40k setting beyond getting their lore second-hand in memes might say about it. Especially as you're strangely trying to apply aspects of the Imperium's logic (for a completely unrelated matter) to everything else in the setting, too.
That you're for some reason trying to make out that there is no average to the way combat is shown in the setting is just odd as there absolutely is a certain way things are most commonly depicted in the setting, and that's with them operating in ways that quite closely resemble that of the 20th century and later. That's been established by the vast, vast majority of novels, stories, art, animations, video games cutscenes, the tabletop games and miniature dioramas over the past few decades showing that.
Something like a Tau Firewarrior, Eldar Guardian, Cadian Guardsmen, Space Marine etc is typically shown going about on the battlefield simply in cohesion with their squad, taking cover, determining their own targets, using their initiative, firing and reloading and moving when they choose etc and the other stuff you'd expect of modern day soldiers. There are the occasional exceptions, like Mordian Iron Guard for example, but the average style of warfare and unit behaviour shown within the setting is with them operating in that way, not as if they're a 100-strong rank & file block formation moving and firing in sync with everyone else in their huge unit having their specific timings and actions shouted at them like they're British Line Infantry fighting at Waterloo in the 19th century.
The screenshots look like they're PRE-ALPHA. That's where you start and get A LOT gets changed between that stage and final release. You might as well criticize them for the ork killa kan clipping through terrain in the front left. WHICH IS FINE BECAUSE IT'S PRE ALPHA.
They *chose* to depict everything in those images. Why would they depict the troops as rank-and-file if they were instead planning on implementing them in a more realistic fire-and-manoeuvre manner? Of course initial/concept art to the finished product differs substantially all the time and I hope in this case that is true but I'm still basing my judgement on how the game creators chose to depict their game.
I don't know why the console aspect has people bothered, the only foreseeable issue would be if they need a "dumbed down" UI appropriate for controllers that is shared between all versions.
Ah yes, that classic realism simulator, warhammer 40,000.
That's a strawman there, he quite clearly meant that style would be more "realistic" to what the setting is. 40k isn't about a style of combat focusing on big blocks of rank-and-file formation warfare troops.
Hopefully it does change but I don't find the "It's pre-alpha!" part enough to be sure it will, as while it does mean things aren't done yet, that sort of thing may very well be what they have chosen to do regardless and there's no garuntee it receives significant changes. Quite often "pre-alpha" gameplay doesn't end up that obviously different from the final product, like look at the pre-alpha footage for Total War Warhammer, what was shown didn't have weren't glaring issues or drastic changes compared to the final version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnO2Pil0hOI
There is no formal explanation for how 40k troops fight, they're just applying present day logic and a few fluff snippets and expecting something. Why would a civilisation that has to burn a candle and pray to an oven to make a toasted sandwich adopt modern 21st century fighting techniques?
I honestly do not know how how you can seriously say that. That's the sort of thing I'd expect someone who hasn't actually engaged with the 40k setting beyond getting their lore second-hand in memes might say about it.
That you're for some reason trying to make out that there is no average to the way combat is shown in the setting is just odd as there absolutely is a certain way things are most commonly depicted in the setting, and that's with them operating in ways that quite closely resemble that of the 20th century and later. That's been established by the vast, vast majority of novels, stories, art, animations, video games cutscenes, the tabletop games and miniature dioramas over the past few decades showing that.
I mean a lot of them simply aren't relevant or you're wrong in terms of presented media. 3 space marines in parry/roll simulator 2 isn't a good example of what 40 of them would look like or operate like in a coordinated operation, as portrayed in total war 40k. Novels concentrate on specific individual actions and don't elaborate on the wider combat shapes, so largely not relevant to the discussion.
video games:
Spoiler:
DoW1, nice ordered squares there
Dow 2 is more fluid looking, but then again a marine squad was like 4 guys, because it was "skirmish scale"
DoW 3 - nice small units in formation again
I mean Battlesector might not be fair but they're in ranks again
Honourable mention for this SM2 shot
moving in formation again
remember when the guardsmen storm the bridge in formation?
