This is the best Total War game. Prove me wrong

>476794604
>only four factions
>each have more variety individually than some entire other games in the franchise
>rocks paper scissors stats replace any kind of strategy
>aka plays spearmanii like its atilla and wonders why he doesn't have the flexibility to deal with new tactical threats
>garrisons suck
>being this awful that you can't beat braindead ai that only knows how to bottleneck itself at three approaches maximum

Pretty good bait. Enough for a reply but not enough for a (You). Biggest tell of a true shitter isn't what games in the franchise they like or dislike but how they prove they can't adapt to the different settings of the games to truly understand what makes them good or bad.

Seems to me based on the reviews I read that people are realizing that because this game and all its DLC are full priced, that to get the true Warhammer experience with game 2's Mortal Empires, its costs a staggering $240 at full price. Pretty much the negative reviews are pushing for this game to get a price drop. It really should to be honest. If you own this and the sequel, the first game is irrelevant. It's honestly just a big asset storage, but even then, you don't even have to install it to play Mortal Empires with all the content, just own it. Basically, you're paying an extra $140 to play Game 2 to its full potential.

>2019
>retards still don't know what CreamAPI is

That's too risky. Might as well just pirate fully at that point.

>Remember when a unit of militia could actually hold a chokepoint against better units long enough for you to at least pincer them?
Warhammer has units that exist for this solely purpose. It honestly sounds like you've barely played the game. What you actually should have complained about is diplomacy and siege battles.

I actually beat the brain dead AI pretty easily. I love people like you who think they figured it all out but are just too retarded to realize their "epiphany" is just another facet of their stupidity. Four factions is nickle and dimeing people for content in games that prided themselves on having almost 20 factions you could play as. I don't give a fuck about how much variety each of those four factions have. The rock paper scissors stats are so fucking true that it hurts. In older games, having shitty units in your army wasn't that much of a detriment if you could make use of them. In these new games, with their awful collision detection and instant routing, you just instantly abandon your old tier of units for the new ones in the streamlined recruitment system. And garrisons do suck. They suck because they are not fun to use. They are not fun to fight against. They remove any element of strategic planning to strike where your enemy is undefended because everywhere is fucking defended and undefended at the same damn time. And then there's the limited army and general system which is also dogshit. Stop sucking CA's dick man. It's old, rotted, and riddled with all sorts of germs.

Rome's AI is too laughably bad for it to be the best one and Shogun 2's unit roster is too samey.
Medieval 2 is the only one that could compete with Warhammer objectively though I will always say that FotS is my favorite because I love gunpowder but Empire is shit and Napoopan is meh.

I'm not talking about just Warhammer. I'm talking about literally every current total war game. Learn to read. It's an important skill you should really have in life.

Three Kingdoms was a massive step up for diplomacy, though obviously still flawed. can't wait for future TWs

I can read. Your post was just kinda gay so I skimmed it.

and..?

the game is objectively inferior to the historical titles in every way except for animations and character models. the only thing it has going for it is unit variety. every meaningful mechanic and feature is better in the previous games. it’s dumbed down in every way

>not being able to beat armies 10x your size with the default garrisons
sounds like you just need to git gud

>every meaningful mechanic and feature is better in the previous games
Except battles, of course.

Well, I've been trying to play campaigns in both games and I find them pretty boring to be honest.

>resorting to ad hominem and strawmanning
>doesn't argue against any points or provide evidence to support his own
>only more vague criticisms with no basis
>new bad old good

Imagine being this bad at a very simple strategy game. Are you here because you got laughed out of twg?

Not that much of a massive step. The only new things it brought were some visible numbers that were previously hidden, quick deal which is just a QoL addition, ability to abuse food trade for cash, and option for player to be a vassal. Coalitions were a neat idea but retarded AI coupled with bugs made them more effort than they were worth. Everything else is reintroducing old features that were previously removed from the series.

Attached: 1480011976320.jpg (634x900, 69K)

I don't know how to tactics. What should I do besides throwing my blob at the enemies and maybe trying to encircle or surround them?

nah even all the mechanics of battles are better in the previous games, all this game has is variety.
>sieges are shit
>guns have arcs
>no guard mode
>no formations
>shitty warscape engine blobbing
Unit Variety. Thats absolutely it. It is objectively inferior to medieval 2 in every other way

Depends on the game and the faction you're playing.

If I'm so fucking wrong why are you terrified to reply to me you dumbass? I have laid my points pretty fucking bare and cited examples and you can keep saying is "no you're bad". Where's your proof you retard? Huh? All I keep seeing from you is a scared little cunt who can't even back up his claim, and can't even comprehend what he's reading to even understand what he has to argue against. Knowing I share the planet with someone like you makes life very depressing.

Spam cheapest units. I don't know why but sending swarms of expandable units to drown the enemy is top fun.

>guns have arcs
You sure?

they have arcs as in not enough to be laser beams but at the same time not enough to fire over friendly units on flat terrain
the dude's retarded anyway

Not him but they do have a very slight arc you can see usually if they're firing close to their max range. Its not crossbows firing 70 degrees up and down onto their targets silly though; its closer to feeling like natural projectile drop.

holy shit

Attached: 1491969648721.jpg (307x726, 105K)

The arcs are there, just not very noticeable. It's rare that it even becomes relevant. If you really need to be able to shoot over your infantry with guns and can't be bothered to flank, you can always use mounted guns. But even then, you should really just be flanking with those anyway.

this man is an imposter

I think the warplocks have a noticeable arc when they start getting out to max range. But thats about it

>no mighty-strong Skaven
Foolish man-thing

you’re retarded. warhammer is retarded stepchild of the franchise, the dumbed-down mass-appeal “we want the fantasy crowd” experience, all flash no substance, not to mention broken as fuck because the single entity units break the game. You can just kite while you make the enemy waste all of their ammo on your hero unit which can dodge all their shots, then you shoot them to death when they can’t shoot back. this also works on sieges so you can cheese every siege in the game

>the rare TW thread on Yea Forums
>always one frothing grognard histnigger sperging
At least its funny and keeps the thread bumped.

Anyone here tried 8 princes? Does it add enough shit to do for its campaign to actually change up any dynamics from the normal campaign? Dropped the game after ~100 hours when I figured out the stale army setups that basically won you every battle even on legend since the overall unit balance is so clear cut.

Attached: 1564277423707.jpg (2048x1358, 181K)

yes because walking walls of spearmanii into each other while cycle charging cavalry was peak complexity

Making formations with artificial bonuses (like that one for knights for example) would be shit though, and you can still adjust 'depth' of unit which in some cases could be pretty impactful.

Attached: steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net.jpg (268x268, 34K)

towers in sieges don't run out of ammo, retard

of course its the spearmanii fag from twg, of course you’re shilling the game here. fuck your blobengine babby game, fuck the warhammer community, fuck “muh unit variety.” the old games were about tactics, it wasn’t fucking autochess like this gay game

Yeah because the old games had no cheese at all, right? It's your choice if you want to play the game like a faggot, you're never forced to.

hur because its so hard to knock down a few towers before shooting the defenseless defenders to death who are too stupid to retreat to the town square and just stand there getting shot to death. in medieval 2 they retreat to the town square so you can’t do that btw

Calm down user, no need to be upset. What Total War would you recommend then for maximum tactical options?

>select wall of spearmanii
>set attack order on other side of differently colored wall of spearmanii
>have archers stand behind your wall and pepper other wall
>cycle charge cav into other wall
>tactics

He'd have a point if he was talking about Three Kingdoms where none of the regular troops stand a feasible chance against heroes. But in Warhammer, lords can get wrecked pretty hard by a lot of the stronger units if you aren't careful with them or backing them up.

did GW shoot themselves in foot by killing off Warhammer FB when it became popular again thanks to the Total War gamr?

>blobbing up in the main square
>in a game with AOE magic
absolutely top IQ, you should be an AI designer if you didn't lack the I

Yes. And it's fucking hilarious.

the fact that you think you can just select your wall and click them to attack all at once and everything will go hunky dory is proof to me you have only really played the newer games, because thats sure as fuck how it doesn't work in anything pre Rome 2.

>tfw Ogres coming soon
Where my Br'ogres at?
>Ogres are 100% non-distinguishable from the average Yea Forumsermin
Prove me wrong

Attached: 1542105921374.jpg (3464x3464, 1.33M)

With the AI mod it's pretty cool desu.

This is your typical Yea Forumsogre though.

Attached: 1484764753308[1].jpg (640x480, 18K)

>tactics
>AI only ever uses majority heavy infantry
>catch them on your own heavy infantry
>use missiles/cavalry to kill off the handful of enemy cavalry and missile units they have
>just cycle charge heavy cav to pick apart blobs because it never maneuvers EVER

You can't even pinpoint which game I'm referencing because almost all the other games boil down to this formula. The only exceptions are Empire/Napoleon and Shogun because they use entirely different definitions of warfare.

Which one? I'm looking for something decent.

GW can make mistake afer mistake and still succeed.
They are the definition of "monopoly" and "too big to fail"

I'm looking forward to having armies of nothing but yhetees. I hope they make the roster.

napoleon easily has the most battle depth and requires the most micro. the meta is “forcing squares” where you use cavalry to force line into square which makes them more vulnerable to range, but if you don’t square then they get wrecked by cavalry, so there’s a lot of micro to deal with. also the maps are like 5xs bigger than warhammer maps and the armies spread out a lot more so its much harder to keep track, which makes things like surprise cavarly charges and real tactical pushes actually viable, since you can catch infantry off guard or break the line somewhere when your opponent is looking elsewhere. the battles last anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour and a half and are filled with all sorts of micro and careful positioning; this compared to warhammer which has 10 minute autochess blobfests. check out some napoleon tournaments on youtube, thats where multiplayer and tactics peaked in tw.

Shrek mod day one.

Thanks.

Anyone else having trouble with 4k resoultion? I mean, i can almost turn everything down and it still does not run fine. Full HD on a 4k tv just looks awful...

Let's be real here, the AI never encouraged anything besides rudimentary tactics no matter the game. Fighting other players was where you needed to have a solid grasp on tactics. Things like baiting, setting ambushes, faking openings, lopsided army deployments all became much more relevant in multiplayer. Its where the total war battles really shine the most to be honest.

steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1120180673

It's pretty good, races behave how they should, and make use of any starting abilities and resources they have. The AI can be pretty aggressive though, expect sudden early assaults from neighboring enemy factions at the start of the game.

8 Princes adds a couple of new mechanics which are cool, but you only get 8 special characters compared to the base game. I personally can't recommend it

Thanks a lot user.

Attached: 1566785455392.gif (320x320, 2.32M)

>did GW shoot themselves in foot by killing off Warhammer FB

Honestly, not really.
As a setting FB was pretty good, and almost all of it has carrieed over to AoS in one form or another, and I believe that they will slowly reintroduce facsimiles of some of the FB stuff that didn't make it initially as the years go on.
The massive expansion of skaven and goblins in the past year supports that position I think.

As far as the game itself though FB was a hot fucking mess with rules that were too complex to ever get a normie invested.
The TT game also had a ton of other issues that unless you're familiar with the game it's hard to explain

I disagree about Warhammer being autochess, but Napoleon is definitely more tactical and in terms of realism the best TW game. I'm still hoping for empire 2 with 3k diplomacy

>one wall sieges
>no town battles
>stupidest ai ever
eat a dick
I'm telling this as someone with 300h in this game. They released a ton of dlcs but didn't manage to fix this shit.

Don't bother, that guy is consumed in his blind hate for any of the newer games and happy to keep spouting buzzwords. We'll probably never get another Empire that will stand up to the original because its full of evil imperialist and nationalist themes that are a big no no these days. At the very least the campaign map will be simplified and underwhelming and the best that will come out of it is some big mods that try to put something good together from its pieces but will always feel off since it will be missing dedicated ui elements.

>too risky
literally not a single person has ever been banned for pirating DLC

>buzzwords
i specifically laid out the problems i have with your game
>stripped of features
>lacking depth and tactical nuance
>barebones, streamlined campaigns with little replay value
>shitty engine that was never designed for ranged tws and is horrible for melee tws, creating ugly blob fights where the battle lines disintegrate and mass/physics are wonky

This. Fpbp as usual

is this the fake mass autist?

