/r/totalwar Admitting Warhammer is a Bad Total War and a Sickly RTT Title
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ย. 2024
- Something I never expected to see, some awareness from the shithole sub. Some candid acknowledgement.
The thread in question:
/ lack_of_tactical_depth...
The thread on my subreddit pointing it out to me:
/ the_consoomer_awakens_...
Playlist for this video series:
• Escapades of the Shith...
#runningawaysimulator #avoidantgameplay #dontcarelookscool
-----------------------------------------
Best way to support me and what I do:
/ volound
❤️ Thanks to all supporters ❤️
My complete gaming setup:
www.amazon.co....
Join my Discord server and elevate those sons of bitches:
/ discord
My FB Page for ranty longposts:
/ volound
My Twitter shitterings:
/ volound
My Twitch:
/ volound
In the older Men of War game you could put tank/artillery shells on the ground, shoot at them to make them blow up. Basically using regular shit like booby traps. For some reason they removed that in both Assault Squad games.
wow, thats amazing. what a loss. maybe they took it out because it was so OP? seems really exploitable.
I think its more about the games engine, as they have been using the same engine pretty much unmodified since Faces of War. The more you added into missions (effects, units, buildings, etc) the less stable it got up to the point where it would just crash the game. Thats why I am pretty sure its more tied to that as they increased the details of Units and Effects, could be wrong tho.
Assault Squad games fuckin suck
I'd ask admiral price that if its stupid to view tactics through the lens of the way the actual armies the units in the game represent fought, then why bother with animation or themes in the first place?
If tactics are fine to simply revolve around however the game designers created the units to be, why not just have units be coloured squares? Obviously, making a rome themed game draws much of its appeal from people's desire to emulate the actual rome of antiquity.
Therefore its not unreasonable for people to want tactics in a rome themed game to resemble roman tactics rather than an arbitrary set of rules like chess. The question of deviation from real life should be built around the limits of the system, increasing fun and engagement from the player (writing a note and sending it, then waiting for hours for it to be delivered to the battalion in question is not going to draw many players).
The mechanics of a tactical game with a theme of ancient or medieval warfare should be a balance of deep, engaging tactics on their own merit to keep the game from becoming repetitive and boring for players and adherence to the nature of the theme its based around. If the latter is irrelevant, why is it in the game?
I see this a lotwhen criticism of realism gets the response of 'its just being a game or a film' followed by 'its not real'. If the roman legions in game fire their shields at their enemies from 1000m away, causing the moon to explode and reform every time, you'd be confused. Therefore, credulity based on realism is part of the equation and the question is of balance, not whether its a point that deserves to be in the discussion at all. Credulity affects immersion, immersion is a major factor in drawing players in and is therefore a factor within the game. Thats why reload animations should be in the game, its why swords should fight a melee range and its why intuition shouldnt be smashed to pieces when trying to figure out the depth of tactics in a tactical game.
During one of the wars between Rome and Macedonia, occurring in the early 2nd century, two armies met at a ridge in the middle of Greece. The Macedonian troops were seemingly camped slightly higher to the ridge than the Romans, meaning that after the initial skirmishing between the scouts, when the Roman left flank met the Macedonian right, the Romans ended up fighting a uphill battle against Macedonian spearmen. This proved quite fatal when the Macedonians charged down from the top of the ridge at their enemies in formation. There was literally nothing subjective about the spear plunging into your chest due the man handling it having just charged down a hill and using both momentum and gravity to secure his spearhead in your heart.
Similarly, I find there being little subjectivity in that same battle when the Roman commander, Flamininus, panicked at the sight of the Macedonian left flank approaching and sent the Roman right and the rear guard of war elephants charging straight at the Macedonian left. I would imagine a panicked Macedonian spearman would find little subjectivity in his helplessness as his spear seemingly did little to stop a 10,000 pound organism from crushing him and his friends into bloody piles of goo. Or when, having crushed the Macedonian's left flank, a Roman tribune enlisted two cohorts to break off and help the Roman left by flanking their Macedonian counterparts, starting a chain rout. I imagine the Macedonian spearmen would have found little subjectivity in their sudden realization of the Roman gladius poking through their friend's chest, and that they were now encircled, with most of their spears still engaging the enemy to their front.
Yup, I'm no expert, but somehow I believe the Redditors are wrong about tactics historically being subjective. I have a strange feeling that formations and flanking maneuvers with different units may have an impact on the outcome of a battle. As compared to just slamming all your melee units against theirs meaninglessly and saying a prayer that their line breaks first.
