>Supposedly under development>Type of warfare that hasn`t been tried in TW format.>Ranged and melee still suck and are broken>Units get stuck on everything and charges break down.>Dumbed down campaings compared to historical total war which is already dumbed compared to any 4x>Battles are dumbed down with SE stacking>Will have to compete with DOW IV>Last DLC for their cash cow was a 12 months agoDoes CA want SEGA to boot them out?
>citation needed
>>2173791TW:40k is on a new engine designed to handle more modern warfare. They will then use it to make similar games like WW2Medieval 3 is the last game on a TW Engine 3, just like Med2 was the last game on a TW Engine 2 and Med1 was the last game on a TW Engine 1
>>2174142Well I do hope that what is sucking up all resources at CA is the new engine that will let them go beyond line warfare, but what I expect is total warhammer ogres are now space marines edition.
>>2173791They're not making it. They rather milk what they currently have and will not change their engine. The only new games they have released have just been saga titles like Pharoah. They can only do this because customers allow it.
>>2173791>Will have to compete with DOW IVDifferent intended audiences, and even then DOW would be in worse position than tww 40k
>>2174160Valrak leaks sound extremely reliable. Especially since he again confirmed TW:40K in this same video where he correctly claimed that DoWIV will be made by Iron Harvest devs instead of RelicAnd CA clearly wrote off TWW3 already, which is all they have. It's maintained by an inexperienced skeleton crew now. Current reveals even make it seem that weird Chinese leak was right about everything and that means they even scrapped previously planned TWW3 dlcs
>>2174173>And CA clearly wrote off TWW3 already, which is all they have. It's maintained by an inexperienced skeleton crew now. Current reveals even make it seem that weird Chinese leak was right about everything and that means they even scrapped previously planned TWW3 dlcsI wish they put the effort in to cap off the series and do something cool with end times and shit, leave a definitive version of the game as they move to other projects, but no. Instead they set the game sputter out squeezing the last bits of profitability and leave it shit forever.I really hope they are working on all new engine to support more modern warfare and it's not going to be just the same shit, because it's just not justifiable what took so much effort otherwise.
>>2174173CA can`t stop chasing trends in the end, now it is the 40k trend with no regards to how they left their older titles (historical or not).>inb4 ToT trailerYeah nothing was revealed that we didn`t know, Bulgaria team would have to fix the myriad of crap that the OG did
I totally believe that CA will attempt to make a 40k game. I just don't think they are capable of making it any good.
>>2174184>End Timesis retconned nuHammer dogshit. Storm of Chaos is the true timeline.
>>2174184I just want a 1500s/early 1600s pike-and-shot game.>uhrm I want clipazine gun soulless modern faggotryNope. Even Napoleonic was pushing it, Total War has never handled gunpowder well.
>>2174334>I just want a 1500s/early 1600s pike-and-shot game.30 years total warThat's the one I wish for. I do think the period needs to get something finally.>>uhrm I want clipazine gun soulless modern faggotry>Nope. Even Napoleonic was pushing it, Total War has never handled gunpowder well.It's not something I'd want personally, but I'm saying that them working on it is the only justification why it's taking so long for the next mainline game. If they just squeeze space marines into total warhammer engine I'm going to flip out.
They hate money if they don't do TW:WH40K. No interest in playing TW, though. We need new innovative stuff, not the same game that has been released 20 times already.
>>2174344I mean, I hear they are doing a Shogun 2 mod called Rise of Empires because the actual Total War: Empire/TW: Napoleon sucked so badly and Europe was made the size of a city block. Still not the period, but kind of nice. Battles in the 10s of thousands, supposedly, and will need a good rig/computer
>>2174344I'm still of the mind that it's better to save 30 years for a dlc campaign. Going earlier is just a net positive because you get more unit variety, a more interesting and dynamic political/religious experience and less bloat on the campaign map with the Ottomans. 30 years and the religious/political landscape is already pretty much baked in with some wiggle room for protestants and catholic within the German states. But if you go 1510 or so then you literally get the reformation and Luther causing an immediate endgame crisis just 20-40 turns in with the rapid transformations of going protestant or staying catholic. The prospect of France going protestant in the 17th century is almost nonexistence, yet the chance of France going Huguenot in the 16th is very high. Go 1500s as a start and you get a litany of major figures: Henry the 8th (or Elizabeth if you shift later), Ivan the terrible if you shift later, Suleiman the Magnificient, Shah Ismail, Francis I, Charles the 5th of Spain, Cortez and Pizarro, Montezuma, Babur, Martin Luther, Alberquerque, Sengoku Jidai.You also get that FOTS charm of a big change between start and finish. 30 years war and nothing really changes, at best you extend it to the end of the 1600s and you get socket bayonets and no more pikes. But why not just do 1500s-1600s and have it go from M2 endgame units to empireTW starting game units.
>>2174142>Medieval 3 is the last game on a TW Engine 3, just like Med2 was the last game on a TW Engine 2 and Med1 was the last game on a TW Engine 1I love when brainlets make up little rules in their heads like this.
>>2174334It handles gunpowder great
>>2174344>>2174428>30 years warI'm willing to bet that we'll never get more than the M2TW mod.
>>2174428Those are all good points why extending the timeline and scope would be good and why that would make for a better sandbox game. I was thinking smaller timeframe because CA seems to like the idea of custom leader "legendary lords" or whatever you'd call them strongly tied to the faction they are leading and that only works if they are alive since the start date for long enough for it to make sense.
>>2173791Dockable areas my friends!!! let's GOGOGOGO!!!The new Total War: 40000™ will feature the most amount of doackable areas in any Total War™, now units can dock trees, rocks, grass, buildings, roads. This feature will provide you, the player, new methods of playing the Total War™ series, new exciting possibilities that any hardcore strategy fan will love to see.