DoW 4 - orks certainly manage formations ok
Dioramas & GW physical photos:
Spoiler:
Just raiding WHW:
it's HH but note they're moving in units? Often in a loose square?
these fists certainly seem to be in a squad based formation
Other official shots:
ranked units
ranked units
ranked units
ranked units
in case you doubted it was just 40k - ranked units
WH40k Art:
Spoiler:
There are fewer of these due to the love of dynamic angles on a central focal figure, but they seem to appear that they form into formations and operate as such, but due to the artistic license, small number of bodies and the tendency to portray 'cool close range scrap', it doesn't help anyone much in honesty. These all certainly give the hint of formations in official art:
I haven't got any novels to hand with relevant sections, but lets face it they focus on individual characters rather than squad tactics. That said there are plenty of occasions where units form firing lines, move into formations and in the marines case simply walk into the line of fire. I'm reading Archmagos now and some of the marines in there are organised into circles in a firing line around a breach for example, no mention of cover or how they got there or what the combat is like.
So in conclusion, no there isn't a commonly defined "way they fight" not a prescribed common tactics or descriptive manoeuvre log that I'm away of. Each source handles the topic differently and the vast majority of presented media from GW either has:
- Units fighting and moving in formations, resolutely trading fire
- Complete bedlam/melee with no real reflection on the game anyway
- So much smaller in scale and viewpoint as to not be useful to the conversation
What I think people expect is some weird smushing of hundreds of troops on screen at once dynamically rolling between cover, pushing peoples heads down, having individual sprites from a block of 30 throw a grenade around a corner whilst the rest of the squad line up ready to move and suppressive fire as they advance 2 at a time between cover. That is not and never will be total war. It's madness to expect that and no RTS on the planet will do that at that scale.
It's a total war game, they'll move in formations, hug the cover the best they can code for and stand there and shoot. That's what those games do, that's often what they do in the setting anyway in reality. It is not real life and nuanced squad movements do not apply.
The screenshots look like they're PRE-ALPHA. That's where you start and get A LOT gets changed between that stage and final release. You might as well criticize them for the ork killa kan clipping through terrain in the front left. WHICH IS FINE BECAUSE IT'S PRE ALPHA.
They *chose* to depict everything in those images. Why would they depict the troops as rank-and-file if they were instead planning on implementing them in a more realistic fire-and-manoeuvre manner? Of course initial/concept art to the finished product differs substantially all the time and I hope in this case that is true but I'm still basing my judgement on how the game creators chose to depict their game.
I don't know why the console aspect has people bothered, the only foreseeable issue would be if they need a "dumbed down" UI appropriate for controllers that is shared between all versions.
Ah yes, that classic realism simulator, warhammer 40,000.
That's a strawman there, he quite clearly meant that style would be more "realistic" to what the setting is. 40k isn't about a style of combat focusing on big blocks of rank-and-file formation warfare troops.
Hopefully it does change but I don't find the "It's pre-alpha!" part enough to be sure it will, as while it does mean things aren't done yet, that sort of thing may very well be what they have chosen to do regardless and there's no garuntee it receives significant changes. Quite often "pre-alpha" gameplay doesn't end up that obviously different from the final product, like look at the pre-alpha footage for Total War Warhammer, what was shown didn't have weren't glaring issues or drastic changes compared to the final version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnO2Pil0hOI
There is no formal explanation for how 40k troops fight, they're just applying present day logic and a few fluff snippets and expecting something. Why would a civilisation that has to burn a candle and pray to an oven to make a toasted sandwich adopt modern 21st century fighting techniques?
I honestly do not know how how you can seriously say that. That's the sort of thing I'd expect someone who hasn't actually engaged with the 40k setting beyond getting their lore second-hand in memes might say about it.
That you're for some reason trying to make out that there is no average to the way combat is shown in the setting is just odd as there absolutely is a certain way things are most commonly depicted in the setting, and that's with them operating in ways that quite closely resemble that of the 20th century and later. That's been established by the vast, vast majority of novels, stories, art, animations, video games cutscenes, the tabletop games and miniature dioramas over the past few decades showing that.
I mean a lot of them simply aren't relevant or you're wrong in terms of presented media. 3 space marines in parry/roll simulator 2 isn't a good example of what 40 of them would look like or operate like in a coordinated operation, as portrayed in total war 40k. Novels concentrate on specific individual actions and don't elaborate on the wider combat shapes, so largely not relevant to the discussion.
video games:
Spoiler:
DoW1, nice ordered squares there
Dow 2 is more fluid looking, but then again a marine squad was like 4 guys, because it was "skirmish scale"
DoW 3 - nice small units in formation again
I mean Battlesector might not be fair but they're in ranks again
Honourable mention for this SM2 shot
moving in formation again
remember when the guardsmen storm the bridge in formation?
