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

[Kmany]

They dont.. what a stupid thread.
Lock it lol

[Aleera]

SpiffyGonzales lähetti viestin:

seems like you're actually willing to discuss it, so ill respond to this one.

.while you CAN build balanced the optimal way to play is to build doomstacks. the game more or less encourages it especially with auto resolve. In older total wars it was POSSIBLE but usually very costly and the benifits were not that great, the optimal way to play usually was to build a balanced army. Also, in warhammer there are armies who you can more or less beat with one type of unit. Bretonnia for example is pretty much anti large = win. With empire (just as an example) you had various european nations with different skills for their units, however the alterations were usually slight. Prussia had the fastest reload time of any army and if im not mistaken it was austria who had the most numerous regular infantry. But there was never a clear better based solely on the factions.

The optimal way to play is not doomstacking, doomstacking does not make your autoresolve better.
For example, I can doomstack Landships as the Empire quite easily. I'll lose an auto resolve vs an army of low tier skaven.
I have an army filled with Nuln Ironsides and cannons and I cannot even autoresolve a lvl 2 capitol city garrison without it's garrison building.

If you think you can fight Bretonnia with just anti large units, you've never met actual Bretonnia players. You'll face +- peasant bowmen who will shred your anti large.
If it's campaign and the AI has grail knights / guardians, say goodbye to your halberds. Because they will get charged while you're already in combat.

The only faction that has somewhat of an hard counter with anti large are Ogre kingdoms.

But really, if you're building your army to counter the strength of an enemy you face, that is strategy.

SpiffyGonzales lähetti viestin:

For the point about naval battles ill repost what i said to the other guy,
"now you arent simply building up armies for one specific type of combat. You now have to think about the possibility of various ports and trade nodes being taken which costs you money, and the additional income taken away to pay for your navy creates an additional layer of complexisty because you now have to think about the risk factor of putting too much or too little into your navy. A great example is prussia in empire who tends to be focused on land. However ending up at war with britain, spain, france, norway, or sweden can land you in hot water very quickly if you are unprepared because they will have total dominance of the baltic sea, absolutely destroying any sea trade you have and rendering you entirely vulnerable to land invasions from the ocean."

And I counter by saying that for older titles, you didn't have to think and counter flying unit's. Or how to counter a giant. Or masses of nearly unkillable zombies.

SpiffyGonzales lähetti viestin:

you are correct about winds of magic, however I would say that magic itself also makes the game less strategic. Not to promote my own youtube or anything, but I actually made a vid a while back. it was mostly to show something I did as tzeentch i thought looked really cool (again im not a warhammer hater so myuch as someone who hates the fact that the old titles had to die because of it).
But it also kind of shows the point that even with two full stack armies you dont necessarily need strategy. So just to show you what i mean:

Now use that exact same Tzeentch tactic an late game Archaon army. Or when you have 20 WoM due to the zone you're in has -15 WoM per turn. Or try that same tactic while you play as Khorne, oh wait, you cannot. How about Nurgle, oh he can't either.

SpiffyGonzales lähetti viestin:

I didn't do any special tactics, I just did the teleport and had a Doomstack. It looks pretty with tzeentch but this is actually less effective than say a party of nothing but bretonnian royal gryphon knights or chaos dwarf arty or having a disposable bloater army from the vampirates, or those OP khorne units. And I can say this for sure because ive done them all. No thought required, just number stack and send em in. even the most OP thing in shogun 2 fall of the samurai, the naval bombardment, isnt as effective as these doomstacks are in total war warhammer.

You weren't doomstacking, but you actually have to plan this and build accordingly. You don't have access to such an army quickly and against a player, your doomstack would be useless.

SpiffyGonzales lähetti viestin:

For under cities: do we have them? eh... yesn't. Obviously we dont have the mechanics or them. But something like a bunch of muslim priests in your catholic spain could be abysmal for public order. Gentlemen would steal your technology, and i don't mean like in modern tw i mean they would literally discover your secrets. Now, was there a set of 4 buildings that did stuff... no. But honestly I think gentlmen in and of themselves were more strategic. I will give you this one to an extent and solely for the rats and the demons tho. Because they really can do crazy stuff. And also because religion in empire and medieval 2 tw isnt as effective as it should be.

