Should I get this Sup Forums? I've been intrigued since it's launch...

Should I get this Sup Forums? I've been intrigued since it's launch. I'm not very familiar with warhammer but I am a fan of strategic games in general, so is it a good strategy game?

its cool

It's a great warhammer game, but a mediocre total war. I got an addicting 110 hours of campaign out of it. At that point, I had won with all the factions there are right now and I didnt wanna repeat one. CA will bring out more factions in DLC but thats pricy as f***.
Your choice user.

It's ironic how people who spent literally thousands on shitty tabletop models are whining about 20$ for a DLC

I paid 14$

>Orcs
>They fight in battalions and formations.
There is something not right making a earhammer game with the total war engine

Are you trying to say that in the tabletop game orcs where completely disorganized and only had single units randomly charge at enemies instead of fighting as a group?

I enjoyed it but I won't play it as much as I did Shogun 2. The game is too restricted because you can't take over even half the map.
Plus AI armies move as far as yours in combat stance and it sucks being unable to catch some cunt in your home territory running about.

Great game but meh in the Total War lineup for me

>battalions and formations
Not really, more loosely grouped together actually.
That's not to say that the Greenskins dont actually fight in big groups

Fantastic game, one the best Warhammer games you can get, but probably not the best Total War (Fairly shallow compared to other total wars).
All the factions and units are great, the visuals and animations are the best they have ever been, and the variety is great too.
In terms of Strategy, yes, its good, but there are some known cheesy strategies such as general sniping and vampire regeneration abuse (patches have come out iirc).

>The game is too restricted because you can't take over even half the map.
>Plus AI armies move as far as yours in combat stance and it sucks being unable to catch some cunt in your home territory running about.
You know there were literally day 1 mods that fixed those things? You know this is a game from a serious that heavily relies on mods for over a decade to fix the games?

Does this do anything differently or is it still just Rome:TW but less interesting like all the other games?

I mean, I like them, but after basically playing the same game over and over and over again I'm getting a bit bored of the format.

And I did eventually get the home territory movement mod on my second play through.

I did like the armour piercing mechanic for heavy units, it added a layer of strategy to the game.

Nevertheless I don't really care for the Warhammer setting so I'll look forward to the next historical themed Total War.

...

>Does this do anything differently
Just by looking at OP's pic you should be able to tell that
>is it still just Rome:TW
Its the same Total War formula, but adds in tonnes of new elements and refines older ones
>I mean, I like them, but after basically playing the same game over and over and over again I'm getting a bit bored of the format.
>It is different yes, but if you're sick of Total War, dont bother, since it is 'Total War'.
You sort of answered your own question

Sieges are so much better in this game, the only thing i will miss from older Total Wars is the ability to set traps when defending

>Just by looking at OP's pic you should be able to tell that

Well, looking at that it looks like Total War with some big units thrown in there.

>Its the same Total War formula, but adds in tonnes of new elements and refines older ones
So it's still the same old pointlessly simple grand strat map?
Did they add a story mode or something?

Anything to give me a reason to play it apart from changes and some small things added here and there?

>You sort of answered your own question
Guess I did.

I don't mind the Heroes, though in later game they can waltz right in and fuck up 3 units.
I think I prefer the Generals with their bodyguard units.
I played 3 full play throughs but I hardly used Agents. Just didn't care for them.

This. I love WH, but still liked previous TWs more. I really miss that bit of depth from those little, seemingly insignificant mechanics. That shit adds up, I don't have much fun in TW:W on the campaign map, building cities up is meh.

I actually prefer the agents system, give more life to them and makes them stand out more.

I think sieges are the worst in this game, and overall the worst aspect of the game.
It doesn't even feel like a siege, it's more like attack a small part of a wall and then rush straight in. Assaulting Empire province capitals and Dwarf Karaks (which are supposed to be extremely well defended nearly unconquerable forts) feels like assaulting regular small towns or villages in Rome and Medieval 2.

Don't. Its a bad game, a bad TW game and at best a mediocre Warhammer game. Buy other TW titles instead, way more fun.

