Switch Theme:

Warhammer: Total War to become a reality  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 Testify wrote:
 Glorioski wrote:

Sure but it's hardly a big game mechanic, that's the point. They could easily alter the campaign so it's not based around building farms etc. and suit it for the Warhammer world. The campaign exists, like you say, to make the battles, the main point of the game, important. This can be done in a number of ways.

I've played many campaigns where I hardly ever go onto the battle map, as have many people. To a significant amount of fans, the campaign map is indeed a huge part of the game.


There are better dedicated turn based strategy games like Hearts of iron which do that better though. In Total War it basically serves as a backdrop to the battles. And like others have said, it's easily changed to suit Warhammer, elements like farms etc. are hardly a major game mechanic which if changed would break the fun.
   
Made in us
Steady Space Marine Vet Sergeant





Believeland, OH

 Glorioski wrote:
 Testify wrote:
 Glorioski wrote:

Sure but it's hardly a big game mechanic, that's the point. They could easily alter the campaign so it's not based around building farms etc. and suit it for the Warhammer world. The campaign exists, like you say, to make the battles, the main point of the game, important. This can be done in a number of ways.

I've played many campaigns where I hardly ever go onto the battle map, as have many people. To a significant amount of fans, the campaign map is indeed a huge part of the game.


There are better dedicated turn based strategy games like Hearts of iron which do that better though. In Total War it basically serves as a backdrop to the battles. And like others have said, it's easily changed to suit Warhammer, elements like farms etc. are hardly a major game mechanic which if changed would break the fun.


Hearts of iron gives you no control on the battle field though. That is the great thing about Total war, you manage everything. You can't change the mechanics and still call it Total War, the fans of the Total War franchise will not appreciate that.

I think the hardest thing will be to balance the game properly. You have races that have different longevity and mentality. Some races have no desire to conquer the world just rape and pillage, this strategy doesn't really work well in Total war. I suppose they could give the different races different objectives. I'm also concerned about how much a magical casting will play in the game. There is so much that can be done right, but also so much that can be done wrong. As much as I would like this tomorrow, I hope they take their time with it and do it right.


"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma

"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma

"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma 
   
Made in ae
Frenzied Berserker Terminator






As someone said earlier - there could be hordes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As in, Barbarian Invasion hordes.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/07 17:13:45


 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 Testify wrote:
 Glorioski wrote:

Sure but it's hardly a big game mechanic, that's the point. They could easily alter the campaign so it's not based around building farms etc. and suit it for the Warhammer world. The campaign exists, like you say, to make the battles, the main point of the game, important. This can be done in a number of ways.

I've played many campaigns where I hardly ever go onto the battle map, as have many people. To a significant amount of fans, the campaign map is indeed a huge part of the game.


Indeed, but mostly because there are alot of small battles that frankly arn't worth my time. I'm not going to spend 15 minutes chasing down that army of rebel peasents.

One FYI, the autoresolve option for Shogun 2 is far kinder to the player then all the previous Total War games. I regularly have autoresolve results where I take no casualities(so like my army of 1500 dudes vs a garrison of 50 doesn't result in me taking 30-40 casualities, it results in zero)

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in gb
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 Andrew1975 wrote:
You can't change the mechanics and still call it Total War, the fans of the Total War franchise will not appreciate that.

So don't call it Total War then. They have bought the rights to use the Warhammer IP. Why wouldn't they want it to appeal to the people the setting attracts?
   
Made in us
Steady Space Marine Vet Sergeant





Believeland, OH

 Glorioski wrote:
 Andrew1975 wrote:
You can't change the mechanics and still call it Total War, the fans of the Total War franchise will not appreciate that.

So don't call it Total War then. They have bought the rights to use the Warhammer IP. Why wouldn't they want it to appeal to the people the setting attracts?


Because the combination of two great franchises will lead to lots of sales. There are already plenty of Warhammer games out there, most are pretty Meh. If they can find a good way to combine the two, then you have great cross pollination. I would say probably most people who play Warhammer also play total war and like it (with exception to the Napoleon and American revolution versions) So I think that already appeals to people the setting attracts. If you don't like the campaigns you can always play 2 player or just skirmish battles. Many people have been waiting for this for a long time.

