Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The author of this topic has marked a post as the answer to their question.
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
The battles are real-time, but pausable. You can also decrease or increase the speed during battles as needed. So again, no real rush. You can watch videos or try the skirmish/battle mode out to practice them before campaign if you want to.
For micromanagement; cavalry, chariots, and possibly some monstrous units can be micro intensive, especially if you have lots. But they aren't strictly necessary to win battles (at least up to Hard difficulty in my experience).
Its so insanely dumbed down....I mean streamlined, since previous TW's that at one point theres ♥♥♥♥ all to do on the campaign map
Yes the tax slider is gone and unit replenishment is automated. In every other way this game is more complicated than say, Medieval 2 Total War or Rome Total War. You got corruption mechanics, plagues, Beastmen and Chaos armies spawning out of nowhere, under cities, pirate coves, hordes, supply lines, fairly complicated skill trees, factions that are nothing alike each other, climate preferences, ruin explorations and resettlements, a faction that hides it's settlements within ruins, and even some shared mechanics from past games like loyalty are more complicated in this game and require actual engagement.
Medieval 2 and Rome 1 also has plagues. Corruption is functionally a reskin of the religion mechanic in those games. No auto replenishment means you still have "supply lines", they just work differently. Some factions did have climate preferences, it just manifested differently (combat bonus in deserts/woods/etc), Rome: Barbarian Invasion had hordes and some settlement shenanigans, at least Medieval 2 had loyalty and they both of course also had mechanics that this game doesn't like the Senate/Pope and population. (no, the little growth currency you spend to upgrade settlements doesn't count)
Am I saying they are inherently superior? No. I'm just mentioning that it's not as clear-cut as you're making it out to be.
How are the silly plagues in WH2 any less different than the devestating effect the plague in Medieval 2 has?
I've never had beastmen or Chaos armies spawning out of nowhere, so that issue seems to be on your end, but how is that different from the rebel armies in Medieval 2?
Undercities/Pirate coves aren't that interesting mechanics and generally not worth the investment due to the long cooldown and building price for reward
Hordes existed in Rome Total War with the added advantage that they could settle pretty much everywhere and when they lost their last city, but not general, they were given free units to re-settle somewhere else.
If you call WH2 skill trees "fairly complicated" you've obviously never played an old MMORPG. These "fairly complicated" skill trees are nothing but; Invest blue for lightning strike and upkeep reduction, yellow skills for unique traits and red skills for army. Oh my...Such complication -.-
Factions that are nothing alike each other is not something that is called complicated, it's called diversity. Which is far easier for a setting like Warhammer than a setting like Medieval Europe during the Crusades.
Climate preferences are nothing more than a religion/cultural mechanic with area of restriction, already available in Medieval 2
Supply lines, so complicated that CA played with removing them, had limited number of armies available to you in Rome 2 based on imperium and still is not entirely sure on how to properly implement such a system. I'd rather have the Medieval 2 system, where armies dont need a general in order to be recruited, atleast you wont get those threads again about how *gasp* 4 armies are coming at a person....Cuz those folks don't know the terror of 40 stacks of Mongols casually walking in your general direction.
Hows settlement resettlement any different than the Atilla thing? Or the Rome/Med 2 hordes razing a settlement instead of occupying them? The settlement never leaves the campaign map in either instance.
Oh sure, yes, Skaven so hard to find, oh wait...No they're not -.- They just work like any other faction, their settlement UI is just different from others, nothing major or complicated in that.
Loyalty in WH2 is not complicated lol and only a couple of factions use it. It doesn't require your faction leader to have outstanding authority, you can't lose armies willy nilly because those can't be without a general and basically, if you don't bother recruiting new armies you'll never suffer the brunt of the loyalty system because your faction leader gets all the levels and thus ensures auto-loyalty.
Med 2 loyalty system is more difficult to handle in that regard because your faction leader can and will die of old age leaving his rubbish son in charge with 0 authority at which point every dam captain will jump ship while half your generals elope with the nearest princess that flashes her legs at him.
So no, loyalty in this game is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ terrible compared to what it used to be. Heck, I could argue that even Rome 2's despicable political system has a better loyalty system than Warhammer 2.
Start with an easy faction and play easy to learn the basics and make things less consequential, such as the High Elves, and just dive in :)
The tutorials are very informative but there is alot, it takes a while to learn everything but you'll get there
The fact that they are spread by a specific faction?