DoW 4 - orks certainly manage formations ok
Dioramas & GW physical photos:
Spoiler:
Just raiding WHW:
it's HH but note they're moving in units? Often in a loose square?
these fists certainly seem to be in a squad based formation
Other official shots:
ranked units
ranked units
ranked units
ranked units
in case you doubted it was just 40k - ranked units
WH40k Art:
Spoiler:
There are fewer of these due to the love of dynamic angles on a central focal figure, but they seem to appear that they form into formations and operate as such, but due to the artistic license, small number of bodies and the tendency to portray 'cool close range scrap', it doesn't help anyone much in honesty. These all certainly give the hint of formations in official art:
I haven't got any novels to hand with relevant sections, but lets face it they focus on individual characters rather than squad tactics. That said there are plenty of occasions where units form firing lines, move into formations and in the marines case simply walk into the line of fire. I'm reading Archmagos now and some of the marines in there are organised into circles in a firing line around a breach for example, no mention of cover or how they got there or what the combat is like.
So in conclusion, no there isn't a commonly defined "way they fight" not a prescribed common tactics or descriptive manoeuvre log that I'm away of. Each source handles the topic differently and the vast majority of presented media from GW either has:
- Units fighting and moving in formations, resolutely trading fire
- Complete bedlam/melee with no real reflection on the game anyway
- So much smaller in scale and viewpoint as to not be useful to the conversation
What I think people expect is some weird smushing of hundreds of troops on screen at once dynamically rolling between cover, pushing peoples heads down, having individual sprites from a block of 30 throw a grenade around a corner whilst the rest of the squad line up ready to move and suppressive fire as they advance 2 at a time between cover. That is not and never will be total war. It's madness to expect that and no RTS on the planet will do that at that scale.
It's a total war game, they'll move in formations, hug the cover the best they can code for and stand there and shoot. That's what those games do, that's often what they do in the setting anyway in reality. It is not real life and nuanced squad movements do not apply.
These examples make me wonder if you're actually even entirely understanding of what this whole thing is even about, as what you've done there is look at a superficial cosmetic element as if that alone is all that this involves, with nothing more to it. What you've shown is mostly just units with members of a squad in cohesion with each other while out in the open, but they are not operating as a block formation of strict regimented infantry who maneuver and fire and behave in sync with each other as if they're one single big unit. One soldier standing behind another or if a squad vaguely resembles a loose square shape doesn't magically shift their behavior and fighting style back to the 1700s and make them operate as rank & file line infantry all of a sudden.
Units fighting in formation would be them choosing a specific shape, forming that shape together, and staying in that positioning as they move and fight, but that isn't what 40k is about. The way combat in 40k is primarily depicted is where they're operating together as a squad near each other, but they aren't all locked into a specific rigid formation carrying out specific timed behaviour patterns all doing the very same thing at once. It isn't rank & file formation warfare. Look at those Eldar Guardians in that last piece of art for example, that's how things are most commonly shown - acting on their own initiative, choosing their own targets, firing on their decision, having more fluid movement than being stuck together in a pattern, using cover when available etc like you'd expect modern-day soldiers to operate too. That's how the vast majority of books, stories, novels, animations etc have depicted things being done, not with a formation warfare style. The few times I can recall something that actually did outright involve a formation, is Krieg troopers marching in some of the Vraks art, and regiments like Praetorian or Mordian Guard forming firing lines because they're specifically based on more historical-styled regiments.
I don't think anyone is really suggesting that the way the game does things is something like every single unit member can behave on their own and would all wait cover with them moving up one at a time like it's the Men of War series where you get that level of granularity, for me it's just wanting a bit more suitable depiction of 40k than it being shoved into the rank & file block warfare format. It's a relatively small change but what I was hoping for something a bit closer to what epic 40k, Apocalypse 40k or Legionnes Imperialis does for their units - a unit being a combination of several squads together.
People, please trim your quotes before posting.....
