I have four suggestions to work on: 1) Become the crisis: players, after completing certain quests and meeting certain requirements, could trigger the crisis and become the crisis to fight. The advantage is that you get a massive boost to stats and economy and gain free armies with specific goals to achieve. The disadvantage is that everyone is at war with you and will work together to deal with you. 2) Expand on dynamic reasons a crisis could start by giving key requirements that must happen for a crisis to activate. For example, if the orcs are near defeated with multiple different tribes dead, the crisis is never active, for they never get to the critical mass to create a horde and do not call for a Great Waag. Therefore, it only activates when the orcs are in a substantial population in settlements and have a number of active armies on the field. For the dwarves, it is the opposite. If they begin to lose territory or suffer multiple betrayals, they will start A Grudge too far to declare war on everyone and cause a resurgence. However, if they gain territory or have steadfast allies, they will not be triggered. Meanwhile. the Empire activates its crisis, which I call the Great Unification, where the scenario is triggered if the Empire succeeds in reuniting and takes a few key settlements that were once their back into their empire. This causes the Empire they have the ability and the sole right to unite the worlds against the forces of Chaos and do so to conquer everyone they can and burn those they can't or won't become part of the Empire. Finally, the Black Pyramid only triggers if the tombs have been distributed by a player or AI. 3) Create win scenarios of the crisis for some endgames that do not necessarily mean destroying everyone for a win. In fact, to give variety in gameplay, you have to work against a variety of scenarios to ensure a chance at victory. For example, the Empire is to conquer all human settlements and connect them into one big territory (any territory taken to connect them). The dwarves take care of all their enemies and/or receive a certain amount of gold from others to avoid being attacked. The Orcs are to fight every faction only. Chaos is to corrupt the planet to cause the world to end, etc. 4) Reintroduce multiple crises at once, or do a Stellaris and introduce a War in Heaven scenario. In that, a crisis trigger could trigger a second from an opposing faction. For example, if the Elves trigger their crisis, there is a chance the dark elves would also trigger theirs.
Completely agree. I also felt that the restricted endgame factions was cynical cut content to just add later as though it were genuine free new content. But I suppose the possible upside is that with them releasing them over time they might improve them, while they probably wouldn't bother at all if they were all in from the start. The skaven and chaos dwarf endgames one could argue were slight improvements over the others, although only marginally.
it took them almost a year to make those a little bit more interesting that just proves how lazy they are they have the possibilities there's a reason we play Warhammer for a reason because it's an interesting strategy game in an interesting universe but it's not even an understatement that these guys are trying now to sell hype instead of selling content I don't like it .they still make the game look interesting and cool but feels more and more shallow the only time where I see any improvement is from the community and we know how Games Workshop likes to treat their community if they make two good stuff
More immersive endgames with some more story would be great, also more complex, with multiple stages rather than just popping out. I think the Skaven and Chaos Dwarf Endgames are both better/more interesting but still very simple, they could do a lot more with them.
I've played only one immortal empires campaign thus far. As Tzeentch I got Vermintide end game. It was as boring as you said in the previous video. I was bros with one of the clans and suddenly it just spawned troops in the middle of my land and started wrecking havoc for no reason. The hardest part of defeating the tide was getting there with my armies. Other clans I just bribed into being my vassals by offering them cities. And that was the victory. Whole apocalypse End Times scenario was just a roadbump and only because of how artificial it is. Randomized endgame is a great idea - but the execution is absolutely horrible.
I would rather tick the crisis stuff to conquest in campaign. The game would pick a faction thats either very powerful at that time or someone that wants revenge for you murdering them. I would have both mid and end crisis. But it would be a dynamic event depending on what you are doing, how powerful you are and much more.
In fairness, endgame scenarios are getting better. The Skaven and Chaos Dwarf ones are more involved than just shitting out armies. You know who really needs an endgame? Norsca. Going from Warhammer II to III, Norsca lost their endgame since Archaon is already on the map from the get-go.