Ehhh. So, exactly like I said. We have different things you have to account for. And agents in your lands can be detrimental no matter what.
Enjoy using your armies with constant -65% movement. Or try to research with 0 research points because the AI is stealing your research.

SpiffyGonzales lähetti viestin:

for teleport stance, as well as other stances, id say it makes the game less strategic as well. remember anything that can be used against you in warhammer can be used in your favor by playing as that faction. but ambushes, teleport, underway, etc. It is pretty much just praying for it not to happen to you. sure, anticipating it requires more thought, so there's that. But also the effect they have on battles essentially turning something strategic into a lopsided affair. I think the concepts themselves are good, and honestly I WOULD give this to you, its just that when its literally as simple as changing a stance its not exactly a great millitary menouver, know what I mean.
that being said... I mean it does add an amount of depth... I dunno... I guess you can have that one as a point in your favor, just with some side notes on it is all.

No, there are no side notes, it are factors you can account for.

SpiffyGonzales lähetti viestin:

But as for being equally strategic, i still have to disagree. The basic aspect of combat altogether is still essentially a number game. if someone brings beastmen and gets that "-10 leadership" guy a bunch of times your guys will break upon contact. No matter what kind of thinking you use, no matter what strategy, no matter what tactics... you have lost. There is no equivalent to that in old total war. You cant number your way through a battle like you can now.

Yeah you can, quite easily. Unbreakable for example. Assasinate the agents on the world map. Actually use support unit's that give leadership around them, I believe the Empire warrior priest can have an aura that adds +17 and another +8 with benediction.
Or what about stacking the +leadership to army heroes?

Notice the different tactics and strategic thinking I simply toss out of my sleeve that counters the Nurgle Stink stacking?

SpiffyGonzales lähetti viestin:

What units you bring in modern total war and what kind of number buffs they have ultimately matters more than how you actually use those units.

I agree that the unit's you bring matter more there's so many more then in Historical titles after all. But the number buffs matter more then how you use them is simply wrong.

If this was the case, how can I beat Malus Darkblade his 20 stack army easily by kiting him around, striking his archers with fast movers. Strike his frontline from 2 different parts at the same time, routing them, killing the routing ones. Focus target his hydra's. Then when all thing is said and done, simply kite around the lord some more as he goes Daemonic and wait for him to die from his own degen.

Oh and, I had no caster, Malus did.

Or how about good ol' Legend of Total War, who fought of Karl Franz and his army with a mere goblin army, but utilizing the spinning loons effect in warhammer 1?
A battle which was thought unwinnable by devs?

The warhammer saga is not less strategic people. That people ignore possible tactics and just use a sledgehammer approach is on them.

Look at Starcraft 2, playing vs the AI I can simply just use a marine/medic ball of 50+ Marines and beat the campaign except 1 mission. Try that in MP and learn how quickly you're countered.

[Velber]

IonizedMercury lähetti viestin:

Velber lähetti viestin:

[
so, archaon, lord of the end times, wearing the armor of the first everchosen Morkar who fought Sigmar the man who became a god, and the crown of domination, is expected to die to a few lead bullets

That got what to do with anything I'm discussing? Nothing, that's what.

Maybe try following the conversation next time.

comparing fantasy and the old games is nonsense in terms of kill-ability of lords then, you agree?

[Velber]

Donut Steel lähetti viestin:

Velber lähetti viestin:

so, archaon, lord of the end times, wearing the armor of the first everchosen Morkar who fought Sigmar the man who became a god, and the crown of domination, is expected to die to a few lead bullets

Why do you keep ignoring what others say and insist on your own version of what they supposedly believe?