>There is something not right making a earhammer game with the total war engine

Did they fix the combat in this one or is it still that awkward one they have had since Empire where everyone just sort of phases into each other and play shitty pre-made animations and has no weight of oomph to it?

It's even worse in this one. Charges look just ridiciulous as hell. This game plays itself so awkward its a large cringe fest for everyone, TW fans and WH fans alike.

>implying actual Warhammer Orcs just fucking charge as a blob

There are separate kinds of fighters in an Orc Army. And in game, all those capable of melee will generally charge together.


Same way with the Vampire Shitters, they have different units which, while separated, will often resemble a descending horde when attacking.

>its even worse in this one
You're completely wrong actually, ever played Rome 2?
>Charges look ridiciulous as hell
In what way?
Charges are the best they have ever been, give me another total war with better charges
>This game plays itself so awkward its a large cringe fest for everyone
Epic memes, adding in the cringe part solidifies your retarded argument, there is nothing 'awkward' about it, i think you might just be autistic.

I really want to like it but it's so shallow compared to other TW games and the multiplayer is a disaster because of the awful balance.

>its a bad game
How?
>a bad TW game
No.
>a mediocre Warhammer game
Are you retarded?
Name a better Warhammer game

>Awful balance
CA have already patched cheesy strats, but other then that how is it unbalanced?

Defending this mediocre game is still real lads. They will also defend the price of dlc, and CW being dlc

They got rid of the matched animations finally, the stupid unit magnet shit that went on in Rome 2 and Attila to a lesser extent is over with.

You can't zoom in and see the funny animations anymore except with certain moster units though.

>Epic memes
The actual meme is that games before Empire, on the older engine, weren't clunky or bugged as hell and units didn't act like useless retards half the time. That meme is usually spread by people who never actually went back and replayed vanilla versions of those games.

>wanting to get a video game

Where do you think you are?

How about you come back with a real arguement instead of just pawning something of as 'mediocre'?
Fuck off

It's excellent. I know nothing about Warhammer, but Good lord has this game sucked me in. Each faction is extremely distinct and will each offer very different play styles. Sort of different to most previous Total Wars where a lot of them feel the same. Unfortunately there is a very real menace of endless waves of DLC because they did leave quite a lot out of the game from what I've gathered skimming through the lore.

I'd probably just wait until the next big sale. Total War games are generally treated quite generously in the sales. If you can wait until Christmas, you'll be able to get it and Beastmen for 60% off most likely. Maybe some other DLC too, and by then Bretonnia will be out.

No they haven't.

Hero sniping still dominates multiplayer, each faction still only has 4 or 5 viable units and multiple factions (see: Chaos and Dwarves) are still hot garbage in multiplayer. This is the most poorly balanced TW they've ever released.

Can't be worse than Shogun 2
>fist time ever playing a Total War game multiplayer
>oh boy, I'm so excited
>his entire army is made up of 1800-century units
>can take down one of my squads in one volley

I mean, he was really shit and I almost beat him since I could cheese him with my arrows and horses, but having like half your army rout before you could even get close to him felt a bit annoying.

Fuck DLC man.

What are you talking about?

Shogun 2, aside from a few brief periods, was quite well balanced.

I have yet to play a better Warhammer fantasy game.
It holds up okay as a Total War game, the only difference is it has a much greater focus on being at actual total war for longer periods of time.

Battles are a lot of fun, some of the most fun I've had in TW.

Sieges are cool, but I do dislike that they're only for certain places.

The units are cool.
The races are cool, and as always you only buy DLC for races you want to play.
Modular DLC for large amounts of content is great.

Same as the Paradox jews-if you play their games without interacting with large chunks of the content (which is entirely viable) you don't have to pay for that content.

I don't think you like video games, user.

No formations, no balancing, no diversity of npc factions, battles are over in seconds, diplomacy is a fraud, etc.
But no matter what I say you will still say its a good game and defend it and I will say its still, well, mediocre.