>>2174428I always found it retarded whenever people ask for a Total War game set in a very specific conflict where the early and late game are exactly the same. You're just asking for a low effort Saga game.Why ask for the Thirty Years War when you can have everything from the 15th up to the 17th century?Why ask for the Bronze Age Collapse when you can have all of pre-classical antiquity?Why ask for the Hundred Years War when you can just have Medieval 3?>>2174948>CA seems to like the idea of custom leader "legendary lords" or whatever you'd call themLiterally only CA likes that idea. People don't want to play as some guy, they want the whole faction. Three Kingdoms is the only one which got their concept kind of right where you start the game playing as some guy but your faction changes into a proper kingdom (name included) as you make progress.
>>2174142>40k>modern warfare.
>>2174344>>2174428I personally think there should be a three game strategy just like Warhammer, each focused on a different set of eras.Like the first game would be high medieval, 1300-1400. Second game is Renaissance, 1400-1500. And the third game is early modern, 1500-1600.And once you're done with that cycle, you can play a game that runs the full time span, 1300 to 1600.
>>2174684'gun lines' shoot through each other and reloading is now a gamified attack cooldown that continues even if the model is moving
>>2175926I think it's people having a more narrow understanding of the period. I originally wasn't a fan of pike and shot but in speculative autism I went and dug around for the period and realized how it's actually a fantastic choice and how that decade around 1507-1517 or so really can change various options in terms of lords or politics - later and you lose mamluks and Ottomans become a blob, earlier and you lose out on the major personalities to start the scene with, ect.With the LLs it's the trend of game developers wanting to donut steel OCify shit. You see it all over from hero shooters to Xcom and now Menace making it more about pre-packaged characters. >>2176400It can def work, though you run into a question of the map. I'm too tired to get into it but I do hope whatever approach they do they keep the immortal/mrortal empires angle. It's a nice way of synergizing content together.
>>2176331More modern, as in post formation warfare.
>>2176507so, literally warhammer: total war
>>2173791that's a yikes! from me
>>2175926>I always found it retarded whenever people ask for a Total War game set in a very specific conflict where the early and late game are exactly the same. You're just asking for a low effort Saga game.considering they are incapable of making anything remotely good i think it's very sensible to temper your expectations and ask for a simple game they might be able to not totally fuck upempire was a disaster because they bit off more than they could chew so they scaled back and napoleon ended up pretty good with functional mechanicsif we had a working 30 years war game it could then be expanded into something broaded around the periodas it stands we have woefully unsatisfying floatly blobs drifting around with no coherency or feeling
>>2173791I seriously don't want this to happen.40K post 7th edition became a cesspit of puss and AIDS.Not to mention that if people want a 40K TW, then they don't want something that would emulate the mainline tabletop.Only stuff like Apocalypse or it's spiritual predecessor Epic Warhammer 40K.
>>2176821The fans often do not know what is best, as much as CA had clearly fucked up with hyenack and so on. I am biased in that I go "They don't know what they want/need, but I do", but it's because there's no thought process put behind it.I am 100% certain people who bitched about Pharaoh also were the ones who were crowing about how cool and epic a total war of the bronze age would be and who had never considered - as I did - the practical questions of lack of material for elamites or cavalry or how you'd make various Egyptians different.To be brutally honest you're facing the pharaoh situation with a narrow focus on 30 years war. It is a very VERY narrow focus in time and space, it lacks the sheer variety of factions and units that a broader scope or earlier time would allow, you have to ask how you'd distinguish between the factions and make it so each campaign was a new experience and not the same german territory razed over and over. You are functionally wanting an early empire total war standalone release of just Central and Northern Europe and expecting it to go over well. It's Thrones and Pharaoh all over again. I can guarantee you that many people, myself included, would sit it out and wait for it to expand (which then means it might not expand because it failed). Same as if Medieval 3 were the British Isles to Spain, Portugal to Italy. Go big then narrow, don't narrow then go big. Warhammer if applied as a model would not be 30 years war, it would be "Western Eurasia to the Urals and Iraq" rather than "We'll start with just Central Europe". Empire's failure didn't have to do with the scope outside of half-baked Mughals or one province France. Issues were more fundamental relating to battlefield mechanics (fire drill being wonky for one). They didn't spread themselves thin.
>>2176930>cavalryI recommend reading Jorrit Kelder's paper on Bronze Age cavalry. He raises some pretty good points.I agree with the rest of your post, though.
>>2176958Lemme go read it since unless we get M3 and it's in a few months I'm going to continue my autism in Pharaoh. Oh he wrote the Mycenaean one. He didn't smoking gun convince me but I am still sympathetic to the point of view. I did a deep dive into the topic and my own layperson observations are:>"Horses weren't big enough"Absolute 100% horseshit - I mean yes they were small, but they could carry a man into combat. Because we have depictions of that back to 1200s or 1300s or so with Egypt. And the early cavalry weren't giga armored but were unarmored or only lightly equipped. >"Bronze snaffle bits changed it to where you could better control the horse"Robert Drews Early Riders book. This is right now the best argument I've come across because it's not a civilization style "overnight switch' but rather a facilitation. The jist being as you see here, with an earlier bit (hee hee) being that the organic wood/bone ones could not be made in such a way that the horse wouldn't be able to tongue it to a spot it could ignore it. I'd just have to check the chronology, but even if it predates the arrival of cavalry that's as simple as he argues that it still required the sense of training (Which Urartu had a good reputation for). One complaint I have with literature I saw is people going "The first proper cavalry appear in the mid 9th century" - they cite the Shalmaneser column with it, but it shows not just Assyrian cavalry in bitchmode duos but them fighting enemy cavalry who are skilled enough to parthian shot. Suggesting they had been practicing cavalry shit for at least 50 years let's say, more like 100. And I came across 10th century Iranian plateau depictions of cavalry bowmen.
>>2176856This.It would be based if it was set in pre-Gathering Storm lore or even 30K but we all know it's going to be Primaris.
>>2176975The tl;dr I wasn't clear on is that bronze snaffle bit = you can control the horse = you are confident to use the horse in combat regularly.The tradeoff is that there was enough reason to keep chariots in regular numbers to cavalry well into the 8th and maybe even 7th century. So that means either not enough people confident, charioteers are your armored guys and cavalry mostly unarmored, or not enough horses trained for cavalrywork since I think in Assyrian records they distinguish between cavalry mounts and chariot mounts.It's also just hard for me to get over the mental block of mycenaean cavalry. That said I am 100% sure mounted infantry were a big thing during the collapse. Bannerlord actually gave me a good appreciation for how that'd work - when you start off with a sumpter horse it's risking death to go try and be actual cavalry. So at best I ride out, skirmish a little at the bandits, then ride back and dismount with my men.Game just can't handle the AI knowing how to use mounted infantr.
>>2176425>'gun lines' shoot through each otherNot even true>reloading is now a gamified attack cooldowndesign choice
>>2176930The problem with pharaoh is not the lack of faction variety. Its the fact that it takes all the gamey bullshit from warhammer and makes it even more gamey.Their design philosophy is just dogshit now, feels like a boardgame instead of any attempt at a simulation or wargame.
>>2176982>we all know it's going to be PrimarisSad truth. And Primaris Marines are just the peak of the iceberg of the stuff that is wrong with post 7th ED 40K.Not only I can't stand those CoD Marines and their stuff that can't be taken seriously, but all those renamings, lore changes and what they did with most factions in that setting simply makes me want to just go full Khorne.
>>2174334>I want gunpowder warfare>TW doesn't so gunpowder warfare wellAlso their best game has literally been their most modern setting, and it functions well and is fun
>>2177226They lost the technology to make gunpowder satisfying long ago
>>2177406How? Shogun 2 was like... 2014? They could just go and literally use that engine again, it's not like there have been any improvements since then.
>>2174334Napoleon's combat is fucking fantastic though. You can say you don't like gunpowder combat, that's fine, but Napoleon is absolute fucking peak.If you want gunpowder warfare but "not like that" what you're asking for is gunpowder warfare except shit. They've also done that already, multiple times.
>>2174185I was on the fence with believe the Valrak leaks, but now that you mention trend chasing I belive him 100%. He mentioned that the campaign map would be that Helldivers 2 global/multiplayer sort of shit where your battles on a planet contributed a % to the planet being taken over in a collaborative community effort type shit. This sounds exactly like the sort of retarded trend chasing they've been on.
>>2177472>He mentioned that the campaign map would be that Helldivers 2 global/multiplayer sort of shit where your battles on a planet contributed a % to the planet being taken over in a collaborative community effort type shit.I hate CA so fucking much.
>>2173791I am a massive 40kfag, but if they dumb the campaign down even more from TWW then I will just abandon this sinking ship of a franchise altogether (I've been here since med2),Chaos Dwarfs was the complexity level that every race should have had at minimum, then go up from there. Anything less than that and I may as well play DOW1.
>>2177472where did he mention this? It sounds like it could be neat I guess as like a side game mode kinda like that shogun 2 side game mode but.... I imagine they'd make it gay as well and replace the actual game for just that.
>>2177506It was in one of the earlier rumour videos that mentioned TW40k rumours. Might be from a couple months ago. It was definitely a second or third video with TW40k in it, because in the first one he misunderstood "Helldivers 2 style" as meaning that it would be third person perspective a la spartan total warrior.Fuck if I know which video that was, all his videos have pretty much the same kind of clickbaity worthless titles.
>>2177529Hopefully it's "helldivers 2 style" as in you have a map of star systems with planets that you control and when you are fighting over a planet in a single player campaign each battle gives you a % of control over said planet...I might be huffing copeium here.
>>2177532From what I remember from what he said, most factions are hordes. Space marines operate from a battlebarge, orks out of a Space Hulk. I think the Guard was one of the few factions that actually held territory in some way? Though I don't know how that would work with that multiplayer galaxy map sort of set up. I didn't pay much attention to it since it was a Valrak video.
>>2177532>Hopefully it's "helldivers 2 style" as in you have a map of star systems with planets that you control and when you are fighting over a planet in a single player campaign each battle gives you a % of control over said planet...And yes, that's what his source meant. He clarified it in a second video.
>>2177215It was only with SM2 that I got shocked how much they changed for no reason, the guns all named differently just for copyright reasons.
I hope they finally ditch the 20 unit limit. At least with a reserve system or something where you have your main army that comes in and you get your reserves trickling in over the course of the battle.
>>2177581Yep. Those changes in units and names are all in order to protect GW's IP (ironic considering the ripped off from 2000 A.D., Dune and many more for 40K, yet alone a lot of fantasy stuff for WHFB).I just wish GW's luck finally ran out but they seem to have a lot of people willing to sell their kidneys and their firstborn children's souls to get the new models. And it's all despite their continued price hikes.
>>2177623They could unironically learn from warhammer and make armies limited by a points budget system instead of a hard limit of 20 slots. Would make elites feel like elites and hordes like hordes.
>>2177644Yeah that would be a great change honestly. Gives some actual tactical weight to having a bunch of boiz in a fight.
>>2177411Shogun 2 was 2011, FOTS was 2012.Going back to that old 32bit engine doesn't sound like a sound move in 2025, anyway.>>2177623I always dreamt of having actual engineers in battles building siege engines, fortifications, barricades and sapping walls in real time. Probably too autistic for TW, though.
>>2177777my dick is diamonds at the thought of actually seeing my units digging trenches and fortifing in a defensive battle.
