Is the game any good without the tactical battles

[jj.denver]

Hello, I've never liked tactical battles in total war since the first total war was launched. However I am interested in the strategic layer. Is this series any good to play without the tactical battles? Just using the strategic layer? Will the battles resolve somewhat realistically or are they always slanted one way or the other (i.e. always against you so it's really not possible to play, or always for you making it too easy to win the campaigns)? I'm not interested in multiplayer at all. Only single player campaigns.

I already own Warhammer 1 but haven't tried it with strategic-only yet (I tried with tactical battles and since I hate those I only made it to about the 3rd battle before quitting). So same question applies to Warhammer 1 also.

Thank you!

[an entire Roman legion]

That would be like buying a hotdog without the sausage

[madracc00n]

Not rly,it is fairly simple and ovepriced for no battles.Main thing of this game is big battles with up to 10k troops.

[Booba]

The strategy layer isn't all that different from Warhammer 1 in terms of mechanics, so you don't have to rely on us for your answer.

I don't think it would be very compelling gameplay myself. The strategy layer is more streamlined (dumbed down) compared to other games, and the various cheats the AI gets in autoresolve outcomes would make quite a few factions utterly unbearable to play, though I suppose, not necessarily impossible. Autoresolve outcomes vary wildly by faction and situation in general though, so it's not an inconceivable way to play.

Just bear in mind that Total Warhammer is "balanced" around the assumption that you're going to metagame and cheese the hell out of the moron-AI on both levels.

[an entire Roman legion]

Originally posted by Scuba Steve:

The strategy layer isn't all that different from Warhammer 1 in terms of mechanics, so you don't have to rely on us for your answer.

I don't think it would be very compelling gameplay myself. The strategy layer is more streamlined (dumbed down) compared to other games, and the various cheats the AI gets in autoresolve outcomes would make quite a few factions utterly unbearable to play, though I suppose, not necessarily impossible. Autoresolve outcomes vary wildly by faction and situation in general though, so it's not an inconceivable way to play.

Just bear in mind that Total Warhammer is "balanced" around the assumption that you're going to metagame and cheese the hell out of the moron-AI on both levels.

I think this is only true on legendary diff

[Razor Feather]

If you don't care for tactical battles, you really ought to just play another game. If your primary interest is in the story, I'd recommend just watching a lets play or something of the sort. The strategic layer of these games is quite simple, and most of the buildings and such are just to unlock different unit types for use in battle. Even if you *could* play the game autoresolving something, I feel like it is unlikely to be the best use of your time and money.

If you want a turn based strategy game with more story elements and less tacitcal emphasis, I'd suggest Endless Legend, which has a very rich atmoshpere, a lot of story dialogue, and simpler and much more ignorable tactical combat. As others have said, the strategic layer of Total War games is just a delivery mechanism for the tactical battles, and if you ignore those battles you are only really getting a fraciton of the game.

[EthanT]

You can AR your way through an entire campaign. Units are weighted for AR differently. For example with Lizardmen, Kroxigors and Fireleech Bola Terradons are god in Auto Resolve. I did a Lizard campaign where I autod every battle except the quest/ritual ones using nothing but lord + 19 Kroxigors. Its very possible for every faction to make a strong auto resolve focused army.

The issue is after that theres not much to do. Developing your settlements is kinda boring, diplomacy is awful in Warhammer TW, and the agents dont do as much as you think. Most of the game is the battles, unfortunately.

[Father Ribs]

Originally posted by Skritch:

If you want just the strategic part and still want to play Warhammer then I'd suggest checking out Gladius on Steam. It sounds more like what you're interested in, and it has mods as well.

A good game which I bet they're familiar with because they're in a Slitherine game group. There have been some very good 40K games (Battlesector and Mechanicus are very narrow-focused, but great B list games).

Unfortunately, on the WHFB front there aren't any decent games except this one. The only true turn-based Warhammer Fantasy game out there is that Age of Sheetmar game, which is about as good as most Warhammer shooters.