>Hero sniping still dominates multiplayer
No it doesn't, stop being a retard and trying to 1v1 everything with your general
>each faction still only has 4 or 5 viable units
Thats bullshit, almost every unit is viable execpt for maybe black coach, thats shit
>multiple factions (see: Chaos and Dwarves) are still hot garbage in multiplayer
Not true at all, your probably just shit with them
>This is the most poorly balanced TW they've ever released.
How many Total War games have you played?

I wasn't being overly serious user. I mean I wouldn't even know what constitutes good or bad balance since I'm never really played them online. Just that it's silly that you can face a modern army against your shittier normal one since, "what are you a poorfag, buy the DLC faggot".

At least add a "play only against X units" button or something.

>Modular DLC
Not that user, but how does this work exactly?

Sieges were probably the worst part of this game. They have the same problem Attila had where the towers are basically death defined. They're worse in this because they're also appallingly strong and take ages to destroy. There's a mod, but apparently it clashes with the Radious mod.

good because anyone who knows anything about total war wouldnt be using radious

>no formations
Formations where stupid and broke the game, the only reason they where there was for history-fags like you
>no balancing
False.
>no diversity of npc factions
Its better then have 20 of the same faction with slightly different units
>Battles are over in seconds
I can agree to this, but having long drawn out boring battles isn't any better
>Diplomacy is a fraud
What?

>No it doesn't, stop being a retard and trying to 1v1 everything with your general

So here's how it's going down in tournaments, since apparently I'm in the know and you aren't. Top players have taken to hiding their generals across the map and avoiding taking them with their armies because, if they don't, their general will be soul leeched to death in 5 seconds flat and they'll lose the game outright.

>Thats bullshit, almost every unit is viable execpt for maybe black coach, thats shit

Basically every monstrous unit is still useless garbage with the exception of crypt horrors, which are way overperforming. Most of the cavalry in the game is pure shit except for Demis and Blood Knights.

>Not true at all, your probably just shit with them

They aren't used in competitive for a reason. Hint: it's because they're shit.

>How many Total War games have you played?

All of them.

>Just that it's silly that you can face a modern army against your shittier normal one since, "what are you a poorfag, buy the DLC faggot".

You were playing FotS instead of vanilla. You aren't actually supposed to run vanilla vs FotS.

>not wanting lots of fun new units
It's like you don't like fun? Why don't you like fun, user?

You do realise soul leach was nerfed right?
As well as the leadership penalty of your hero dieing

No. I didn't own any DLC at that point apart from one or two base game DLC like the Hattori clan or whatever.

Played Hero or whatever it was called mode so maybe it had something to do with that.

>No formations
You just can't put units in a loose formation, that's it
>no balancing
I missed the memo where Total War is supposed to be about competitive e-sports faggotry and not map painting and large battles
>no diversity of npc factions
Most other Total War games have no diversity at all, let alone among npc factions
>battles are over in seconds
Literally the only Total War where average non-siege battles aren't over quickly is Napoleon with one of the "realistic" mods like LME or NTW, and that's only because of terrible musket accuracy and units breaking, running and reforming all the time
>diplomacy is a fraud
diplomacy isn't any different compared to other Total Wars, and it's still better than it was in Rome or Medieval where it barely even worked

>But no matter what I say you will still say its a good game and defend it and I will say its still, well, mediocre.
I still don't see you post any actual arguments why it's worse compared to other Total Wars, you're just parroting what you heard other people since you were probably no more than 7 years old when Rome 1 came out.

Here's a hint, start talking about how you can't move armies without generals on the map, or how buildings in towns work, or how you can't build proper garrisons in tows, or the shitty sieges if you want to actually talk about the game's bad sides compared to other Total Wars, not fucking diplomacy and balance.

You still aren't required to play Vanilla vs FotS in avatar mode. There's an option for it.

So what needs to be fixed to make Warhammer a better game in tournaments?

Wasn't when I played. I looked a lot for that button at least. Even googled it and shit.

Nothing. Play a better game if you want tournaments.

It's like fags playing Smash or CoD competitively. What is the point?

Nothing, e-sports cancerous faggots just need to find a different game and fuck off.

The battles are the most fun I've played since Med2, but playing it multiplayer is a chore and a half.

Everyone plays the exact same shit, and the hero sniping is more annoying than shock cav spam in attila.