I'm just afraid games workshop will want to much control of the game and make it unTotal Warish.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/07 19:30:54


"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma

"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma

"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma 
   
Made in gb
Powerful Pegasus Knight





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.
   
Made in gb
Oberstleutnant





Back in the English morass

 Glorioski wrote:
Total War is recognised by it's RTS gameplay. Not the generic turn based bits in-between.


Thats completely false. TW games are principlly recognised for combining a turn based strategic game with a real time tactical game. It is however perfectly possible to play TW games entirely in the strategic map, in fact I autoresolve at least twice as many battles as I fight.

Some of the mechanics could be changed,and probably will be given past TW games but if the strategic map was removed or 'streamlined' the game would lose most of its appeal.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/07 19:40:54


RegalPhantom wrote:
If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog 
   
Made in gb
Powerful Pegasus Knight





Palindrome wrote:
 Glorioski wrote:
Total War is recognised by it's RTS gameplay. Not the generic turn based bits in-between.


Thats completely false. TW games are principlly recognised for combining a turn based strategic game with a real time tactical game. It is however perfectly possible to play TW games entirely in the strategic map, in fact I autoresolve at least twice as many battles as I fight.

Some of the mechanics could be changed,and probably will be given past TW games but if the strategic map was removed or 'streamlined' the game would lose most of its appeal.

Sure. The original post this discussion stemmed from suggested changing elements such as farms etc. would be too major. You could have a turn based campaign done totally differently combined with TW style rts battles and it would still feel like TW.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/07 19:50:09


 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Kommando





As a fan of Total War Games and Warhammer, this is great news.

If it turns out to be like the Warhammer:Total War mod but with modern graphics and added features then i will be very happy. Hopefully they include all available fantasy races and not 14 different factions of Humans (Averland, Empire, Reikland, etc.).
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 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.

I wish you'd stop saying this. Stop implying that my, and many of my friends', enjoyment of Total War games is somehow wrong.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/07 20:01:53


Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:

jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
 
   
Made in gb
Powerful Pegasus Knight





That isn't what I said. It wasn't implied under any reading either. How you enjoy the game is up to you.

The fact that there has never been a Totalwar demo which featured the turn based part of the game suggests even the developers believe this isn't the main part of the game.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/12/07 20:11:20


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





North East (Erie), PA, USA

I will say I hope it is Total War styled. But I will also say that I love the Warhammer universe! I will most likely buy the game so long as it works on my Mac If not I will probably be buying a Windows based gaming computer anyhow....

40K:
The Purge
Vracksian Renegades
WAAAAAGH Scrappa Death Skullz  
   
Made in us
Steady Space Marine Vet Sergeant





Believeland, OH

 Glorioski wrote:
Palindrome wrote:
 Glorioski wrote:
Total War is recognised by it's RTS gameplay. Not the generic turn based bits in-between.


Thats completely false. TW games are principlly recognised for combining a turn based strategic game with a real time tactical game. It is however perfectly possible to play TW games entirely in the strategic map, in fact I autoresolve at least twice as many battles as I fight.

Some of the mechanics could be changed,and probably will be given past TW games but if the strategic map was removed or 'streamlined' the game would lose most of its appeal.

Sure. The original post this discussion stemmed from suggested changing elements such as farms etc. would be too major. You could have a turn based campaign done totally differently combined with TW style rts battles and it would still feel like TW.


Have you played Total war? This isn't farming like in warcraft. This is the whole point of Total War...TOTAL. It's not just a battlefield experience. They got rid of the annoying micromanagement of farmers that was in classic RTS. Yes resource management is there, and it's difficult in that it forces you to make decisions and build properly, but its not as annoying as moving farmers around.

TW is not a turn based RTS and fans of TW would feel robbed if all they got was another premapped turn based RTS with predesignated missions and campaigns. If you want that you can play Mark of Chaos.