What I think people expect is some weird smushing of hundreds of troops on screen at once dynamically rolling between cover, pushing peoples heads down, having individual sprites from a block of 30 throw a grenade around a corner whilst the rest of the squad line up ready to move and suppressive fire as they advance 2 at a time between cover. That is not and never will be total war. It's madness to expect that and no RTS on the planet will do that at that scale.
Yes, that is the kind of changes/advancement in gameplay and presentation I would expect from a large well regarded studio who are moving onto a subject different to previous ones. Again, look at Steel Division 2 footage. Do I expect units to literally be individually enacting Band of Brothers moment to moment? No of course not, but at least making the pretence of "these are firearm units utilising terrain and cover and bounding up" as opposed to "we march in formation across an empty plain firing our weapons like it's 1866" If Company of Heroes could do it 20 years ago with small units (and I'm perfectly fine with that mish mash of real world authenticity and "march your SMG unit until they stand 5m from the rifleman unit and they will blaze away at each other like zombies" gameiness) there's no reason it can't be done on a larger scale now.
I don't know why you'd point to the miniatures and artwork and say "see that's what we want and what we'll get!" the whole purpose of an adaptation is being able to break away from how it is (imperfectly) depicted elsewhere. I'll be the first to say that the scale of the tabletop looks silly and implausible, but that translates over and works fine in an RTS like DoW where your preconceptions (based on decades of games back to Dune) is that it's fine for units to engage at unrealistic distances, numbers and tactics. Total War however has always tried to wear some plausibility with its depiction of large battles, at least in comparison to something like Age of Empires.
What I think people expect is some weird smushing of hundreds of troops on screen at once dynamically rolling between cover, pushing peoples heads down, having individual sprites from a block of 30 throw a grenade around a corner whilst the rest of the squad line up ready to move and suppressive fire as they advance 2 at a time between cover. That is not and never will be total war. It's madness to expect that and no RTS on the planet will do that at that scale.
Yes, that is the kind of changes/advancement in gameplay and presentation I would expect from a large well regarded studio who are moving onto a subject different to previous ones. Again, look at Steel Division 2 footage. Do I expect units to literally be individually enacting Band of Brothers moment to moment? No of course not, but at least making the pretence of "these are firearm units utilising terrain and cover and bounding up" as opposed to "we march in formation across an empty plain firing our weapons like it's 1866" If Company of Heroes could do it 20 years ago with small units (and I'm perfectly fine with that mish mash of real world authenticity and "march your SMG unit until they stand 5m from the rifleman unit and they will blaze away at each other like zombies" gameiness) there's no reason it can't be done on a larger scale now.
I don't know why you'd point to the miniatures and artwork and say "see that's what we want and what we'll get!" the whole purpose of an adaptation is being able to break away from how it is (imperfectly) depicted elsewhere. I'll be the first to say that the scale of the tabletop looks silly and implausible, but that translates over and works fine in an RTS like DoW where your preconceptions (based on decades of games back to Dune) is that it's fine for units to engage at unrealistic distances, numbers and tactics. Total War however has always tried to wear some plausibility with its depiction of large battles, at least in comparison to something like Age of Empires.
Because I was told every depiction of the setting showed them using "modern fighting techniques" which clearly isn't the case.
Total war has used loose formation skirmish units for decades at this point which is 80% of what you're all talking about, to add to that from the tiny tiny tiny limited footage of the game seen, they make a token use of cover, such as the guardsmen behind the aegis.
Spoiler:
Which boils back down to what exactly are people moaning about.
Oddly it's fine for units to march in formation across open areas firing their weapons in dawn of war and nobody bats an eyelid, but in the mass battle game? Nooo can't have that.
These examples make me wonder if you're actually even entirely understanding of what this whole thing is even about, as what you've done there is look at a superficial cosmetic element as if that alone is all that this involves, with nothing more to it. What you've shown is mostly just units with members of a squad in cohesion with each other while out in the open, but they are not operating as a block formation of strict regimented infantry who maneuver and fire and behave in sync with each other as if they're one single big unit. One soldier standing behind another or if a squad vaguely resembles a loose square shape doesn't magically shift their behavior and fighting style back to the 1700s and make them operate as rank & file line infantry all of a sudden.