>>2177777>I always dreamt of having actual engineers in battles building siege engines, fortifications, barricades and sapping walls in real time>holy quints blessed by kek himselfyou might be on to something here
>>2177777>Going back to that old 32bit engine doesn't sound like a sound move in 2025, anyway.Name a SINGLE thing you need more than 4gb of ram for?
>>2177406>total was has never handled gunpowder well>has neverMissing the point I'm making here
>>2177644Warhammer really needed that. I hate that majority state troop armies become unviable.
>>2177811Nope. Sounds too simulationist. You'll get boardgame mechanics instead.
>>2177636GW is pivoting with the nu-fans and tourists (see the tom mendelsohn issue). CA and GW deserve one another.
>>2177777>building siege engines, fortifications, barricadesIt's quite janky, but there's a WW1 Empire mod for TWW3 that adds that.
>>2174164Different devs and all that crap, given they sacked Relic after fucking up DOW3. I really hope the new team learned from their mistakes with Iron Harvest and know my axe is thirsty,
>>2174279If Storm of Chaos really was canon, Archaon would be dead in a ditch and Grimgor would've been his krump'r.
Unless they're planning on making massive engine changes and totally revamping their typical design philosophy, wouldn't it just be a TW version of Epic? That's the only format I can think of that'd fit having tight regiments, huge stacks of troops, etc. Otherwise, it'd be just a slightly more elaborate version of DoW but even worse because CA has minimal talent left.
>>2178058medieval 3
>>2178200At one point GW's luck must run out.At one point even nu-fans and tourists will call BS on them.Time will tell.
>>2178709There's a new mouthbreather tourist born everyday. They will never run out of guillible retards to take in for a couple years. When the current batch gets tired, just fortnite-dance in a new, younger batch
>>2178058Star CitizenI've heard people say that going from 32gb RAM to 96gb had a noticeable, tangible improvement on the game just functioning properly.>Inb4 >Star CitizenNo I am not baiting, I spent 45$ on that game and never intend to spend more. It is fun to fly around.
>>2173791this is bullshit, they wont be able to make 40k on their engine
>>2178788They will try and it will be horrible.
>>2173791So, what this then? Schizoid ramblings and unsolicited shit opinions: the post?And imagine, a thread died for this crap.
>>2178788I swear the TW fanbase is the most wildly uninformed on what the fuck an engine is.
>>2179229purpose-made engines have limitations
>>2179229>blizztards have entered the chat
>>2178788>>2178794They already phased out formations and terrain in warhammer fantasy despite most factions making extensive use of them, they will phase out most acessories and wargear from 40k.
>>2179229The changes CA made to battles in this franchise over time are so fucking baffling that people can't hope to comprehend the reasoning behind them, so they single out the graphics engine as the thing to blame to cope.Warscape is also just an especially easy target since it coincides with the release of Empire.
Really don't see the point in a 40k game set in a total war game engine, it's just not suited for it. You may as well just reskin one of the existing games and you would have 90% of what they'll produce. Id far prefer to see a 40k epic scale game set in Eugens Wargame/Steel Division engine. That shit could make for some highly engaging fights on an absolutely massive scale.
>>2179229Nobody uses "engine" just for the rendering part and no "game engine" is actually just the 3D rendering anyway. Cease this autism.For custom ones the distinction makes even less sense to make that distinction since it's all done in-house and my expectations of gamedev being low it's probably a single unified codebase.Point is whatever you call it the TW battle framework that has been fairly stagnant for a decade or more depending on how you count has never been shown to have the features necessary to go beyond formation fighting.
>>2178788I vacillate between skepticism/doubt and believing it. I'm not interested in tracking down talking head streamers to find the firsthand accounts rather than telephone game but my thinking is:>MisunderstandingGaming rag mistook this for star wars (or it was accurate?) so maybe it's someone mistaking a sigmarine for space marine. Except the holy saint of leaks people invoke apparently knows his shit and gave more info than just that. >It's 40k but not total warSome telephone game rumor added to it was a messy comparison to Helldivers and the galactic map. This could work with a total war but could also be another RTS format. CA did do a different RTS back in the late 2000s - but that'd obviously lack the total war brand name.>They said the future of fantasy and history, or fantasy and history titles or somethingIt's a big fucking stretch to count 40k as fantasy but it's possible.If Age of Sigmar:>It's a fantasy setting>It would in GW's eyes stoke interest in the settingSame way Vermintide and WarhammerTW made them go "Uh oh shit" after they squatted WhF.>It is more financially successful than WhF or The Old World in tabletop from what I heard. "WHF did dogshit tabletop sales but was popular as an RTS, so AOS will too" is the thinking.>It does not compete with another RTS [DOW4]The sigmar RTS that did come out went nowhere.Counterpoint is it doesn't make as much money potential as 40k (yet neither would TW:WHF), and "it's too similar to WHF" (no more similar than one historical release is to another).tl;dr if playing it safe it will be Age of Sigmar, if more bold and risk-taking it'll be 40k.
>>2174184I wouldn't get my hopes up. CA is run by marketing bros ever since empire total war. That game was a piece of shit but had nice trailers. Some CA dev spilled the beans some years ago, it was very depressing honestly:>Devtools are old a shit and nobody between studios communicates.>So you get retarded shit like Norsca not working for eternity in WH2 or WH3 having bugs and missing features that were fixed in WH2 nwarly two yeara ago.>CA Sofia getting a shoestring budget to fix WH3.>Troy similarly haf no budget and only after everyone bitching out got a mythical mode.>Leadership hates total war players and wanted to switch genres but luckily concord... I mean Hyenas was murdered by SEGA.There is far more, but like Gamefreak, CA has no real competition so they can fuck up all the time and just leave old TW games to rot. The mos infuriating thing are TW mobile games: they fixed old ass bugs(not on pc though lol) and even got new factions. Like wtf.