The fact that there has never been a Totalwar demo which featured the turn based part of the game suggests even the developers believe this isn't the main part of the game.


Blatantly untrue. Do you know how big of a demo that would have to be? It would have to basically be the entire game with a time and turn limiter on it. Even if you oversaw every battle in TW you would still spend 90% of your time managing the map. That is the point of the game. Only by managing your empire correctly do you even get to have good battles. I really think you have never played the full version of the game, just the demos...which is your loss.

The battles actually get boring after awhile and that auto resolve button gets more tempting especially for small meaningless battles, the battled become small objectives to the ultimate goal of world domination.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/12/07 21:05:07


"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma

"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma

"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma 
   
Made in gb
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 Andrew1975 wrote:
The fact that there has never been a Totalwar demo which featured the turn based part of the game suggests even the developers believe this isn't the main part of the game.


Blatantly untrue. Do you know how big of a demo that would have to be? It would have to basically be the entire game with a time and turn limiter on it.


Right that would be ridiculous. It would almost be like demos for actual dedicated turn based games.

I'm not saying they should get rid of the turn based part of the game. I'm saying the turn based part of the game will not suffer by being adapted to Warhammer because it is not the unique selling point of Total War.
   
Made in us
Steady Space Marine Vet Sergeant





Believeland, OH

 Glorioski wrote:
 Andrew1975 wrote:
The fact that there has never been a Totalwar demo which featured the turn based part of the game suggests even the developers believe this isn't the main part of the game.


Blatantly untrue. Do you know how big of a demo that would have to be? It would have to basically be the entire game with a time and turn limiter on it.


Right that would be ridiculous. It would almost be like demos for actual dedicated turn based games.

I'm not saying they should get rid of the turn based part of the game. I'm saying the turn based part of the game will not suffer by being adapted to Warhammer because it is not the unique selling point of Total War.


And you would be wrong. The turn based conquering along with the battle field is what makes it unique. Its like two games in one. Again it appears that you have not played TW full version, so I don't think you have any idea how complex the turn based map is.

Surely you don't think the unique selling point is the combat, that's in RTS EVER!. No unique selling point is the combination of in depth turn based management combined with a RT combat system.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/07 21:11:10


"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma

"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma

"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma 
   
Made in gb
Powerful Pegasus Knight





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.
   
Made in us
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles




I've played medieval 2 and empire total war, and I always felt the main aspect of the games were empire management. Resources, building, sending nobles / diplomats / spies around, building castles etc. were the main challenges and tasks. Battles were important, but I saw it as maybe a 70%-30% ratio most of the time.
   
Made in us
Steady Space Marine Vet Sergeant





Believeland, OH

 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.


The turn based system has evolved with every version of TW. No matter what you say it is the Total part of Total war. For the most part neither part of Total war holds up to true RTS, Battle or Historical games. Its the combination which is unique and while you can play the strategy part and basically skip the combat with auto resolve, it is impossible to play the battles without the strategy part, unless you just do the skirmishes.

Combat in TW just serves to further your agenda as in real life. It is defiantly not the main aspect, it may be the most visceral aspect, but you don't get there without good managment.

What you seam to want to play has been done over and over again. If you don't like TW games then you don't have to like them. They don't however need to be changed to something else. They can always make another Mark of Chaos if that is what you want.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/07 21:35:46


"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma

"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma

"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma 
   
Made in ca
Guard Heavy Weapon Crewman



Toronto, Ontario, Canada

 jonolikespie wrote:
 -Loki- wrote:
Creative Assembly has the license to Warhammer - that doesn't mean it's going to be a Total War style game. Remember, they also made Spartan: Total Warrior, Viking: Battle for Asgard and Stormrise.

Something that concerns me about something like Total War-hammer is there's a lot of variation between the races. With the Total War games they're all obviously human. A few small changes to character models, a few different units here and there, some stat tweaks, and that's all thats needed.

