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.

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.

Dudeface wrote:


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.