Soldiers are not cannon-fodder and background for le epic hero units, but fight like real soldiers and are expected to carry the battle, each unit having specific roles, either holding the line, assaulting or harassing the enemy, just like in real battles. In those, the generals have only a couple of powerful abilities, which can turn the tide of battle, but are not flashy attacks with lots of glitter on the screen, but rather abilities that must be used tactically. I think the closes comparison would be Third Age DAC for M2TW and maybe the LOTR mod for Attila as far as nu-total wars go. I think Warhammers sucks at handling fantasy battles. I don't really blame historicalfags too much, because they are forced to live in the past glories of TW while there is no hope for the future, but at the same kind they also really deserved this.Īnonymous 10/13/22(Thu)12:26:37 No. Shogun 2 had perfect mechanics in a lot of ways, with the only problems being Realm Divide and bad unit variety, and all of it was thrown away for Rome 2's garbage downgrades. On the other hand, it is also driven by cope to deal with the fact that all of the problems found in modern TW originated in Rome 2, but they blame it on Warhammer instead - which does have its own problems but none of them are as severe and crippling to the overall franchise as Rome 2. For example, instead of Napoleon 2 we instead get "Total War Sharpe" or something. In the present, CA flat out doesn't care and I wouldn't be surprised if they never release another historical title ever again, just more "well technically it's not fantasy, but it is based on a novel so it's not history either" titles like 3K. Historicalfags hated the torturous mental gymnastics to try to justify cyclopes being big guys with elephant skulls for helmets, and anyone who just wanted Total War: Age of Mythology was equally disappointed (although both sides kinda got what they wanted through DLC, by then the damage was done). The unfortunate side effect is that CA went full retard in a lot of ways - like Troy's 'truth from myth' idiocy where they tried to appeal to everyone but ended up appealing to absolutely no one. On one hand, there are MASSIVE historical autists like pic related that were infamous for whining about even the smallest inaccuracy and eventually CA decided to stop listening to them because they were beyond histrionic. If you can accept the above flaws or are interested in the new features I personally recommend starting with Warhammer 1 when it is on sale, and if you like it then move on to 2. This aspect can be very hard to swallow.īut, it has some cool mid-battle powers in the form of abilities and magic that are fun to play with, I personally love using exotic fantasy monsters for the same reasons I enjoy using elephants in historical, and there are some cool variants to existing Total War mechanics like religions (or corruption, in this case) that actually matter and a large amount of asymmetry between factions. Settlements below tier 3 are indefensible without a garrisoned army for no other reason than you'll be fighting not just a 19 stack but an OP general as well, and no hero of your own means you have no hope of defeating the enemy general. Whether or not you can accept this is the second hurdle, because it involves some VERY overpowered generals and heroes. However, there are other issues and in my opinion they're all issues that started with Rome 2 and its shit like "all armies must have one general". Whether or not you as a historical fan can accept this is the first hurdle. So you can view it as a big time travel brawl, with elves and orcs thrown in. But what it is is a bunch of fantasy factions inspired by historical doctrines, just all smashed together. The honest answer is "it depends on how you look at Warhammer".
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |