Strategy games are dead, I s-swear!

>strategy games are dead, I s-swear!
lmao

Remember: Sup Forums is always wrong.

Sup Forums is full of consoletards

Total War is unique in the fact that they're pretty much the only series that fills its particular niche.
Only other game I can think of is Ultimate General: Civil War and that's made by Darth

how does rome 2 have more than attila?

People like the settings more even though it's an inferior game.

Grand Stretegy /= RTS
But even then, SC2 of all games still pulls in more than Rome 2.
RTSes have been disappointing, but not necessarily dying.

Many people bought Rome 2 due to the hype, however, Rome 2 being shit killed any hype for Attila, so very few people bought it, yet, those who bought Attila, tend to stick with their game of choice more. According to that pic, Rome 2 has player retention of approximately 0.3% while Attila has player retention around 0.5%, which supports my argument.

Overall, Attila is the far better game.

Do you have any actual concurrent player numbers for SC2? I want to see them.

Just guessing here:
>Some people don´t like the razing mechanic with abandoned territories
>Better mods
>No Hunnic free upkeep/respawning/attrition causing hordes
>Better building system(province specialization)

>gw killed off the old warhammer cause ppl didnt buy their overpriced minis
>total war warhammer based on the old warhammer comes out and now ppl wanna play tabletop
>nobody wants age of sigmar

pottery

R2 is more toaster friendly

No one ever accused GeeDubs of being smart, though they are improving.

For some reason I don't enjoy any TW games on the engine after medieval 2
I don't even quite know why

it sold over 60k in first week.
Strange when you remember him shitposting on /twg/

GW allowed TW:warhammer and other warham fantasy games solely because they already killed it in the tabletop.
They are idiots that are afraid about vidya stealing tabletop players

attila is annoying to play. every game it's the same thing. the huns rape the shit out of everything and turn the map into desolation

Age of Sigmar is Warhammer's "New Coke". TWW and Vermintide are the start of a new push designed to build interest from a new, younger demographic, and Age of Sigmar's undesirability is intentional and will build more and more demand from this new generation of tabletop players. In another two or three years Age of Sigmar will be canned, The End Times will be revealed to be a prophecy, and Warhammer Fantasy will return to record sales. Screencap this.

>people play WH when WH40k exists

Literally why? Do you fags use dial-up and light your houses with torches too?

Ok, just finished the Attila prologue campaign and that last battle was pretty hard.
I'm going to start my first ever grand campaign. My question is, should you always aim for the Divine Victory or are the lesser types of victories, including the Minor Victory, ok? What I mean is, would a Minor Victory be still be considered as "I won the game" or is it just some consolation prize?

>End times are a prophecy and Warhams comes back
Fuck I hope you're right.

According to their financial report, in first year of AoS they earned more than in last 5 years of WHFB.
I highly doubt they will ever revive fantasy

you should just focus on surviving first. if it's your first time you are going to get mercilessly butt fucked

They're just there to help you have a goal if you can't make one for yourself the way most people play these games. Especially since they tend to pigeon hole you into a fairly historic area of conquest, i.e if you decide to go invade Persia as the Visigoths for the novelty of it there is no way you will get the required territories to "win". If what you want is just the basic bitch victory movie you need to reach the military or cultural victory tiers.

Solution: pay off the Huns and then collonise the desolate areas.

Thank the Huns for your new empire, then destroy them.

Or if you have the Slavic DLC, obliterate them with just Garrison forces in defensive siege battles.

RTS, nay strategy games, will never die, only slumber.

>If what you want is just the basic bitch victory movie you need to reach the military or cultural victory tiers.
Ohhh, I didn't know that. So I don't even get an ending with the minor victory?

gotta love paying 200$ for a game

>strategy
>TW

it's a glorified tactics game with terrible economy management.

Total war isn't Grand Strategy you fucking absolute mongoloid

>you should just focus on surviving first. if it's your first time you are going to get mercilessly butt fucked
Ok. Sounds fun. I'll try to play safe.

That sums up most RTS.

And not thinking about vidya increasing the fanbase?

this.

There's still plenty of people playing real strategy games like Civ V & VI, Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings 2.

Total war is shit since after Empire.

A minor victory gets you the victory achievement, so it counts in my book.

I prefer Total War to these map painters though.

Alright, that's good to know. The other guy said I don't get an ending movie though. Seems pretty lame that CA differentiates it that way.

Carrot and stick.