Well they do spawn out of nowhere whether you've seen it or not.
You mean the rebel armies that just stand around on highways doing nothing until you get rid of them, not even raiding like rebel armies in this game do? This game even has another type of a comparable mechanic in rogue armies, except even that has more depth.
I like how somehow a game is considered streamlined when it literally builds on features of past games. Psssh, you think rebel armies that raid you, revive whole factions, and continue to get stronger until you get rid of them are complicated? Wait till you play the older games and see the true complexity of a rebel army that stands at a crossroads with bottom tier units doing absolutely nothing at all!
Amazing how the point that they add to the game's complexity went over your head. You DO have to worry about undercities under your settlements. There's even heroes and special buildings you can construct to find them. Whether or not you like the mechanic has nothing to do with if it adds to game complexity.
They didn't spawn out of nowhere though.
Is it more complicated than the almost linear skill trees of past Total War games? Obviously yes, which was my point. I never brought up MMORPGs because they are completely unrelated. You don't need to argue against literally everything I said just because you are angry. You can concede a point and move on.
No, almost by definition having factions that are nothing like each other makes the game more complicated as it adds layers of counterplay strategies that wouldn't exist if every faction was a carbon copy like in Shogun 2. Again you don't have to argue against literally everything I said if you don't have a proper response, you can just ignore it.
No it isn't. Religion has no similarities to the climate system of this game. Medieval 2 did not have a comparable feature. The closest thing Medieval 2 had was higher squalor for settlements farther from your capital.
Which system you prefer has nothing to do with which system is more complicated.
It isn't really all that different from Attila. Funnily enough Attila is also more complicated than past TW games. I'm reasonably sure that you didn't raze and resettle settlements in Med 2. Your options in that game were to occupy, loot, or exterminate a settlement, and the last option only killed off part of the population and the first option had a bugged relationship modifer on it.
No, their settlements are hidden until you find them.
Once again, I was talking about which game is more complex, not which is better. You want to argue about which game is better, find someone else as that conversation is boring.
The loyalty mechanic in this game is heavily built on compared to past games. Generals will lose loyalty over time if you don't do something to raise it. Raising their loyalty often is done with rites, winning battles, giving them stuff, or in the case of one faction you need to do specific tasks based on the general's trait. On top of that you get bonuses or penalties from loyalty level, rather than it simply telling you how close a general is to defecting. There's just overall more things to consider in regards to the loyalty mechanic.
Also Rome 2's political system is also more complicated than anything seen in past games, and yet that game gets accused of being heavily streamlined too.
Having a high amount of the wrong religion still caused severe negative effects in other regards. Explain how attrition (which the AI can basically ignore on high difficulties anyway in this game) somehow makes corruption so "now and different"
So?
They literally do raid. You take a "devastation" penalty to your income, based on the size of brigand armies, if you let them sit in your territory. If they sit on watchtowers they take away your vision from those. If they sit on trade routes they block them.
Honestly, the same could probably be said for your opinions on several of the older games' mechanics that aren't present in warhammer.
In what way is that an improvement or increase in complexity? I'm sorry but "hordes come by moving from an actual place" sounds both better and more complex than "hordes just randomly appear out of thin air lol"
Eh, the specific games you're arguing against (R1 and M2) had a completely different system of advancement though. Better or worse? Eh, different.
While true that this game's factions are by far the most varied (and one of my favourite things about it), it's not like every historical title is a bunch of carbon copy factions.
And several factions having many units with combat bonuses in a certain terrain type. Like I said in my previous post.
Is complexity on its own a desirable goal? Like, I just want to hear your stance on that.
Yes, "hidden". Usually not hard to know which ruins aren't actually ruins though.
I don't get how rome 2's political system could be seen as heavily streamlined though. That just sounds weird. It's probably that game's most obvious increase in complexity in any area compared to R1/M2.
So the effect of it is different...oooh complicated. Fairly sure you can mod such an effect in if you know the right triggers even though it makes no sense to get attrition because a region is a differenent religion than you. So the attrition mechanic doesn't even make any sense.
That said, the only reason attrition from corruption is acceptable in Warhammer 2 is because of the auto-replenishment. Without the auto-replenishment (which is available to generals in Medieval 2) attrition would be too overpowered.
Except it's not. It's true that only Skaven can cause a plague and gain advantage from it, but once you contract plague either in a settlement or army, you too can spread it to wherever you want.