Units fighting in formation would be them choosing a specific shape, forming that shape together, and staying in that positioning as they move and fight, but that isn't what 40k is about. The way combat in 40k is primarily depicted is where they're operating together as a squad near each other, but they aren't all locked into a specific rigid formation carrying out specific timed behaviour patterns all doing the very same thing at once. It isn't rank & file formation warfare. Look at those Eldar Guardians in that last piece of art for example, that's how things are most commonly shown - acting on their own initiative, choosing their own targets, firing on their decision, having more fluid movement than being stuck together in a pattern, using cover when available etc like you'd expect modern-day soldiers to operate too. That's how the vast majority of books, stories, novels, animations etc have depicted things being done, not with a formation warfare style. The few times I can recall something that actually did outright involve a formation, is Krieg troopers marching in some of the Vraks art, and regiments like Praetorian or Mordian Guard forming firing lines because they're specifically based on more historical-styled regiments.
I don't think anyone is really suggesting that the way the game does things is something like every single unit member can behave on their own and would all wait cover with them moving up one at a time like it's the Men of War series where you get that level of granularity, for me it's just wanting a bit more suitable depiction of 40k than it being shoved into the rank & file block warfare format. It's a relatively small change but what I was hoping for something a bit closer to what epic 40k, Apocalypse 40k or Legionnes Imperialis does for their units - a unit being a combination of several squads together.
I agree that a few unit operating together is a good idea but even then, at this scale theyre going to move in a rough formation of units. As noted they'll likely look like skirmishing units and conform to terrain where they can
But this is an rts, once they're in the place you put the unit, the unit will fire at the target unit all at once from whatever position you put them in.
Too much is being complained and worried about when theres a total of 5 seconds of gameplay from up high on a bridge. There will have to be an element of them moving in some form of formation and firing simultaneously and so on, because that's simply a sensible implementation of mechanics at that scale.
Dudeface wrote: There is no formal explanation for how 40k troops fight? ....
Push them all to the middle of the table in a clump and roll lots of dice?
The true fact is that WH40K in most cases depicts in the wrong way the strategy and tactics on the battlefield. The table is too small, is very very small, and is too full of troops. Troops don't have space to manouevre, to fire from the distance. I hope Total War doesn't copy from the tabletop game.
Dudeface wrote: There is no formal explanation for how 40k troops fight? ....
Push them all to the middle of the table in a clump and roll lots of dice?
The true fact is that WH40K in most cases depicts in the wrong way the strategy and tactics on the battlefield. The table is too small, is very very small, and is too full of troops. Troops don't have space to manouevre, to fire from the distance. I hope Total War doesn't copy from the tabletop game.
Heaven forbid total war 40k learns it's setting from actual warhammer 40k rather than the NATO play book right?
It might just be me that thinks this, but I don't feel this is going to work as a Total War game.
Sure, it'll have the label, but TW is pretty well defined by its large block units (exceptions, of course, existing with the likes of artillery and monsters for TWWH and TW: Troy) and unless we're suddenly pivoting to Space Marines coming in blocks of 30 or Tyranids marching in square, then I don't see how its going to keep the vibe of TW and not just end up as "Slightly Differrent Dawn of War".
Gert wrote: It might just be me that thinks this, but I don't feel this is going to work as a Total War game.
Sure, it'll have the label, but TW is pretty well defined by its large block units (exceptions, of course, existing with the likes of artillery and monsters for TWWH and TW: Troy) and unless we're suddenly pivoting to Space Marines coming in blocks of 30 or Tyranids marching in square, then I don't see how its going to keep the vibe of TW and not just end up as "Slightly Differrent Dawn of War".
This is the crux of the issue. For me, both is a win.
It's a tricky path CA is going down going this hard into Warhammer, especially given how fluctuating the quality has been on historical titles.
At least with being based on WHFB the whole blocks of units made sense, cos yknow, that was Fantasy.
Even pushing to Napoleon and Empire isn't a crazy thing because of how static warfare was during those time periods.
As soon as you push past that era into anything remotely similar to modern warfare, TW doesn't work.
Maybe I'll be proven wrong, I do enjoy it when things that look bad turn out to be good but I just don't see the point in Dawn of War 4 and TW40k being the same thing but one has a bigger campaign map.