I don't know what autochess is but the tactics in warhammer its much more about knowing which units to pit against each other rather than using positioning and movement. Don't get me wrong, it's still there, but factors much less besides avoiding aoe spells. Example would be you can out maneuver a Hydra all day long, but if you don't know which of your units stand the best chance of going toe to toe with it, it doesn't matter how much you flank the damn thing if you want the best outcome. The monster units really throw a wrench into tactics like surrounding enemies and stuff like that.

>You can just kite while you make the enemy waste all of their ammo on your hero unit which can dodge all their shots
Try that on anything that isn’t a skirmisher and get back to me

it works on all missile units in the game. take a flying unit/hero and just dodge around in front of their army for 10 minutes and they’ll waste all their ammo

>stipped of features
Which features?
>lacking depth and tactical nuance
How so? What about it is more or less simple than other games?
>barebones, streamlined campaigns with little replay value
Compared to what? None of the older games varied wildly in their campaigns unless the player just decided to expand in a different direction.
>shitty engine
Nothing about the engine's issues are unique to Warhammer though, if anything it has more elements to mitigate mass issues than other games using warscape.

They patched that like 2 years ago my dude.

absolutely fucking based and correct
all these fucking zoomers just like the new ones because it caters to their short as fuck attention spans in which 5000+ man battles are finished in less than 10 minutes
the key to victory in older games was never to just launch superior units at your enemies and watch them melt your opponents it was always to take DECISIVE ACTION. Even knights vs town militia would take ages to finish, the only way to end the fight quickly was to flank the opponent.
I'm not even talking about fantasyfags here, this is apparent even in Rome 2: your units have no staying power. You don't need to play as intelligently to win in the newer games.

actual boomers are so retarded, they dream in black and white

>replying to your own comment to make it look like you're not a lone sperg in the thread
just sad really

Fuck off, disliking nu-total war isn't some unique or rare opinion. The thread from a few days ago showed that too.

Attached: file.png (1392x888, 245K)

meant to reply to , vision aint so good in my old age heh

>hehe
He thinks... he thinks we're the same guy. That's adorable.

BASED NIGGER RITE ERE

Attached: 1417517139989.png (393x385, 286K)

you got me

Attached: caught.png (654x644, 101K)

ME2 also has much more total conversion mods than any other TW game: moddb.com/mods/medieval-2-total-war-battle-immersion-mod

Attached: 129034871021234.webm (1278x720, 2.57M)

now this is probably you replying to yourself after getting 2 replies from the two very same posters you were accusing of samefagging

user, please stop taking credit for my post. I spoke the words of god as he spoke unto me. You are a false prophet.

A friendly reminder that its the Hist niggers who keep shitting up any TW discussion
>3K fags spam the fuck out of threads
>Old fags beg and berate anyone else for liking any other games
>Constantly fight each other over which Hist is the best
Just bend over and wait it out hist fags you will get your next title and fight over not having another one soon

Attached: pepe ogre 2.jpg (420x387, 43K)

>retarded boomer doesn't even know how to look up quotes

agents, dynamicz traits/speeches, individual units on the campaign map, guard mode, formations, population mechanics, proper siege maps, building whatever you want in a settlement, dynasties/family trees, trade nodes, resource nodes, visible trade routes, forts/watchtowers, agent cutscenes, religion, pope, crusades/jihads, honestly i could probably keep going. warhammer is barebones.

ITT: All me (You) :)

Attached: nothing makes sense.png (1200x1461, 605K)

You don't get it, this is not history vs fantasy. This is post Empire vs pre Empire.
We don't need to wait for anything, nothing new that CA will put out will ever be good.

lies ive seen recent gameplay of people still doing that

A few years ago there was some guy experimenting with memory editing with Medieval II to bypass the hardcode limitations of the game. He dropped off the face of the earth. But one thing he did figure out was how to have actual units that comprised of just 1 single soldier, and legitimately too, not what they do now where they glitch multiples of a unit over each other. I look at the battle immersion mod, and I don't know how it works, but I wonder if this guy figured out the same thing.

Then move onto another rts grandpa, dont expect the same level of quality games when a series is over 20 years old and people move on their jobs

Attached: 1546951999891.jpg (800x572, 75K)

>agents
in the game
>dynamic traits
in
>individual units on the map
not a purely warhammer issue
>guard mode
in
>formations
were always buggy and either useless or blatantly gamebreakind i.e. yari wall, pikes, 3k
>population mechanics
not purely a warhammer issue
>proper siege maps
outside of being no minor settlement maps the AI has never engaged from more than three wall segments max
>build whatever you want
but you can
>dynasties/family trees
have no function in the setting
>trade nodes
in
>resource nodes
in
>visible trade routes
only visual fluff
>forts/watchtowers
removed from every other game past Empire or Napoleon
>agent cutscenes
visual fluff
>religion
corruption is religion
>pope/crusades/jihads
a specific mechanic for one game, you might as well complain about there being no S2 realm divide events or questline for securing the colonies as GB in Empire

You're just proving what those other guy(s) were saying about you not actually knowing Warhammer and just blindly hating on it.

The problem is there's nothing to move onto that offers the same kind of experience. Grand strategy games don't fill the niche. True RTS games don't fill the niche. TBS games don't. RTT gets close but it's no cigar. We're literally stuck here, with only one company making the games in genre we used to like, and most of us still do, but our options are limited and we have no true alternatives.

GW had catastrophically retarded leadership at the time. They killed fantasy by bloating unit prices, forcing armies to require lots of boring trash units to be viable, ignored broken and outdated armies and, outside gotrek and felix had absolutely no secondary/tertiary material like 40k had that would have boosted publicity.
Ignoring a potentially massive boost before killing it was precisely in line with their thinking at the time.

There's nothing similar. Nothing else has a mix of map strategy combined with the real time battle gameplay.
The only possible progression is if someone can remove the hardcoded limits from MII.
Luckily a modded Medieval 2 is so vast with so many total conversion mods that I can still play it to this day and not really get bored of it, and it's still being modded to this day. SS 6.4 for example has more depth than any base game CA has ever released, you can get hundreds of hours into it without really scratching the surface.

Attached: 4dfl6ubtyfl21.png (677x605, 270K)

If you try that against even crossbow men that unit dies. Riflemen will rip any single unit to shreds if they have a clear line of fire. Trying it against volleyguns is even more retarded.
Stop telling lies.

>The only possible progression is if someone can remove the hardcoded limits from MII.
SeeThere was a guy doing it. He managed to increase the unit cap from 500 to 1500, boost the total number of factions to 35, stuff like that. All without editing the exe file, not needing to redistribute it, making it legal. He just disappeared one day though. I have no idea what happened to him. I was hoping he'd at least leave us with some of his work so the rest of us could figure it out. I think from the battle immersion mod someone else is going to get close to cracking it. Whether its the same method or not, it has me hopeful for the future.

Why is Historical RTS so forgotten about if CA makes a fortune off shitty games? Surely someone has their sights on the RTS genre

Attached: 1566969656062.png (1125x1064, 972K)

it doesn’t have the same variety of agents, the dynamic traits don’t effect speeches and cannot be obtained from the same variety of ways (no governor traits for instance), formations add tactical depth and micro, real siege maps are objectively superior regardless of AI behavior, you have a fixed number of build slots, dynasties and family trees were automatic and preferable to clunky hero upgrade trees that take up 50% of your campaign gameplay, you do not have trade nodes for merchants to interact with, you have regional resources, which is different, it was “visual fluff” that quickly and intuitively showed you the connections and value of trade routes without having to scan a dry stat sheet, agent cutscenes were cool, religion/popes/crusades added depth, i don’t care what your excuse is, the end result is less depth, corruption is nowhere near as good as religion.
fuck youuuuu

Not him but he's right... if we were talking about this game four years ago when it first came out. It was actually sort of a big problem at the time. It's fixed now.

bullshit and even if that were true, it can be mitigated with healing units and its totally worth it to sacrifice a bit of health on your hero to waste an entire army’s ammunition

economies of scale. CA have iterated over the same engine/technology for years, it'll take a massive investment for anyone to achieve parity

The problem is with every passing day more and more fellow boomers will be leaving the M2 modding scene. I just hope critical work like this gets done before it's too late, it is 15 years old after all.

Attached: afraid boomer.jpg (365x453, 41K)

Units have a limit they can’t be healed above if they take enough damage to prevent that precise issue.
You’d know this if you’d played the game. It’s a viable tactic to distract missile units and buff them to mitigate damage until you can close to cut them off, but wasting their entire ammo supply will at best make that hero worthless for anything else at the trade off of wasting a shitty ranged unit’s ammo, like Arrer boys or militia. Trying it against an elite archer or armour piercing ranged will kill any hero including Thanes. Again, You’d know this if you played it.

LegendofTotalWar does that all the time, why are you lying?

i literally watched legend do it like a couple days ago but ok retard

I'm waiting till all three games+expansions are released and it goes on sale as a bundle to try it. It just seems too expensive otherwise.

2 is better

>doesn't have the same variety of agents
The most agents present in any one game was 3 that were exactly the same across all factions in the game
>dynamic traits don't effect speeches
thats just more atmospheric fluff that isn't directly a gameplay issue
>no governor traits
but there are
>formations add tactical depth and micro
no they didn't. Formations started and ended at infantry formations that had them sit in place to last longer and cavalry formations to let them cycle charge harder. Didn't let them do more or less than what they already did in their basic state.
>real siege maps are objectively superior regardless of AI
fighting on a single wall with a massive settlement or fighting on a single wall that the map is focused on isn't significantly different because in both situations the rest of the city only matters as a backdrop. Bigger cities are nice but the games have never taken advantage of them.
>fixed number of build slots
present in everything past Med 2
>dynasty and family trees were automatic
so they were basically removed from player control?
>no trade nodes for merchants
so you're admitting an entire agent class would stay stationary for their entire lifetime thus they were one dimensional and boring?
>stuff looks cool
not game related
>religion/popes/crusades added depth
only present as major mechanics in one game

Seethe harder dude it won't convince anyone here that you're not just straight up talking out of your ass because you're actively being wrong or obtuse about the points you're making.

>muh eceleb
And it all comes into place.

because he’s a shill that sits in /twg/ all day sucking creative assembly’s cock and is the OP of this thread, he has spent the last 2-3 years writing walls of text defending warhammer because he’s an insecure faggot

>criticisms come from watching some fag on youtube instead of personal experience
Pottery

pirate it you stupid faggot

>i-it doesn't count

From a gameplay perspective, I don't think the series has progressed that much since 2005. It's the graphical side of things where nu-Total War is so impressive and I think would be almost impossible to match.
It's just a case of if people would be fine with a graphically simplistic game.
I know Darth of Darthmod fame made his own relatively successful Ultimate General game which is graphically pretty simple although it looks nice artistically so it can be done.

Attached: 1551975730960.png (2000x1600, 1.17M)

buildings outside of your city take up building space in your city.

I play with CreamAPI regularly online in competitive MP
No bans at all

Boot it up and replicate it then.
Shouldn’t be difficult.

i didn't wait for you lying bitch

>make a claim
>tell other party to prove it
yikes

You’ve been shitposting here for hours.
Don’t pretend you don’t have the time

The initial claim was that it’s possible, and the defence was pointing to an eceleb.
I accept your concession.

I did it yesterday, it works pretty well

Attached: warhamm.jpg (631x136, 24K)

i don’t get paid like you to shill this shit game everyday but medieval 3 had spies, priests, princesses, assassins, and merchants, calling all the cool features “atmospheric fluff” doesn’t detract from the fact that they’re missimg features, formations OBJECTIVELY add depth and micro stop speaking nonsense, 4>1 fuck off, skill trees destroy the campaign map pacing, you could make dozens of merchants so there was a lot of depth in controlling all of them and moving them all around the map, actual strategic depth instead of mindless upgrade trees that were just automatically applied based on your actions in medieval 2 which dramatically improves pacing, its not just that trade routes look cool, they improve pacing and give information visually that you don’t have to go through menus to find, and fuck literally all games past napoleon so stop saying “its not in attila or rome 2 either hurr” because fuck those games too that’s not a valid defense.
nice deflection, does my source of information change the facts? no? then kill yourself lying shill cuck

>The most agents present in any one game was 3
medieval 2:
princesses
diplomats
spies
assassins
merchants
priest/heretic/imam/witch
inquisitor
shogun 2:
priest
mestsuke
shinobi
geisha

>fighting on a single wall with a massive settlement or fighting on a single wall that the map is focused on isn't significantly different because in both situations the rest of the city only matters as a backdrop.
2 armies attack from opposing sides, hidden troops break down gates while the enemy is somewhere else, allowing cavalry to sally in; both of these are not possible in WH when previously they were.