Incredibly powerful characters shrugging off a hail of gun-fire would be a lot more impressive if:

1. Healthpools didn't make models of ordinary mortals invincible until they are shaved down enough that the next hit is permitted to be lethal (the reason why ToB devs introduced Critical Hits in that game)

2. Traditional Total War gun mechanics hadn't been part of the feature-stripping process, meaning guns were still the powerful enemy-deletion system with intuitive strengths and weaknesses that they were in Shogun 2. Instead we get back ranks shooting through the front ranks within the same unit, shots clipping harmlessly through in what is a 'game-ification' of a previously thoughtful simulation of gun-lines. That then gets brushed off with 'yea but it's fantasy innit?'

you literally complained about bullets not killing a lord

[IonizedMercury]

Velber lähetti viestin:

comparing fantasy and the old games is nonsense in terms of kill-ability of lords then, you agree?

Saying that "plot armor" is a pure fantasy trope is wrong, you agree?

It's also funny considering plot armor does definitely not apply to any character in this game. They can all disappear from the map without the player doing anything just by losing to another AI faction.

[Ciaran Zagami]

Because the old total wars required you to learn and use actual military strategy. Its just a very different style of game from what the Warhammer games are.

Total War Warhammer is more like Fire Emblem or Advanced Wars if you ever played those, its just rock paper scissors. Pick the unit that hard counters the enemy your fighting and spam them. The most important "skill" in TWWH is memorising your faction's tech tree and what buffs are most exploitable.

I enjoy both titles, but for people who want to do traditional military strategy there really aren't games out there for them anymore. Modern strategy games are very, very different than what Total War used to be.

[Amereth]

Ciaran Zagami lähetti viestin:

Because the old total wars required you to learn and use actual military strategy. Its just a very different style of game from what the Warhammer games are.

Total War Warhammer is more like Fire Emblem or Advanced Wars if you ever played those, its just rock paper scissors. Pick the unit that hard counters the enemy your fighting and spam them. The most important "skill" in TWWH is memorising your faction's tech tree and what buffs are most exploitable.

I enjoy both titles, but for people who want to do traditional military strategy there really aren't games out there for them anymore. Modern strategy games are very, very different than what Total War used to be.

Total war was alway rock paper scissor... even historical. There was never any real military strategy in those games.


Bannerlord with mods is probably the closest you will get to the experience you are looking for, especially if you add voice command to the game.

[Bolovo]

Amereth lähetti viestin:

Ciaran Zagami lähetti viestin:

Because the old total wars required you to learn and use actual military strategy. Its just a very different style of game from what the Warhammer games are.

Total War Warhammer is more like Fire Emblem or Advanced Wars if you ever played those, its just rock paper scissors. Pick the unit that hard counters the enemy your fighting and spam them. The most important "skill" in TWWH is memorising your faction's tech tree and what buffs are most exploitable.

I enjoy both titles, but for people who want to do traditional military strategy there really aren't games out there for them anymore. Modern strategy games are very, very different than what Total War used to be.

Total war was alway rock paper scissor... even historical. There was never any real military strategy in those games.


Bannerlord with mods is probably the closest you will get to the experience you are looking for, especially if you add voice command to the game.

Tell you haven’t played those games without telling me you haven’t played them lol. There is PLENTY of actual military strategy. Take a look at so called “impossible battles” in shogun 2 and warhammer 3 afterwards. The AI is cheesed to oblivion, while the most common tactic is to blob to maximize heal and minimize flanking attacks. Meanwhile in shogun 2 you actually have to use tactics, because there is no healing, no overpowered single entity.

[Aleera]

Bolovo lähetti viestin:

Tell you haven’t played those games without telling me you haven’t played them lol. There is PLENTY of actual military strategy. Take a look at so called “impossible battles” in shogun 2 and warhammer 3 afterwards. The AI is cheesed to oblivion, while the most common tactic is to blob to maximize heal and minimize flanking attacks. Meanwhile in shogun 2 you actually have to use tactics, because there is no healing, no overpowered single entity.

No, you didn't need much tactical thinking in older games, you simply were younger and a far dumber gamer. With your memory over hyping how well you actually did and how tactful you were.

You are now simply more experienced and jaded and see the flaws far quicker.

Go replay these old games and be objective, you'll realise how simple all of them actually are.

Know what your claims are coming across as?
"Back in my day, we had to walk uphill, through a blizzard, during summer, with 40kg books to get to school."