>>2179417>CA did do a different RTS back in the late 2000sCA also helped with the making of Halo Wars 2, which was a sci-fi RTS.
>>2179398Na you're just a retard bro. I've seen you retards claim everything from matched combat to textures were somehow hardwired in their vague idea of what an "engine" is.
>>2179417>The sigmar RTS that did come out went nowhere.I remember that fucking slut venris was shilling that absolute slop rts "Warhammer Age of Sigmar: Realms of Ruin". It's such a fucking shallow boring and lame rts designed for 70iq console players. (there have been many better console rts even)
>>2178200>>2178709They pivoted with 8th edition to appeal more to the Critical Role adjacent hordes of soys and manchildren, and the fact is that those funko-pop collecting 'people' are far more likely to spend money on random boxes they'll never paint than the crusty grognards who used to be the core of tabletop wargaming and are now banished to historicals only. Expect to see this type of behaviour continue and lengthen.I will say though that the peak of this faux-nerd culture was post covid and they might start to see a slump sooner or later in the same way that videogames did.
>>2173791This is gonna suck ass, and I need people to understand that it's going to suck ass. It's not going to be a work in progress that 'gets better' over time, it's just going to suck ass. It's going to suck so much ass that Thrones of Brittania by comparison will look perfect. This is a company so enshittified that they basically can't get their own AI working for TW3 and have been in a 12mo slump trying to fix basic shit. Throwing the amount of stuff you would HAVE to have in a 40k game into even a new engine with the TW skin is going to create so many bugs that I will be genuinely shocked if the game launches without bricking people's PCs. Their best move would've been to fix TW3 and then /maybe/ move to AoS if they didn't want to go back and make Shogun 3.
>>2180331Honestly if not for braindrain to work on 40k the sheer failure of the AI shit suggests they may have wanted to do 40k but realized they can't.I have the morale of party hard pajammers (Sorry Pajammas no hard R) for my expectation. Because that consideration now has me going "alright yeah they're definitely going with something safer"
>>2180331>move to AoSI'll never not laugh at these suggestions
>>2178764That's what I fear. I fear also that it's too late for 40K to recover.>>2179912Maybe? Hopefully. But if this happens will they fix 40K? Sadly I don't think so.
>>2181386It's a fairly logical move since they can reuse a lot of assets.Biggest problem overall though is that while a lot of the new armies are pretty popular, they also don't work as well for a rank and file game like Total War.
>>21799128 was popular because it was them rebalancing the complete shitshow the game turned into. 6 and 7 edition were nigh unplayable messes of rules bloat.
>>2173791How would it work?
>>2178794>space marines vs imperial guard>AI loses 100 marines to 1000 guards by the player.>Somehow the AI will keep spamming marinesAnd I thought DoW 1 was already bad with how dispossable marines
>>2198279Marines *are* disposable, and were designed to be. Since they originally numbered in hundreds of billions and they were basically just shock troops part of the larger human infantry units. Physically they are about on par with orks, and orks get tougher and stronger much faster with age compared to marines (not to mention their ability to propagate several magnitudes faster and easier). Which is why marines in 40k's times are almost exclusively surprise ambush and air drop units. In any protracted battle, marines are going to inevitably lose, just simply by attrition being much more of a problem for them in the "modern times" due to how technology, economy and bureaucracy of the Imperium has deteriorated. Nevertheless they are still often treated with a surprisingly high amount of "disposability" by the imperial higher ups, especially the Inquisition.
>>2200050I'm pretty sure even in great crusade era there weren't that many space marines. Legions were large compared to chapters but there were only 20 of them and they weren't numbering in millions each, more like hundered thousand and most spent most of the period understrength even before heresy happened.They weren't really "disposable" troops in that they were easily replaceable, because they weren't even at the time. They were in a sense that like thunder warriors they were made for a purpose and it is possible emperor wasn't planning to keep them around long term, at least not all of them so losses didn't really matter all that much in the end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUDcQG8oiLMKEK
The gaurd will be so kino, we better get yarrick and creed. Baneblades deep striking.
>>2174160I thought the same due to the fact it would be such a complicated setting when you consider CA's "talent" and ability to handle it. However, tw: warhammer fans are so retarded that CA might feel confident releasing a TW 40K based solely on the fact that there's a hive of r*dditors and bugmen already jerking themselves off on a daily basis to be fed more warhammer slop.
>>2178709>Primaris bullshit>Primarchs returning left and right>"these dudes that were referred to as being dudes for decades? Yeah, there are females in that group now. Always been, actually"The fanbase ate that up and asked for seconds
>>2226068Not the Femstodes. And there is a large number of people who don't like Primaris.
>>2179443>Leadership [of CA, which makes Total War games] hates total war playersWhat the fuck is this? It's like becoming the director of a bank while hating money, or the people that have money.
>>2217693>there's a hive of r*dditors and bugmen already jerking themselves off on a daily basis to be fed more warhammer slop.Maybe those idiots think 40K will just do the same line and formation fighting the historical (and WH) games use. Which, considering the absolute state of CA, is a depressingly real possibility.
>>2177472AHAHAHAAH GET FUCKED 40KKEKSNO MODS OR CHEATS FOR YOU
>>2226089It's awful, but it makes unfortunately sense. Imagine being around /twg/ and r/totalwar and all the total war youtubers 24/7. That's your job, to constantly hear "we don't like the warscape engine", "where is med 3", "I want empire 2", etc. A normal response would be to listen, but people in power often just become contemptful of those they have power over.
>>2227678Okay, but TWWarhammer players' demands are more feasible. "Fix the AI", "Monkey King", "Araby". Throwing them those bones would do a lot of good will.Instead, they they're cooking Total Warhammer 40,000, which is a completely different ballpark from what CA does.