Also vary wary of it being designed with consoles in mind. Not saying there haven't been good strategy games on consoles (End War with its fun mic interaction comes to mind) but it's like seeing Halo on PlayStation, it just feels wrong.
It sounds like at least conceptually they are really going to try and reflect the unique fighting style of each faction, to the point they single out the eldar as being the most divergent faction from anything they've ever done in TW:
Eldar don't recruit from worlds they take (obviously), and they can't replace their troops once dead, because they're a dying race. Their battles aren't of conquest but specialist insertions into wars to prevent certain outcomes.
Marines play more like TW factions, but are limited like the eldar are.
If the gameplay works anything like they've described, I think it will be the first time these factions are actually reflected accurately in battle.
DoW was just tabletop on computers, which isn't accurate.
TW with the whole recruitment and industrial complex aspect may actually reflect each faction's style more accurately than anything else.
I'm imagining Eldar will be similar to Woodelves in Old World. That is a limited region where they can recruit from and then territories they grab having very limited build options and no recruitment directly from them and such.
The only difference is that as they use huge Craftworld space ships they might have the capacity to move those around between systems. Probably at some huge resource or limited resource cost.
40kTW will be fundamentally different to DOW4 because it has the whole strategic layer over the top. The tactical fighty bit is not the real core of the game. While I enjoyed the tactical bit in Shogun and Medieval, I often just auto-generated the result so I could keep my focus on strategic moves and development. Or I did t really feel like manually defending the same bridge for the 37th time with overwhelmingly superior forces against a raid by a rather overenthusiastic AI.
Overread wrote: I'm imagining Eldar will be similar to Woodelves in Old World. That is a limited region where they can recruit from and then territories they grab having very limited build options and no recruitment directly from them and such.
The only difference is that as they use huge Craftworld space ships they might have the capacity to move those around between systems. Probably at some huge resource or limited resource cost.
Having never played TW:W I can't comment. But the descriptions they give in the video I linked about how the eldar will work sound really cool from a factional representation.
They only recruit from their off map craftworld, where they build shrines to get elite units. They can't replace their casualties once lost, they only fight in asymmetrical conditions and their campaign isn't one of conquest, so how they determine victory is independent of whether they control planets or not.
And given taking planets is a big part of the game, it will be interesting to see how it goes.
Dudeface wrote:
Oddly it's fine for units to march in formation across open areas firing their weapons in dawn of war and nobody bats an eyelid, but in the mass battle game? Nooo can't have that.
Total War however has always tried to wear some plausibility with its depiction of large battles, at least in comparison to something like Age of Empires.
You're right, I don't bat an eyelid at Company of Heroes because they've always gone for a blend of muh-realism and classic RTS. Though I do admit that when I first played the game it did take some adjustment to accept the weird blend of the two. CA could absolutely just spit out "lol it's Empire Total War but with Space Marines volley firing by rank and sometimes they can garrison specific bits of terrain" if that's their take on it, but I'll be disappointed if it is.
Gert wrote:It might just be me that thinks this, but I don't feel this is going to work as a Total War game.
Sure, it'll have the label, but TW is pretty well defined by its large block units (exceptions, of course, existing with the likes of artillery and monsters for TWWH and TW: Troy) and unless we're suddenly pivoting to Space Marines coming in blocks of 30 or Tyranids marching in square, then I don't see how its going to keep the vibe of TW and not just end up as "Slightly Differrent Dawn of War".
Is Total War Total War because "it always has massed set piece battles with blocks of troops" or is it Total War because "CA attempts to make a roughly plausible and historical depiction of pre-smokeless powder warfare/tactics/vibes, which so far has happened to be in the form of historical melee armies that were mostly set piece battles with blocks of troops" because I vote the latter. No reason they can't pivot to the realtime battles being something like *once again gestures to games like Steel Division* if it suits the setting.
Edit - 15 minute mark of that official video they discuss it a little.
Dudeface wrote:
Oddly it's fine for units to march in formation across open areas firing their weapons in dawn of war and nobody bats an eyelid, but in the mass battle game? Nooo can't have that.
Total War however has always tried to wear some plausibility with its depiction of large battles, at least in comparison to something like Age of Empires.