But every race in Warhammer is different. Tomb Kings aren't going to be raising farms or even governing towns. Vampire Counts aren't going to be 'recruiting' warriors in the normal sense. Ogres wouldn't even have farms, as they raid human settlements for people to eat. Every race will have to have entirely different gameplay mechanics. That's going to be hard to fit in one game. Which probably means either not a Total War game, or a very limited game not including many races.


There is a Medieval 2 mod that completely changes it to Lord of the Rings, complete with about 13 races, it can be done.


http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1377

here warhammer mod for for Medieval II: Total War kingdoms expansion

i havent tried it yet playing the lotr 3rd age mod

2000
1500
2000
3000 
   
Made in gb
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 Andrew1975 wrote:
 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.


The turn based system has evolved with every version of TW. No matter what you say it is the Total part of Total war. For the most part neither part of Total war holds up to true RTS, Battle or Historical games. Its the combination which is unique and while you can play the strategy part and basically skip the combat with auto resolve, it is impossible to play the battles without the strategy part, unless you just do the skirmishes.

What you seam to want to play has been done over and over again. If you don't like TW games then you don't have to like them. They don't however need to be changed to something else. They can always make another Mark of Chaos if that is what you want.


If you read what I have posted right from the start in this thread you'll understand I'm on the side of a possible Warhammer: Total War and am disagreeing with those who are complaining it can't be done because modifying the campaign in the turn based part of the game to suit the setting wouldn't be possible without disrupting a major part of what makes the game good. I am simply disagreeing with this and saying that what would need to be changed is not a major part of what makes the Total War games good. So you can stop making me out to be someone wanting to scrap every turn based part of the game and produce another Mar of Chaos and read what I have written.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/07 21:39:07


 
   
Made in us
Steady Space Marine Vet Sergeant





Believeland, OH

 Glorioski wrote:
 Andrew1975 wrote:
 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.


The turn based system has evolved with every version of TW. No matter what you say it is the Total part of Total war. For the most part neither part of Total war holds up to true RTS, Battle or Historical games. Its the combination which is unique and while you can play the strategy part and basically skip the combat with auto resolve, it is impossible to play the battles without the strategy part, unless you just do the skirmishes.

What you seam to want to play has been done over and over again. If you don't like TW games then you don't have to like them. They don't however need to be changed to something else. They can always make another Mark of Chaos if that is what you want.


If you read what I have posted right from the start in this thread you'll understand I'm on the side of a possible Warhammer: Total War and am disagreeing with those who are complaining it can't be done because modifying the campaign in the turn based part of the game to suit the setting wouldn't be possible without disrupting a major part of what makes the game good. I am simply disagreeing with this and saying that what would need to be changed is not a major part of what makes the Total War games good. So you can stop making me out to be someone wanting to scrap every turn based part of the game and produce another Mar of Chaos and read what I have written.


Seams like a back pedal, after all you did post this.

So don't call it Total War then. They have bought the rights to use the Warhammer IP. Why wouldn't they want it to appeal to the people the setting attracts?


They can find away to keep it the same, they just have to modify how buildings work, just like they always do. You don't have the same buildings in Rome TW as you have in Shogun TW. Even factions have different buildings. It should not be too hard to make it conform to Warhammer.

They could easily alter the campaign so it's not based around building farms etc.


You need to feed people, you need people to raise taxes, you need taxes to pay for your armies. If your undead probably not so much, but like others have said, you just find something else similar to what they would need. No need to change the mechanics completely.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/07 22:12:23


"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma

"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma

"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma 
   
Made in gb
Powerful Pegasus Knight





 Andrew1975 wrote:
 Glorioski wrote:
 Andrew1975 wrote:
 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.


The turn based system has evolved with every version of TW. No matter what you say it is the Total part of Total war. For the most part neither part of Total war holds up to true RTS, Battle or Historical games. Its the combination which is unique and while you can play the strategy part and basically skip the combat with auto resolve, it is impossible to play the battles without the strategy part, unless you just do the skirmishes.

What you seam to want to play has been done over and over again. If you don't like TW games then you don't have to like them. They don't however need to be changed to something else. They can always make another Mark of Chaos if that is what you want.