I don't even know who is arguing with who about what anymore

its interesting to see that the gay tranny warhammer faggot shill cuck that shitposts in /twg/ defending his babby game 24/7 for literally 4 years is still doing the same gay shit today. get a life

>not a new IP
unsuprising

So as much as I like to shill medieval II, and I am on your side in this, a lot of the agents in medieval II filled the same roles as each other and were redundant. Diplomats and Princess both filled the same role, with the only difference being that princess could be married and also seduce other factions generals. Inquisitors and Assassins pretty much did the same thing, only Inquisitors focused on targets with Low Piety and had different flavor. The end result was pretty much the same regardless, your character died or didn't die. But I do think you have a point. No one said variation is a bad thing.

based

Battles in total war were never hard. Unless you were vastly outmatched and outnumbered, it was never too hard to win, even in Rome and Medieval 2

welcome to Yea Forums
is it your first time?

Chink review bombing as usual.

>wasting their entire ammo supply will at best make that hero worthless
you know, there is a pretty nifty trick, moving your hero around so he does not actually get hit.
it is a pretty high skill strat though, so you are right to assume that it is unrealistic in any given scenario.

And here is the most based and true post of this entire thread.

Ahem.

Attached: Warhammer_Tomb_Kings_Settra.png (507x864, 949K)

>Fat.
>Loud.
>Obnoxious.
>Eat all the time.
>Obsessed with guns.
>Ruthless capitalists.
>Leader is a retarded rich guy.
>Cosplay as other races
>Constantly get involved in other peoples conflicts.
>"""Native""" lands were conquered from another race, once mighty, but now reduced to a few inbred alchoholics.
>What little culture they have is based entirely around shitty food, as a result they immitate and appropriate other peoples culture.
>Reliant on the mass labor of a lesser race to do all the shitty jobs they don't want to do.
>Are constantly kept in check by a race of large-nosed, darkhaired, hatwearing, greedy imperialists.

This is why Ogres are the worst race.

To a degree, yes. But some stuff like fighting the mongol doomstacks without a castle or a river crossing without taking egregious casualties was still challenging and hard to pull off. I will say I have a lot more close battles in Warhammer than I do in Med 2, but I think that has more to do with 15 years of experience in Med 2 vs 5 in Warhammer.

I get it

>Soon

zoomers quaking in their boots

Attached: ufkyjhgcbaksehvfawe.jpg (443x455, 34K)

> I do think you have a point. No one said variation is a bad thing.
My entire point was that the
>The most agents present in any one game was 3
argument is at best dismissively generalizing, but much more likely bullshit coming out of a facially mounted ass.

Fuck you

Attached: 1542033893737.jpg (483x650, 62K)

>i don’t get paid like you to shill this shit game everyday but medieval 3
never ever

that guy has made thousands of greentext walls in /twg/ doing the same shit, religiously defending warhammer because he’s a faggot that only started playing the series when warhammer came out.

I want the cover mechanic from Empire and Napoleon Total War back.

Attached: Immobiles_Sturmschild_des_Imperiums.jpg (522x320, 32K)

>princesses/diplomats
essentially the exact same agent besides one being capable of being married off
>merchants
Moves to a resource node and never moves again

These are essentially obsolete because diplomacy in all games afterwards just let you directly speak with factions you have contact with. Merchants are replaced with straight resource buildings in everything after because they were basically meaningless.
Geisha is just a metsuke/ninja hybrid at its core.

Having multiple armies coming from different directions didn't change how they engaged the settlement because they would still loop all the way around to go up the same two ladders or wall breaches the original army that built siege equipment used. If anything they would just waste time walking around getting shot by otherwise idle towers whittling down their numbers and tiring themselves out.

Most of the rest of your points are "its just better", "its more involved", without giving any specifics. I can see parts of what you're talking about that you could argue into real points but you refuse to because you're either busy sperging or know that the reasoning doesn't actually hold up even when put into its best light.

>not maining the chadven
lol

Attached: 1502964071239.png (800x639, 457K)

Please kind experienced players and total war veterans.
which TW should i get? Which is the best? Please no nostalgia colored glasses ok.

FUCK IT LADS it's time to make a Total War competitor with full modding tools so the Histochads and Fantasychads can finally be at peace.
It is time to be FREE from CA's jewry

Attached: 1526343104640.png (790x837, 229K)

None of them
All of them

Good luck frogposter, you'll need it.

what's your preferred historical setting?

there he goes again making awful arguments. he operates on a quantity basis, spamming text walls with no substance until the other guy gets bored and leaves. seen him do it for years on /twg/, literal fucking autistic faggot retard. all those changes are objectively shit, warhammer’s campaign map pacing is objectively shit, you spend all your time in upgrade trees instead of making strategic moves on the map, army management is streamlined and shit because you can’t move individual units around or create your own garrisons.
in medieval 2, you just make strategic decision after strategic decision, everything is strategy and there’s no tedium on the campaign map. After Shogun 2 but especially in warhammer, the campaign map became was basically doing 15 upgrade trees every turn, its fucking mind-numbing especially when realizing that it was all automatic in the other games leaving you more time for STRATEGY in your STRATEGY GAME.
kill yourself shill, go such Grace’s tranny cock

>>real siege maps are objectively superior regardless of AI
>fighting on a single wall with a massive settlement or fighting on a single wall that the map is focused on isn't significantly different because in both situations the rest of the city only matters as a backdrop. Bigger cities are nice but the games have never taken advantage of them.

This is objectively wrong. Medieval 2 saw you defending or attacking through multiple city streets at a time. Castles had multiple layers to them and you had to plan accordingly when attacking (as in bringing enough siege equipment to get through multiple gates) In addition you could actually sally out as the defend and use your walls to your advantage in the battle.
Shogun 2 late game battles became multi layered castle defenses and the computer would consistently siege you from as many angles as possible.
A single siege wall defense only says they couldn't figure out how to eliminate the multitude of bugs sieges caused and even that didn't fucking work because units still glitch out.

I dont care really, as long as the strats in battles are complex and all that.

TW isn't the franchise for you then.

Which is then?

>still won't go into detail about points
>its shit its shit its shit
>you're just that other guy
>more ad hominem
Take your meds

honestly shogun 2 is the most polished and streamlined without being dumbed down.

Medieval 2 has the most depth to it though.

if you can get past the old-timey jank, Medieval 2. Otherwise, Rome 2 has the biggest community support for realism mods, improved ai and even total conversions

go for napoleon, but just play multiplayer. best multiplayer in the series

here is your proofs

Attached: header.jpg (460x215, 137K)

so wth...Literally 3 people all recommending a diff game.

is the new "age of sigmar" thing that they are doing really that bad? i have barely looked at it

Just wait for a sale, the old games are really cheap

Play Shogun 1 on a CRT and a Pentium III you fucking PLEBIAN

out of those 4 recommendations, just pick the one you have the slightest historical inclination towards

He's shitposting because none of the battles have complex strats, at best the AI will try to flank you but it's so telegraphed you have to be braindead not to be able to repel it.
But the Total War has no competitors in the RTS Battle simulation market so if you want to get your general LARP on this is all there is buddy.
There are a couple indie titles like Ultimate General but they're comparatively shit.

You only ever had to engage inside the city because units would auto rally and be unbreakable in the city center. If you were defending you would just measure your odds and choose between picking them apart as they filed out the stairs one by one after they reach the walls, abused the AI being too stupid to properly engage with its siege equipment so you could sally out with one or two fast-ish units or spare cavalry to wipe the unit pushing it and pick the army apart one unit at a time as they send something else to man the siege engine alone, or stack up on the city center where your units are basically unbreakable to grind it out. Shogun only gets around this because walls are climbable by infantry and don't need siege equipment to assault.

Shogun 2 or medieval 2 provided you are not a ADHD zoomer.

It's way better than when it was released. I'm more of a Warhammer Underworlds guy though and I have started playing Warcry

Medieval II is the easiest game in the series sind flanking cavs wrecks everything.

that's not how my battles went at all, but ok

pirate it. don't support publishers that nickel and dime customers.

it's the best game in the Total War franchise
it's the worst Total War game

same with Fallout 4

he just spams nonsense, he’s been doing it for years. he is paid to do it, or at least i hope he’s at least getting paid

In terms of variety and such? Yeah. It rocks. Total War Warhammer 2 is even better especially that now they are reworking all the game one factions to make them stand out more. What I'm bugged about is that they use building slots for the settlements instead of having more traditional building mechanisms like in the older pre-Empire Total War games.

That and no formations for units expect for Bretonnian knights, but that's Lance Formation only.

This pic is now really funny since CA did include the Dread Saurian who is a FW model. And with Norsca and Vampire Coast along with the latter's Cylostra being the first original character playable to gamers, Chaos Dwarfs being a thing are very probable.

Wondering if they add more TK stuff later on. Would be fun to see a Dwarfs vs Tomb Kings DLC that would include Dwarf Master Engineers and Lord variant of a Liche Priest so that Khatep wouldn't be the only one.

>This is the best Total War game. Prove me wrong.
Campaign part is too simple, battles are okay but still simple.
The game is not bad, but there is too many thing lacking in the strategy department.

Attached: Opium-War-cartoon.jpg (564x476, 61K)

>it's the best but it's the worst

Attached: D2vAQEsWkAAHr-t[1].jpg (922x781, 57K)

it's good =/= it's true to the source material
LotR movies for example are superior to the books, but that doesn't make them faithful adaptations

I understand this is a difficult concept for some people to grasp

Lmao you realise thrones of britannia exists

>as usual
Dunno seems to me that price increase due to a publisher swap is a much more legitimate reason to complain than whatever outrage-of-the-week bitchfest we have here.

If you want to ignore the AI's clear behavioral patterns when deciding your strategies that's fine, I don't cheese every battle just because I know I can, but it doesn't change the fact that the AI in every game always acts in a certain way because of the limits of CA's programming.

>s-shill!
Take your meds schizo

TW recently made a deal with netease (chink gov corp) to produce "Chinese market translations" (ie: censored to shit 2 year behind update feature incomplete buggy to shit edition) so uncle chan is a bit upset.

I really wonder why they went ahead with that, I thought they were actually being clever by attracting chinese players WITHOUT working with a chink corp which would likely fuck up a lot of things

>this also works on sieges so you can cheese every siege in the game
Meanwhile in Rome 1
>get 4 phalanx units
>put one in each approach to the city center
>alt-tab and win
Or in Medi 2
>put one unit of spears at the gate
>shit units above so it isn't capped
>enemy army breaches
>60% die to oil, the rest flee
Even better when you have stakes so their entire cavalry is killed in under 5 seconds.

Probably because it's impossible to deal with China in a productive way as a normal western company.

I hate how flimsy everything feels in warhammer. There are no formations, lines fly apart instantly, units dissapear in seconds, units move to fast ect.

Battles just consist of me frantically spazzing the camera around issuing a new order twice a second but the problem is these orders aren't interesting, they are just fucking busywork. I spend 75% of the battle just babysitting melee units so they are always in combat with something, it doesn't take any thought. Its just mindless clicking like I'm playing fucking osu or some shit.

I still play it though because I absolutely love warhammer fantasy, even if the chosen aesthetic of the game is imo a pretty shit version of it.

Attached: 1.jpg (753x707, 331K)

You're comparing games with 15 years of difference. CA should already solved this and other problems with newer titles

CA already takes forever to put out reskin content for their recent historical titles and balance patches for Warhammer that are 80% number tweaks sometimes take months. Not unreasonable for them to try and front the localization and distribution of their games to an entrenched Chinese company after they got the market's attention with three kingdoms. Would be less of an issue if the Chinese government and their more influential companies weren't working with each other to exploit their people so hard.

