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.

I think it could work, with minor modifications to game mechanics for some races.

Empire: standard mechanics.
Chaos warriors: barbarian invasion style horde, perhaps.
Beastmen: barbarian invasion style horde perhaps.
High Elves: standard mechanics
Dark elves: standard mechanics
Skaven: hmmm.... skaven would be odd. Not sure how we could implement the underempire and all.
Dwarves: standard mechanics.
Orcs+Goblins: they could be s combination of standard and hordde mechanics, what with all the dwarf holds they control
Bretonnia: standard mechanics.
Wood elves: hmmm.... odd ones, these. Probably wouldn't be more than a rebel race.
Daemons: probably no more than rebels who don't attack chaos.
Lizardmen: probably wouldn't be included.
Vampire Counts: standard mechanics. Civilians are living slaves, ruled by the vampire lord.
Tomb Kings: standard mechanics. Building and recruiting is actually unearthing new soldiers/buildings.
Ogre Kingdoms: barbarian invasion style horde.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Glorioski wrote:
Changing how the campaign works doesn't make it un-totalwarish. Total War is recognised by it's RTS gameplay. Not the generic turn based bits in-between.

Very untrue. The campaigns are first and foremost what fans want from a TW title, the actual battles being a close, but very firm second place.

 Glorioski wrote:
The combination of the two is obviously important to the game but the nature of the turn based part of the game is not. Take the two apart and look at them stand alone. you have a RTS which was unique in nature when it first apeared when every other RTS was copying command and conqour. Then take the turn based game and it barely holds up to any turn based game. The later is a vehicle for the former.

If you told me I can only have one game, either the strategic campaign version of the game, or the battle version of the game, I and almost every other TW fan would take the strategic campaign version. The battles are simply a neat addition. But of the ~200 odd battles fought in every campaign, I only actually play a dozen or so.

1 - Data? The reason I play TW is for the battles, if I want to play grand campaigns then I'll play a Paradox title.
2 - Again, data? Why do you think the Creative Assembly didn't implement multiplayer campaigns earlier? It would have been easy to do.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 Glorioski wrote:
Changing how the campaign works doesn't make it un-totalwarish. Total War is recognised by it's RTS gameplay. Not the generic turn based bits in-between.

Very untrue. The campaigns are first and foremost what fans want from a TW title, the actual battles being a close, but very firm second place.

 Glorioski wrote:
The combination of the two is obviously important to the game but the nature of the turn based part of the game is not. Take the two apart and look at them stand alone. you have a RTS which was unique in nature when it first apeared when every other RTS was copying command and conqour. Then take the turn based game and it barely holds up to any turn based game. The later is a vehicle for the former.

If you told me I can only have one game, either the strategic campaign version of the game, or the battle version of the game, I and almost every other TW fan would take the strategic campaign version. The battles are simply a neat addition. But of the ~200 odd battles fought in every campaign, I only actually play a dozen or so.

1 - Data? The reason I play TW is for the battles, if I want to play grand campaigns then I'll play a Paradox title.
2 - Again, data? Why do you think the Creative Assembly didn't implement multiplayer campaigns earlier? It would have been easy to do.

Well his data is probably the same as yours, i.e. thats the way he and his friends play so therefore that’s how everyone (or the majority) plays. For what it’s worth I would tend to agree more with the strategy map people, that is the main part of Total War.

As for why the battles were the marketing side – frankly they look prettier than the map does, plus you can have a lot happen in a 1 min promo video of a battle – what you going to show in a 1 min promo video of the map? “Wow, look I can move an army from left to right- and that’s the end of the demo”

For what it’s worth, CA themselves said that they had wanted to have a multiplayer map from the very start, but that multiplayer battles were a lot easier to implement so thats what they did until the technology caught up. Unfortunately I cannot find the article that had this in but it was part of an interview during the first game to have multiplayer maps (Empire?), which would tend to suggest that it's not as easy as you suggest.

Holy mother... I imagine everyone has seen the gameplay walkthrough of Rome 2. Cast your mind to the part were we see over the shoulder of the roman jumping over the ship and marching up the beach, now imagine seeing this perspective on a khorne chosen about to test his skills against an already engaged unit of ushabti fighting orcs or something or how about watching a skink pick off enemies from atop a stegadon.

Total Warhammer SHALL BE GLOR-I-ASS

The battles were the first thing created for Shogun (the first one). The campaign was then created as a sort of way to tie the battles together.