>>2234310It really is a "what the fuck are they doing then" moment. Everything else bombed or even things that were successful got dropped and their cash cow is ran by a B team skeleton crew just barely limping along.I really hope they have something better to show for it than 40k awkwardly showed in the same WH3 engine, bit unfortunately it's probably exactly what it will be.
>>2173791I BELIEVE IT
>>2178709>At one point GW's luck must run out.>At one point even nu-fans and tourists will call BS on them.>Time will tell.Allegedly Empire Greatswords funded the entire fantasy line, with half of the unpopular sets simply being for armies no-one ran or sold in ways that made it extortionately prohibitive to build an army because of armies being bundled togetherAllegedly Space Marines fund Games Workshop and every other army is nothing in comparisonNo-one has dared to estimate what the LotR stock has done for GW... and to be honest the paintjobs and the fact that you don't know GW provides those minis implies even GW has forgotten about themI fully expect, if Space Marines are still eaten for breakfast, lunch and dinner, by both old and new blood, and let's face it, the older sculpts were goofy so the newer sculpts being partly repulsive is likely neither here nor there especially now that they look tacticool... I fully expect the chudmarines to fund anything that doesn't sell in the rest of it, like how if Disney pumps out a princess fantasy every few years for little girls, or more specifically their mothers who drag the family out to see it, they can do whatever they want elsewhere no matter how political or unprofitable it is
it would be slightly less retarded than TW star wars I guess
>>2227678Frankly I don't blame them for the contempt when you've seen how much retarded faggots those groups are. In the 10 years between rome 2 and Warhammer 3 (came out in 2022 but whatever) Pharaoh, Thrones, and Arena are the failures. That's it. R2 was a huge success, Attila was successful enough to support, Troy was a success in Sega's report (I trust that a lot more than histrionic youtubers and social media posters), Warhammer 1-2-3 were big-fine-HUGE successes respectively, 3k was a YUGE success on the initial release but they decided to retire it due to DLC sales (it still had good year over year sales in the leaked data).Hyenas is the big disaster, otherwise this is not a bioware of failure after failure. People will bitch and kvetch about warscape and that will never stop them from buying another total war, it's just the background noise of grognardism.For god's sake people actually argued here on 4chan that CA is Afwaid of putting out medieval 3 because the crippled scot and others will say mean things :(( or the borderline personality melodramatics of Legend and his sycophants.I sooner attribute CA's stupidity in the past to the weird corporate dementia of the woke era than I do to them being less competent than social media posters. This isn't saying they are competent so much as even at 33% competency they are vastly ahead of 5% competency /r/total war or /twg/.
>>2173791why some people claim that warhammer 2 total war is better than 3? i ask because i was thinking about geting into this series
How does squad based combat translate into Total War?
Can't wait for it to also be locked to 20 units per army.
>>2226089Don't forget one of their worst PR disasters was that guy on the forums telling their customers that the right to discuss the game was a privilege. Imagine actually paying some dude to post that shit online lol. That guys boss got woken up and was doing damage control on the forums for HOURS.
>>2256391Launch was horrible. Game was very unfinished and extremely buggy despite essentially being the same game a 3rd time. Additionally WH3 campaign is bad possibly hated even more than vortex because it's a dumb race again and the megacampaign wasn't in yet. This meant that some people continued to play WH2. I think it has been superseded by now though.
>>2175926>Why ask for the Thirty Years War when you can have everything from the 15th up to the 17th century?>Why ask for the Bronze Age Collapse when you can have all of pre-classical antiquity?>Why ask for the Hundred Years War when you can just have Medieval 3?Because nobody is going to play anything other than the early game and a massive map means individual conflicts will be less interesting. You can have a thematic and fun hundred year war campaign consisting out of both sides coming at each other with era appropriate units on a large and detailed map of France... or you play England in 1090, conquer France by 1100, and then probably quit cause the game is easy.
>>2176930>it lacks the sheer variety of factions and units that a broader scope or earlier time would allowFactions there are plenty. As for units being largely the same: So? Everybody loves dicksucking Shogun 2 and that game has mostly identical rosters. >Game as if Medieval 3 were the British Isles to Spain, Portugal to Italy. Go big then narrow, don't narrow then go big. What is the actual benefit of a big map? Really now. It would be one thing in a game like Empire which is, theoretically, supposed to be about global conflicts. But in a medieval era?
>>2177215>are just the peak of the iceberg of the stuff that is wrong with post 7th ED 40K.5th ED- 7th ED of Warhammer was infinitely worse.
>>2253499Even Space Marines will eventually stop appeal to others. Especially when they are becoming the majority of the total of played factions by people.>>2258329Stuff in 5th ED got either retconned or altered in later editions (looking at you 5th ED Codex Space Marines and Grey Knights).Editions from 5 to 7 still felt like 40K.8th ED is the moment everything stopped being grimdark and everything after it is the moment 40K got hit with the woke virus.
>>2257272It doesn't
>>2258327Plenty of value in the medieval era. Like with my example of British Isles to Spain, Portugal to Italy. Crusades? Nope. Mongols? Nope. Byzantines? Nope. Baltic or Novgorod vs Teutonics? Nope. When you narrow the map you immediately narrow the interest, and also you narrow replayability as it becomes the same theatre over and over and over. I would buy a 16th-17th century total war in a heartbeat, I would never buy the same that was just set in Germany for the 30 years war because that restricts my playing experience to the exact same bullshit every single time. Hundred Years War TW would be a disaster. You'd just replay the same fucking war over and over and over. I actually shit on Shogun 2, excluding FOTS, for that reason - both campaign map and singleplayer. FOTS gets a pass as a 18th century warfare simulator but otherwise your campaign will ultimately always be the same general experience as you are on a very linear path towards Kyoto.>>2258323How many times have we had this lesson? The welf campaign was poorly received, the beastmen campaign was poorly received, Realm of Chaos and Vortex campaign was never as popular as ME/IE to the point that they stopped even bothering to do content for Realm of Chaos with DLC. Thrones of Britannia was a disaster, Pharaoh limited to just sea people + hittite/Egypt wars was a disaster. Every single example has shown that a focused campaign zoomed in is worse. Your solitary case against that is Shogun 2. Every single other case and it's badly received. What your proposing is to take Napoleon Total war and make the peninsular campaign the entire game rather than a tutorial or mini campaign
>>2260567Yeah, Shogun 2 often gets a pass because it is old and the monocultural unit roster is relatively tightly designed by Total War standards, but I doubt a game in that style will ever work again. ToB, Troy and Pharaoh are here to prove that it doesn't. Shogun 3 not covering the broader period with no playable Korea and China would be a disaster.