You're right, I don't bat an eyelid at Company of Heroes because they've always gone for a blend of muh-realism and classic RTS. Though I do admit that when I first played the game it did take some adjustment to accept the weird blend of the two. CA could absolutely just spit out "lol it's Empire Total War but with Space Marines volley firing by rank and sometimes they can garrison specific bits of terrain" if that's their take on it, but I'll be disappointed if it is.
Gert wrote:It might just be me that thinks this, but I don't feel this is going to work as a Total War game.
Sure, it'll have the label, but TW is pretty well defined by its large block units (exceptions, of course, existing with the likes of artillery and monsters for TWWH and TW: Troy) and unless we're suddenly pivoting to Space Marines coming in blocks of 30 or Tyranids marching in square, then I don't see how its going to keep the vibe of TW and not just end up as "Slightly Differrent Dawn of War".
Is Total War Total War because "it always has massed set piece battles with blocks of troops" or is it Total War because "CA attempts to make a roughly plausible and historical depiction of pre-smokeless powder warfare/tactics/vibes, which so far has happened to be in the form of historical melee armies that were mostly set piece battles with blocks of troops" because I vote the latter. No reason they can't pivot to the realtime battles being something like *once again gestures to games like Steel Division* if it suits the setting.
Edit - 15 minute mark of that official video they discuss it a little.
They are very coy in the video. Theres a comment which was roughly "there were some comments regards "it's still fantasy at it's core, there is cover, there are more guns, but there's still big formations and lines mashing into each other". So I kinda feel like they're masking the disjointed approach via smaller than expected units.
I think 10 marines moving and behaving like a skirmishing total war formation, but small, sort of works. So if they simply give you lots of 10 man loose bricks, rather than a 40 man block, that emulates a bit of that appearance of "the squads are all independent and doing squad tactics" whilst simply making it a traditional total war game mechanically.
So I won't be surprised if they functionally work around their methods via presentation.
Flinty wrote: 40kTW will be fundamentally different to DOW4 because it has the whole strategic layer over the top. The tactical fighty bit is not the real core of the game. While I enjoyed the tactical bit in Shogun and Medieval, I often just auto-generated the result so I could keep my focus on strategic moves and development. Or I did t really feel like manually defending the same bridge for the 37th time with overwhelmingly superior forces against a raid by a rather overenthusiastic AI.
And while that is a valid way to engage with the game, Shogun 2 absolutely had the necessary depth for players to micro-manage battles if they were so inclined. I remember watching a campaign on TY where the player basically went "pause" every 10 seconds to issue new orders and reform their troops. It has at least as much depth as, say, DoW1+2, likely more. The difference being that you can't pause the latter two, so quick decision making and precise micro are part of the challenge.
Good points. I just have a feeling that the two games will be pitched primarily at the different levels though. Dark Crusade and Soulstorm had pretty Freeform campaigns with some light narrative elements, but the strategic layer was extremely simplified. I am expecting DOW 4 to be much more narratively driven while in TW players will drive their own narratives and progression.
Yeah the over-view map in Soulstorm/Dark Crusade was super casual. There weren't really many choices you made on that map.
Heck the AI wouldn't even attack/move every turn. Meanwhile the player had basically no reason to not start a fight every turn they had.
You also very quickly hit a point where the player has conquered enough that they've auto-won at the strategic level in terms of out-competing the other factions for resources because the other factions aren't designed to kill each other. They just swap territories now and then but the player is supposed to take them out.
Total War is entirely different; the AI is fully mobile and will wipe out other AI without pause. If the player doesn't advance their own agenda then they can be defeated at the strategic level.
I think 10 marines moving and behaving like a skirmishing total war formation, but small, sort of works. So if they simply give you lots of 10 man loose bricks, rather than a 40 man block, that emulates a bit of that appearance of "the squads are all independent and doing squad tactics" whilst simply making it a traditional total war game mechanically.
I'd argue that it also emulates the tabletop 40K experience fairly accurately, which is surely the point? I think a greater interactivity between terrain/cover will be essential (and probably something they're conscious of given they've built a new engine with part of the focus on more granular destruction of buildings etc.) Empire/Napoleon had it in a rudimentary form so there's some precedent for them to build on.
It will be interesting to see what emphasis they put on named characters. They're essential and dictate campaign playstyle in TW:WH (and it largely works) but they seem to be pushing the idea of personalising your armies in 40K so it would be weird to then have to pick between, say, Calgar, Ragnar and Lysander as your faction leader for Astartes.