If modern TW is intended to be more of a 'RTS style game', then it's a very poor one. Anyone who played the APM-heavy Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2 knows the APM required isn't for it's own sake and the games are full of UX and control scheme features that lower the unnecessary APM burden a lot. CA stripped similar ones out of TW and justified the removal of common unit abilities as 'reducing the necessary APM' when it did the exact opposite. These people never played real RTS games, let alone older Total War.
Yeah, Warhammer is strange in that it feels much more easy to figure out how to game it and play it successfully without much thought, but it usually still requires more micro because the added complication of spells and abilities with bad hotkeys whereas classic tw era I felt more often that I could spend time watching the battle unfold and not cycling through units checking ability cooldowns. In other words you flail around more and enjoy battles less and when you do win and you win your campaigns it doesn't feel as impactful.
yep you cant even use an efficient control scheme. no optimisation is possible. if youre playing modern TW, youre fumbling. this makes it all the more laughable when people talk about competitive warhammer. at least shogun 2 allowed keybinds and proper interfacing.
The thing about when people say that warhammer or whatever other modern game do still have stamina and debuffs for exhaustion, is that it doesn't matter in the slightest because of other attributes of the game, namely the difficulty combat stat effects.
Let's say you go through the trouble of walking or whatever else and preserve your stamina for the melee engagement; you will still get a shitty fight because even if the enemy is lets say getting a 10% combat effectiveness debuff from fatigue and a 5% debuff from fighting uphill, you have a constant, ever present 20% debuff to all your melee troops because of the difficulty.
Made up those numbers for simplicities' sake, but you get the idea.
That by itself ruins the melee aspects of the combat. From the moment the campaign starts every melee unit you ever recruit will be limpdicked.
I find that makes the games juat intolerable, and not out of difficulty because these games are NOT fucking difficult on legendary, they are tedious.
I remember back around when you were first speaking about some of this stuff in reference to the total war Content Creator *tm discord, and by far one of the most tedious responses you were getting was from the likes of admiral price who pointed out how one could get infantry to have an okay K/D if they did contrived shit and played a certain way, in Troy's case by chaining yourself to the sperg 2D puzzle flanking mini game that was Troy's battles.
At that point you have completely detached yourself from the game and the experience of being a commander of an army that the franchise has tried to engender, and have just adapted to bad game design by embracing sperging out with charges and shit.
Also that's another thing worth pointing out, how bad charges feel in modern total war.
Charges in Troy are completely unexciting and uninteresting be abuse you do it 5 to 10 fucking times to make some unit route. In shogun 2 you can win or turn a battle with a single, precise and decisive charge. It has meaning, meaning thats enhanced by the fact that if you fuck it up, you've now thrown your unit into a rough fight and disengaging is heavily penalized in shogun 2.
Make a bad charge in Troy though? Who cares, pull out and do it again, and again. Weightless, meaningless, unsatisfying.
Adapting to bad game design. That's the experience of a serious player who starts a campaign in a modern total war game.
yeah this will always be relevant. i didnt say it much in this video because ive repeated it endlessly for the past year, but it bears repeating until it gets fixed. also im sick of warhammer fanboys making excuses like talking about MP to avoid addressing issues and problems.
and yeah admiral price was nothing but cringe the whole time he was around. so glad hes gone and no longer muddying the waters with his fucking nonsense. i have a clear shot at CA and nu-TW without him off in the corner drooling and sperging.
I love Total War Warhammer, BUT it has so many problems, sure we gained magic and unique factions that play differently, but we lost nearly everything else that made total war great.
I hope that in the years after the release of Warhammer III that between the modders and CA we get a fully fleshed out Warhammer world with all the factions and all the lost features from the older titles.
I want Naval Battles back, I didn't always play them, but they where interesting and different.
I want formations, and longer battles (sure magic will still hasten the end of battles still).
I want to need to march to the battle not sprint.
I want to be able to split armies again, instead of sending a full stack to deal with a handful of cheap units.
I want to be able to hire mercenaries like the good old days of Rome where I would use mercs to soften up the enemy before my legions cleaned up.
I want to have to build siege ladders, not have them come out my soldiers asses.
I want to be challenged by the AI's tactics not is ability to cheat.
I want to see the population of my cites grow and drop as I recruit troops.
I want to be able to build everything in a city if it grows big enough.
I want diplomacy to be of some value.
I want to be able to marry off Princesses for alliances.
