Total War Hammer

[Uther Pendragon]

[ThePoopy]

"here you can see it's still possible to abuse the rtarded ai to win against impossible odds"

[Tor!]

Is it that hard to make the ai group up for a coordinated attack 

[Butan]

I believe it is intended for the player to be "locked" fast by independent cavalry expeditionnary forces.
The problem is, the tactic used by the player is simple AND OP, there is ample time to destroy them all before the main army is close, if you deploy as far as possible. Seems poorly balanced for a challenge, even with bad micro the guy had a heroic victory on hard battle difficulty, wtf.

And the graphics are fucking atrocious, I understand they use a "alpha" build but the game release is in two fucking month. Its a TOTAL WAR team giving us that gameplay video, and they cant give their own PR team a recent build to demo with?

This sounds a bit like the "alpha footage" Rome 2 debacle.

[Mr_Oujamaflip]

Not going anywhere near it.

[Yeldur]

Attila was the worst. They had a day 1 DLC faction pack which was a cut a paste job, then a week 1 DLC faction pack that was ANOTHER cut a paste job. All before their first patch...

Yeah, the release was so fucking disappointing I almost refunded the game for it.

But now their DLC's are actually quite good, they have unique units, side stories etc to make the game interesting, it's why I'm glad I kept Attila now.


I definitely won't be buying Warhammer because it's not my kinda game (Prefer medieval) but I imagine the launch will be just as awful.

[Uther Pendragon]

My strategy will be to get the pre-order a few days before launch, wait it out to see the reviews from people like Angry Joe and other fanboys who aren't paid by CA and then I'll either refund or just get on with it. I was a huge fan of Warth of Dark Gods mod to Medieval 2 so Warhammer Total War is hyping me up, despite knowing how awful Rome 2 launch was. They seem to be a bit more communicative now, and their latest products are also giving me hope (namely Age of Charlemagne, which is great albeit a bit small), so we'll see.

[Butan]

The problem with current CA/SEGA approach to TW is they try to release a new game every year now, and release as many DLC as they can per title, whatever the cost to development quality and credibility.
IMO its a cash out strategy.

I can imagine the devoted developers working their ass out just so that they meet the deadline, knowing full well that they can not give their best shot with that they are given. Still, Rome 2->Attila->Warhammer shares tons of similar assets/UI/gameplay/etc... so with each new titles they can get deeper into the strategy/politics/battle aspect. Like with Empire->Napoleon->Shogun 2.

But that also means we pay 3-4x a AAA game to have an incredible experience.


Unlike Empire->Napoleon->Shogun 2, where Shogun 2 was basically a masterpiece (ignoring design flaws due to cultural similarities between all the playable factions), Rome 2->Attila->Warhammer, where Warhammer could be the masterpiece of the cycle, I dont see as much "innovative" gameplay decision: they have announced that the multiplayer of Warhammer will be the same than Rome 2/Attila (no great tools for multiplayer campaign, no avatar multiplayer), they showed that there is no real "lore" exploitation of the Warhammer history ("heroes" are just buffs, factions starts with ridiculous positions lore-wise and stupid neighbouring rebels/neutral factions just like any other TW, "quests" are simply finding more buffs, most of the lore is just text printed on ultra classic gameplay), and one can already see that graphically wise we are going to have problems, rosters are a bit limited and pasty, factions are DLC locked, etc etc...

Still I believe that overall, Warhammer should be >>> to Rome 2 and at least > to Attila.

[Yeldur]

Pretty much hit the nail on the head Butan.

[Kais]

Yeah, the release was so fucking disappointing I almost refunded the game for it.

But now their DLC's are actually quite good, they have unique units, side stories etc to make the game interesting, it's why I'm glad I kept Attila now.


I definitely won't be buying Warhammer because it's not my kinda game (Prefer medieval) but I imagine the launch will be just as awful.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Uther Pendragon]

Another thing is that if this game is a hit, it'll show other companies that CA is capable of making a good unorthodox strategy game with someone's IP - Warhammer first, others may follow. Fantasy isn't well represented in the setting and CA having the monopoly for this sort of games atm gives them nice opportunities. So I think they would like the game to be good AT launch and generally well-recieved.

Also, Yeldur

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
 

[Yeldur]

Sowwy, I prefer history to fantasy :X
(For Strategy games, otherwise I'd be a hypocrite.)

[Rewolwerowiec]

Coming 24th May 2016 

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Butan]

Reported again?... Well, that's good for the release state of the game, but it clearly shows that their last few "gameplay" videos were indeed too alpha-ish!

[Uther Pendragon]

Good, shows that they're polishing it, I hope.

It raises my hope a little bit, yes. Also they released the specs, minimum, recommended and ultra, isn't much higher than Attila to be fair