Total War: Warhammer 40,000

[Scribe]

7 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

 

That's what I'm referring to? If it would have been fine and was capable of handling what was needed, it wouldn't have needed to be replaced.

 

No, it needed to be replaced because they cannot even update the games on it, without breaking other things.

 

Anyway, I'm going to grab something to eat, and then play my game that has

 

Flying Units

Melee Units

Ranged Units

Units ranging from small (like say a Skaven Slave) to huge monsters, or even essentially mecha.

Cannons, Lasers, Gatling Guns, Mortars, from both mobile to weapons platforms.

Summons, Daemons.

Vehicles.

Terrain which provides cover.

 

You know, all things that would be easily mapped to 40K? Its called Total War Warhammer. :)

[TheVoidDragon]

36 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

No, it needed to be replaced because they cannot even update the games on it, without breaking other things.

 

So right after mentioning watching the stream, you just disregard what they said in the stream of having looked at the upcoming features they wanted and deciding they needed a new engine. 

 

36 minutes ago, Scribe said:

Anyway, I'm going to grab something to eat, and then play my game that has

 

Flying Units

Melee Units

Ranged Units

Units ranging from small (like say a Skaven Slave) to huge monsters, or even essentially mecha.

Cannons, Lasers, Gatling Guns, Mortars, from both mobile to weapons platforms.

Summons, Daemons.

Vehicles.

Terrain which provides cover.

 

You know, all things that would be easily mapped to 40K? Its called Total War Warhammer. :)

 

Except, those aren't the things that it would struggle with for a 40k game... :) That oversimplification completely leaves out the part that is the main problem with getting it to work. 

 

 

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 07:54 PM by TheVoidDragon

[Scribe]

2 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

Great...! Except, those aren't the parts that would be an issue with a 40k game... :)

 

Great, so the most relevant parts of a total war game, are not an issue in 40K. Fantastic, glad we are on the same page.

[TheVoidDragon]

3 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Great, so the most relevant parts of a total war game, are not an issue in 40K. Fantastic, glad we are on the same page.

 

No, you just left out the most relevant part that is the actual core issue; The Total War series depicts its infantry (and cavalry) units with rank & file formation based behaviour.

 

40k is not that.  That part would have to be significantly changed to work with 40k.

Edited Tuesday at 07:58 PM by TheVoidDragon

[Scribe]

1 minute ago, TheVoidDragon said:

The Total War series depicts its infantry (and cavalry) units with rank & file formation based behaviour.

 

This is not fully true. I assume you play TWW3? There are multitudes of units that are not rank and file, we have been over this.

[TheVoidDragon]

Just now, Scribe said:

 

This is not fully true. I assume you play TWW3? There are multitudes of units that are not rank and file, we have been over this.

 

Every infantry and cavalry unit in the game is organized and behaves within a formation. Even something you'd except to be a random horde with no structure, like zombies.

[Mechanicus Tech-Support]

I don't think the addition of mechanics they made in the current engine and scrapped (TW:WW) necessitated the engine upgrade but more the engine has had so much tacked onto it that even some basic bug fixes would wreck 10+ years of code (ie the city gate bug thats been there since Rome2..) 

Well part of the argument against TW;40K was some nebulous but mah modern tactics in a setting with swords, magic and demons. 
Anyone that keeps bring up rank and file behavior I just assume has not played any of TW:WH2 or 3 

[DemonGSides]

6 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

This is not fully true. I assume you play TWW3? There are multitudes of units that are not rank and file, we have been over this.

 

Why entertain the nonsense?  There's no benefit to even attempting this argument as TheVoidDragon isn't interested in hearing anything other than what they believe to be true with regards to this topic.  They're perfectly able to have conversations about other things, but any time this comes up, it's the same Heels in the Dirt posting over and over and over again.

It just isn't worth it.