[Someguyinhere]

Aleera lähetti viestin:

Bolovo lähetti viestin:

Tell you haven’t played those games without telling me you haven’t played them lol. There is PLENTY of actual military strategy. Take a look at so called “impossible battles” in shogun 2 and warhammer 3 afterwards. The AI is cheesed to oblivion, while the most common tactic is to blob to maximize heal and minimize flanking attacks. Meanwhile in shogun 2 you actually have to use tactics, because there is no healing, no overpowered single entity.

No, you didn't need much tactical thinking in older games, you simply were younger and a far dumber gamer. With your memory over hyping how well you actually did and how tactful you were.

You are now simply more experienced and jaded and see the flaws far quicker.

Go replay these old games and be objective, you'll realise how simple all of them actually are.

Know what your claims are coming across as?
"Back in my day, we had to walk uphill, through a blizzard, during summer, with 40kg books to get to school."

You're right, but as an old fart myself at 32, I'd like to say this: There were actually some older games that had better AI than their modern contemporaries. Total War isn't one of them, though.

[Bolovo]

Aleera lähetti viestin:

Bolovo lähetti viestin:

Tell you haven’t played those games without telling me you haven’t played them lol. There is PLENTY of actual military strategy. Take a look at so called “impossible battles” in shogun 2 and warhammer 3 afterwards. The AI is cheesed to oblivion, while the most common tactic is to blob to maximize heal and minimize flanking attacks. Meanwhile in shogun 2 you actually have to use tactics, because there is no healing, no overpowered single entity.

No, you didn't need much tactical thinking in older games, you simply were younger and a far dumber gamer. With your memory over hyping how well you actually did and how tactful you were.

You are now simply more experienced and jaded and see the flaws far quicker.

Go replay these old games and be objective, you'll realise how simple all of them actually are.

Know what your claims are coming across as?
"Back in my day, we had to walk uphill, through a blizzard, during summer, with 40kg books to get to school."

Well, taking into account I still play shogun 2 and medieval 2 with the divide and conquer lotr mod, I’ll fire it back at you. Try winning a one stack vs 4 stacks in shogun 2 and see how far you can go.

[Bolovo]

Someguyinhere lähetti viestin:

Aleera lähetti viestin:

No, you didn't need much tactical thinking in older games, you simply were younger and a far dumber gamer. With your memory over hyping how well you actually did and how tactful you were.

You are now simply more experienced and jaded and see the flaws far quicker.

Go replay these old games and be objective, you'll realise how simple all of them actually are.

Know what your claims are coming across as?
"Back in my day, we had to walk uphill, through a blizzard, during summer, with 40kg books to get to school."

You're right, but as an old fart myself at 32, I'd like to say this: There were actually some older games that had better AI than their modern contemporaries. Total War isn't one of them, though.

Are you aware that in actual medieval ONE the aí will immediately reposition itself in a hill if they are defending so it can? Do you have this in warhammer 3? No? Then you must already concede the point, and I won’t even need to bring the ridiculous shuffling that happens almost constantly in warhammer 3.

There are literal comments from developers that show they will deliberately keep ai stupid so players will not get frustrated. Ai is considerably more limited than many games in the series. It is better than others, though, like napoleon and empire.

[Bolovo]

Aleera lähetti viestin:

SpiffyGonzales lähetti viestin:

seems like you're actually willing to discuss it, so ill respond to this one.

.while you CAN build balanced the optimal way to play is to build doomstacks. the game more or less encourages it especially with auto resolve. In older total wars it was POSSIBLE but usually very costly and the benifits were not that great, the optimal way to play usually was to build a balanced army. Also, in warhammer there are armies who you can more or less beat with one type of unit. Bretonnia for example is pretty much anti large = win. With empire (just as an example) you had various european nations with different skills for their units, however the alterations were usually slight. Prussia had the fastest reload time of any army and if im not mistaken it was austria who had the most numerous regular infantry. But there was never a clear better based solely on the factions.

