Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RoguelikeRazuka]

One thing to say: WHY NOT W40K??? Other than that looks a bit interesting after all.

[GiglameshDespair]

Because guns are terrible in Total War engines.

[RoguelikeRazuka]

Because guns are terrible in Total War engines.

In what aspect? Define that.

[scriver]

1. Not enough Dakka, and 2. Gunfantry AI has been lulz in every TW game so far.

[ZebioLizard2]

That and 40k doesn't really "Do" ranked formations like total war generally does, can you imagine squad based combat in that engine?

[dennislp3]

Yeah they don't touch modern style combat because the engine seems to be completely bound to the principal of formations of men. That's how it works so well when you have thousands of troops on the field though

[Urist McScoopbeard]

to be fair, 40k does rely on large formations of men, depending on whose writing. Also, while the guard is commonly portrayed as WWII-esque, it is also portrayed commonly as Napoleonic, especially in the larger fights.

would the current engine handle the complexity of engagements definitely not, but a new engine with the possibility to perform macro and micro is a very good idea for 40k.

[Elfeater]

to be fair, 40k does rely on large formations of men, depending on whose writing. Also, while the guard is commonly portrayed as WWII-esque, it is also portrayed commonly as Napoleonic, especially in the larger fights.

would the current engine handle the complexity of engagements definitely not, but a new engine with the possibility to perform macro and micro is a very good idea for 40k.

It really depends on the regiment too, with Kreig being closer to WW1. Things along those lines.

[Retropunch]

It'd need a new engine for w40k, although I can definitely imagine them doing it if this one works out as 40k is arguably a lot more popular!

Really I don't think the changes would need to be too significant. They'd need to make units be able to spread out/find cover, and improve ranged weapons but I doubt it'd be too big of a departure.

[dennislp3]

This is true...especially given that you would be dealing with seas of men and lots of melee combat anyways

[Retropunch]

This is true...especially given that you would be dealing with seas of men and lots of melee combat anyways

Yeah, I mean when you think about it, in the 'ranged' stage of combat they're basically advancing in formation anyway, it'd just need a bit more looseness/crossover between the ranged stage and the melee stage, plus a more general looseness in formation.

I imagine that a lot of it is down to hardware. The original Shogun:Total War was incredible when it first came out as there was just no other game about to have that many units on screen at once. As computer power ramps up* they'll be able to make individual units make more decisions (and do things like find cover and so on - although that could probably be 'faked' very easily) and be more individual. They just need to get a handle on making explosions/dakka explosive enough, as currently it's always felt a bit flat.

*(Whilst it's a PC exclusive, they probably set their benchmark at around the current gen consoles as that's what most people's gaming rigs will be averaging.)

[Urist McScoopbeard]

This is true...especially given that you would be dealing with seas of men and lots of melee combat anyways

Yeah, I mean when you think about it, in the 'ranged' stage of combat they're basically advancing in formation anyway, it'd just need a bit more looseness/crossover between the ranged stage and the melee stage, plus a more general looseness in formation.

I imagine that a lot of it is down to hardware. The original Shogun:Total War was incredible when it first came out as there was just no other game about to have that many units on screen at once. As computer power ramps up* they'll be able to make individual units make more decisions (and do things like find cover and so on - although that could probably be 'faked' very easily) and be more individual. They just need to get a handle on making explosions/dakka explosive enough, as currently it's always felt a bit flat.

*(Whilst it's a PC exclusive, they probably set their benchmark at around the current gen consoles as that's what most people's gaming rigs will be averaging.)

+1

[umiman]

Also I think the only Total War multiplayer that's worth playing for a long time is Fall of the Samurai's and Napoleon.

Mostly because when it had guns, the amount of tactics available to you expanded a hundredfold. When it's just melee and arrows, all you can do is flank and counter flank and that's about it. You have some freedom in your strategies but they're fairly limited. Victory was almost entirely dependent on your flankers (so basically your cavalry).

Most of the exceptions would be either the players were scrubs or someone was cheesing with all archers or all horse archers (OP as fuck) or something like that.

With guns, things get nuts. Combat ranges become significantly larger and battles become more about mobility and the capability to adapt rather than who can not run away first. Skirmishing also becomes far more important rather than being just a phase of battle. Also units become far more spread out and not just blob together. I really loved FotS's multiplayer but Napoleon was great too. The rapid moving cannons made for excellent gameplay but FotS had more stuff (like gatling guns and a hilarious announcer).

So basically, I wouldn't mind if there was a 40k Total War. Rather, I'd look forward to it.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Also I think the only Total War multiplayer that's worth playing for a long time is Fall of the Samurai's and Napoleon.

Mostly because when it had guns, the amount of tactics available to you expanded a hundredfold. When it's just melee and arrows, all you can do is flank and counter flank and that's about it. You have some freedom in your strategies but they're fairly limited. Victory was almost entirely dependent on your flankers (so basically your cavalry).

Most of the exceptions would be either the players were scrubs or someone was cheesing with all archers or all horse archers (OP as fuck) or something like that.

With guns, things get nuts. Combat ranges become significantly larger and battles become more about mobility and the capability to adapt rather than who can not run away first. Skirmishing also becomes far more important rather than being just a phase of battle. Also units become far more spread out and not just blob together. I really loved FotS's multiplayer but Napoleon was great too. The rapid moving cannons made for excellent gameplay but FotS had more stuff (like gatling guns and a hilarious announcer).

So basically, I wouldn't mind if there was a 40k Total War. Rather, I'd look forward to it.

another +1, though I will say that in Medieval 2 you could get creative with tactics despite being able to get by on cookie-cutter placement.

[Teneb]

Also I think the only Total War multiplayer that's worth playing for a long time is Fall of the Samurai's and Napoleon.

Mostly because when it had guns, the amount of tactics available to you expanded a hundredfold. When it's just melee and arrows, all you can do is flank and counter flank and that's about it. You have some freedom in your strategies but they're fairly limited. Victory was almost entirely dependent on your flankers (so basically your cavalry).

Most of the exceptions would be either the players were scrubs or someone was cheesing with all archers or all horse archers (OP as fuck) or something like that.

With guns, things get nuts. Combat ranges become significantly larger and battles become more about mobility and the capability to adapt rather than who can not run away first. Skirmishing also becomes far more important rather than being just a phase of battle. Also units become far more spread out and not just blob together. I really loved FotS's multiplayer but Napoleon was great too. The rapid moving cannons made for excellent gameplay but FotS had more stuff (like gatling guns and a hilarious announcer).

So basically, I wouldn't mind if there was a 40k Total War. Rather, I'd look forward to it.

another +1, though I will say that in Medieval 2 you could get creative with tactics despite being able to get by on cookie-cutter placement.

Yeah. That said, there are guns in Warhammer Fantasy, so this could still be fairly complex. Not to mention magic and flying/giant units.