I want to feel like this is the best Total War game that could be made, not a game simplified in every aspect that is not new.
I want to feel like this is not to much to ask...
Unfortunately CA is a AAA developer now and it is par for the course to feel let down by any new instalment in a franchise these days as its all about eliminating risks and hitting deadlines.
Where it should be about pushing the envelope of what you can make and releasing a product you can be proud of for what you achieved and not just how much money it makes.
We all know most Total War fans will likely buy almost any new title in the series that comes out, I know I am guilty of it, I have everything going back to Rome, my first full TW experience (Shogun demo being first taste of the CA brand of crack).
"I love Total War Warhammer" Ha ha ha ha!
@@free_gold4467 What can I say I love the Warhammer lore. factions and magic.
I play with any mod that helps bring those lost features back.
Like proper ballistics for guns, some semblance of formations, population, reloading animation for gunners, persistent summons, perfect vigour for undead, and such.
Honestly without mods and playing a battle of say Empire and Brettonia without fantasy creatures or magic its definetly one of the worst TW's for battles, with campaign suffering too without mods.
But, with mods it can be pretty good, not perfect but as a whole it becomes a much better game.
I'm hoping once WH3 is done a remaster mod will add all the best of the lost features, improving them where possible. Maybe have it like the Rome remaster with its options.
Your general being a glass not-even-cannon that you need to use to route skirmishers but die to even levy infantry vs your general being a tank DPS god who can fly and cast spells more powerful than a howitzer
“I can build cheap balanced armies and overwhelm the AI”
I disagree only with the hard-counter argument. I think nuTW is all about soft-counters, which is why all units can be compared directly for the same function of sustained DPS, and why hence you have archers and single entities dominating everything.
A hard counter system would force you to diversify, because there would be a counter to your doomstack that would make it completely useless
yep exactly. also the difficulty means that any counterplay that would exist gets dissolved into irrelevancy. you could see this easily with putting axes up against swordsmen with big shields (the unit they existed to counter) in 3K. the axes get destroyed by ANY difficulty modifiers. ruins the matchup.
I used to also believe in the hard-counter argument; two years ago my thoughts about modern TW were exactly the same as the Reddit OP. I believed that rock-paper-scissors had been replaced with 'X beats Y' and this tunnel-vision obscured me from seeing that many units were simply worse than others objectively and it's optimal to replace them as soon as is practical in a campaign.
@@MasonDixonAutistic With good campaign design you can make weak units also viable. For example, if replenishment is very low, or its really hard to get elite units, then recruiting cheap and plentiful cannon fodder makes sense
@@TimmacTR That's one solution and this is what I don't get: there are many simple solutions that can be used and CA just ignores them as well as the problems they solve, for years on end. They have just released a new patch for WH2, and whilst I am glad the patch-notes go into nitty-gritty detail about formula changes(because spreadsheets are seemingly all that's on their mind); what was not explained was a *vision*. Broader context for why these changes specifically were made.
@@TimmacTR That's how Stainless Steel does it, and it works really well. The fact that a professional dev team backed by Sega money can't even make something that matches a mod for a 15-year-old game is pathetic.
Since you dont play Warhammer, I'll clarify the many instances of people saying "Ranged rules the battlefield" in Warhammer and "Melee Infantry suck"
Ranged units are just the best units to use in Single Player against the AI, especially at higher difficulty levels because the AI combat cheats just makes Melee infantry completely worthless.
However, you never want to go into a battle without any Melee Infantry. Usually 3-4 units is about all you need in some cases and their job is simply to act as a tar pit while your Ranged units do the actual killing. The Melee Infantry will only get like 10 kills throughout the battle while the Ranged units will easily get hundreds.
The method works better with Character/Lords as then you don't risk friendly fire.
This is something that can be done from Rome 2 onward (I've tried it and it does work to varying degrees based on the game in question), but its more noticeable and can be abused much easier in Warhammer
ohh, im the one that brought this issue into the spotlight last year. click tags like #avoidantgameplay and #runningawaysimulator and you can see what i mean. i brought this issue into the forefront and was even complaining about it directly to CA. i seeded the popular discourse with this, and its exactly why i havent played warhammer 3. but ive played warhammer 3 by virtue of playing troy and three kingdoms, which are fundamentally exactly the same game as warhammer 3.