[Scribe]

16 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

 

Every infantry and cavalry unit in the game is organized and behaves within a formation. Even something you'd except to be a random horde with no structure, like zombies.

 

A unit will always be a unit. Nobody is saying a SM squad is going to be 10 free form entities I hope lol

[Brother Casman]

Y'know, in the absence of news or rumours, we don't really need to have this argument again.

[Joe]

We'll have an answer for certain on Thursday evening - in the meantime, I imagine there's more dissection of the stream and such that'll pop up over the next few days.

[Scribe]

I mean I guess CA COULD be stupid enough to try their hand at another format of game?

 

I mean Hyena's worked out well...right?

[Jings]

Honestly boys, I think it's a bit wild to think that a 40K Total War isn't a technical possibility. From my experience playing Total War, the bulk of what's needed to make a 40K game is already present in the current engine - particularly after TW:WH. We've got flyers, monsters, artillery, all the hits, all the good ones. The only things that I can think of that could be an issue is buildings - particularly issues of verticality and melee-only units - and faster mobility, what with the myriad of vehicles and transport options. Neither of those problems seem like issues an team of experienced game designers wouldn't be able to figure out when considered from the jump. 

 

I'm not a huge TW fan (though 40K TW would change that) but my mates are, and when they're playing, they're playing campaigns. The big battles you get in the Skirmish modes are generally late game conflicts and aren't particularly representative of the majority of battles during a campaign (please correct me if I'm wrong). 

 

The idea that it wouldn't be possible because they'd all be in rigid formations is ludicrous. There would absolutely be room for those for sure (and plenty of people have made the point better than I can be bothered to right now, but there's plenty of cavalry and the like), but why would every unit have to be constrained to that? 40K armies are famously asymmetrical and operate on a spectrum of elite and horde forces. Guard could operate as infantry divisions with a variety of formation options, both similar and different to previous line infantry in previous games. Orks and Tyranids could function very similarly to Orcs and Skaven in the Fantasy games. Space Marines could (and hopefully would) function as small, powerful units where a 10-man squad would be roughly the equivalent in strength (and cost) as several blobs of chaff. 

 

Personally I'm buying the rumours. CA have a history with GW. TW:WH has been a roaring success to the point that it spurred GW to resurrect WHFB. The TW engine and general gameplay loop would work very strongly with 40K (although I do hope it's sector-based rather than a single planet to allow more factions). The only thing that gives me pause, frankly, is that TW:40K could cannibalise DOW4's market, but given how 40K has been breaking into the mainstream over the past 5 years I think we're at a point where both could thrive in the current gaming ecosystem. Time will tell of course, but I'll be surprised if we don't see an announcement in the coming days. 

 

I'm pretty hype. 

[Scribe]

1 minute ago, Jings said:

Honestly boys, I think it's a bit wild to think that a 40K Total War isn't a technical possibility.

 

Reading the tea leaves, its not that folks dont get that. Its that they want something wildly different from what Total War looks like.

[Joe]

13 minutes ago, Scribe said:

I mean I guess CA COULD be stupid enough to try their hand at another format of game?

 

I mean Hyena's worked out well...right?

 

I mean, CA's done other game formats before that've gone... well?

Alien: Isolation was well and truly off the beaten path for them. Not to mention some older, quirkier titles like Spartan: Total Warrior and Viking: Battle for Asgard. I'd also add Halo Wars 2, which isn't their usual strand of strategy game.

[Scribe]

2 minutes ago, Joe said:

 

I mean, CA's done other game formats before that've gone... well?

Alien: Isolation was well and truly off the beaten path for them. Not to mention some older, quirkier titles like Spartan: Total Warrior and Viking: Battle for Asgard. I'd also add Halo Wars 2, which isn't their usual strand of strategy game.

 

Suppose we find out in 2 days.

[Joe]

I'll admit, I've been saying for a while that I anticipate TW:40k as being Total War branded but... not necessarily playing the same way, as that's really the only way I could see it happening. Admittedly, I've also been praying for the Siege of Vraks in the style of Steel Division for many a year now. 