They solved the problem in Warhammer though for the most part. Every infantry unit coming with siege ladders to climb walls is sorta gay but it gives the AI more options to enter the city. Flyers really fuck over units on the walls unless they're up against something high tier but then they would just go engage somewhere else because they can fucking fly. Landbound monsters and powerful elite units aimed at killing infantry and killing it fast mean it takes more to stop a wall or gate breach than just sitting a heavy unit of spears there to hold them.

If you haven't started playing TW from S1 or M1 your opinion is irrilevant.
That said:
>Top tier
S2, Tilla
>Good tier
WH's, S1/M1, Poopan
>Meh tier
Empire, M2 (its a buggy piece of shit on par with Empire)
>Shit tier
R2
>holy shit just what the hell is this abomination
ToB

Haven't played 3k yet but it looks even more dumbed down than WH games

I miss the risk style campaign map of S1/M1

always makes me sad that CA never made a side-game return to it
also the fact that outside the limits of the map the texture was a wood table was cool

>Every infantry unit coming with siege ladders
>They solved the problem

>M2
>meh
>S1/S2
>good
opinion discarded

Ok

Attached: 1449162719039.webm (960x540, 2.27M)

Whats wrong about it

It was worse then what people were saying when it first came out. Since then GW has actually made a semi decent game.

It pisses me off because CA never actually properly fix their broken AI, they just bandaid over it.

>game has been out for 3 years
>still no definitive edition that includes all the DLC

Attached: 1567241200051.jpg (400x400, 29K)

The longer you play any of their games the more you'll see is just lazy patchwork to cover up problems instead of actually fixing things. The greatest sin of all these games is the potential they miss out on because CA didn't put the effort in to properly apply things.

>took a year to port Norsca
>remove heaven lore from slann because they can only have 4 choice in their engine

They magically appear
Like every problem that CA has they fix it by "magic"
>Captain infinite movement exploit? Just make every army require a General
>The game is too demanding? Reduce unit size, remove weather effects, remove banners, etc..

That's going to cost 1000$ plus tip.

Warhammer by miles if you don't care much for history

If they did that they would make headlines with how much the game cost, which wouldn't be good

Once Game 3 is out with all DLC it's going to be around 320-380$ for everything in the combined campaign

It's fucking retarded. I refuse to unlock all this shit. I'll stick with Med 2.

Attached: totalwarcompleteprice.png (616x803, 192K)

Attached: totalwarhammer2.png (616x689, 153K)

Its now better than when it was released, which isn't that big of an achievement, but both are so different setting wise that many warhammer fantasy fans just can't get into it

heh

get warhammer two, use creamapi and you can get all of the DLC for free and you don't have to fork over money to play mortal empires

The serf complains and keeps plowing the field while the patrician simply enjoys life.

You're going to get Med 2 and then play a base campaign. After that you can download a mod for basically whatever the fuck you want. Warhammer Fantasy, LotR, GoT, Samurai, an expanded Med 2 experience, etc. Med 2 is the best.

>patrician simply enjoys life
You're a loser online and in the real world, faggot.

The only definitive edition we might get is with wh3 and all its dlc’s plus wh1 and wh2. And that will be in like 4 years, and would cost close to 100€.

A projection of oneself unto others and the whole world becomes his enemy.

You can leave peepeepoopoos and wood hitlers out for now as they just stink as factions.

Just use CreamAPI poorfag.

>he actually buys dlc
use creamapi. there's no reason not to, it's just free dlc.

so just because there is more DLC it should be cheaper?

fantasy tw is for incel autists
historical tw if for cultured autists

Attached: cao cao ahem.png (1424x473, 313K)

>Rome and Medieval 2.
>Good.
Mods don't count, user.

Post your best heroes.

Attached: gwqy3eywpap11[1].png (1920x1080, 2.23M)

>new games are unmoddable to the extent that you can't mod the map or create entirely new games like you could in Med 2 so mods don't count!!!!
REPENT ZOOMER

Its zoomers first total war. Fags who had no real interest in the historical setting came in droves and decided this was the best game ever with 0 objectivity beyond 'we didn't like the old ones so you're wrong for liking them more'

>Everything feel too fast.
As opposed to past Total War games? Like, the entire franchise has always had fast battles. Cavalry in Medieval 2 can destroy a battle line in seconds if properly placed.

Mods are the only reason why Rome and Medieval 2 are worth checking out. The actual base game is still crap, and vastly inferior to the likes of Rome 2 and Warhammer.

>rome and medieval 2
>vastly inferior to the likes of rome 2
>rome 2
jesus christ

Attached: 18190792_1384764184918848_1521346266_n.jpg (288x252, 11K)

Rome 2 is fine nowadays. It's much more fun than Rome 1 anyhow. The Ai in that game might as well be non existent.

post memorable generals

Attached: SHIIIEEEET.jpg (1920x1080, 752K)

>that prided themselves on having almost 20 factions
Oh look a retard who thinks 20 variations of jap spearmen compare to animating unique monsters and spells.

It depends on what you like! It's obviously very subjective. Personally my favorite is Warhammer. Shogun 2 is good to start with, all the sides are alike, which can get dull but makes it easier to get the jist of total war, and it's we'll put together in general. Just pick what sounds fun to you, samurais, Romans, elves, you're covered.

This. There hasn't been a good TW game since Shogun 2.
Everything since runs like shit, looks like shit, has a shit UI, the campaign map is full of fucking clutter and has no soul.
Not that Shogun 2 was without it's faults. It was a shitty, buggy mess but it's still the best TW game.

>No soul.
Argument discarded.

>copy-paste generic fantasy races
>make little plastic figurines
>decide to save money and trick nerds into painting them themselves
>lazily slap on some desk-top strategy game rules on it so the faggots play with rulers and dice
>rake in the fucking dough
nah Warhammer should've stayed dead. 40k too.

The game has probably helped model sales, i was tempted to buy a few lords and paint because i love them in the game (queek and ikit for example)

>Rome 2 is fine nowadays
Holy shit, that a case of Stockholm syndrome big enough to declare yourself as a part of fucking Sweden

Attached: ohgodwhy.jpg (125x102, 3K)

>not max dread
gay

Don't pretend like the game hasn't improved since launch.

It's much better now than it was at launch. They started giving a shit.

Wrong

Attached: zoomerrageincoming.jpg (746x556, 84K)

One thing I really like about Stainless Steel 6.4 M2 (and to a lesser extent, vanilla M2) is the unit regen means that your early game units are still important in the late game and you need to be able to use them effectively right up until the end. Which mirrors real warfare too, you didn't have armies comprising of 4,000 knights - they were usually a small portion of your army and the rest being regular infantry. With Rome 2 and beyond there's no point to having Hastatii once you've unlocked Principes and I imagine the same thing happens in Warhammer too.

I know in Vanilla M2 if you have a high density of castles in an area you can basically have 100% knights so maybe my point falls flat in vanilla but in Stainless Steel the recruitment mechanic is perfect, even in the late game you still have to rely on a diverse unit pool rather than just spamming your strongest unit. I really enjoyed that aspect of the game where you ACTUALLY keep your best units in reserve because there's a real consequence to losing them - there's no automatic regen outside of cities, and sometimes your elite units can only be recruited at your capital or well developed cities that are far from the front line. If you lose those elite knights the next one is 10+ turns away because they obviously can't be recruited in bumfuck nowhere Africa when you are playing as England for example.

Maybe it's "artificial difficulty", I don't know. But the fact that it makes you play in a way that mirrors history is something to be valued, and I would like to see it return in nu-TW. And I'm not even getting started on how not being able to have general-less armies tactically limits you so much where you can no longer leave small garrisons in mountain valleys.

Attached: 1516214604826.png (429x410, 10K)

secretly marrying your sister was the best

Medieval 2 had plenty of content but the unit controls and pathfinding were terrible. Probably the clunkiest game in the entire series.

No, the devs sold out to chinks.

i don't know shit about warhammer, literally nothing, but their designs are sick. this is one of the coolest designs i've ever seen

Attached: NOOOOOOOOOOOO.jpg (2057x1080, 347K)

>warhammer
>zoomer

It's literally made for nostalgic boomers

>it's more fun than Rome 1
It's literally a rushed Warscape imitation of Rome 1 with shockingly bad design choices tacked on. It's embarassing how poorly it plays, even after the years of patching.

It's getting obvious that none of the faggots hating on the older games have actually played them. AI in TW games was always poor, but its vanilla high points were Alexander and Shogun. Rome 2 regressed fucking terribly in this regard. At least with the older games you could significantly alter the AI with modding. You're shit out of luck with the new installations.

You can't discount mods when looking at the older games, especially since they elevate the base experience so much vs the much tamer moddability in the new games.
Even with DEI or whatever mod on Rome 2, it's simply an inferior game to, say, Roma Surrectum or Europa Barbarorum on R1.

ARSEWEASLES

Attached: gen.jpg (1280x720, 124K)

>decide to save money and trick nerds into painting them themselves
>Put prices that would imply they were actually painted by some autist with a mix of italian and french name.

COD PIECE FONDLERS

Attached: file.png (1278x952, 1.44M)

you are not incorrect

But ME Empire is getting a rework on 9/11

Attached: 1562353857819.jpg (434x586, 147K)

This thread reminds me of that time I installed graphical mods onto M2

Attached: file.png (1920x1080, 3.31M)

How well is the Mortal Empires stuff implemented?

It's a retarded argument since the lifeblood of TW games has been the modding community since Rome 1, because CA has always released flawed products. First because it was a tiny niche bong dev, and later because Sega took over and started cracking the whip to force them to release rushed games far too early. The difference now is that the current engine makes any real modding impossible, so if their game sucks it just sucks unless they decide to patch the ever-loving shit out of it, and even that can only do so much. Add in the obligatory DLC-whoring and them now consciously appealling to entrenched, established fanbases, and you get sour grapes x 10, in which moddability is viewed as something negative. A nice cognitive dissonance in which the old games are lambasted for being shoddily released, but the same company somehow isn't doing the same even worse now despite the obvious signs.

speeches in Med2 were soulful

LegendofTotalWar here

didn't he get blacklisted by CA for shitting all over Thrones of Britannia?

Overall? It really slows down the game by adding a lot of factions you wont ever meet because you're not going to expand on five continents at once
But, it's a great map and actually gets updated (unlike WH1), so Old world factions get rebalanced and new mechanics. For example, ME Empire is gaining some new provinces, Gelt is getting his own faction, and there's a new Elector County system for SUMMONING
I, personally, use a mod that gets rid of non-unique and non-lore important factions outside of a radius of my start zone, and tha thats really helped with load times

Attached: 1510529858274.jpg (540x360, 27K)

based

>no banners/musicians
>no speeches aside from quest battles
>no dynamic speeches tied to what traits your general has
>no 1v1 giant animations, they attack each other’s ankles instead
>no minor settlements
>no night battles
>no weather effects during battle (i.e rain effecting fatigue and gunpowder units)
>no units pushing siege towers
>no reload animations for the majority of units
>no seasons
>no army painter or avatar mode where you fully customize your units and generals feature from Shogun 2
>no burnable cities mechanic from Attila
>no siege escalation mechanic from Attila
>no random civilians running around during a siege feature from Attila
>no dynamic music feature from Attila
>no soldiers who visually look sick and start vomiting during battle if the army is struck with the plague feature from Attila
>no soldiers who visually look tired and breathless during battle if the army is fighting in forced-march stance feature from Attila
>no unique camp-site battle map while in encampment stance
>no more Jeff van Dyck doing the music
>no armor getting a visual upgrade during battle if you upgraded the unit’s armor in the campaign
>Archaon's helmet clipping still not fixed
>Old World factions don't have new dialogue when engaging with the WH2 factions both in battle and the diplomacy screen
>Dwarfs, Wood Elves, Britonnia and Empire all share the SAME battle OST
>generals no longer gain visual upgrades as they rank up(i.e. viking generals in Attila would gain a gold trimmed helmet at level 4 and a fully decked out gold helmet at level 8)
>buildings you build in the campaign map no longer can be seen during siege battles like in R1/M2
>no dismount cavalry option during battle
>no burning death animations despite units having literal flamethrowers
>no visual trade caravans or trade ships on the campaign map
>no naval battles
>cant edit the campaign map, voice lines and music like in R1/M2
>shit siege battles
>no formations
>no captains

warhammer 2 with creamapi for unlocking everything, total war attila or medieval 2 kingdoms (i played medieval 2 like years ago so i don't remember it much but i remember it was good)

What's the name of the mod you use?
Waiting fucking forever for the huge list of factions is one of my main gripes with ME.