>>2258406>Editions from 5 to 7 still felt like 40K.Because it was literally mostly the same game as third edition but unbalanced to the point of becoming nigh unplayable even in casual settings. >8th ED is the moment everything stopped being grimdark and everything after it is the moment 40K got hit with the woke virus.Woke isn't a real issue and 40K hasn't been grimdark since third edition.
>>2260567>Crusades? Has never been fun in vanilla Medieval 2. Best way to handle it is a dedicated campaign like the one in Kingdom. >Mongols?If Mongols work from a mechanical aspect the game either needs to start in 1200 with the AI mongols being utterly cracked or they need to be a off screen horde that comes in with massive armies. >Byzantines?You could make a entire campaign focused on the Byzantines. > Novgorod vs Teutonics?Kingdom Baltic campaign exists. >When you narrow the map you immediately narrow the interest, and also you narrow replayability as it becomes the same theatre over and over and over.The ideal way to actually handle this is probably just to make a whole bunch of smaller campaigns rather than one big campaign. Yes, JUST a thirty year war game probably wouldn't work. But if you seriously think a huge scale 16th-17th century game would work you are deluded. It would suffer from the same issues as Empire. Divide the game into, let's be generous, 4 campaigns: Thirty Year War (And Scandinavia). East Europe + Middle East. Colonization of the New World. And fall of the Ming (With Portugal and Spain hovering around like the vultures they are.) DLC campaigns could focus on India or the Italian Wars and the like. There you have an winning formula with tons of replayability and variety.
>>2260567>How many times have we had this lesson?For literally 90% of Total War existence minor campaigns were perfectly normal and well liked. Besides, Total War fans are idiots that don't know what they like. All of them claim they don't want RoC/Vortex but then spend all of their time complaining about things that only exist because Mortal Empires has no fun endgame or challenge. >Every single other case and it's badly received. Kingdoms is popular. Some of the Rome 2 mini campaigns are popular. Vikings in Medieval 1 is popular. Charlemange campaign is popular. Realm of Chaos and Vortex are flawed as fuck though the latter is still objectively better than Mortal Empire and I will die on this hill but that doesn't mean the idea is invalid just that the execution is flawed.As for the Wood Elf and Beastmen campaign. Come the fuck on, no shit they aren't popular. Both only have one playable race and, in the case of Beastmen, one playable faction. That doesn't mean smaller scale campaigns are inherently a doomed proposition. Imagine if they released a hyper detailed version of the Empire with multiple playable factions. Considering the sheer amount of people that replay the Karl Franz campaign over and over again anyway that would be momentously popular. Hell, one of the most popular mods with Warhammer mods right now is the Old World map. Which is literally just a hyper detailed version of the old world map where about 70% of the map doesn't matter and might as well not even exist. If anything, the biggest thing preventing it from being MORE popular is the fact that the game is nigh unplayable and a smaller tighter version focusing on individual regions would work better.
>>2260608>ToBDidn't work because people are just inherently hostile against Saga games. And, frankly, I can't fault them from a monetary perspective. Kingdoms released with 4 campaigns and that was decades ago. Again, Charlemange was popular. Imagine if instead of ToB we had this game: >Stand alone Charlemange with upgrades. >Britannia campaign that we currently have. >Rise of Islam campaign. >Kofun period game about the unification of Japan>PharaohSuffered from coming after Troy and not featuring either Mycenaean Greece or Mesopotamia. Even the old Bronze Age mod for Total War. had those.
>>2260567>>22606083K was the most successful TW launch and that game is effectively monocultural and covering a limited time scope (and doesn't go into anything outside of china). It added more units over time but on launch the roster wasn't even that big and faction unique units were fairly limited.You can maybe argue that it's because it's a uniquely popular setting and chinese don't count but it's clearly not a dealbreaker. You could make Shogun 3 in that style. It's a mythologized enough setting and there's enough weebs to pull it off.Though I agree that if S2 come out today the vocal plebbitor WH-only audience would probably call it a shitty cashgrab saga title and not a proper TW game. Even though the whole series started with original shogun.