The optimal way to play is not doomstacking, doomstacking does not make your autoresolve better.
For example, I can doomstack Landships as the Empire quite easily. I'll lose an auto resolve vs an army of low tier skaven.
I have an army filled with Nuln Ironsides and cannons and I cannot even autoresolve a lvl 2 capitol city garrison without it's garrison building.

If you think you can fight Bretonnia with just anti large units, you've never met actual Bretonnia players. You'll face +- peasant bowmen who will shred your anti large.
If it's campaign and the AI has grail knights / guardians, say goodbye to your halberds. Because they will get charged while you're already in combat.

The only faction that has somewhat of an hard counter with anti large are Ogre kingdoms.

But really, if you're building your army to counter the strength of an enemy you face, that is strategy.

SpiffyGonzales lähetti viestin:

For the point about naval battles ill repost what i said to the other guy,
"now you arent simply building up armies for one specific type of combat. You now have to think about the possibility of various ports and trade nodes being taken which costs you money, and the additional income taken away to pay for your navy creates an additional layer of complexisty because you now have to think about the risk factor of putting too much or too little into your navy. A great example is prussia in empire who tends to be focused on land. However ending up at war with britain, spain, france, norway, or sweden can land you in hot water very quickly if you are unprepared because they will have total dominance of the baltic sea, absolutely destroying any sea trade you have and rendering you entirely vulnerable to land invasions from the ocean."

And I counter by saying that for older titles, you didn't have to think and counter flying unit's. Or how to counter a giant. Or masses of nearly unkillable zombies.

SpiffyGonzales lähetti viestin:

you are correct about winds of magic, however I would say that magic itself also makes the game less strategic. Not to promote my own youtube or anything, but I actually made a vid a while back. it was mostly to show something I did as tzeentch i thought looked really cool (again im not a warhammer hater so myuch as someone who hates the fact that the old titles had to die because of it).
But it also kind of shows the point that even with two full stack armies you dont necessarily need strategy. So just to show you what i mean:

Now use that exact same Tzeentch tactic an late game Archaon army. Or when you have 20 WoM due to the zone you're in has -15 WoM per turn. Or try that same tactic while you play as Khorne, oh wait, you cannot. How about Nurgle, oh he can't either.

SpiffyGonzales lähetti viestin:

I didn't do any special tactics, I just did the teleport and had a Doomstack. It looks pretty with tzeentch but this is actually less effective than say a party of nothing but bretonnian royal gryphon knights or chaos dwarf arty or having a disposable bloater army from the vampirates, or those OP khorne units. And I can say this for sure because ive done them all. No thought required, just number stack and send em in. even the most OP thing in shogun 2 fall of the samurai, the naval bombardment, isnt as effective as these doomstacks are in total war warhammer.

You weren't doomstacking, but you actually have to plan this and build accordingly. You don't have access to such an army quickly and against a player, your doomstack would be useless.

SpiffyGonzales lähetti viestin:

For under cities: do we have them? eh... yesn't. Obviously we dont have the mechanics or them. But something like a bunch of muslim priests in your catholic spain could be abysmal for public order. Gentlemen would steal your technology, and i don't mean like in modern tw i mean they would literally discover your secrets. Now, was there a set of 4 buildings that did stuff... no. But honestly I think gentlmen in and of themselves were more strategic. I will give you this one to an extent and solely for the rats and the demons tho. Because they really can do crazy stuff. And also because religion in empire and medieval 2 tw isnt as effective as it should be.

Ehhh. So, exactly like I said. We have different things you have to account for. And agents in your lands can be detrimental no matter what.
Enjoy using your armies with constant -65% movement. Or try to research with 0 research points because the AI is stealing your research.

SpiffyGonzales lähetti viestin:

for teleport stance, as well as other stances, id say it makes the game less strategic as well. remember anything that can be used against you in warhammer can be used in your favor by playing as that faction. but ambushes, teleport, underway, etc. It is pretty much just praying for it not to happen to you. sure, anticipating it requires more thought, so there's that. But also the effect they have on battles essentially turning something strategic into a lopsided affair. I think the concepts themselves are good, and honestly I WOULD give this to you, its just that when its literally as simple as changing a stance its not exactly a great millitary menouver, know what I mean.
that being said... I mean it does add an amount of depth... I dunno... I guess you can have that one as a point in your favor, just with some side notes on it is all.