Thankfully, there are lots of turn-based fantasy strategy games that are not Warhammer though, some quite good.

[DerRitter]

If you don't like tactical battles, why the hell would you play Total War?

[Lain]

Originally posted by jj.denver:

Hello, I've never liked tactical battles in total war since the first total war was launched. However I am interested in the strategic layer. Is this series any good to play without the tactical battles? Just using the strategic layer? Will the battles resolve somewhat realistically or are they always slanted one way or the other (i.e. always against you so it's really not possible to play, or always for you making it too easy to win the campaigns)? I'm not interested in multiplayer at all. Only single player campaigns.

I already own Warhammer 1 but haven't tried it with strategic-only yet (I tried with tactical battles and since I hate those I only made it to about the 3rd battle before quitting). So same question applies to Warhammer 1 also.

Thank you!

you can do auto resolve only battles, with the exception of quest battles but i think there is a mod to allow that to also be AR'd
you'll 100% need an army that is filled with units that have a lot of AR weight, if you chuck just anything into your army and AR you'll get wonky results all over the place

and will most likely need to have easy/normal battle diff on.

id just recommend building ambush chance on every army as high as you can get so you can ambush every non siege battle, ambush ai... much like siege ai.. has no ai they are retar.ded pin cushions so you can mostly go about the battle however you please

[veracsthane]

Originally posted by Xaphnir:

If all you're going to do is auto-resolve every battle, I'd recommend against it.

this. anything above normal is cancer if you dont fight the battles yourself. save yourself the money. normal is hell of boring too as you get 100s of hours in.

[Ardariel]

It`s okay, i guess. Somewhat around GC3 imo. But i highly recommend to mod it though.

[[N63] chrisragnar]

I think autoresolve works poorly. I'm playing grimhammer mod so many that's the issue.
But my take is that autoresolve will favour you too hard when winning. Glass canon units will get hundreds of kills that would not happen in battle because they would get exhausted and take dmg. Enemy cavalry somehow does nothing even tho they will be a nuisance in played battle.
Meanwhile you can sometimes easy win alot of battles that are a loss in auto resolve.

So if you would win the autoresolve, you would probably get a much worse resault if you played it. And if it says you are going to lose the auto, you can probably win it. With much or little effort.

And finally, unless you can find a mod to fix it. The game on the campaign map is very boring and shallow. So I'd probably play something els if you hate the battles.

[veracsthane]

Originally posted by N63 chrisragnar:

I think autoresolve works poorly. I'm playing grimhammer mod so many that's the issue.
But my take is that autoresolve will favour you too hard when winning. Glass canon units will get hundreds of kills that would not happen in battle because they would get exhausted and take dmg. Enemy cavalry somehow does nothing even tho they will be a nuisance in played battle.
Meanwhile you can sometimes easy win alot of battles that are a loss in auto resolve.

So if you would win the autoresolve, you would probably get a much worse resault if you played it. And if it says you are going to lose the auto, you can probably win it. With much or little effort.

And finally, unless you can find a mod to fix it. The game on the campaign map is very boring and shallow. So I'd probably play something els if you hate the battles.

it does some units have better resolve then others and there are battles you can win easily that auto resolve with throw. cough cough city garrison battles vs most revolts.

reminder that monsters and horses cant climb walls and the gates are a hell of a good choke for monsters and Calvary=]

[Hans Meiser]

Oof, yes and no. In general yes, tactical battles are not necessary to play the game or enjoy the game, but at the same time, auto resolve tends to do really weird ♥♥♥♥ sometimes and also it kind of locks you out of at least the hardest difficulty, because the auto resolves there usually go poorly.

I'd say generally it'd be playable without the battles, but at the same time the battles are such a big part of this game, you'd probably be happier finding an alternative that concentrates more on the strategic turn based gameplay (like Civ, etc.)

[North Yorkshire Claret]

Sounds like it's simply not the game for you (which is fine). Lots of other strategy games without the real time battles you can check out though!

Try Civilization