-Next DLC will tie into the 10th anniversary of TWW1, CA is trying to do a double bill with the 10th anniversary of TWW2 in 2027-Big DLC 1 will have Boris (LL) and Kirt Helborg (LH) for the Empire, Rotguy (LL) and Gitilla (LH) for the Greenskins, Neferata (LL) and Nameless One (LH) for the Counts, Gotri Hammerson (LL) and Josef Bugman (LH) for the Dwarfs, and Araloth (LL) and Scarloc (LH) for the Wood Elves. Beastmen are being saved for a proper DLC. Yin Yin will be the free LL for game 3 owners, Ogre Kingdom Owners will get Braugh Slavelord for free.-Part of the reason ToT took so long was due to constant glitching for the Dread Maw and Oceanids/Sea Elementals; the latter also bad constant graphical errors when it came to shading and had lag time.-Omens of Doom proceeded Tides of Torment due to Shadows of Change backlash; CA did not plan for the switch but GW forced there hand believing Khorne will sell more.-Vampire Count rework is the top rework priority in patch 8.0. More Greenskin lords and heroes also being looked into.-DLC 2 will be the End Times everyone has been expecting; Cathay (Monkey King), Warriors of Chaos (Glottkin), Skaven (Thanquol), Beastmen (Moon Claw), Tomb Kings (Ramhotep), Dark Elves (Shadowblade), and Nagash (separate entity). Li Dao and Egrimm will both be free LLs.-LHs as followed: Shiyama for Cathay, Vardek for WoC, Kouran Darkhand for Dark Elves, Apophas for Tomb Kings, Ghorros for Beastmen, and Skweel for Skaven,-Beastmen are mostly god marked centigor and ungor units plus centigor lord and hero, Dark Elves are getting leftover Arcanum monsters.-Dogs of War was scrapped due to massive delays from the SoC backlash.-Last three way DLC before backlash was going to be Monkey King, Thanquol, and Sayl; Neferata was going to be in Sayl's place for ToT but this changed for the 10th anniversary.-Before Thanquol took his spot End Times was going to have Bazherak of the Chaos Dwarfs with Rykarth as his LH.
>>2260972>40K hasn't been grimdark since third edition.Right. 3rd ED was literally THE darkest incarnation of the setting.
>>2261030Any example of a DLC campaign that is well received you can think of would have failed as a standalone game. They performed fine BECAUSE they're DLCs for a bigger game and not ovepriced cash grabs, and they still never surpass the grand campaign in popularity.>Imagine if instead of ToB we had this gameYou'd get people asking where the real game is.>KofunAnon, get real. There's too little that we know of that period because Japan was only just starting to gain literacy. Combine it with the broader picture and include the three Kingdoms of Korea and the Tang dynasty and now the game has much more potential, and even then the concept is iffy due to being very niche.>Pharaoh suffered from coming after Troy and not featuring either Mycenaean Greece or MesopotamiaBecause it was conceptualized as a game about Egypt's 20th dynasty with the bronze age collapse as a backdrop, it was never meant to be a proper Bronze Age Total War. Even Dynasties doesn't cover the full scope of the period. People complained that it was a small scale low effort game sold at full price. If it had been a cheap DLC for a bigger Bronze and Iron game it would have performed fine.People might have been receptive of some small campaigns before but you're ignoring the context that all of those were low price DLCs, they wouldn't have worked as standalone games. The best way for small scale campaigns to work is to sell them as DLC for a bigger game.>>2261559>3K was the most successful TW launchAnd it failed spectacularly in the long term, that game got axed while people were waiting for a map expansion, by the way. Three Kingdoms is huge in China and decently popular in the West, it sold well at first due to its cultural relevance but that doesn't prove anything, let alone that any small scale game can be successful if it's "done well". It's an exception, at best.
>>2262075It sold more than Warhammer 3 did in their 2025 leaked records. The issue is jut the DLC, because otherwise it sold more than warhammer and also doesn't have any royalty fees. The issue I think is just people got used to endless support with Warhammer while with other games if the DLC doesn't really sell well CA will just pack up and go home. I've tried to argue this over on /vg/ but people clamoring for glub shitto don't understand that at a certain point the juice is not worth the squeeze and you'd get more sales in the long term by shifting workers to a new project than trying to miserly get every quarter out of an existing one.
>>2262310Overall 3K probably still got decent support compared to most other now-WH TW games, but it just left a bad taste because of how abrupt it was. They've still been openly talking about next expansion until it got "futured". I still don't get why they felt compelled to make that stupid announcement video instead of quietly dropping support and announce a sequel that probably never even got actually greenlit.
>>2262310>It sold more than Warhammer 3 did in their 2025 leaked recordsI know, China's market is huge. The fact that support for it got prematurely axed shows that the game still failed long term, though.>The issue I think is just people got used to endless support with WarhammerCA often ends support for historical games too early. Three Kingdoms was the most egregious case, but if you've been following CA for a long time you know they always leave their games with major bugs or incomplete or missing features. They even carry legacy bugs that were fixed in the last game because their production pipeline is so shit and they don't care about supporting their games beyond the bare minimum.
>>2262075>Any example of a DLC campaign that is well received you can think of would have failed as a standalone gameAgain, I think kingdoms showed it COULD have worked. And yes, I'm aware kingdoms is a expansion but it really might as well not have been. >You'd get people asking where the real game is.Just call it Charlemagne.>Anon, get real. There's too little that we know of that period because Japan was only just starting to gain literacy.I liked the idea of doing a book start for Shogun 2, but fair enough. Asia as whole works better. Plenty you can do. >Because it was conceptualized as a game about Egypt's 20th dynasty with the bronze age collapse as a backdropWhich was a mistake. I'll agree to that.>And it failed spectacularly in the long term, that game got axed while people were waiting for a map expansion, NTA: But people didn't want a map expansion they wanted the rest of the map that was empty to be filled in with factions. Biggest problem overall with Three Kingdom is that bookmarks are a tough sell for DLC.
How would you do 40k TW? To me it always seemed like TW works because of the fact that old style war is very, I don't know how to describe it, proper? Strict? 40k came about because fantasy took to long and they wanted to make something more skirmish like, and I think given what 40k is like it's a bit hard for mt to imagine every battle to be a bunch of perfectly lined up regiments.
>>226504640K is, scale wise, kind of weird and always has been. Like you said, it started out as a skirmish game. Then turned into a platoon game, flirted with being something bigger, and is now mostly back to being platoon. To be honest, the best way to handle something like 40K total war is to base it on Epic/Legion Imperialis rather than "normal" 40K. So, lots of vehicles, usable titans. big blobs of infantry, etc. Don't think that's going to happen though. I believe leaks claimed that they were working on a world war 1 game and, frankly, that is PROBABLY the best way to handle it if they can pull it off.