@@VoloundExpounds If you've ever watched any of Legend of Total Wars videos and you'd see him doing this all the time (I got bored watching his videos as they were all the same and I understand that Warhammer is where the money is, but his videos get very repetitive)
Yeah, I've been watching your videos for the last year. I agree 100% with all of the points you make in them, except all the hate for Empire. I know it's a broken game and you're perfectly justified to call it shit, but since it's my favourite game in the franchise I can't help but defend it.
Recently I decided to give Vanilla Empire a go and I found it to not be nearly as bad as I remembered it being, and dare I say that Darthmod seemed to bring out the worst of the bugs in the game. At least that's based on my recent playthroughs.
The irony here is that all the tactics and in-game mechanics you love, which are designed to simulate a real battle, were mostly present in the tabletop version of Warhammer Fantasy. Even fatigue is something rulesets are desperate to try and implement. Then Games Workshop threw away Warhammer Fantasy - destroyed it - and replaced it with Age of Sigmar which IRONICALLY is just like a mobile game / card game and doesn't feel anything like a fantasy battle simulation!
I stopped playing Warhammer Total War after I realised I wasn't having fun or making tactical choices. I spend all the battles in PAUSE because each battle lasts maybe 2 minutes real time, and even then I'm micromanaging rather than carrying out tactics. I play using an Overhaul mod which changes everything and allows me to use proper tactics in-game. It's much more rewarding and how a Warhammer game should be.
Did you see that Melkor has quit YT because of how shit RR was handled?
yep. he quit because his channel died because rome remastered was a worthless cashgrab and his entire channel was dedicated to bringing on the second coming of rome. he was taken for a ride by CA. i warned him before rome remastered was even announced that he had to ask for good games before anything else, but he didnt listen to me.
Is this guy for real or doing the 'angry, unselfconsciously projecting, obsessive nutter gamer' comic piece? Because he's funny if it's an act, worrying for his mental health if not.
I didnt play any total war after rome2 which I still play the mp, it has an active audience. So sad to see CA in this state because the first rome is one of the first games I played in my childhood.
I like to think the misconception of bows being broken in Shogun 2 arises from the buffs that AI archers get on higher difficulties. Think about it: WH and the derivative titles are glorified tower defense games, so anyone in the mentality of playing such a defensive-minded game would try carrying those over into Shogun 2, leading to them getting murdered as the AI uses its brain and hangs back showering you with arrows rather than advancing like a brainless mob. This is especially true in siege defenses where camping in the fort is sure to get you killed, which I imagine is what many WH players would do considering how broken towers are in that game.
little known fun fact about S2 arrows: Every single soldier in the game can take 2 or more direct hits (depending on armor) from arrows before going down. When you see a soldier go down, he took at least 3 hits. So, the longer a single unit is getting peppered with arrows, the more casualties will add up. I.E. more casualties will be dealt by the 2nd volley than the first, and so on (not accounting for diminishing returns once the unit is thoroughly weakened)
It's a really weird hitpoint system where each soldier has 1 hitpoint but arrows do 0.3 dmg baseline. I only know this 100% for normal difficulty though.
All this to say: archers in S2 are NOT OP.
Still trying to figure out the modifier armor has on arrow damage though.
@@cole8834 You also have to consider the effects of range and firing angle. Plunging fire seems to do a lot less damage than direct.
@Cole this is completely wrong and effortlessly understood to be entirely incorrect with very light thinking.
@@VoloundExpounds Its based on data dug up by community members years ago.
However, I just checked myself.
I did a custom battle: Bow hero (40 men) w/ 100 accuracy vs yari ashigaru (200 men) in tight yari wall (ensuring near zero misses from arrows).
If it takes 3 hits from arrows to get a kill, in my estimation, it would take approx. 8 volleys from the bow hero to kill 100 yari ash. So, after 8 volleys, there were 110 yari ash left out of 200. I ought to do it over and over again, yes, but this seems to corroborate what I said.
The Bow Hero is hyper lethal because they loose a volley about every 3 seconds... not because they shoot harder... *I think
@@cole8834 your test should make it obvious that what you describe is obviously incorrect. you have 40 men able to inflict immediate casualties on a massive bullet sponge of a unit with 200 men. we already know what hitpoint systems look like from games like rome 2. its a night and day difference and it is very obvious that what you describe does not exist whatsoever.
if you want to see what it looks like when men with hitpoints get attacked, charge a unit of great guard into a unit of tokitakas tanegashima (hero unit with 2 hit points). its a night and day difference.
like i said, rudimentary basic thinking should be sufficient to disabuse.
Nice
👏😁
360p gang
Gaemz
Based Luis