[TheVoidDragon]

52 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Why entertain the nonsense?  There's no benefit to even attempting this argument as TheVoidDragon isn't interested in hearing anything other than what they believe to be true with regards to this topic.  They're perfectly able to have conversations about other things, but any time this comes up, it's the same Heels in the Dirt posting over and over and over again.
 

It just isn't worth it.

 

I'd say the same about you, really.  I have tried so, so many times not to explain exactly what is meant with this whole thing, yet every single time it seems to be something that just constantly eludes comprehension. I genuinely do not get what is seemingly so difficult to understand about it, even when I gave examples to try and illustrate it last time. It gets a bit tiring repeating myself constantly in an attempt to clearly explain the issue, only to get met with what amounts to "Nu uh!" that even when explained in-detail with examples for some reason just doesn't understand regardless. 

 

It has nothing to do with "what I believe to be true", it is literally the case that the infantry units in the series are depicted as behaving within that rank & file/ formation warfare style. Even the more spread out horde units like skaven or zombies and such are actually just a formation with set positions for each member within it.

 

We'll see on Thursday whether they make the changes of more dynamic unit behaviour that i've said would be needed or not, though. 

 

27 minutes ago, Jings said:

Honestly boys, I think it's a bit wild to think that a 40K Total War isn't a technical possibility. 

 

 

The game has plenty of features that can be broadly mapped onto 40k (they even worked on something akin to armour values recently). It's just the formation warfare focus that infantry units are depicted as that is the main issue due to that not being how 40k is, If they can figure out a way to have something other then that for them with less rigid behaviour than current, then there's no reason 40k wouldn't work.

Edited Tuesday at 09:01 PM by TheVoidDragon

[Scribe]

41 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

Even the more spread out horde units like skaven or zombies and such are actually just a formation with set positions for each member within it.

 

So, Unit Coherency?

[Mogger351]

50 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

 

I'd say the same about you, really.  I have tried so, so many times not to explain exactly what is meant with this whole thing, yet every single time it seems to be something that just constantly eludes comprehension. I genuinely do not get what is seemingly so difficult to understand about it, even when I gave examples to try and illustrate it last time. It gets a bit tiring repeating myself constantly in an attempt to clearly explain the issue, only to get met with what amounts to "Nu uh!" that even when explained in-detail with examples for some reason just doesn't understand regardless. 

 

It has nothing to do with "what I believe to be true", it is literally the case that the infantry units in the series are depicted as behaving within that rank & file/ formation warfare style. Even the more spread out horde units like skaven or zombies and such are actually just a formation with set positions for each member within it.

 

We'll see on Thursday whether they make the changes of more dynamic unit behaviour that i've said would be needed or not, though. 

 

 

The game has plenty of features that can be broadly mapped onto 40k (they even worked on something akin to armour values recently). It's just the formation warfare focus that infantry units are depicted as that is the main issue due to that not being how 40k is, If they can figure out a way to have something other then that for them with less rigid behaviour than current, then there's no reason 40k wouldn't work.

Your imagination is oddly limited here. 10 intercessors would look and behave entirely as predicted in 2 loose ranks of 5. If they want to go to a grander scale, apocalypse size, take aforementioned intercessor unit, smack 2-4 of them in a loose formation with a command squad in the middle and lo and behold you have a setting-correct formation of units that could be positioned and manoeuvred like any other TW unit consisting of 25-45 sprites. Do the same with other horde factions and a "green tide" unit with some nobz flanked by 100 boyz and that isn't exactly hard to believe they'd move around in a rough rectangle, or hell, a circle.

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, TheVoidDragon said:

I have tried so, so many times not to explain exactly what is meant with this whole thing, yet every single time it seems to be something that just constantly eludes comprehension.