If you read what I have posted right from the start in this thread you'll understand I'm on the side of a possible Warhammer: Total War and am disagreeing with those who are complaining it can't be done because modifying the campaign in the turn based part of the game to suit the setting wouldn't be possible without disrupting a major part of what makes the game good. I am simply disagreeing with this and saying that what would need to be changed is not a major part of what makes the Total War games good. So you can stop making me out to be someone wanting to scrap every turn based part of the game and produce another Mar of Chaos and read what I have written.


Seams like a back pedal, after all you did post this.

So don't call it Total War then. They have bought the rights to use the Warhammer IP. Why wouldn't they want it to appeal to the people the setting attracts?


They can find away to keep it the same, they just have to modify how buildings work, just like they always do. You don't have the same buildings in Rome TW as you have in Shogun TW. Even factions have different buildings. It should not be too hard to make it conform to Warhammer.

No that is completely in line with what I just said. If you actually remember back to when I said that it was in response to you claiming that if they changed the games mechanics it would mean it couldn't be called Total War. If you think that changing a few things like farms etc. means they can't use the Total War name then it fair enough, it doesn't matter to me.
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero





Rampton, UK

 Testify 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.

I wish you'd stop saying this. Stop implying that my, and many of my friends', enjoyment of Total War games is somehow wrong.



I dont read that he is implying that you are doing it wrong, seems he is just saying that the main part of Total war is the war part, the actual battles, I too thought that was the case tbh.
I too can appreciate the turn based bits and i have enjoyed them all immensely but I (and probably the other chap i quoted) are on the other side of the coin to yourself, I always assumed the main element of the game to be the actual battles, i would never auto resolve at all unless its me vastly outnumbering some running frenchmen ! I wouldnt say you were doing it wrong though.

back on topic, i would love to see a warhammer Total war game, I think they could get around the farms thing for certain races somehow, or even just leave those races out.
Even with the farms im sure it would be fine and could even be quality if it is done right, afterall, the mini campaigns, set battles and multiplayer games are also a huge part of total war aside to the campaign and they dont require you to take farms and such.
   
Made in gb
Guardsman with Flashlight




somerset england

auto-resolve is the quickest way to lose all your hard turn based work, comp would never get your 200 horse archers to expend all thier ammo killing half the 1000 odd foot soilders you are facing then leg it off the battle field with no loss to do it all again next turn mongel style, thats what makes total war great, the battles are the best part the campaign just gives you a reason for them, as to could different races be coped with many of the mods do this anyway a differnet looking building make different kinds of units or having a different effect, saxons dont have pro-consul's palace and the romans dont get a Sacred Circle of Chinglu(hun), many of the factions now could be considered different races needing to build different things to get thier different units. total war could easily handle it just change the name of the resource etc but under the surface the game would handle it the same way. should make a great game aslong as gw doesn't demand it dumbed down for a wider audience.
(currently smashing the sassanid empire in invasio barbarorum(RTW mod) as the british!!)

Shall we have a go
at the far end now, sir?
“Having a go” is hardly
textbook terminology, Harry.
My blog http://shedofwar.blogspot.co.uk/ 
   
Made in ae
Frenzied Berserker Terminator






Look. people have different experiences and ideas of what a Total War game is. Can we now relax and take it easy?
   
Made in ph
Utilizing Careful Highlighting





Manila, Philippines

So, will it be called Warhammer: Total War or....


Total Warhammer.


 
   
Made in au
Hacking Proxy Mk.1





Australia

I am hoping for Total War:hammer

 Fafnir wrote:
Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I like 40k more so naturally it is my fantasy that they eventually acquire the rights to that and make a total war game out of it.

That being said, hordes of Skaven will have to appease me until then.

My Armies:
5,500pts
2,700pts
2,000pts


 
   
Made in au
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight





Australia

 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.

"Did you ever notice how in the Bible, when ever God needed to punish someone, or make an example, or whenever God needed a killing, he sent an angel? Did you ever wonder what a creature like that must be like? A whole existence spent praising your God, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?" 
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: