why do historical total war fans HATE total war warhammer?

[pikathulhu]

like i find some threads here or online of people HATING on the games for being fantasy??? like i dont understand if you hate these games you can just play the historical ones or am i missing something?
EDIT: i am not making general claims about EVERY historical fan just the ones i have seen complaining about the game

[Someguyinhere]

They don't. In my experience, it's the Warhammer noobs to the franchise who absolutely SEETHE any time someone brings up a historical title. "HURR SPEARMEN VS SPEARMEN IS BORING HURRR SHUT UP MORE FANTASY"

[MrButtermancer]

They see it as an opportunity cost when CA could be working on historical titles.

Which studios are actually responsible for what is irrelevant. That's how they interpret it.

[pikathulhu]

Escrito originalmente por SBA77:

Escrito originalmente por the wrinkly darth:

honestly i forgot this thread existed lol

Was the popcorn tasty, though?

yes very tasty

[pikathulhu]

Escrito originalmente por Chibbity:

Escrito originalmente por the wrinkly darth:

what opinion do you think i have about the game? just wondering

The second part wasn't about you, sorry.

its okay :)

[Donut Steel]

Escrito originalmente por MrButtermancer:

They see it as an opportunity cost when CA could be working on historical titles.

Which studios are actually responsible for what is irrelevant. That's how they interpret it.

The first game out after Warhammer 2 was Thrones of Britannia. It was probably the most historical of historical games in the entire TW series. Some of the art design was actually really amazing, and it had 'new' gameplay ideas, like the introduction of Critical Hits. What do those do? They replicate the effect of King Harald getting an arrow in his eye at Hastings, of the Light Brigade charging fortified enemy artillery positions after misinterpreting orders, and ninjas in the reeds using farm tools to quickly melt a back-line facing the wrong way. They are a percentage-chance per each successful attack to insta-kill, no matter healthpool or any other damage mitigation besides shield-block and melee defence.

The problem? Thrones of Britannia is otherwise a NuTW game, with a vast number of gameplay mechanics removed and replaced with stat-modifiers. Critical Hits were a blatant attempt to quietly re-introduce the old hitpoint system, without admitting that changing it in Rome 2 (historical right?) caused problems. Problems like almost no attacks by regular units ever being lethal, until a model's healthpool was shaved away. The same outcome could be produced under the old system by simply giving every single entity model at least 3 hitpoints, keeping in mind that the General and bodyguard models had an average of ~2 and they were among the toughest.

You would think this kind of change would make battles inordinately long, yet older TWs had much longer battles, enough that people complained about Medieval 2 European units being extremely slow to resolve fights this is largely being due to them being highly defensive shield and spear units that can get good armour upgrades early on, with the models changing to reflect that, but anyone that tries diversifying straight to billhooks and halberds solves that problem a few turns later.

How does Thrones of Britannia handle that? It makes the Critical Hit chance based entirely on weapon type, and nothing else. The player can not make any decision to maximise the use of this mechanic, except recruit a different unit. Flanking, charging from cover, shooting from cover, causing a unit to rout, attacking a tired unit with a fresh unit, winning/losing current combat, inflicting losses, friendly-fire, using elevation, being surrounded: these all used to affect instant-lethality and it's a self-reinforcing pattern because they are affected by player decisions and can give the player immediate feedback to make clear decisions without APM burden. Stamina further negates the benefit of rapidly running units around and engaging them, which appears to be why they greatly reduced the impact on it from running whilst making the in-combat drain almost immediate and steep.

This is what happens when gameplay design is spreadsheeted. It makes sense to limit the Critical Hit chance to just one determinate if you're trying to balance it in a spreadsheet, even if it makes zero sense in terms of making gameplay intuitively conform to what you would expect to happen in reality, and was technically feasible on CPUs from decades ago and TW hasn't significantly upped the scale of battles over that time.

It makes sense if you are spreadsheeting, to limit combat simulation to the unit card stats, including the healthbar that means the average entity model's damage, when it hits, is almost always less than the target entity's health, because now the designer is dictating the pace of battles, not the player. That is a problem if you are still trying to sell the illusion that player decisions matter more than unit quality and stat-modifiers.

Warhammer 3 didn't adopt the Critical Hits mechanic, neither did any TW game since; it died with ToB. Everything else wrong Total War Warhammer though, can be found in Thrones of Britannia, and every 'historical' game since Rome 2.

But still people will pretend: it's just 'history fans' that are mad at CA.

[Velber]

Escrito originalmente por Fragoos:

4 units of rifles 80 men per unit. All shooting 3 salvos at a enemy lord. That is over 700 bullets fired on a single fkn lord and he still half health. I despise this sponge drain combat tw has become. Everything from campaign to sieges to whatever has to be a tedious repetitive chore. Combat lost all its meaning because it is non stop from start to finish. Killing a LL buy you a couple rounds free of it and all the purple ror spam.

if archaon the everchosen could die to a few bullets then the warhammer world would never have been in danger

[Big Moustache]

I was being generous. I counted around 75% hits. Even Archaeon the everchosen should die from a single cannonball to the face. He respawn anyways so whats the problem? A general is most important unit on the field and main target for artillery. If he get killed too fast the player sucks at positioning their leader better

[joeboysnakes]

Escrito originalmente por Velber:

Escrito originalmente por Fragoos:

4 units of rifles 80 men per unit. All shooting 3 salvos at a enemy lord. That is over 700 bullets fired on a single fkn lord and he still half health. I despise this sponge drain combat tw has become. Everything from campaign to sieges to whatever has to be a tedious repetitive chore. Combat lost all its meaning because it is non stop from start to finish. Killing a LL buy you a couple rounds free of it and all the purple ror spam.

if archaon the everchosen could die to a few bullets then the warhammer world would never have been in danger

Exactly.

[Big Moustache]

Name 1 thing that became better. CA no longer have a clue on how to make a TW. The worst offender are the 20M long ladders shoved up every infantry soldiers rectum. Completely destroying pathfinding once a rectumladder is up. SHAME! This is introduced in first game a decade ago FFS!
Everyone have a rectum ladder, but you can not siege walls unless you bring monster, artillery or build siege equipment? Why? Poo a ladder out and siege! every unit in game can attack and destroy gates. CA just not have a clue anymore is said!
Focused fire! Everyone, 5+ units, shooting at the same brick in the wall!
Fire at will, ignore everything in front and shoot into the wall above wasting ammo on purpose. Tedious micro for every inch.
Flying unit drops behind unit and attack from rear. That unit will die because i not tell them to turn tf around and face the enemy shredding them to bits.
Ostankya and her witches have a sleigh that has huge turning angle or something, getting stuck unable to move during sieges when close to obstruction

[Mary]

Shogun is my jam.
Original and Shogun 2.

This game is super fun. It scratches a different itch, but my gripes with it in relation to Shogun. . . Are unfounded. To me, they are entirely different titles.

[IonizedMercury]

Escrito originalmente por Donut Steel:

Escrito originalmente por MrButtermancer:

They see it as an opportunity cost when CA could be working on historical titles.

Which studios are actually responsible for what is irrelevant. That's how they interpret it.

The first game out after Warhammer 2 was Thrones of Britannia. It was probably the most historical of historical games in the entire TW series. Some of the art design was actually really amazing, and it had 'new' gameplay ideas, like the introduction of Critical Hits. What do those do? They replicate the effect of King Harald getting an arrow in his eye at Hastings, of the Light Brigade charging fortified enemy artillery positions after misinterpreting orders, and ninjas in the reeds using farm tools to quickly melt a back-line facing the wrong way. They are a percentage-chance per each successful attack to insta-kill, no matter healthpool or any other damage mitigation besides shield-block and melee defence.

The problem? Thrones of Britannia is otherwise a NuTW game, with a vast number of gameplay mechanics removed and replaced with stat-modifiers. Critical Hits were a blatant attempt to quietly re-introduce the old hitpoint system, without admitting that changing it in Rome 2 (historical right?) caused problems. Problems like almost no attacks by regular units ever being lethal, until a model's healthpool was shaved away. The same outcome could be produced under the old system by simply giving every single entity model at least 3 hitpoints, keeping in mind that the General and bodyguard models had an average of ~2 and they were among the toughest.

You would think this kind of change would make battles inordinately long, yet older TWs had much longer battles, enough that people complained about Medieval 2 European units being extremely slow to resolve fights this is largely being due to them being highly defensive shield and spear units that can get good armour upgrades early on, with the models changing to reflect that, but anyone that tries diversifying straight to billhooks and halberds solves that problem a few turns later.

How does Thrones of Britannia handle that? It makes the Critical Hit chance based entirely on weapon type, and nothing else. The player can not make any decision to maximise the use of this mechanic, except recruit a different unit. Flanking, charging from cover, shooting from cover, causing a unit to rout, attacking a tired unit with a fresh unit, winning/losing current combat, inflicting losses, friendly-fire, using elevation, being surrounded: these all used to affect instant-lethality and it's a self-reinforcing pattern because they are affected by player decisions and can give the player immediate feedback to make clear decisions without APM burden. Stamina further negates the benefit of rapidly running units around and engaging them, which appears to be why they greatly reduced the impact on it from running whilst making the in-combat drain almost immediate and steep.