 

I don't have this conversation with you not because it doesn't elude comprehension, I think you're wrong and I know I won't convince you.  There's nothing wrong with not rising to someone's bait.  You either don't play the games or don't have an understanding of what a 40k game would look like even within the current framework, and spelling it out for you has yet to shift you, so why bother?

Edited Tuesday at 10:03 PM by DemonGSides

[TheVoidDragon]

31 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

So, Unit Coherency?

 

Yes, it's to do with unit coherency. Members of a unit in 40k should be in coherency near each other, but not in the rigid formations as depicted in the Total War series where they're a set distance apart and have some sort of organized structure, which is up to now how all the infantry in the games have been depicted. 

 

19 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

Your imagination is oddly limited here. 10 intercessors would look and behave entirely as predicted in 2 loose ranks of 5. If they want to go to a grander scale, apocalypse size, take aforementioned intercessor unit, smack 2-4 of them in a loose formation with a command squad in the middle and lo and behold you have a setting-correct formation of units that could be positioned and manoeuvred like any other TW unit consisting of 25-45 sprites. Do the same with other horde factions and a "green tide" unit with some nobz flanked by 100 boyz and that isn't exactly hard to believe they'd move around in a rough rectangle, or hell, a circle.

 

That's not how they should look and behave though, because 40k units don't fight in formations. 10 intercessors in a loose cohesive grouping just near each other but not in some sort of neat structure? Perfectly fine, that's how they're depicted in tabletop, lore, animations etc. 10 intercessors organized/fighting like WHF tabletop units and how units in TW:W behave? That's not really 40k. Even loose formations in the series are still operating within formation warfare behaviour.

 

7 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

I don't have this conversation with you not because it doesn't elude comprehension, I think you're wrong and I know I won't convince you.  There's nothing wrong with not rising to someone's bait.  You either don't play the games or don't have an understanding of what a 40k game would look like even within the current framework, and spelling it out for you has yet to shift you, so why bother?

 

YOU are the one trying to deny how the game depicts things even when it's clearly explained and examples are provided, so it evidently does elude comprehension.

Edited Tuesday at 10:11 PM by TheVoidDragon

[Scribe]

3 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

 

Yes, it's to do with unit coherency. Members of a unit in 40k should be in coherency near each other, but not in the rigid formations as depicted in the Total War series where they're a set distance apart and have some sort of organized structure, which is up to now how all the infantry in the games have been depicted. 

 

 

That's not how they should look and behave though, because 40k units don't fight in formations. 10 intercessors in a loose cohesive grouping just near each other but not in some sort of neat structure? Perfectly fine, that's how they're depicted in tabletop, lore, animations etc. 10 intercessors fighting like WHF tabletop units? That's not really 40k. Even loose formations in the series are still operating within formation warfare behaviour.

 

There are so many skirmish/loose units now, I really just cannot see your point.

[DemonGSides]

3 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

There are so many skirmish/loose units now, I really just cannot see your point.

 

It's why it's not worth your time.  It's not rooted in anything sincere.  It's just doom posting for the sake of doom posting.

 

3 hours ago, TheVoidDragon said:

YOU are the one trying to deny how the game depicts things even when it's clearly explained and examples are provided, so it evidently does elude comprehension.

Your entire premise is literally "It can't do that, it wouldn't be 40k".  That's the definition of "Nuh uh".

It's the same tired argument that came out when TW;WH was announced.  It's just boring to go through it all again.

 

Edited Tuesday at 10:18 PM by DemonGSides

[TheVoidDragon]

10 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

There are so many skirmish/loose units now, I really just cannot see your point.

 

Both skirmish and loose units in the game are still in a formation and operating as one, it's just less neat. Here's 3 units of skaven as an example: 

 

 

They're not simply incohension near each other, positions and spacing of each member is pretty much the same in all 3 units.

Edited Tuesday at 10:20 PM by TheVoidDragon