ME Turn Time Destroyer

How to BTFO nu-Total War fags in ONE SIMPLE POST

Attached: 1474552306455.jpg (363x321, 68K)

Thanks lad

yeah, but its fun

>no weather effects during battle (i.e rain effecting fatigue and gunpowder units)
>no reload animations for the majority of units
>no seasons
>no armor getting a visual upgrade during battle if you upgraded the unit’s armor in the campaign
>no burning death animations despite units having literal flamethrowers
>no visual trade caravans or trade ships on the campaign map
>no naval battles
>no formations
>no units pushing siege towers
Holy fuck, CA really phoned this one in. It sounds more like a slightly more elaborate Battle for Middle-Earth, except based on a far shittier franchise.

Superior fantasy based Total War coming through

Attached: TATW.jpg (857x419, 101K)

fantasyfags utterly blown the fuck out
impressive post, very good

>Samefagging

Attached: 1489879408571.gif (400x400, 335K)

ok retard

Attached: file.png (448x185, 46K)

>i have no argument and i must scream

Attached: lel.png (992x893, 140K)

>Phoneposting

Attached: 4861.jpg.png (750x812, 247K)

wrong again faggot

Attached: file.png (1899x915, 240K)

So after total war warhammer 3. what is the next fantasy setting? will CA be able to make a lotr game?

lmao

try harder fantasy bitch

Attached: Screenshot_2019-09-05 (4) v - This is the best Total War game Prove me wrong - Video Games - 4chan.p (481x173, 42K)

Thanks for the chuckle, user.

>next fantasy setting
They just released a Dynasty Warriors game, silly goose

kek

Attached: you caught me.png (481x173, 41K)

can't argue with that

Attached: allme.png (735x185, 47K)

HE CAN'T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT

My zoomers first total war was Med 2. I would still say that it's my favorite, but I tend not to compare Warhammer (fantasy) total war to historical ones. I have somewhat different expectations for both of these. Though I did play some third age/divide and conquer mod for Med2, but that's a different matter.

Forget about the game but the trailers for the warhammer 2 dlcs are fucking amazing.
Is no one going to point how kino the trailers for
>the hunter and the beast
>the prophet and the warlock
>the curse of vampire coast
are. The music, the battles in the trailer, voice acting is fucking incredible. The hunter and the beast is my favourite.

>in b4 total war always had great trailers
Not going to disagree but the new ones are next level kino.

yeah user their trailers are great, the ones for R2 especially got me really fucking hyped.
youtube.com/watch?v=i5v6hPr6L7U

why can't we all be friends?

youtu.be/xzZ0nLfUp7M

And leaking email

CA does know how to make trailers. The atilla imitating the last supper and the siege of Carthage were one of the most memorable moments in the trailers they've done.
Shogun 2 opening cinematic is also great.

age of sigmar is still shit

Medieval 2 TW would be perfect if it had better AI. Warhammer was the peak for technology but Medieval 2 is still the peak for game design. It had better units WAY better sieges, and a way better economy. Conquering the map as hungary on VH VH is still my best total war experience.

>you spend all your time in upgrade trees instead of making strategic moves on the map, army management is streamlined and shit because you can’t move individual units around or create your own garrisons.
>especially in warhammer, the campaign map became was basically doing 15 upgrade trees every turn

This is my main issue in Warhammer1/2. There's barely anything to manage on the campaign map except build cookie-cutter buildings and upgrade them every turn. And when you actually finally get to do a battle they last only ~7 minutes

youtube.com/watch?v=0-4XNn2yfys

Christ.. even their unit trailers are getting ridiculously good.

it will always be shit, for me

AI and unit reponsiveness / routing in sieges are what's stopping it from being absolutely perfect IMO.

One of the more experienced modders released a BAI script that's worth checking out. Not as buggy as VeryBadAI that was the go-to before this.

twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?705596-Skynet-AI

Unit path finding is still retardedly awful in three kingdoms so I don't expect CA to improve any time soon. Almost couldn't believe my eyes when I saw units doing the trademarked bunch up on the corner of a building and trickle past one at a time in a game from this year.

Asking before thread is ded, how does Call of Warhammer compare to Total Warhammer

CA would go out of fucking business if even a remotely competent developer took a shot at them with a historical battle RTS. It frustrates me that these janky ass games are the only options in this genre.

Attached: 321.jpg (680x719, 39K)

I AM ANGRY! ANGRY ABOUT GROBI!

Attached: downloadfile-18.png (238x320, 157K)

>mfw I enjoy all of the games except Rome 2 and Chink:TW

Attached: 1540062591329.jpg (950x960, 206K)

Better if you like actual tactics and a campaign map worth a damn, worse if you want it to feel like a genuine fantasy game.

You just have good taste user

Might be because I'm playing the beginning of the end times version but the economy for the campaign starts all feels like it isn't thought out since its always had me at a several thousand gold deficit turn 1 but the battles are decent and the ripped models and lines from other games hold up well. Shows its age and very obviously stuck trying to get around M2 jank though.

>That moment when the mortars sync with the music
It is so satisfying.

322 Replies, I am forgotten...

>102ips
we've all posted at least 3 times in this thread

Not with all the samefagging going on

>>Dwarfs, Wood Elves, Britonnia and Empire all share the SAME battle OST
Yeah, and they're all the most boring tracks in the game. There's such a huge gap in quality between WHII and WHI's races in everything.

n-no a 15 year old game c-can't still be popular it has to be all s-samefags waaaah

Attached: 1536896733844.jpg (504x532, 21K)

>this faggot still trying after being btfo
fuck off back to /twg/ if you can't handle people disagreeing with you

all me :))

>popping off this hard at a samefag joke that took up half the thread
sounds like that other user really got to you

this is all me :^)

>Thinking visuals are what matters rather than the gameplay.

>Caring about dread and chivalry.
Any mechanic that forces you play worse is the shit.

You're wasting your time. The histcuck will ignore the fact that the visuals of wh also have dozens of times the individual models and animation work of the other games in the series where they could essentially recycle the same 5 or 6 skeletons and animation sets across the whole game.

That was actually a really nice feature in Stainless Steel. Warhammer does not have something like that unfortunately. But a few Warhammer 2 mods do try and hinder the amount of elites you can field, usually by adopting rules from the Tabletop games.

Three Kingdoms meanwhile also keeps early game units valuable simply because you aren't able to field elites of all 5 types.

Is the multiplayer for Warhammer TW 1 still active? Can you play with people who have Warhammer 2? I haven't played since it first came out but I really liked the multiplayer of TW games.

Yes yes but now mention how the battles are the most entertaining out of all the total wars by having akchually different units some with their own active or passive unique abilities, mortis engine effects, summoning, different lores of magic, strength weaknesses such as incorporeal units taking barely any physical damage, treats being weak to fire etc.
Unique faction abilities such as vamps being able to raise the dead from graveyard marks which are only created when 2k+ casualty battles happen and they can thus recruit high tier units faster than almost everyone else as they could just get zombies and sacrifice them.

Then you also have skaven underground/vermintide mechanics, workshop/nukes.
Kangz as an example don’t have unit upkeep but have to unlock their dynasties which result in them being retardedly OP as more turns pass as opposed to vamp counts and so on.
Honestly I can’t even begin to name the unique mechanics of all factions which is much more variety than any total war so far this is what makes this game so replayable whereas 3k population died in a few months.

The lore is shit but the game is basically 40k but fantasy

Probably dead.

Barely any of the player base even plays multi for 2 in the first place so I doubt 1 is going to be very active. You'll be missing years of balance patches and minor updates for game 1 units anyway.

>he's too retarded to grasp the point that half those 'visual' elements were already in the engine and the previous game before it, CA just didn't bother doing the tiny effort to implement them fully out of laziness
What features did Warhammer actually add that improved on Attila, exactly?

>It's literally a rushed Warscape imitation of Rome 1 with shockingly bad design choices tacked on.
It's not. Not even in a metaphorical sense.

>It's getting obvious that none of the faggots hating on the older games have actually played them.
I was playing Medieval 2 today. The AI is still hot garbage on a level beyond Rome 2.

I don't discount mods. Believe me, I only wish Warhammer or Three Kingdoms was as moddable as Medieval 2. But at the same time, Rome 2 not being easy to mod doesn't make the base game bad. While Rome 1 being easy to mod doesn't make the base game good.

>It had better units WAY better sieges
The sieges were fucking dogshit. Even ignoring the awful ai pathfinding, the central plazas giving troops infinite morale was still one of the dumbest decisions in Total War history.

>and a way better economy.
No, it didn't. Growth was king to such a stupid extent that doing anything other maximizing it was shooting yourself in the food.

Forgot about this pasta. Yes TW:Warhammer is good but CA is fucking lazy these days. They've stripped so many features and have streamlined their game and that cannot be disputed.

Literally all of the fantasy mechanics.

Why is Warhammer so soulless?

>It's not. Not even in a metaphorical sense.
Indeed. I was under the impression sequels were supposed to have more features than the original
>I was playing Medieval 2 today.
Why were you coincidentally playing an outdated game with hot garbage AI? Why do you feel the need to lie on the Internet user?
>The AI is still hot garbage on a level beyond Rome 2.
Does the AI still rush towards the city center or do nothing at all in Rome 2 '''sieges'''? Does the AI still unload all of its troops on a tiny piece of land during naval battles? Then Med 2 still isn't as bad.

Just saying 'lol it's worse habeeb me' isn't convincing, especially with the fucking volumes of criticism of shitty Rome 2 AI, both before and after patches.

>the central plazas giving troops infinite morale was still one of the dumbest decisions in Total War history
It might've been until Rome 2 introduced the victory points system and showed how much worse it can get

Special abilities have been a feature since the earliest games, user. I'm talking about actual gameplay features. Tactics, UI, campaign, whatever.

Rome 2 has more features than Rome 1. It also has more playable factions, more units, and more Ai that isn't a complete joke.

>Why were you coincidentally playing an outdated game with hot garbage AI?
I was playing Stainless Steel and wanted to try out some vanilia for comparison.

>Does the AI still rush towards the city center or do nothing at all in Rome 2 '''sieges'''?
No.

>Does the AI still unload all of its troops on a tiny piece of land during naval battles?
No.

>It might've been until Rome 2 introduced the victory points system and showed how much worse it can get
Victory points are fine nowadays.

>Special abilities have been a feature since the earliest games, user.
>Thinking the fantasy mechanics are just special abilities.
You've never actually played Warhammer, haven't you?

Because you have no soul yourself.

>medifags

Cutted features in favor of more varied animation/units.

>Features.
No, just stuff that wouldn't work in Warhammer as a setting.

>Dunno seems to me that price increase due to a publisher swap is a much more legitimate reason to complain
Whatever, insect.

>pirate it
Why the fuck would I pirate something with bad reviews?

REVIEWS ARE TO TELL ME IF I SHOULD PLAY IT. FAGGOT.

I'll decide what my money is worth to me, and whether whatever they are charging is worth the experience the review lays out for me. You stupid fucking chucklefucks whine and bitch about how reviews are shitty but YOU are the very reason they are fucking shit.

Should just carpet nuke them like that genius kid suggested as a way to get rid of china debt.