This is what happens when gameplay design is spreadsheeted. It makes sense to limit the Critical Hit chance to just one determinate if you're trying to balance it in a spreadsheet, even if it makes zero sense in terms of making gameplay intuitively conform to what you would expect to happen in reality, and was technically feasible on CPUs from decades ago and TW hasn't significantly upped the scale of battles over that time.

It makes sense if you are spreadsheeting, to limit combat simulation to the unit card stats, including the healthbar that means the average entity model's damage, when it hits, is almost always less than the target entity's health, because now the designer is dictating the pace of battles, not the player. That is a problem if you are still trying to sell the illusion that player decisions matter more than unit quality and stat-modifiers.

Warhammer 3 didn't adopt the Critical Hits mechanic, neither did any TW game since; it died with ToB. Everything else wrong Total War Warhammer though, can be found in Thrones of Britannia, and every 'historical' game since Rome 2.

But still people will pretend: it's just 'history fans' that are mad at CA.

Amazing, everything in this text is 100% Voloundite BS. He just lies about everything, does he? He never once booted up ToB ever, I can tell.

Hint, complaints about "HP" are always based on Volound's lies.

The old system had HP too, they were just represented differently since the various armor values allowed additional hits.

That's where his entire building of lies collapses in itself.

[Donut Steel]

Escrito originalmente por Velber:

Escrito originalmente por Fragoos:

4 units of rifles 80 men per unit. All shooting 3 salvos at a enemy lord. That is over 700 bullets fired on a single fkn lord and he still half health. I despise this sponge drain combat tw has become. Everything from campaign to sieges to whatever has to be a tedious repetitive chore. Combat lost all its meaning because it is non stop from start to finish. Killing a LL buy you a couple rounds free of it and all the purple ror spam.

if archaon the everchosen could die to a few bullets then the warhammer world would never have been in danger

He was defeated by a kick to the groin and a headbutt in the True Ending in the before-times.

Even regular soldiers don't die to single bullets under the Rome 2 health and damage system.

[Chibbity]

When the game is literally based on a world called Warhammer: FANTASY.

"ItS NoT REaliStiC!!11!!1"

[Donut Steel]

Escrito originalmente por Chibbity:

When the game is literally based on a world called Warhammer: FANTASY.

"ItS NoT REaliStiC!!11!!1"

Why does this argument even exist still?

Fantasy fiction is subject to snobbery that would seem ridiculous if applied to any other genre. It'a also inaccurate: every fantasy novel that had lasting cultural impact did not engage in 'a wizard did it' nonsense where the audience must keep to low-expectations and not be invested because anything can happen, at any time, for no reason but the author deciding it should.

Tolkien, LeGuinn, Lewis, Gardner, Pratchett: their invented worlds have continuity, cause and effect, and the fantasy is rooted in being clear about what is actually different from our world.

Harry Potter meanwhile, continues to age poorly as people ask how the time-turners are never mentioned again despite their utterly consequential bearing on the plot, because Rowling never actually thought stuff through and just ripped off LeGuinn's A Wizard of Earthsea.

[Chibbity]

Escrito originalmente por Donut Steel:

Escrito originalmente por Chibbity:

When the game is literally based on a world called Warhammer: FANTASY.

"ItS NoT REaliStiC!!11!!1"

Why does this argument even exist still?

Fantasy fiction is subject to snobbery that would seem ridiculous if applied to any other genre. It'a also inaccurate: every fantasy novel that had lasting cultural impact did not engage in 'a wizard did it' nonsense where the audience must keep to low-expectations and not be invested because anything can happen, at any time, for no reason but the author deciding it should.

Tolkien, LeGuinn, Lewis, Gardner, Pratchett: their invented worlds have continuity, cause and effect, and the fantasy is rooted in being clear about what is actually different from our world.

Harry Potter meanwhile, continues to age poorly as people ask how the time-turners are never mentioned again despite their utterly consequential bearing on the plot, because Rowling never actually thought stuff through and just ripped off LeGuinn's A Wizard of Earthsea.

What are you talking about lol? You could literally sum up half of LotR's plot with the sentence "a wizard did it."

Lord of the Rings literally invented half of the fantasy tropes, like heroes with plot armor thicker than most castle walls; and magical deus ex machinas.

Heroes in Warhammer take thousands of bullets to put down for the same reason none of the heroes in LotR are ever in any actual danger and always come out victorious; because it's a FANTASY. If LotR was realistic half of the main characters would have died in there first sword fight or battle, from a random stab wound or stray arrow.

You seriously consider being saved at the last second by magical eagles to be a grounded realistic plot lol?

Fantasy and/or Sci-fi (unless youre talking about "Hard Sci-Fi" but thats its own genre for a reason) are the exact opposite of realistic grounded storytelling by design. Your attempt to ignore that is either extreme naivete on your part, or you're being willfully disingenuous.