What made the 3 TW Warhammer games good was the larger armies fighting that you'd never really have an opportunity to field on the tabletop. I don't really have a concern if the basic unit size for marine squad is 20. Primaris numbers for instance are all over the place anyway. I'm hoping for more Apocalypse level games for a TT comparison. I'd like to see some massive Imperial Guard formations battling it out with Orky hordes.
I don't think there will be an issue with how this game works, be interesting to see how it progresses. Some of the comments in this thread read like people who have not played TW before. Of course we haven't got much to go on and I suspect this will be a bit smaller size armies than the usual. But if you're wanting a squad level tactical RTS, a Total War game isn't really for you?
Olthannon wrote: What made the 3 TW Warhammer games good was the larger armies fighting that you'd never really have an opportunity to field on the tabletop.
Olthannon wrote: What made the 3 TW Warhammer games good was the larger armies fighting that you'd never really have an opportunity to field on the tabletop. I don't really have a concern if the basic unit size for marine squad is 20. Primaris numbers for instance are all over the place anyway. I'm hoping for more Apocalypse level games for a TT comparison. I'd like to see some massive Imperial Guard formations battling it out with Orky hordes.
I don't think there will be an issue with how this game works, be interesting to see how it progresses. Some of the comments in this thread read like people who have not played TW before. Of course we haven't got much to go on and I suspect this will be a bit smaller size armies than the usual. But if you're wanting a squad level tactical RTS, a Total War game isn't really for you?
I mean this is the measure for it, I just have the suspicion that you'll get mass marines (they say hundred to two hundred in the round table) but they'll just be in squads that are hypothetically independent, but in real terms will use like a 40 man brick.
I think 10 marines moving and behaving like a skirmishing total war formation, but small, sort of works. So if they simply give you lots of 10 man loose bricks, rather than a 40 man block, that emulates a bit of that appearance of "the squads are all independent and doing squad tactics" whilst simply making it a traditional total war game mechanically.
I'd argue that it also emulates the tabletop 40K experience fairly accurately, which is surely the point? I think a greater interactivity between terrain/cover will be essential (and probably something they're conscious of given they've built a new engine with part of the focus on more granular destruction of buildings etc.) Empire/Napoleon had it in a rudimentary form so there's some precedent for them to build on.
It will be interesting to see what emphasis they put on named characters. They're essential and dictate campaign playstyle in TW:WH (and it largely works) but they seem to be pushing the idea of personalising your armies in 40K so it would be weird to then have to pick between, say, Calgar, Ragnar and Lysander as your faction leader for Astartes.
Because the TT actually does a poor job of reflecting the detail of 40k warfare. If you want a TT simulator you can use.... tabletop simulator.
Marines almost never fight the way most TT games go, nor do the eldar. TT is terrible at asymmetric warfare, which is the bread and butter of the elite factions in the game. Pretty much only orks, nids, guard and maybe tau fight battles the way the TT reflects.
TT is burdened by the need to sell miniatures and until GW makes a 2000pt eldar army 30 models and charges $50 per model to get the same return on investment, you won't see the actual hit and run, precision strike style of warfare they use in miniature form.
Something to remember: CA pays attention to how the IP's game looks and plays.
TW:W looks and plays a lot like the board game. It's different than other CA titles as it's diplomacy is paired way back/no "year" mechanics, etc. There is an economy element, but all of that is about unlocking units and making them stronger. WFB is about fighting, and CA tried to keep that focus as much as possible.
So, how will TW:40k look and play? My guess is they'll watch how games are played, and build the core game around that. GW has a lot of trust in them, and they're not going to squander it.
Hellebore wrote: ...and until GW makes a 2000pt eldar army 30 models and charges $50 per model to get the same return on investment...
Please don't give them any ideas like that, Hellebore.
I mean that's not out the realm of possibility, certainly in the UK infinity (if you wanted 30 minis a side) or warm aching could hit silly prices for small forces due to being metal.
By all accounts games of that scale also tend to be fairly successful and embrace more rule/game structures. If GW delivered a really goddman good skirmish game that pushed the envelope, I could see that happening and actually sticking to some degree if each mini was the calibre of some of the characters.