The only way a chaos army can spawn outside of the Rituals and the Chaos invasion is through decline of public order and having a high chaos corruption. As for beastmen, they may spawn once or twice after being wiped out but thats it.
As for rebel armies doing "nothing" in Medieval 2. That's not true. When they're on roads they lower trade and they cause devestation, both things that lower the income of the region. Rogue armies do not have more depth in them because they do exactly the same as the Med 2 rebels, just having a fancy name and more elite troops is all. They both cause income penalties and can take regions away from the player/AI.
Neither do the horde nations in Warhammer. Beastmen have a fixed spawn location, so does Nakai, the Vcoast and the Chaos invasions.
Just cuz there is more choice, doesn't mean that they're more complicated. Rome 2's skill tree is far more complicated than Warhammer 2's skill tree simply because Rome 2's skill tree is all over the place which WH2's isn't.
Ok, so basiscally, you need to learn the difference between Diversity and complicated because just cuz a faction hasn't got unit X in shape Y like faction A doesn't mean it's "complicated" to deal with it. All factions still adhere to the same unit structure as the "plain carbon copies" of Shogun 2.
I'm not talking about the religion feature but the culture used in Britannia campaign and the feature of Area of Recruitment which can be used for both units and buildings which can be made so that a unit does not recruit outside of mountains or only on coastal. Which may not have the same mechanics as the climate system, it can certainly be build into Medieval 2 with ease.
And how is adding a % of upkeep per army so complicated exactly? I know of Medieval 2 scripts that increase the cost of an army by a flat amount for every turn that army is in enemy territory, incrementally increasing itself based on the number of turns that army is in enemy territory. The latter one sounds a lot more "complicated" than adding % of upkeep.
When you play as a horde nation you could raze a settlement, thus burning down majority of buildings and leaving it to the rebels. Regardless of how the implementation is done, settlements once razed in both Atilla and Warhammer still remain on the campaign map to be resettled. The only difference is that in Atilla/Warhammer you have to build the settlement up from scratch while resettling it and in Medieval 2 you needed to retake it from rebels.
They're not. As I said, settlements are not removed from the campaign map just because they've been razed to the ground and all you need to do in order to find a skaven settlement is look for the Skaven corruption. It's very easy to tell where Skaven are regardless of their UI difference.
You can go on and call Warhammer 2 a "complex" game but it really isn't. It's a BIG game with a lot features and mechanics into it but that does not make it a complex game by default. All the features and mechanics you called complex exist in one way or another in previous Total War games and in several instances the better mechanic is in the older TW game.
Mechanics I am very glad did not make it into this game:
Family Trees, Internal Politics (mostly), Imperium, Governors, Squalor, Sanitation, Climate Change, Fertility, minor settlement sieges and naval combat....
Religeon and Corruption balance each other....
Mechanics I would have liked in this game:
Upgrading of troops, branching building trees, variable taxes and army skill trees.
It's another mechanic to consider when dealing with a certain faction.
Their impacts are overall minor particurlarly in comparison to comparable rebel armies in this game.
Not really. I never tried to derail this topic into subjective value statements about whether the older games were better or not.
A horde appearing out of nowhere that increases chaos corruption in your region and slowly builds it's numbers until it starts razing settlements is another mechanic to consider and therefore an increase in complexity.
I never made a statement as to which is better... It's more complicated. That was my point. I've always been talking about which is more complicated because that relates to the OP. I don't know why you guys feel the need to try to derail this into which is better.
Yes, Shogun 2 was an outlier in it's lack of diversity. But my point was that the increased diversity in this game greatly increased it's complexity, especially when we consider that it also has great diversity in overall campaign mechanics rather than just unit variety.
Which has nothing to do with the climate system and applies only in the battle screen... Also units get terrain bonuses in this game too so why even bring that up?
It's relevant to the topic hence why I'm trying to resist every attempt to derail this into "IS WARHAMMER AS GOOD AS MEDIEVAL 2 WHY OR WHY NOT!!!"
It can be. I think most of us have run into a situation where we tried to colonize ruins only to find Skaven beat us to the punch.
Well Rome 2 as a whole was more complicated, especially compared to Shogun 2 which just came before it. People like to act like the original Rome and Medieval 2 were the high point of complexity in the series when most of their mechanics were built upon and expanded in later games.
I'm just trying to have a discussion about the games. Frankly, *you* shouting about "DERAILING!!!" every time that discussion even slightly nudges out of the specific thing you want to talk about feels like just as much derailing.