The strategy map is not really that special in Total War. It is totally unrealistic and, in some ways, stupid. 4 years for me to cross the fricking Mediterranean? Are you kidding me? Regardless, it's fun, but games such as Spartan, EU3, Victoria II and even fething Imperial Glory did it better.

I skip a lot of battles in the campaign as well simply because they're - well - boring. I don't want to play a game against 2 units of peasants and 1 unit of Levies with my 8 2 gold star units of Triarii and epic Hastati! But the battles are the strongest part of the game.

For your last point: Paradox, a tiny company at the time, were able to do multiplayer with EU2 at the same time as Shogun 1. Why couldn't Creative do it at least with Medieval 2? All you need to do is send the map data and actions across the internet and the rest can be loaded on the players' computers - it's not that hard. The battles were probably harder to do multiplayer of!

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
The battles were the first thing created for Shogun (the first one). The campaign was then created as a sort of way to tie the battles together.

The strategy map is not really that special in Total War. It is totally unrealistic and, in some ways, stupid. 4 years for me to cross the fricking Mediterranean? Are you kidding me? Regardless, it's fun, but games such as Spartan, EU3, Victoria II and even fething Imperial Glory did it better.

I skip a lot of battles in the campaign as well simply because they're - well - boring. I don't want to play a game against 2 units of peasants and 1 unit of Levies with my 8 2 gold star units of Triarii and epic Hastati! But the battles are the strongest part of the game.

For your last point: Paradox, a tiny company at the time, were able to do multiplayer with EU2 at the same time as Shogun 1. Why couldn't Creative do it at least with Medieval 2? All you need to do is send the map data and actions across the internet and the rest can be loaded on the players' computers - it's not that hard. The battles were probably harder to do multiplayer of!

I don't know why Creative were not able to do this - I don't work there, You are right that it probably is something to do with fitting the battles as well as the game map. Your point of sending files is bang on right though, my friend and I did that quite a lot with ROME so I presume it was possible with other games - you just couldn't fight defensive battles (and we made a personal rule to autoresolve battles against each other) you'd play your turn, save it before ending the turn, pass the file to your mate who when he loaded up would have all your moves in his file and could play his turn. What I'm sayign is yes it was possible, even in TW, but it was a pain and you couldn't play half the game, which I guess is why CA didn't do it.

It is still a valid point though that the opinion of the map being the main part has just as much going for it as your idea of the battle map. Indeed, based upon the general opinion of this thread then the map is currently the more popular option. Not that it matter overly much either way, the fact is it is the complete game that makes it what it is.

Could we see greater mod support for rome 2 regarding a warhammer mod? Would be awesome if a team in CA made a warhammer mod for rome 2 as they would be free to do so with little restrictions since they now have the license. Also lets them see how a warhammer total war would be received by the fans.

Mod support would be great! Known CA, they'll make their game quite unrealistic and so fixing a few things is always nice.

I mean I understand modding for the newer total wars is getting to near impossible and I have no idea what was said at the modding summit but just thought it may be easier for them now they have the license such as already having some models and textures and...... stuff.

 unmercifulconker wrote:
Could we see greater mod support for rome 2 regarding a warhammer mod? Would be awesome if a team in CA made a warhammer mod for rome 2 as they would be free to do so with little restrictions since they now have the license. Also lets them see how a warhammer total war would be received by the fans.

Are you saying you'd be satisfied by a mod? I guess it depends on how good that mod is, like how much time they put into it etc. I don't know yet if I'd rather have the full game or mod. I think someone said this earlier, but it could be a load of hyped up rubbish ( fingers crossed) We'll see. Personally, I'm gonna leave my excitement and hopes on Rome 2. Anyone else?

What makes Total War games Total War games is the fusion of a turn based campaign system with real time battles.

Remove either and it is no longer a Total War game.


I like both, but I do find I spend most of my time on the campaign map. Most battles arn't worth the 20 minutes of my life it takes to play out, so I autoresolve. Unless its a battle I cannot risk losing so I have to take command myself.

Haha, yeah I would prefer a full game to a mod but I feel it may be a while before the game :(

I think the campaign system could work well with warhammer. I noticed some people said things like farms and the resource system would be 'wrong' with certain factions such as VC but I think it could work as each race should have the same resource system, just with different names.
Farms for the Empire and Brets whilst VC and TK have corpse farms/gatherers. I am sure they could find a way to get around it, as they said they are going to do the universe justice.