>starcraft
dead
>dawn of war
dead
>warcraft
dead
>supreme commander
dead
>command and conquer
dead
>age of empires
dead

>strategy games are dead when LoL and Dota2 have millions of players
LOL

>real-time "strategy" games are dead
And nothing of value was lost. Real-time is real shit

delet

You mean nu-v. Sup Forums for years has been defending strategy games (real time, turned based, tactics, and grand) and has always yearned for the next great one. Assfaggot shit posters and kids who can't wrap their mind around enjoying turned based games are the only ones who denounce them. Sup Forumsis always right

eu4 is the way of the future

>typical Sup Forums drone
hurr I don't like X so X is shit

wow

three games

good job

three games over five years

not like three games are released for any other genre EVERY DAY or anything....

>waaah, im at bad at real video games and am scared of solo queue
>muh turn based

Is Call of the beast good?

Compare this garbage to the early TW games, and then compare it to older games like Age of Wonders.

The strategy genre is dead, and the only people able to enjoy the current unmotivated drivel they churn out are children who literally don't know any better.

>crusader kings 2
>map painter

lol

>26k vs 110k+
What went wrong, hunbros?

>There's still plenty of people playing real strategy games like Civ V & VI, Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings 2.

All of these are riding on the tailwind of the actual golden age of strategy games. They can be somewhat enjoyable, and does to a degree scratch the right itch, but they are still inferior games for (children).

Civ 3 is leap and bounds better than the newest iterations, and if you want graphixx then Endless Legend is a much more inspired game. There wont be another good civ game, just like there wont be another good age of '___' or total war game ever again.

Same thing with Hitman Absolution and the new Hitman

If a game is shit it's often the next one that takes the sales hit

But Total Warhammer is a good TW game.

>strategy
>Anvil and hammer for attack
>Defend the hill for defense

CA can't program for shit and made everything more simple, automatic and already done for you.

People who say that are usually talking RTS games.

Delayed reaction.

Rome 2 pissed off a lot of fans, so when Attila came out they thought it was just more of the same and didn't buy it, even though it was better than Rome 2 in every way.

>you will never have ck2 with a battle engine that triggers when you get to certain size engagements

Age of Wonders is much better at what Total Warhammer tries to do. Similar sort of fantasy setting where dwarves, orcs, goblins, elves, lizards etc fight for power, and your heroes get ridiculous spells. It feels more like Rome TW with the leader and city management.
Combat is turn based but has a lot of depth, also 10/10 sound effects. Pic related is a goblin suicide bomber blowing open a wall.

You are delusional and AoW is trash by definition since it's turn based. Micromanaging a shitload of units at the same time while keep an eye on formations and enemy army composition, trying to counter enemy units with your appropriate elevates TW games even above gook clickers like Starcraft, where cunt-eyed subhumans just spam blobs of meat and send it to the slaughter without even having to think about such things as positioning or formation.

>while keep an eye
*while keeping an eye

>with your appropriate
*with your appropriate ones

Lol.

>Micromanaging a shitload of units at the same time while keep an eye on formations and enemy army composition, trying to counter enemy units with your appropriate
This applies to AoW too you dunce. In other areas like city management, economy and soundtrack Warhammer can't measure up.

>gook clickers like Starcraft, where cunt-eyed subhumans just spam blobs of meat and send it to the slaughter without even having to think about such things as positioning or formation.
This is also just false, have you even watched the Broodwar tournament streams this spring?
Positioning and superior army composition wins games.

>This applies to AoW too
>turn-based trash
AHAHAHAHAHA, no. If you remove the time sensitivity element from strategy by turning it into a turn-based shitfest, it loses pretty much all of its strategic depth.

Even starcraft 2 has around 20k players in Europe atm.

Just because the game doesn't spoonfeed you a formations mechanic and you're too dumb to think about positioning in games that aren't glacial in pace doesn't mean that they're not important.

This is the dumbest opinion I've ever read.

>doesn't mean that they're not important
Of course they're not. There are no flanking or morale bonuses associated with retaining proper formation or positioning in gook clickers. TW games are entirely on a level of their own, high above any turn-based or generic RTS trash.

You are wrong, people would rather go 40k than AoS, the aesthetics are the same but 40k is far more interesting, WFB had the niche of attracting semi-historical/alt-history/classic fantasy fanbase.

Crusader Kings 2 is not even comparable to CIV 3 you fool.
I agree with the rest of your post, it fits, except for CK2.

But there is time sensitivity, the campaign throws a lot of different challenges at you. Some with timelimits that are pretty tight, others where you start out against a much stronger opponent and have to quickly knock out his armies to not get overwhelmed.

CK2 is the latest paradox game I sort of enjoy playing a little, I don't care much for Europa Universalis anymore, and especially not IV. HoI 2 and 3 were their last good games.

I'm looking forwards to playing as the Norsca tribes next month

You're not very good at abstract thinking are you. Yes the games usually don't have specific bonuses and buffs and debuffs for it. No that doesn't magically make positioning and formation irrelevant.

t. "i play civilization on settler"

>removing this thing that isn't strategy makes the game lose strategy