>pay 120$+ for the Mortal Empires campaign
>end up playing a "wait for the 5 minute turn times to end" simulator
>people unironically defend this
CA has an amazing cash cow in their hands not to mention the horde of CA shills (who do it for free)

>Rome 2 has more features than Rome 1
It doesn't, it removed some and added new ones. The question is whether those changes were positive or not. Stuff like the political system, tactical map and special abilities for shit that happened on its own before was utterly vestigial, while removing things like captains and loose formations limited the gameplay.
>It also has more playable factions
A pretty poor seeling point considering most are just carbon copies
>more units
Read above.
>and more Ai that isn't a complete joke.
Very debatable
>I was playing Stainless Steel and wanted to try out some vanilia for comparison.
What do you think of SS's AI?
>No.
So it might be on the same level as M2s after literal years of patchwork. This is just going to be an 'I say, you say' point, so I wonder why there's no one else revelling in Rome 2 supposed amazing AI. Legend seems to think M2 was third-best, Rome 2 isn't even on his list. Nor have I found any modders loving Rome 2's AI on TWC or the Org.
youtube.com/watch?v=djGmEsbVlN8&t=353s
>Victory points are fine nowadays.
That they're not currently bugged the fuck out doesn't change the fact that they're a poor replacement for the old system
>You've never actually played Warhammer, haven't you?
I haven't. Hence why I asked what it improved when it seemed things were just cut away. So far I have only heard vague non-answers.
>No, just stuff that wouldn't work in Warhammer as a setting.
>no night battles
>no weather effects during battle (i.e rain effecting fatigue and gunpowder units)
>no seasons
>no dismount cavalry option during battle
>no formations
Why wouldn't these features work in Warhammers' setting? Let's ignore the mostly cosmetic shit, but these features were quite important in older titles and were already in the engine. I doubt they cut them out just to keep the lore pure or whatever.

>I doubt they cut them out
I think it was just a lot of work to get the fantastical races right in the first place. The older games all had the same model pretty much, while now they have all sorts of units that they have to animate accordingly.

>work
CA biggest fear

Medieval2>Warhammer>Shogun2>Rome>Attila>Rome2>Napoleon>Empire

Havent played Three Kingdoms. The rest aren’t noteworthy. It heavily depends on whether you care about fantasy/historical, sieges or faction variety but as someone who has probably 5k hours spread on every Total War I mentioned this is my list

this is Yea Forums after all people like to talk about shit they have no idea about what’s the point of discussing active unique abilities, lores of magic etc and faction mechanics to somebody who has no idea what he’s on about.
He keeps spitting bullshit without having played the game. Yea Forums in a nutshell honestly

Elephants, cav, arty and chariots were always models in their own right, but I can see how it could be far bigger with Warhammer. I still suspect laziness and rushing are major factors, like they have been in the past.
I've only asked you what specific new features the game came up with because what I've heard is bleak, and I still haven't gotten an answer beyond whining from the people who claim its the GOAT. Pointing out that active and passive abilities aren't really new gameplay mechanics isn't hating you sperg

Dude, you don't make a game like total war warhammer if you are lazy. You're confusing them with "indie" developers.

>It doesn't,
It does add more features than it takes away. As for the value of the things it took away in comparison to what it added. Removing captains was one of the biggest reasons why the AI has been getting better recently. While formations are still in the game.

>A pretty poor seeling point considering most are just carbon copies
I would actually say it's a perfectly fine selling point. Rome Total War has only a handful of playable factions without using mods or changing the files.

>Very debatable
No, it's not. The ai in Rome 2 isn't great, but compared to the non existent cakewalk that is Rome 1. It might as well be skynet.

>What do you think of SS's AI?
It's alright. Playing as the HRE though, who are stupidly easy.

>So it might be on the same level as M2s after literal years of patchwork.
It's a few steps above vanilia Medieval 2. Since, at least diplomacy works and the ai is functional.

>Hence why I asked what it improved when it seemed things were just cut away.
It added monstrous units. Flying units. Magic. Incredibly different factions with their own unique mechanics. Endgame chaos invasions. Vampire/Chaos corruption. Hero units. Lord units. And a bunch of other features that make it more than just Attilia with a Warhammer skin.

>no night battles
Exist in the form of lightning strike.

>no weather effects during battle
You got something similar in the form of the winds of magic.

>No seasons.
Why would those affect even half of the factions?

>no dismount cavalry option during battle
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense when "cavalry" includes shit like dragons, dinosaurs, and centaurs.

>No formations.
Some units have formation like abilities.

It is. WH2 may have more QOL features but it has way shittier campaign(s), factions and LLs. Also more SJW shit. WH1 is still the GOAT TW game.

I know. At least he's willing to admit that he's never played Warhammer. Which is pretty much the only reason i'm giving him the time of the day.

>Also more SJW shit
>This is actually what people think.
This is why Yea Forums is dead as a serious force.

>>no weather effects during battle
>You got something similar in the form of the winds of magic.
>
>>No seasons.
>Why would those affect even half of the factions?

I feel like you are being purposely obtuse here.

>Yea Forums is dead as a serious force
To be dead, one has to be alive first.

Fall of the Samurai is better, fantasoy.

I'm not. Let me explain in more detail if you must.
>You got something similar in the form of the winds of magic.
The winds of magic determine how much Mana you can use during a fight. Like weather, how much you get is randomly assigned at the start of a battle. With it being possible to try and roll again.

It's not exactly the same, but it does perform mostly the same function of being a element of RNG that you can try and roll again if you don't like the result.

>Why would those affect even half of the factions?
Most of the playable factions would literally not be affected much by the changing of their season. Either because of what places they inhabit, or because of what they are (Like the Undead).

The thing that annoys me about Total War is it still follows the Hollywood misconception of melee combat where two lines of fearless automatons march into each other and hack and hack until they're all dead.

In reality the two lines usually stood a few metres apart jeering at each other but being too cowardly (read: sensible) to actually get into combat until the local leader could muster up enough momentum and initiative to drag his men forward into contact. Then there would be a brief panic of activity before the lines broke apart again.

Obviously charges worked differently. But when two lines of infantry meet on a field - in fact, when two humans meet anywhere in conflict - the natural reaction is to yell at each other and try and frighten the other guy away, not to rush immediately into very dangerous combat.

It's annoying because without incorporating this element things like unit discipline, troop quality, etc. become flat modifiers and arbitrary bonuses to units that otherwise all behave the same. In reality, disciplined and high quality troops were effective because they could overcome their natural standoffishness, take the initiative, get into contact, maintain momentum, and create a climate of fear that led to routs - whereas poor quality troops would stand around being a rabble while their shitty officers hid at the back.

>it does add more features than it takes away.
Which are mostly pointless elements to the campaign, while the battles were cut the deepest
>Removing captains was one of the biggest reasons why the AI has been getting better recently.
A bizarre thing to say considering that Shogun 2 and Napoleon had better AI and the differences between good and bad AI is ultimately scripting
>While formations are still in the game.
Loose formations, my man.
>I would actually say it's a perfectly fine selling point. Rome Total War has only a handful of playable factions without using mods or changing the files.
And those factions were infinitely more polished interesting to play than rando Celt tribe n.12. You're not making new factions by just copy pasting them.

>No, it's not. The ai in Rome 2 isn't great, but compared to the non existent cakewalk that is Rome 1. It might as well be skynet.
Again, this is just exchanging opinions at this point but the BAI in Alexander was easily one of the best and generally considered to be
>Since, at least diplomacy works and the ai is functional.
I've heard different from the few people still playing it
>it added monstrous units. Flying units. Magic. Incredibly different factions with their own unique mechanics.
>Exist in the form of lightning strike.
>You got something similar in the form of the winds of magic.
So they don't and they could've easily implemented them.
>Why would those affect even half of the factions?
In the same way they don't affect
>That doesn't make a whole lot of sense when "cavalry" includes shit like dragons, dinosaurs, and centaurs.
Then exclude those. They did the same with elephants and chariots, for obvious reasons. The point is being able to dismount cav when you might need them to, like in a siege.
>some units have formation like abilities.
Now you're just making excuses

Wow user, did you also notice that in real life there isn;t somebody with a mouse clicking where they want you to go?

Well, definetely better than anything that was made after it and boy is it full of content

battles should be more realistic because this would make for more interesting gameplay and spectacle
>DUDE ITS VIDEOGAMES LOL

Sure, but what I'm telling you is that it would be a BETTER VIDEOGAME, retard.

The fact that it annoys you is already telling that you don't play many videogames.

>there should be a forced delay before your units attack because it's more realistic, and unresponsive combat is better because it's more realistic

lmao

>units not fighting is more interesting than units fighting

Yeah I should yell into my mic instead of use the mouse, because it would make it more realistic and also better.

Fuck no

Or perhaps I just spend a lot of my time annoyed.

>forced delay before your units attack
No, don't be retarded. What constitutes units in combat should be conceived of entirely differently.

>actual fighting is less interesting than hollywood fighting
The opinion of a brainlet.

That would make it more realistic, but not better.

>Archers shoot like laser guns
>Archers stop shooting when the infantry engages in melee
I'm mad

>guys standing around yelling at each other is more interesting than people fighting

There should be a line of supply wagons that follow your armies, that way you can actually raid and fight a guerrilla war against superior armies. A lot of historical wars were won through logistics, and so storming an enemy's camp as he tries to assault your walls would be a great way to break a siege

>This is actually what people think.
Naturally. You'd have to be unironically brain damaged not to think that.

>people fighting
But they're not fighting. What you're seeing is not fighting. That's not how people fight. What you see is made up nonsense.

>"but i find made up nonsense interesting"
Because you're an idiot.

>"but made up nonsense is better for gameplay"
This is a defensible position, but incorrect in this case for reasons I outlined previously.

>What you see is made up nonsense
And it looks good. Which is the point.

>giant lizards, rats and dragons
Also made up nonsense.

>Because you're an idiot.
Because he's not an autistic, like you.

considering this is a thread (mostly) about Warhammer, made up nonsense is kind of the point

>And it looks good
And so could the alternative, which would also have other benefits.

>giant lizards, rats and dragons
I don't expect human behaviour from things that aren't human.

>talking about videogames in a thread about videogames is autism
It's perfectly fine to say that you prefer the retard version of melee combat. Just accept that the reason you prefer it is because you are a retard.

Sure, but if made up nonsense were the only point then there wouldn't be humans in it at all. We add humans to the setting because there's a point to having humans there too.

Lu Lingqi soon bros!

Attached: Lu Lingqi rotk.jpg (2480x3508, 941K)

2 out 14 factions are "normal" humans, the normal humans can't afford to be standing around yelling at the ravenous horde of the undead bearing down on them so why bother yelling at those frog-eating chumps from Bretonnia

You gotta be a special kind of stupid to pay full price for everything instead of checking key sites. Besides you really don't need the dlc to play. Just the basegame factions provide a lot of playtime and until you play as something else the DLC doesn't make a difference because they're added to the game regardless (just not playable)

>you prefer the retard version of melee combat
Said the guy who wants to see a bunch of fags being frightened instead of doing what you tell them to do and die with honour.

Pathetic.

>while the battles were cut the deepest
How? The only thing you mentioned are formations, which are still in the game.

>A bizarre thing to say considering that Shogun 2 and Napoleon had better AI
Napoleon's AI was not good. Like, at all. It's better than Empire, but that isn't saying much.

Shogun 2 meanwhile did have pretty good AI. But that game also had a LOT of work arounds, up to and including the entire campaign map being desgined around choke points, to make it work.

>Loose formations, my man.
Formations are formations. Some units have formations that work better against archers.

>And those factions were infinitely more polished interesting to play than rando Celt tribe n.12.
Like the four roman factions with literally 99% identical troops.

>You're not making new factions by just copy pasting them.
Most of them are not copy pasted. They do have a actual difference between them.

>Again, this is just exchanging opinions at this point but the BAI in Alexander was easily one of the best and generally considered to be
Nobody ever talks about Alexander, period.

>I've heard different from the few people still playing it
Well, i'm still playing the game. And I would argue that the ai is functional.

>So they don't and they could've easily implemented them.
Lightning strike literally works the exact same way as night battles. Meanwhile, there is zero reason to include seasons. It wouldn't even affect one third of the map.

>In the same way they don't affect
What the fuck does that even mean?

>Then exclude those.
Which would pretty much just leave us with about 2 factions that could actually dismount. Better to just make Cavalry actually worth a damn during sieges, which is what they did instead.

>Now you're just making excuses
It's not a excuse. If a unit has a ability that does the same thing as a formation, then it's the same thing as a formation. Just how lighting strikes are literally just night battles with a different name.

explain why people standing around yelling for a bit before a brief scuffle is more interesting than just skipping straight to the scuffle without saying it's more realistic

And you have to actually be delusional to make a post like that.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA STOP ARGUING

Attached: 1513982808894.png (808x805, 423K)

>Checking key sites.
Reminder that developers actually said they would rather have people pirate their games.