>every montrous unit is useless garbage
>what is Dragon ogre shaggoth's
>what is Varghulf's
>what is Arachnarok's
Are you telling me these are completely useless?

>Radious mod

Didn't they fix it though?
I thought they reduced the leadership penalty and made soul leech less potent?

>Are you telling me these are completely useless?

Yes. None of those units even approach cost effectiveness against an intelligent opponent.

There are 20 ways to snipe a hero and soul leech is still potent. Multiplayer usually devolves into games of hide and seek where you run your general away from your opponent's heroes all game and vice-versa.

Can you elaborate?
I thought Monstrous units where meant to tear up the front lines?

We wuz sigmar's priests and shiet

2 units of shittiest shooters will fuck up monsters in like 10 seconds, spearmen/any unit with an anti-large bonus will rape them super-cost effectively

>wanting black orc arrer boys
>wanting slayers wielding pikes
>Wanting dwarf cavalry
Fuckoff you cancerous piece of pig shit.

There are too many units with AP damage and bonus vs large. If you simply throw Empire spears against monsters, you will lose a shit ton of men, but you'll still come out on top for cost effectiveness by a huge margin because spears are so cheap. Add in the fact that trolls get staggered to death by missile units, and they rarely get to be cost effective.

>charging monsters into head-first into spears
Why would you do this?
Also, couldn't you just flank the skirmishers with some cavalry or fast moving infantry?

its not 20 dollars though its 14 with that minus 10 percent preorder discount on steam

Huh, couldn't you just use them better, like avoid those sort of situations by flanking with them or even just holding them back for a second while your main line charges in?

>Also, couldn't you just flank the skirmishers with some cavalry or fast moving infantry?

What cavalry? 90% of the cavalry in TW:WH is terrible. Skirmish cavalry is particularly useless.

You're thinking from this weird perspective that assumes your opponent will just let you do anything you want
The spears will join the combat and rape you whatever you choose to charge. Archers will fuck your monster up before your cavalrly will get there, and then again, the opponent must be brain dead to just let you waltz in and comfortably wipe his ranged units
Also forgot to mention single target spells like spirit leech, they demolish monsters too.
Monsters could cost half the points they do now and they still wouldn't be that great.

It might also be added that, as a general rule, small numbers of elite units have always tended to be sub-par in TW games because of how flanking mechanics work. Hence, why nobody used hero units in Shogun 2, for instance.

>not wanting fun
>wanting mundane unit choices

if you don't buy a faction pack, you can play against them in your campaign or ally with them or whatever. Just can't play as them.

Arguably the best TW game.

Has some glaring balance issues though. Spells and siege not scaling to Ultra unit size, Armor being too fucking god like, half the units of a faction are usually dog shit and not worth building. Half of which usually applies to all TW games though

>giving a shit about the abortion that is AoS

I was pretty sure I was going to buy Beastmen, but I'm not convinced any more. Unit variety seems like shit, and I don't like horde mechanics, so even if I got them for free I'm not sure I could force myself to go through the campaign with them.

Basically, content is put in the game but you don't have to play it.
When Beastmen comes out, for example, you can fight them and see all their units in battle same as always if you play as a faction you have bought/one which came with the game.
You just can't play as Beastmen or do any campaigns specific to them.

In Paradox games, CSK2 for example, you have packs for cultures, religions, portrait packs, everything. But if you play all your games in Britainnia/Viking lands/France you don't have to buy any DLC relating to the more Eastern cultures or whatever.

You buy what you play.

>Unit variety
Development on that army doesn't stop just because it's release. Read CA's FreeLC plan. It'll make more sense

>Horde Mechanics
You've got a tightness-style bonus to successive victories and you recruit from a stance, it's not actually that hard to figure out compared to earlier titles

It's a different thing. Tabletop models are actual physical things that you assemble, paint and play as you feel like it.

Has Sup Forums figured out that you can't just change the colour of somebody's pants to make a new faction and this DLC is a mini-campaign too?

It's fun as fuck, and a surprisingly well optimized TW game.

My GOTY thus far.

no

who /gelt/ here?