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.

Does Darktide not scratch that itch at the moment?

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.

Dudeface wrote:

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.

Wonder if the let’s face almost inevitable success of this might lead us to Proper Epic once more.

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.

 RustyNumber wrote:

 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.

Dudeface wrote:

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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 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.

 RustyNumber wrote:
The screenshots so far look like they're....

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.

A HH game is almost inevitable if this is a success. Yessss...

Planets could be akin to continents in TW:W

From the trailer, there were three console messages:

Deep Strike, Armoured Response, All Arms Response

I wonder if these are deployment zones, stratagems or map types?

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 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!

 Moopy wrote:

 RustyNumber wrote:
The screenshots so far look like they're....

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.

 RustyNumber wrote:

 Moopy wrote:

 RustyNumber wrote:
The screenshots so far look like they're....

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.

 RustyNumber wrote:

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 AoS RTS 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 ?

Dudeface wrote:

 RustyNumber wrote:

 Moopy wrote:

 RustyNumber wrote:
The screenshots so far look like they're....

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

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 RustyNumber wrote:

 Moopy wrote:

 RustyNumber wrote:
The screenshots so far look like they're....

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?

Dudeface wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 RustyNumber wrote:

 Moopy wrote:

 RustyNumber wrote:
The screenshots so far look like they're....

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.

Battlefleet Gothic:Armada and Battlefleet Gothic: Armada 2 still exist and can be obtained quite easily.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 RustyNumber wrote:

 Moopy wrote:

 RustyNumber wrote:
The screenshots so far look like they're....

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:


Dioramas & GW physical photos:


WH40k 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.

Dudeface wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 RustyNumber wrote:

 Moopy wrote:

 RustyNumber wrote:
The screenshots so far look like they're....

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

They tend to show units from army focuses in formation:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/39nLUgH0/this-blood-angels-army-looks-so-good-it-will-even-calm-the-black-rage/
https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/pdFolqcJ/check-out-this-exquisite-adepta-sororitas-army/

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.