Of course they would. I want the real thing however.

Which game allows me to genocide jews?

No doubt its probably the best game in the series

TWW2 is better though.

Rome 2.

Reminder King Taal is best god.

Attached: 300px-Taal2.jpg (300x443, 74K)

have you guys praised your king today?

Attached: Settra_Titles.jpg (806x766, 159K)

The game of life. But are you strong enough to do it?

I only praise King Taal only, sry.

It's a good point, and being able to see how actual humans deal with an inhuman enemy would be cool.

Instead we're watching undead automatons go up against humans who behave literally exactly the same as magically controlled skeletons.

You're being robbed of depth and verisimilitude and interesting gameplay by developer laziness and lack of imagination.

Yes, you prefer the retard version of melee combat.

The more varied ways that units can behave, the more opportunities there are for gameplay systems that allow the player to interact with that behaviour in engaging ways.

I've already given the example of distinguishing between shitty and elite troops by their behaviour rather than by flat modifiers to abstract stats.

>"but we already have the systems you're asking for so it's not technically an increase in gameplay, but rather a change to how it's presented"
Yes, and no. If local leaders are responsible for a unit's aggression, what happens when the local leader gets killed or separated from his troops? Maybe players could try to snipe the local leaders of units to affect how those units behave. It's a more complex way of representing leadership that gives players more options in how they interact with the system. For example.

>Slayer of Redditras
>Player of the great Game
kek

Attached: 1489700083892.jpg (480x480, 17K)

Christ what a moron, you can already distinguish elite to normal troops by how they behave and what equipment they have on them. You just don't spend any time doing that.

>you can already distinguish elite to normal troops by how they behave
No you can't. Peasants and knights behave identically.

>and what equipment they have on them.
Cosmetics add nothing to gameplay.

Whatever is "retarded" to little nancyboy fuckface over here is pretty much a compliment at this stage.

Why?

The feeling is mutual.

>Cosmetics add nothing to gameplay
How don't they if they change the way I play the game? Changing the way I play the game literally changes the gameplay.

It's horrendous. I mean, granted, it's not as bad as it was at release but it basically has NOTHING to do with Warhammer (Fantasy battle, obviously). Some rules are utterly stupid, but it's shaping to be a half decent game. However, fuck them for replacing Warhammer with it instead of doing a parallel game. They could have left Warhammer untouched and make another game in a spin-off but no. They had to rape the universe, skullfuck the shit out of the license, destroy everything people liked about it, burn everyrhing to the ground and salt the earth so the player can't even have hope.

They don't even sell the old miniatures anymore.

>Peasants and knights behave identically.
Wrong. Try actually playing the game.

oh yeah, speeches, that shit that everyone SKIPPED

Total War was never good. It's been 20 years since Shogun and we're still just commanding 20-unit armies and the unit sizes are only getting smaller.

Now if only it didn't run like shit. And you can't say the devs don't know how because 3K doesn't run like shit.

>they change the way I play the game
They don't.

Go ahead and describe to me how gameplay would be different without cosmetics.

>"it would be less fun because..."
Yes, the game would be different, but not the gameplay.

>"it would be harder to tell units apart"
Assume that there is a bland UI element that exactly replicates the function of cosmetics.

>"but you can't just add UI elements that don't exist to make your hypothetical work!"
I'm good enough at the game to know which units are good and which units are bad because I can remember it. The UI element only exists to replicate the effect of my skill, so that you can see how superfluous cosmetics are to the gameplay.

I do play the game, which is why I know that peasants and knights do everything in exactly the same way.

>"but peasants aren't as good in combat as knights!"
Because one of their stats is lower, not because they behave differently.

This is an incredibly low IQ argument that you are making and I'm probably going to stop replying to it soon because it's boring me.

It has nothing to do with the game itself.

That has literally nothing to do with why the reviewbombing happenied.

Lord of the Rings is better

Attached: jthflwr94s921.jpg (3840x2160, 2.24M)

you only skipped it if you were SOULLESS

>muh soul
cringe

Playing as Men in TATW must be one of the most difficult campaigns in all of Total War

SUMMON

Hey if the game didn't take 20+ minutes to load up a battle I wouldn't autoresolve everything.

Warhammer has more soul over boring historical shit.

Attached: 1434495179385.gif (368x349, 2.53M)

Because said bad reviews have nothing to do with the gameplay, retard.

TATW overall is insanely difficult. Even the "Easy" factions are ridiclously hard compared to most base games.

>Go ahead and describe to me how gameplay would be different without cosmetics.
Well if everything looked like a wiremesh, there wouldn't be any at all, since I wouldn't play the game.

>game would be different, but not the gameplay
Dude, read this aloud and tell me it doesn't sound stupid.

>peasants and knights do everything in exactly the same way
Except peasants run away much quicker. Fucking hell dude, you don't play shit.

>always wanted to play warhammer
>too poor and no one to play it with anyway
>this game comes out
>but it has denuvo and I refuse to even pirate games with it
>computer probably can't run it anyway
fuck sega

I don't know about that. Playing Mordor was one of the most relaxing campaigns I've played in Divide and Conquer.

>Dude, read this aloud and tell me it doesn't sound stupid.
I just did, and it doesn't sound stupid to me.

If you can't distinguish between the whole of a game and all of the things that make it up, and the actual gameplay of that game as distinct from things like the score or the graphics, then you're a retard.

Which explains why you like retarded things.

>Except peasants run away much quicker
In the exact same way as every othe

fuck it you're an idiot i'm done here

don't expect further reply

>I just did, and it doesn't sound stupid to me.
Then we're done here.

Warhammer (and Warhammer 40K) fandom are a big pile of toxic elitists.

Prove me wrong.

This moron actually thinks you can play a game without graphics. Lmao.

>>but it has denuvo and I refuse to even pirate games with it
fucking autism lmao
pirate everything you faggot

Why thank you kindly sir.

Attached: 1557908435492.jpg (1200x800, 75K)

>cosmetics
>graphics
Different words for different things.

They sure aren't the ones crying over 2 games

Don´t know about Divide and Conquer. But in normal Third age, I actually found Mordor pretty challenging. You got so much ground to cover and your troops are so crap. The early game can be pretty close until Harad starts fucking over Gondor.

Nah, but I like both well enough.

>If you can't distinguish between the whole of a game
Protip: the "gameplay" IS the whole of a game. Not that I'd expect a room temperature IQ like you to parse that sentence.

The gladly accept 2 downgraded games. That's even worse.

>buy both total war warhammers
>buy most of the big faction dlcs (except pirate coast)
>buy a bunch of the sub faction ones too,but not all
>get bored and uninstall after a few weeks

reinstalled 2 now,but i still havent built up the desire to play it

Attached: guess i ll die-die.png (1200x900, 333K)

>The early game can be pretty
Not him, but that's the point. Gondor is usually who slowly starts to lose in Divide and conquer, though it holds out for relatively long time. I would say that in that submod Gondor is harder due to how many enemies and fronts you have while Mordor might be difficult because Gondor outclasses you in terms of units.

>the "gameplay" IS the whole of a game
This is as retarded as saying you can't discuss Lord of the Rings without discussing the quality of the ink in which the text is printed.

There's no story without the book and the ink, but the book and the ink aren't important to the discussion of the story.

You are maximum brainlet and don't even realise it. "OH NUUU BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE GAMEPLAY AT ALL WITHOUT GRAPHICS AND MUSIC!!!" is the most trite and uninteresting, and irrelevant, statement that could possibly be made.

If you can explain how graphics are directly relevant to the original topic of this discussion then I'll suck your cock. Otherwise, shut the fuck up with your smoothbrain dribblings and leave the substantive discourse to people smart enough to know what those words mean.

Dude are you talking about bookread? Lol imagine talking about actual bookread of that book without being distinct from things like the story or the ink.

Mordor in D&Q feels like what I imagine playing as a CPU would be like. You get a billion dirt cheap units available all the time and you just keep throwing it at Gondor. Even though they are completely trash in terms of stats, once you surround a unit it usually starts crumbling like a stack of cards.

>get bored and uninstall after a few weeks
>things that never happened for 500, alex

Its not fantasies fault that history games have no replay value.

Could jump into multiplayer, always fun to shit on random people thinking their shitty wood elf build is going to win.

Unless you've a friend that's autistic enough to do a long campaign with, it can be a lot of fun if you get invested.

It´s pretty similiar in the main game as well. Gondor tends to do alright at first, but slowly loses more and more territory to the sheer amount of units Mordor and Harad can build. Playing as them is a nightmare, especially if you lose naval dominance.

You're not being as clever as you think you are.

That does sound fun. Should really try out D&Q someday, it sounds way easier than normal Third age.

use mods.

>the original topic of this discussion
Was always just you being a fucking autist whining that the game isn't complex enough. I've just been pointing out dumb shit you say and correcting you, the actual thing you are whining about is cringe and retarded.

As I thought, nothing to say about it when it's exactly the same. You "gameplay" retards hold back the industry because you know nothing.

Yes, It's a shame they ate Rome 2 and Attila

I already do, seeing how CA continue to balance their games entirely around the dozen people who actually play competitive multiplayer.

Your opinion on the merit of the topic has no relation to your inability to explain why graphics are relevant to it.

>exactly the same
>"bookread"

Seeing as books don't have systems that you interact with as a player to affect the outcome, I don't really see how books could have a concept analogous to gameplay.

>How? The only thing you mentioned are formations, which are still in the game.
Again, loose formations. Which was just an example. Here's more:
>godawful unit cards and UI in general
>range of units aren't immediately visible
>moving a bunch of units in a certain formation by right-clicking makes them drop that formation and form a line at destination
>taking personal command of arty is far worse than in FoS

>Napoleon's AI was not good. Like, at all. It's better than Empire, but that isn't saying much.
It's one of the better of the Warscape engine, which was initially designed for gunpowder warfare. I'm not sure where you're getting your information from but I'm basing mine on what the community said, as I saw all the praise and backlash first-hand starting from Empire.
>Shogun 2 meanwhile did have pretty good AI.
It's universally regarded as the best, all things considered.
>no guard mode (rather pointless given the shitty engine, I'll admit)
>alot of the special abilities are pointless because they're effects that you'd always want to use (steady, stampede etc) and worked passively in older games.
>no passive 'fire at will' for infantry that can throw javelins
>pikemen worked fucking horribly the last time I played (though this has been the case since RTW)
Those are just the things I can remember off the top of my head from playing/hearing about iit a bit back in 2013-2015. Maybe they fixed some of these issues (after a lot of complaints), but it's not a point in their favour that it took them several years to catch up to games half a decade older.

fucked the posting up there a bit

>But that game also had a LOT of work arounds, up to and including the entire campaign map being desgined around choke points, to make it work
Which is nonsense, considering that every 3d Total War was based around them. Again, scripts are the reason.
>Formations are formations. Some units have formations that work better against archers.
They're not actually, and I'm beginning to doubt you played the games. 'Loose formation' was something you switched, not the same as simply adjusting unit depth. It was a massive lifesafer when confronted with missile forces or when skirmishing. Hence why CA reintroduced it into a handful units after getting bombarded with complaints.
>Like the four roman factions with literally 99% identical troops.
Which was intended for campaign reasons. I fail to see how 10 identical factions in a given culture group without any real reason for it is supposed to be better, but thanks for agreeing with me that 99% identical factions aren't real factions.
>Most of them are not copy pasted. They do have a actual difference between them.
If you could name one than you would've, instead of wasting my time asking for it again.
>Nobody ever talks about Alexander, period.
Yeah, wrong. Everyone remotely involved with RTW greatly preferred its AI over the vanilla. Check out any major RTW mod and there's likely to be a guide on how to play it through the Alex.exe.
>And I would argue that the ai is functional.
And I'm pointing out you're one of the few and your arguments aren't convincing.
> Better to just make Cavalry actually worth a damn during sieges, which is what they did instead
how did they do that?
>It's not a excuse. If a unit has a ability that does the same thing as a formation, then it's the same thing as a formation
It's not the same if only a select amount of units can do it, rather than something every single one can. Because that's the basis of tactics.