No, there are no side notes, it are factors you can account for.

SpiffyGonzales lähetti viestin:

But as for being equally strategic, i still have to disagree. The basic aspect of combat altogether is still essentially a number game. if someone brings beastmen and gets that "-10 leadership" guy a bunch of times your guys will break upon contact. No matter what kind of thinking you use, no matter what strategy, no matter what tactics... you have lost. There is no equivalent to that in old total war. You cant number your way through a battle like you can now.

Yeah you can, quite easily. Unbreakable for example. Assasinate the agents on the world map. Actually use support unit's that give leadership around them, I believe the Empire warrior priest can have an aura that adds +17 and another +8 with benediction.
Or what about stacking the +leadership to army heroes?

Notice the different tactics and strategic thinking I simply toss out of my sleeve that counters the Nurgle Stink stacking?

SpiffyGonzales lähetti viestin:

What units you bring in modern total war and what kind of number buffs they have ultimately matters more than how you actually use those units.

I agree that the unit's you bring matter more there's so many more then in Historical titles after all. But the number buffs matter more then how you use them is simply wrong.

If this was the case, how can I beat Malus Darkblade his 20 stack army easily by kiting him around, striking his archers with fast movers. Strike his frontline from 2 different parts at the same time, routing them, killing the routing ones. Focus target his hydra's. Then when all thing is said and done, simply kite around the lord some more as he goes Daemonic and wait for him to die from his own degen.

Oh and, I had no caster, Malus did.

Or how about good ol' Legend of Total War, who fought of Karl Franz and his army with a mere goblin army, but utilizing the spinning loons effect in warhammer 1?
A battle which was thought unwinnable by devs?

The warhammer saga is not less strategic people. That people ignore possible tactics and just use a sledgehammer approach is on them.

Look at Starcraft 2, playing vs the AI I can simply just use a marine/medic ball of 50+ Marines and beat the campaign except 1 mission. Try that in MP and learn how quickly you're countered.

All challenge in every total war ever boils down to how to deal with a massive outnumbering ai. The ai has never been able to make complex battle maneuvers, so it can only rush at you. This is the difference between older total wars and newer ones: In warhammer games, you will need to Utterly destroy enemy units to nullify their presence in the battle, as you literally aren’t able to chain rout them, unless you are doing a very specific build (less leadership) against very specific enemies (shaven). In older total wars, you will often see whole units rout because they have been hit by flanking attacks. This is what makes it more tactical. You can nullify enemy units by positioning alone and timing. Bonus points if you killed the enemy general. This is irrelevant in warhammer games. On the other hand, this “tactical” gameplay could indeed arise with magic, for example. How could you magnify the effect of a firestorm, or of a wind of death? The problem here is that the ai is so prone to breaking that this is also irrelevant, as the ai will more often than not reshuffle simply because you are advancing and make their entire army blob without you having to even think. You don’t need careful positioning, nor do you need high ground, choke points etc the ai will present the opportunities for you.


Besides, all your counter examples pertain to the campaign map, which is completely beside the point.

[ik vind geschiedenis leuk]

I have counted and ever since wh1 got released, there has been 500 dollars of content for warhammer total war, and 375 dollars of content for historical, ignoring the blood packs.

[DARJUSH]

it is not because of fantasy settings but cause of unrealistic mechanics of this game
instead of making lords and heroes units a multiple entities they went for a single dude killing hunderds of enemies in the middle of the field, being hit by artillery and not dying.
with buffs or debuffs that encourage you to play it as a not a strategy game but an rpg game like diablo or path of exiles. etc
the thing that handgunners shoot at the backs of their comrades and bullets just fly through them not hurting them xD they had a good mechanic in empire total war already with kneeling or swapping front/back but they decided to make it arcade like age of empires xD
a lot of to talk here i dont want, but this game looks ♥♥♥♥♥♥ like league of legends or something , nothing like historical games with realism and tactics. they wasted such a potential