why do historical total war fans HATE total war warhammer?

[iberian ribbed newt]

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

[jonoliveira12]

It is because Warhammer has completely overshadowed the profitability of historical titles.

They now know it would be far more profitable for CA to just make more fantasy titles, than historical ones, so taht fable Medieval 3 or Empire 2 seems that much farther away.

[Solvem Probler]

Автор сообщения: jonoliveira12

It is because Warhammer has completely overshadowed the profitability of historical titles.

They now know it would be far more profitable for CA to just make more fantasy titles, than historical ones, so taht fable Medieval 3 or Empire 2 seems that much farther away.

Which is for the best because modern CA could not make those games good.

[jonoliveira12]

Автор сообщения: Solvem Probler

Автор сообщения: jonoliveira12

It is because Warhammer has completely overshadowed the profitability of historical titles.

They now know it would be far more profitable for CA to just make more fantasy titles, than historical ones, so taht fable Medieval 3 or Empire 2 seems that much farther away.

Which is for the best because modern CA could not make those games good.

I like Pharaoh, to be fair.

It had so many features that would be amazing to see in any new historical title, like Legacy mechanics, multi-resource consumption, expanded trade and diplomacy mechanics, and so on.

If they would be doing a historical game that lives up to the variety fantasy brings, they would have to do it like Pharaoh, but as we can see, the historical fanbase will never give anything else a shot, unless it is Med3 or Emp2.

[Solvem Probler]

Автор сообщения: jonoliveira12

Автор сообщения: Solvem Probler

Which is for the best because modern CA could not make those games good.

I like Pharaoh, to be fair.

It had so many features that would be amazing to see in any new historical title, like Legacy mechanics, multi-resource consumption, expanded trade and diplomacy mechanics, and so on.

If they would be doing a historical game that lives up to the variety fantasy brings, they would have to do it like Pharaoh, but as we can see, the historical fanbase will never give anything else a shot, unless it is Med3 or Emp2.

The problem is Warscape. Even Dynasties still suffers from the blobbing problem that Rome 2 suffers from. At least in Warhammer, blobbing makes sense for some factions.

I also feel that they're leaning TOO heavily into the gimmick mechanics. Some faction variation is nice but in Pharaoh it gets silly and obtuse at times.

[SpiffyGonzales]

The reason is because of the gameplay.

"Historic" (old school) total wars were focused on simulation. Modern total war is not. Its not about fantasy vs history. If it was the LotR mod for medieval 2 would never have gotten far. In older total wars units acted as individuals, individually dying if they were hit by bullets, arrows, javalins, or sword. Their stats were used to simulate things. for example rifling. things that could not be simulated otherwise. In modern total war however stats ARE the game. Battles in modern total war are essentially the card game magic but with 3d models.

while on the surface it seems like this is some small thing, its very easy to see when you compare the battles of Shogun 1 through empire vs napoleon through shogun 2 fots vs everything after. the first are slow, drawn out battles requiring use of terrain, tactics, timing, and moral. the middle are games where those are still very important, but you can start to see some of the arcade elements getting in. things like land bombardments that can essentially level the entire army on its own in the span of a few minutes and units that are outright superior in every way to others. but still overwhelmingly relies on moral, strategy, and maintaining a variety of units to fulfill special roles. The last, namely warhammer, you can straight up throw an entire army into the grinder with no reason and still win. Yes its still not the smartest thing to do, but its still very common. You dont need tactics when your bretonnian knights have 200 armor because of buildings. You dont need to worry about formations when your chaos warriors can individually take out four other units. You don't need to care about terrain when you can just cast a single spell and take out a quarter of their army. Yes, these factions have their own playstyle. However in older total wars the same can be said without the majority of matches being decided based solely on what types of units you bring. Prussia vs the Ottoman Empire is based on the skill levels and creativity of the players. Dwarves vs Bretonnia will ALWAYS heavily favor the dwarves.

On the campaign side of things its even worse. But im sure nobody wants to read another whole paragraph so suffice it to say they have more mechanics overall, but unrealistic ones and less of them individually.


essentially it is the movement away from realism.

[Colfer]

I've played all of the total wars, from Shogun 1 to Warhammer 3. I genuinely like the WH series but they are very different games. I think the main issue for most historical players is that we've not had a proper historical game for a decade. CA doesn't seem to be able to make both at the same time so Warhammer being successful likely came at the cost of further full historic titles.

The second half is the unfortunate dumbing down of mechanics. It's happened progressively over the years. It's just gotten more and more simple, both on the campaign map and in battles. I can't even say whether that means it sells more because there isn't any recent competition.

CA are unlikely to take a big risk on a complex historical title anytime soon because all of their financial data tells them players want simplistic titles in a fantasy setting. It's just a shame for the old fans who feel a bit disowned. I'm happy for the players that prefer these games though, enjoy it all while you can!

[Sarumoon]

Автор сообщения: D-Black Catto

I like both

I don't like either.

[BIG E.]

I loved historical total wars. And i love warhammer.

But keep in mind i don't count any total war game after Attila as "historical".

Its just we hate CA because they stopped making historicals entirely. We don't hate warhammer.

[Apollyon]

Funnily enough, as a historical TW fan myself, I hate Warhammer a lot less than I hated Rome 2, Pharaoh and the rest of the garbage titles that have come out of CA in recent years. Historical Total War died with Shogun 2 imo and I'm not very confident there will ever be a resurrection for it, which is why I'm currently fine with them delving into fantasy.

That said, my personal hope is that CA will soon be out of business, so a more competent developer can pick up the Total War IP and do some quality stuff with it in the future,

[Velber]

Автор сообщения: Sarumoon

Автор сообщения: D-Black Catto

I like both

I don't like either.

then why are you both here, and own the game

[Black Mage]

Its because of the decline in quality. For example gun units used to have reload animations and smoke effects, cannons and bows felt like they had more impact, tactics were more important in the older total war games, in warhammer everything eventually devolves into a moshpit with no front lines, there's countless more examples of the decline in quality the series has gone through. Im a warhammer fantasy fan and a total war fan, so i can forgive warhammer for being more "light" of strategy, considering how bats*** insane the universe is, but i understand and sympathise with the total war crowd who just wants a series historical title that respects the players intelligence.

[Cyiel]

Avoid making generalities. That said i guess it's because the Warhammer series eclipsed historical Total War line. And from a pure business perspective TW:WH sold a lot and at the end of the day the whole points of CA/SEga is to make money.

[Jukelo]

I'm a historical TW fan, love TW:WH. Then Again I also played a lot of TT Warhammer concurrently with Medieval and Rome 1 in my youth.

[SBA77]

Автор сообщения: H.U.N.K

Its because of the decline in quality. For example gun units used to have reload animations and smoke effects, cannons and bows felt like they had more impact.

Me remembering the days when range barely did any damage, their shots were practically invisible, and people would never use archers.

[lumina]

I don't think there is any universal hate of Warhammer. From the more legitimate complaints I've seen though, it applies to many of the newer Total War games. Stuff like lords/single entities that can take on half an army themselves. Honestly though, I thought the historical titles were all going down hill until TWWH came out. I didn't even buy the last handful of Total War games because I had grown bored of them. So magic and powerful units brought some life back into it for me. But I can definitely see some not liking that. These things take it away from attempts to simulate real field battles.

Plus they've changed/removed dozens of other things over the years. Naval battles. Size of settlement battles. Sieges altogether different now. Formations. Moving armies without lords. So many things have changed over the years, and players liked a lot of them.