I think you have amazing ideas. I wonder if there is a way to bring these ideas to CA devs attention. Maybe see if The Book of Grudges himself can make a video bringing up your ideas and CA would be more likely to see since his channel is massive. I would think if you brought this to him he would find this as interesting improvements and would love to share. Just a thought. Thank you for fine video.
This is asking way too much from CA, they will never allocate resources to 'dynamic campaigns'. Personally I hate endgame as is, and I did since Rome1 when my country and progress was artificially cut in half for arbitrary reasons. I hated the endless mongol and hunnic invasions, the BS spawning Chaos invasions which unfairly always rekt the Dark Elves exclusively near the end of WH2 and I hate the new ones with their free, infinite endgame stacks. At most I'd be fine with certain, still alive factions getting 3-5 bonus stacks ONCE and thats it. Resurrecting factions from the dead? No way I'll ever turn that endgame on ever again. Im not a fan of turning my conquest campaigns into survival games where the grind will wear me down first before I end the endgame. AI bias also doesnt help. Getting most of the endgame turn its sight on you, no matter who you are or where you are destroys all immersion. Just feels like the AI gets one more big stick to beat you in the head with. Getting a reward for beating it like in Stellaris would help. I dont like Stellaris endgame either, but youre incentivized to go out and deal with them, and you can also set their overall strength. You could gain meaningful campaign buffs, units from the destroyed factions unlocked as recruitment maybe, special epic-class items you couldnt get elsewhere, like with the Caravans etc. Getting into a big 'Federation' to deal with crisis (Special form of alliance that ends once crisis is gone) maybe, which could house any and all factions willing to join. Similarly to the one which housed all ordertide in Wh2. Certain threats like TK, Lizard, Greenskin or Chaos endgames could find otherwise more neutral or evil factions like Ogres or Dark Elves throw in their lot with the Ordertide as well. But all in all, I would just make something else other than armies spawning out of nothing. Thats the laziest option CA has been doing all the time. Just AI cheats is plenty enough for crisis. Like if you play on Normal/Hard the AI crisis factions suddenly get VH/Legendary cheats. And thats it.
The end-game crises are barren, empty, tacked-on systems designed to offer "cheesers" some kind of "challenge". They were an olive branch to a community tired of being burned. They were designed in a vacuum and applied broadly, and they don't fit at all with any of the other aspects of the game--i.e., they have no narrative context, they're full of dumb, anti-player bias, etc. It ruins the entire experience. The changes suggested in this video are nice, as they lean into making the campaign more "organic", but I just don't see CA putting much effort into this. It's just not a priority for them.
cool ideas but unrealistic. CA made this game with a sandbox experience in mind; hence almost everything was designed to be generic. there are a few non-generic elements, like needing to have certain territories to win a short/long victory or destroy a certain faction but those are minimalistic and don't provide much of a story unless the player knows the lore. none of the their previous total war games had much of a story driven campaign and this is unlikely to change with a game close to its end (7+years since warhammer 1 lunch; doubt it will have 7 more). even thou i like your ideas and would love to have it; i also don't want it to happen. changing the philosophy of this game so late would entail a lot of energy and resources in order to redesign the entire experience. although cool, i would prefer if those are allocated toward fixing the game bugs, the sieges with its ladders, gate bugs, pathing, popup towers, clone cities and so on. personally that's what destroying the game for me right now and even if it had the best story driven experience, i would not want to play it while the above issues persists. if they fix all of the above and the game is playable, fun and not buggy then sure you could work towards having a story campaign (like the prologue, which i did enjoy quite a bit). but they have not been able to fix this in 16months, which doesn't inspire much confidence in them or this product.
I have four suggestions to work on:
1) Become the crisis: players, after completing certain quests and meeting certain requirements, could trigger the crisis and become the crisis to fight. The advantage is that you get a massive boost to stats and economy and gain free armies with specific goals to achieve. The disadvantage is that everyone is at war with you and will work together to deal with you.
2) Expand on dynamic reasons a crisis could start by giving key requirements that must happen for a crisis to activate.
