Warhammer 2 vs Warhammer 1 improvements?

[Cron]

I consider buying Warhammer 2 but i wonder if some of the (imo) stupid gameplay designs has been changed or not?
For example i didn't like A LOT skill trees in WH1 as a lot of the options felt useless and some overpowered.
I didn't like the mechanic that for example you could damage a 3 unit squad of chariots by 95% but still all 3 are alive.
Some champions were absurdly stronger than others even inside one faction (In greenskin campaign there is no single reason to choose vanilla goblin hero over orc)

These are some examples. So is the gameplay overall improved in WH2 or is it just a new campaign with new races?

[poor old man]

Magic.....

[Elitewrecker PT]

"I didn't like the mechanic that for example you could damage a 3 unit squad of chariots by 95% but still all 3 are alive."

That's not a mechanic, that's just bad luck, you could kill one chariot without damaging the others or you could damage all 3 equally without completely killing any of the models.

[THEDOSSBOSS]

A weird standpoint

All modern Total War games rely on health-based systems where models have hitpoints. Drop a model's damage to 0, and it dies. As such, as the ratio between health and received damage increases, the more likely chance that a unit will suffer a larger total damage percentage without losing models. Things like the 16-model monstrous infantry units, low-model calvary, and yes, chariots. As such, strategy is involved in trying to reduce a low-entity unit's damage output as quick as possible. Regular infantry will evenly distribute the damage due to their high numbers and low damage output, although anti-large and ranged infantry will make them route in a real hurry anyways. If you want to destroy models, then hitting them with artillery and high-damage, low-entity units is the way. A melee lord will destroy one in about 2 hits. Then again, I find the difference mute because a low-entity unit will route faster and die faster if you simply do what you should always do, concentrate fire for a quick route. If 3 or 1 make it out of range and off the map, it doesn't matter, because the army is now either destroyed or will be destroyed in the next battle with even less effort due to overbearing power.

In short, it's not a bug, it's a feature. And it really shouldn't be too much of a bother, this is honestly the first time I've heard someone complain about it because people accept that with damage distribution and high-HP low-entity units, such a thing is simply a standard.

As for heroes, I am the least familiar with the greenskin roster, but I do not remember them having an orc melee hero. Even if they do, I do believe that goblin big bosses (if that is the name of goblin heroes) are leadership-melee hybrids. They provide passive leadership elements to units around them, not to mention the speed of a spider is greater than a boar, so there's that, plus the poison factor that decreases the opponent's stats. Iirc, having two goblin big bosses were a very viable strategy on the multiplayer front, and it's actually due to their popularity that I have forgotten if the greenskins have an orcish hero or not. If you are referring to lords than your argument simply isn't valid. Goblin and orcish lords have a variety of different specialisations to set them apart


In terms that actually matter, Warhammer 2 is superior in almost every way. All of the game 1 factions are in it if you own Warhammer 1 and related DLC (which you do), and all of the vanilla factions have been significantly updated and improved (or will be. Greenskins will be the last ones to receive the update, which will roll out in May), to the point where they play very differently from their warhammer 1 counterparts in terms of mechanics and campaign playstyle (each warhammer 1 race has an additional starting location now, Lord skill tree reworks, some new political systems and character options, more specialisations, more mechanics, etc etc).

Not to mention, this is all on a huge campaign map that includes the Old World (game 1) as well as the 4 new continents from Warhammer 2's grand campaign, which you would have access to since you'd own both games (you don't need to have warhammer 1 installed for this), so you actually never have to play warhammer 1 again since the Old World is basically untouched (besides some warhammer 2 factions sprinkled in a few settlements and some land additions) in addition to the surrounding continents

Slight graphical improvements in relation to textures and lighting which are nice to have

The races available are quite a bit deeper in terms of mechanics, which is why CA had to update the Old World factions to match.

A multitude of quality of life improvements andechanical tweaks/overhauls that are too many to list here

I personally think the Grand Campaign is better, because you have a goal that is a lot more engaging than just "expand and survive chaos." A shame it has been completely overshadowed by the huge campaign (called Mortal Empires).

You can conquer anywhere. Don't know if they added this to warhammer 1 prior to the switch, but you can conquer any settlement from any race, so as the greenskins you can occupy human settlements. As humans you can occupy dwarves and greenskin settlements, things like that, except expanded to all the available races in warhammer 1 and 2.

With just the 2 base games (I don't know what warhammer 1 DLC you have), you'll have access to a total of 9 races (fully unique to each other), 28 factions (some unique campaign and battle mechanics + different start location), and 31 Legendary Lords. With just that, there is more content in warhammer 2 than in any Total War game (with addition to their faction packs). When you include DLC, that's 15 races, 52 factions, and 53 Legendary Lords in total, which is over 1000 hours of content minimum (if your campaigns take 20 hours on average. Very Hard and above campaigns usually take 30-40 hours, practically doubling the minimum content), not including replayability.

So yes, it is very much worth it. If you liked warhammer 1, literally the only reason why you shouldn't buy warhammer 2 is if you somehow can't manage to find the 60USD to buy it

[Cron]

Originally posted by THEDOSSBOSS:

...

Thank you for that answer.

Regarding greenskins i was refering to lords indeed. In vanilla it can be orc warboss or goblin great shaman. And still i don't see a reason to go for goblin great shaman as a lord when the same set of The little Waaagh! magic can be obtained from hero.

[Andrewbh2003]

thats a mechanic btw

say theres 3 chariots in a unit

the unit has 4500 HP

that means that each individual chariot has 1500 HP

if a chariot unit has all models alive and 300 HP that means that each chariot has 100 HP

the HP bar above units is divided by the number of models in the unit

for example swordmasters of hoeth

75 models 6300 HP 6300 divided by 75 = 84 that means that each lil soldier in that unit has 84 HP

[Tricks]

Originally posted by Cron:

And still i don't see a reason to go for goblin great shaman as a lord when the same set of The little Waaagh! magic can be obtained from hero.

Caster lords can max their spells faster because they require fewer levels to max, but otherwise, yeah, there's no real advantage that I know of to recruiting caster lords if you have caster heroes available. Though I will add caster heroes to a caster lord's army to stack WoM buffs and more Arcane Conduit uses. I've never really been certain whether that's worth taking up a slot or not.