>Seeing as books don't have systems that you interact with as a player to affect the outcome
Dude, the "outcome" is as affected in a videogame as in a book that you read and turn the pages to the end. Everything is created purely for you to experience, even your victory, since you learn to play by the games rules. Nothing in a videogame is "created" by you dumbass. But that's the point, hence why videogames are so fun to play, and books are fun to read.

>I don't really see how books could have a concept analogous to gameplay
Except the concept of bookread.

Games involve making more complex choices than books, and the quality of the experience of making those choices and the systems that directly affect that are best described as gameplay.

You can keep posting forever but you're never going to be able to prove gameplay doesn't exist. It's a retarded position to adopt and you've only done so out of some desire to upset me. The transparency of the attempt has rendered it ineffective.

Explain bookread to me so I can evaluate it as a concept, then.

he's complaining the game isn't realistic enough because morale is abstracted instead of being represented with animations

>Games involve making more complex choices than books
Yes user. And apparently choosing how something looks, is not a choice according to you.

>he systems that directly affect that are best described as gameplay
Or game mechanics if you aren't a troglodyte.

It's the system that you interact with as a reader to affect the outcome, of course.

>And apparently choosing how something looks, is not a choice according to you.
You don't choose.

And you're right, I should have included making choices that affect the outcome.

>Or game mechanics if you aren't a troglodyte.
I prefer gameplay. It's a game, not an engine.

>It's the system that you interact with as a reader to affect the outcome, of course.
This explanation is insufficient. What is the interaction, and what is the outcome?

You are being deliberately obtuse and it's very late at night here. I have work tomorrow and need to sleep. You are wasting my time. If your next reply is as shit as the ones you've made so far then I'm out.

Shogun 2 is the best game. Sorry it doesn't have monsters and magic.

Med2 aged horribly honestly.

What you should have done, is include literally everything that a videogame has, and do away with that stupid word that ultimately means nothing.

>I prefer gameplay
And that's why you are a moron.

>This explanation is insufficient
Your words. Also, you really need a fucking reminder about how you are supposed to interact with books, and what the outcome of doing so is?

>You are being deliberately obtuse
I'm just phrasing in such a way that a high IQ non-retard such as yourself would understand. lol

>If your next reply is as shit as the ones you've made so far then I'm out.
I'm afraid my replies have all been great, and it's just your responceread that hasn't been good enough. There's nothing I can do to a camel but take it to water, and if it doesn't want to drink well that's that.

Attached: 1527991921028.png (483x619, 576K)

You don't know how to greentext faggot. Your point is correct but it hurts to fucking read.

this is dumb
you're dumb

>Rome 2 average players: 4,838.9
>Med 2 average players: 2,717.8
>Rome 1 average players: 1,110.3

>80% worth of Rome 2's playerbase are still playing games at least twice its age, and that's not even taking account all the oldfags with hard copies like me
oof

not if you’re a vet. its basically just a lot of kiting, can’t fight head on or they’ll grind you away through multiple battles. Lots of archers, lots of cavalry, and running your infantry in circles until they’re needed, then blobbing against the enemy’s spread-out units to create chain routs

no u fggt

>play on very hard
>every faction that ever even laid their eyes on you declare war
>everyone travels all the way across the map to come fuck you up the ass
>no penalty for this

shit game

>I'm not sure where you're getting your information from but I'm basing mine on what the community said, as I saw all the praise and backlash first-hand starting from Empire.
From me, playing the game.

>but it's not a point in their favour that it took them several years to catch up to games half a decade older
Fair enough. But they still fixed the game, and it is more fun than Rome 1 nowadays.

>considering that every 3d Total War was based around them.
None of them to the extent Shogun 2 was.

>They're not actually
If you have a formation that, when activated, makes you stronger against missile fire. Then, that's pretty much just loose formation.

>Which was intended for campaign reasons.
Which is still no excuse. Rome being four factions was always a horrible idea.

>I fail to see how 10 identical factions in a given culture group without any real reason for it is supposed to be better,
There is exactly one faction in the entire game with a identical counterpart, Athens, the clone being Syracuse. Everybody else is actually different in some way. More so than the roman factions in Rome 1, anyhow.

>If you could name one than you would've,
I can name plenty of different rome 2 factions and their difference.

>Check out any major RTW mod and there's likely to be a guide on how to play it through the Alex.exe.
Pretty much every major mod I know about either redoes the AI or uses BI.

>And I'm pointing out you're one of the few and your arguments aren't convincing.
My argument is that the AI in Rome 2 is kind of bad but at least functional. While the one in Rome 1 is a complete joke.

>how did they do that?
Good unit path finding, having space to move, and no stupid magic morale raising city center.

>It's not the same if only a select amount of units can do it, rather than something every single one can.
It's not the same. But you can't argue the feature is gone because of laziness, when it's obviously just something they did for balance.

That is the power of mods. Aka, the only thing Rome 1 has that Rome 2 does not.

Oh no enemies. Don't worry user, I have just the thing for you.

Attached: file.png (217x327, 152K)

>Your words.
In a different context. Nobody needs the interaction and outcome of videogames explained to them on this videogames board.

>Also, you really need a fucking reminder about how you are supposed to interact with books, and what the outcome of doing so is?
Yes. I want you to put into words exactly how books are interacted with, so that I can then point out how the interaction you describe is different to the way that people interact with videogames. The reason why you refuse to do it is firstly because you are being obtuse, and secondly because you know that it would be a poor move for you to make. You rely on being able to slide around any substantive point on a bed of semantics - committing to any position is step one of an inevitable defeat.

I said that gameplay would be more interesting if a particular facet of reality were incorporated into it. I've provided examples as to how I think that could work. I've always been open to further discussing and developing my idea, or even hearing criticisms of it (at least ones more substantive than 'autism'). You are talking about "bookread" and arguing that gameplay doesn't exist. You can keep talking about that if you like - I'm sure at least one smug reply will be forthcoming after this one so you can crow about getting the last word - but it's not the discussion I wanted to have and not one I'm interested in continuing.

Regardless of the correctness of your assertions (which I continue to deny), they are and always will be irrelevant to my original post. You can deny the concepts discussed, but not the reality of the things under discussion. Total Warhammer is a game that exists and it really could be altered in the way I suggested, and that alteration would have real effects (good or bad) - which is why this discussion is so superfluous. You have achieved nothing but to waste my time. It's up to you to judge whether achieving merely that would constitute a waste of your own.

>herp derp muh gitgud

15 different nations that you've done nothing against declaring war on you at the same time while you're not allowed to have more than 3-4 armies isn't epin and challenging, it's stupid bullshit.

Attached: 1566651815799.png (500x370, 141K)

I think this game isnt' meant to be fully bought in one go, rather complete 1 or 2 campaigns of the base game, then buy dlc for what faction you fancy and complete a campaign with them

What a unit. Not as absolute as Nakai, but damn good.

Starts out with Kroak what the shit

Attached: 2938572836658.jpg (763x1080, 273K)

>starts with Kroak
holy fuck

I still don't own blood&gore, Beastmen, Wood Elves, Vamp Coast, Grim and Grave, and Tomb Kings. First it was because of them being 20 bucks, now the Beastmen and Wood Elves are considered bottom tier campaigns with no/bad mechanics.

You just know.

Attached: 1497454077888.jpg (1137x1524, 1.99M)

Beastmen and Wood Elves are decent. But really need a update. I say wait for that.

Tomb Kings and Vampire Coast are both fucking amazing though. Tomb Kings especially is considered one of the best expansions in both Warhammer 1 and 2.

he also has regeneration, perfect vigour and tons of buffs to saurus

absolute unit

>so that I can then point out how the interaction you describe is different to the way that people interact with videogames
Why of course it's going to be different user. It's bookread and not gameplay. The stupidities of both concepts are the same however; retarded word constructs that muddy the water of discussion surrounding their medium.

You say cosmetics add nothing to the "gameplay", when in fact the opposite is true. They add EVERYTHING. You realise that your precious "reality" cannot get added into the game without cosmetics, because the models you are playing with are shaped, animated, and coloured to look like people, as opposed to simple code? In fact you wouldn't even see any units, the map, etc. without cosmetics.

I don't give a shit about your original post. I just wanted to talk about why you are using a retarded word retardedly, and got pretty much what I expected out of it. You however, decided to reply and waste your own time. It's no fault of mine that you wrote out such long winded replies to something you didn't give a fuck about (which is clearly a lie).

I enjoyed the first playthrough of both Welves and beastmen. But they do lack uniqueness in campaign mechanics.
As the other user said though, both Tomb Kins and Vamp coast are a blast. Very distinct playstyles with great rosters and quite unique mechanics. Also Settra's introduction is gold. Anyone got the saluting skeleton with all the ingame titles?

>Starts in Lustria

Attached: 82352869283.png (219x264, 33K)

>>no 1v1 giant animations, they attack each other’s ankles instead
>>no minor settlements
>>no units pushing siege towers
>>no reload animations for the majority of units
>>Archaon's helmet clipping still not fixed
>>Old World factions don't have new dialogue when engaging with the WH2 factions both in battle and the diplomacy screen
>>Dwarfs, Wood Elves, Britonnia and Empire all share the SAME battle OST
Why is CA so fucking lazy jesus

How is the Warhammer mod for Med 2, it is the best system they ever had, graphics be damned.

Total War Warhammer 2: Mortal Empires is probably one of if not the best strategy game ever made

>From me, playing the game.
Yeah, but you're the same guy saying Rome 2 is a good game. I have valid reasons to doubt your judgement.
>Fair enough. But they still fixed the game
Only took them 6 years
>and it is more fun than Rome 1 nowadays.
Subjective. I know I'll keep playing EB on Alex.exe with RS environments in the future.
>None of them to the extent Shogun 2 was.
Probably because Japan is a pretty choke-point country by nature. In any case, it's irrelevant to the quality of CAI.
>If you have a formation that, when activated, makes you stronger against missile fire. Then, that's pretty much just loose formation.
It isn't. First off, again, because it's restricted to a handful of units. Secondly because its just a buffs rather than taking into account unit physics. Loose formation was a trade-off that meant that a given unit would lose its formation, meaning it would be incredibly vulnerable to an enemy unit charging that wasn't, especially cav.
>Which is still no excuse. Rome being four factions was always a horrible idea.
It is, seeing as it gave an endgame and unique experience to playing Roman. There's at least some justification for it, though opinions can differ. I didn't really care that much (because lol mods) and I don't recall people really railing against it for gameplay reasons, in most mods playing Rome is very easy mode.

you're probably the only person on Yea Forums and possibly in the entire video game-playing population who thinks gameplay is a meaningless or otherwise retarded term outside of movie game devs.

>I can name plenty of different rome 2 factions and their difference.
Sure. That's why you've named some instead of drawing this point out for the last few posts.
>Pretty much every major mod I know about or uses BI.
Then I suggest you check again. EB, RS and RTR all have Alex.exe, off to the top of my head.
>My argument is that the AI in Rome 2 is kind of bad but at least functional. While the one in Rome 1 is a complete joke.
And your argument is wrong. The AI in Rome 1 is perfectly functional, it's just dumb. CAI is bellicose and BAI could be suicidal, but they did't break the game. The AI in Rome 2 is notorious for being so bad that it made the game unplayable. Maybe they did improve it, but people said that in the wake of release as well and it was still dogshit. I'm not paying full price for this shit 6 years after launch on the off-chance its reached Empire-with-mods level of playability now.
>Good unit path finding, having space to move
How is that more helpful in a siege than being able to, you know, siege? Just widening streets and to allow for le epic cav charges isn't really fixing the issue.
>and no stupid magic morale raising city center
I hate to get personal but city centres shouldn't be an issue if you know what you're doing. It's still a more realistic and preferable mechanic than instawinning because you rush'd a few corners of the town. The latter forces both AI and player to overextend rather than to be able to defend in depth against what is always guaranteed to be a larger force.
>It's not the same. But you can't argue the feature is gone because of laziness, when it's obviously just something they did for balance.
How is it 'balance' to remove a universal unit ability which is the core of the game and then arbitrarily restrict it to a handful?

Probably because I'm the only person who wants videogames to be taken seriously. (which they have been, ever since conception, but not seriously enough)