For example, if the orcs are near defeated with multiple different tribes dead, the crisis is never active, for they never get to the critical mass to create a horde and do not call for a Great Waag. Therefore, it only activates when the orcs are in a substantial population in settlements and have a number of active armies on the field.
For the dwarves, it is the opposite. If they begin to lose territory or suffer multiple betrayals, they will start A Grudge too far to declare war on everyone and cause a resurgence. However, if they gain territory or have steadfast allies, they will not be triggered.
Meanwhile. the Empire activates its crisis, which I call the Great Unification, where the scenario is triggered if the Empire succeeds in reuniting and takes a few key settlements that were once their back into their empire. This causes the Empire they have the ability and the sole right to unite the worlds against the forces of Chaos and do so to conquer everyone they can and burn those they can't or won't become part of the Empire.
Finally, the Black Pyramid only triggers if the tombs have been distributed by a player or AI.
3) Create win scenarios of the crisis for some endgames that do not necessarily mean destroying everyone for a win. In fact, to give variety in gameplay, you have to work against a variety of scenarios to ensure a chance at victory.
For example, the Empire is to conquer all human settlements and connect them into one big territory (any territory taken to connect them).
The dwarves take care of all their enemies and/or receive a certain amount of gold from others to avoid being attacked.
The Orcs are to fight every faction only.
Chaos is to corrupt the planet to cause the world to end, etc.
4) Reintroduce multiple crises at once, or do a Stellaris and introduce a War in Heaven scenario. In that, a crisis trigger could trigger a second from an opposing faction. For example, if the Elves trigger their crisis, there is a chance the dark elves would also trigger theirs.
Completely agree. I also felt that the restricted endgame factions was cynical cut content to just add later as though it were genuine free new content. But I suppose the possible upside is that with them releasing them over time they might improve them, while they probably wouldn't bother at all if they were all in from the start. The skaven and chaos dwarf endgames one could argue were slight improvements over the others, although only marginally.
it took them almost a year to make those a little bit more interesting that just proves how lazy they are they have the possibilities there's a reason we play Warhammer for a reason because it's an interesting strategy game in an interesting universe but it's not even an understatement that these guys are trying now to sell hype instead of selling content I don't like it .they still make the game look interesting and cool but feels more and more shallow the only time where I see any improvement is from the community and we know how Games Workshop likes to treat their community if they make two good stuff
More immersive endgames with some more story would be great, also more complex, with multiple stages rather than just popping out. I think the Skaven and Chaos Dwarf Endgames are both better/more interesting but still very simple, they could do a lot more with them.
I think your expectations are sound and fair . Let’s get organized and somehow get more support for this
Fantastic points, I love it. 💖
Where the hell is the Chaos invasion endgame in “chaos focused game”??? CA is such a joke
I've played only one immortal empires campaign thus far. As Tzeentch I got Vermintide end game. It was as boring as you said in the previous video. I was bros with one of the clans and suddenly it just spawned troops in the middle of my land and started wrecking havoc for no reason. The hardest part of defeating the tide was getting there with my armies.
Other clans I just bribed into being my vassals by offering them cities. And that was the victory. Whole apocalypse End Times scenario was just a roadbump and only because of how artificial it is.
Randomized endgame is a great idea - but the execution is absolutely horrible.
I strongly agree with every point made in this video.
I would rather tick the crisis stuff to conquest in campaign. The game would pick a faction thats either very powerful at that time or someone that wants revenge for you murdering them. I would have both mid and end crisis. But it would be a dynamic event depending on what you are doing, how powerful you are and much more.
In fairness, endgame scenarios are getting better. The Skaven and Chaos Dwarf ones are more involved than just shitting out armies. You know who really needs an endgame? Norsca.
Going from Warhammer II to III, Norsca lost their endgame since Archaon is already on the map from the get-go.
So how is this Immortal Empires' video is going?
It's on the back burner for the moment, due to the ongoing issues surrounding the direction of the game. It'll come though.
