Print

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

[lordcooper]

Brets seem to have their own units

More info on units.

[ZebioLizard2]

Oh that's handy thank you. I suppose they would be doing the "Chaos" approach then, there's a few units now but later with the DLC it'll blow up into a huge faction. Kinda like the Ikko Ikki clan of Shogun 2

[Mech#4]

Here's a write up from the official forums explaining Creative Assembly's reasons behind the limited occupation of cities and towns in Warhammer: Total War.


The basic gist of it is settlements are split into different types depending on their owner. Human settlements and Dwarven holds are the two major ones at the moment with Empire, Bretonnia, Border Princes, Kislev and Vampire Counts falling into the former and Dwarves and Greenskins into the latter. Note that Dwarven holds cover not just the mountains but also the Greenskin settlements throughout the badlands as well. There is also a comment that later races will not necessarily follow this system, though I can imagine Skaven following the same mechanics that Greenskins and Dwarves do.

Chaos Warriors cannot capture settlements being nomadic and the Norscan settlements to the north of the empire cannot be captured by anyone due to how inhospitable the area is.

Their explanation makes sense though in my mind it hangs on how threatening things like Norscan raiders, greenskin attacks from the south and other incursions are to prevent the player from feeling that their borders are arbitrary. The screenshot showing the empire razed after a chaos invasion does seem to speak well of the severity of such events.

[umiman]

It makes sense and also helps make the late game more interesting as compared to when you're a massive blob.

[Retropunch]

Hmm...whilst it's all well and good, I feel there's a reason they've done it that they haven't mentioned - probably just time restraints, but I wish they'd make that clear instead of giving lots of vague gameplay 'reasons'.

More than that though, these gameplay reasons don't seem great. There seem to be two choices for settlements - permanently destroy or sacking for money and temporarily bringing down productivity. Their idea is that you could keep some settlements around as cash cows to keep pillaging, at the risk that they might attack you. I don't really see this as a strategic choice though - anything that's potentially dangerous it'll only make sense to destroy, and anything that I can wall off or I'm not worried about I'll just mindlessly pillage ever 10 or so turns.

I just don't see how this is a step forward, and I hate when game companies try to make these steps backwards sound like an improvement instead of just coming out and saying 'look guys, we didn't have time to implement this properly'.

[nenjin]

I'd tend to agree. Seems like they set themselves up for a lot of work and then stepped back from it. Seems like it will produce some radically different gameplay for Chaos. I hope there's something to counterbalance it if 1/3rd the game simply doesn't apply to them. Although I will say it's somewhat flavorful that Chaos doesn't occupy a city. It really isn't their style. But if that means they ultimately don't have any real impact on cities, that would be bad....

[Majestic7]

Chaos can clearly loot and/or raze cities while moving as hordes, like the Huns in Total War: Attila. So this is nothing new as such. I'd be more worried about playing them being boring, since the roster seems a bit bland and the only thing for you to do is crush & burn.

[lordcooper]

@Retropunch: The thing is, those two choices offer more variety than TW normally does.  While technically I have the option to raze/loot etc in Attila it's hardly ever the optimal choice.  The efficient way to play is just to occupy absolutely everything you can, taking a few turns out to fix public order and raise money/troops every now and again.  Removing that 'obviously pick this' option means I'll actually need to deal with other factions long term, be that through diplomacy or scorched earth or farming them.  Another possible benefit of this could be that it eliminates one of my favourite strategies.  Expanding my territory all the way in one direction so that I can then move all my troops to the other side of my territory for a big push, with the majority of my land being safe.  Now there will always be dwarfs/orcs/whatever in them there hills so I'll need to split my forces throughout the whole game.

@nenjin: I'm assuming you never played Attila?  Horde factions in that game can make an army 'settle down/pitch camp' whenever they want, losing the ability to move but becoming temporarily analogous to a city.  They can expand the horde, grow population, recruit troops, build improvements etc but have the advantage of their 'cities' being heavily armed and mobile.  Of course this makes offence a little riskier too, because you're not just attacking with army #5, you're marching what's essentially your capital city right up to Rome.  You can still raze/sack/subjugate/liberate cities you attack, just not take them for yourself.  I see no reason to assume Chaos won't work this way too.

[Kruniac]

I will play it, but I won't buy it.

This. I don't buy anything from CA, at least not until a year after release when everything is patched.

That having been said, I'm a huge CA fan. No one makes the games that they do, and I love the TW series.

[Mech#4]

@Retropunch: The thing is, those two choices offer more variety than TW normally does.  While technically I have the option to raze/loot etc in Attila it's hardly ever the optimal choice.  The efficient way to play is just to occupy absolutely everything you can, taking a few turns out to fix public order and raise money/troops every now and again.  Removing that 'obviously pick this' option means I'll actually need to deal with other factions long term, be that through diplomacy or scorched earth or farming them.  Another possible benefit of this could be that it eliminates one of my favourite strategies.  Expanding my territory all the way in one direction so that I can then move all my troops to the other side of my territory for a big push, with the majority of my land being safe.  Now there will always be dwarfs/orcs/whatever in them there hills so I'll need to split my forces throughout the whole game.

This is a point I've seen brought up and I do agree with it quite a bit. It is true in the previous Total War games that I have rarely done little more than wage war and capture enemy settlements if they become a problem. Sacking I do occasionally when I've been needing the money early on but later, taking the city was more feasible because it gave a point to recruit new units and rest while walking through enemy territory.

It could also add some interesting logistics in later expansions. If the Vampire Counts can take and settle cities in Araby belonging to the Tomb Kings, you've got to march through the badlands, fending off orcs, without any towns to rest at before you arrive, or go by sea which is a difficult option for Sylvania being landlocked.

You've also got to deal with neighbours that you can't just roll over. If your empire can only get so big, other factions remain a threat for longer without the player being able to raise heaps of full armies with the large income that comes from controlling most of the map.

[Retropunch]

My worry is that it'll just become a huge grind if you leave those settlements, so the obvious option (like the obvious option in most TW is to occupy) will instead be to just raze it, otherwise you'll have to deal with a weak but annoying force of orcs each time you want to move your army about.

I'm still quite interested though, they might be able to pull it off and it could (as Mech#4 has put) mean that the game keeps you engaged for longer.

[umiman]

I only just learned that this Total War will not have any mod support whatsoever from CA.

http://i.imgur.com/lpOUUed.png

(Probably because of Games Workshop)

[Man of Paper]

I only just learned that this Total War will not have any mod support whatsoever from CA.

http://i.imgur.com/lpOUUed.png

(Probably because of Games Workshop)

And now I am emulating your avatar.

Though I think we all kinda expected that, deep down.

[umiman]

I only just learned that this Total War will not have any mod support whatsoever from CA.

http://i.imgur.com/lpOUUed.png

(Probably because of Games Workshop)

And now I am emulating your avatar.

Though I think we all kinda expected that, deep down.

I was digging up info on Total War: Atilla mods and that came up. It made me really sad to learn that the LotR mods for Atilla can't come to Warhammer like they wanted.

[Majestic7]

Fucking Evil Empire, they are completely anal about their property. No surprise though; they want to churn out multiple full-priced games I bet and the fact modders could provide those things seems threatening to their revenue stream.