I think you have amazing ideas. I wonder if there is a way to bring these ideas to CA devs attention. Maybe see if The Book of Grudges himself can make a video bringing up your ideas and CA would be more likely to see since his channel is massive. I would think if you brought this to him he would find this as interesting improvements and would love to share. Just a thought. Thank you for fine video.
ca can't make the game but they can make it pretty... I think it's the mods will be the ones main improving this game in notoriety
🎉
You expect too much from CA devs. Your ideas are sound and logical and moders can do them but not CA devs.
all true
This is asking way too much from CA, they will never allocate resources to 'dynamic campaigns'. Personally I hate endgame as is, and I did since Rome1 when my country and progress was artificially cut in half for arbitrary reasons. I hated the endless mongol and hunnic invasions, the BS spawning Chaos invasions which unfairly always rekt the Dark Elves exclusively near the end of WH2 and I hate the new ones with their free, infinite endgame stacks. At most I'd be fine with certain, still alive factions getting 3-5 bonus stacks ONCE and thats it. Resurrecting factions from the dead? No way I'll ever turn that endgame on ever again. Im not a fan of turning my conquest campaigns into survival games where the grind will wear me down first before I end the endgame. AI bias also doesnt help. Getting most of the endgame turn its sight on you, no matter who you are or where you are destroys all immersion. Just feels like the AI gets one more big stick to beat you in the head with.
Getting a reward for beating it like in Stellaris would help. I dont like Stellaris endgame either, but youre incentivized to go out and deal with them, and you can also set their overall strength. You could gain meaningful campaign buffs, units from the destroyed factions unlocked as recruitment maybe, special epic-class items you couldnt get elsewhere, like with the Caravans etc. Getting into a big 'Federation' to deal with crisis (Special form of alliance that ends once crisis is gone) maybe, which could house any and all factions willing to join. Similarly to the one which housed all ordertide in Wh2. Certain threats like TK, Lizard, Greenskin or Chaos endgames could find otherwise more neutral or evil factions like Ogres or Dark Elves throw in their lot with the Ordertide as well.
But all in all, I would just make something else other than armies spawning out of nothing. Thats the laziest option CA has been doing all the time. Just AI cheats is plenty enough for crisis. Like if you play on Normal/Hard the AI crisis factions suddenly get VH/Legendary cheats. And thats it.
The end-game crises are barren, empty, tacked-on systems designed to offer "cheesers" some kind of "challenge". They were an olive branch to a community tired of being burned. They were designed in a vacuum and applied broadly, and they don't fit at all with any of the other aspects of the game--i.e., they have no narrative context, they're full of dumb, anti-player bias, etc. It ruins the entire experience.
The changes suggested in this video are nice, as they lean into making the campaign more "organic", but I just don't see CA putting much effort into this. It's just not a priority for them.
Final fantasy 1995, had HOURS of cutscenes... this costs 5 times more and the gameplay is trash
All those damn marketing trailers, but the game is half baked.....buy more DLC...ignore the issues
cool ideas but unrealistic. CA made this game with a sandbox experience in mind; hence almost everything was designed to be generic. there are a few non-generic elements, like needing to have certain territories to win a short/long victory or destroy a certain faction but those are minimalistic and don't provide much of a story unless the player knows the lore. none of the their previous total war games had much of a story driven campaign and this is unlikely to change with a game close to its end (7+years since warhammer 1 lunch; doubt it will have 7 more).
even thou i like your ideas and would love to have it; i also don't want it to happen. changing the philosophy of this game so late would entail a lot of energy and resources in order to redesign the entire experience. although cool, i would prefer if those are allocated toward fixing the game bugs, the sieges with its ladders, gate bugs, pathing, popup towers, clone cities and so on. personally that's what destroying the game for me right now and even if it had the best story driven experience, i would not want to play it while the above issues persists. if they fix all of the above and the game is playable, fun and not buggy then sure you could work towards having a story campaign (like the prologue, which i did enjoy quite a bit). but they have not been able to fix this in 16months, which doesn't inspire much confidence in them or this product.