Valrak Total War: Warhammer 40,000

[DeadFingers]

22 minutes ago, MechaMan said:

Creative Assembly have just posted their new years message: 

 

In their own words: 'We... hope to share news of new projects late this year!' - So highly unlikely that Warhammer 40,00 Total War will be announced in June, as suggested.

 

They also said as much a couple weeks ago in the Vice President's letter to the community.

 

Edited Thursday at 06:03 PM by DeadFingers

[MechaMan]

1 minute ago, DeadFingers said:

They also said as much a couple weeks ago in the Vice President's letter to the community.

 

Yeah, all signs pointing to a June announcement of Warhammer 40k: Total War being a false rumour, but we'll see - not much lending credence to it currently and lots of evidence to the contrary. 

[Emperor Ming]

30 minutes ago, Scribe said:

CA's concept of time/dates, is not strong. 

Something Something M42

[TheVoidDragon]

19 hours ago, Kallas said:

 

Neither are the units on the tabletop though.

 

 

Different games have different levels of abstraction for what they are meant to represent. Tabletop 40k, being a physical wargame played with plastic miniatures, has a different set of considerations than a video game of the RTT genre. They will obviously depict quite different things even if they are both meant to be based on the same setting, because what they try to do and what is even possible with one or the other is not the same. Games like Battlesector do not depict 40k combat in a way that is accurate to 40k, because it's a turn-based game and that's fine, while the Total War series is a game depicting real-time battles that goes for a relatively realistic level of abstraction for its settings. It's not perfect, because it's a video game, but they at least try to be a reasonable approximation of the battles of the setting/time period they depict - which, up until now, has been settings depicting Ancient, Medieval, or Early Modern style warfare. Settings where a rank-and-file style of units fighting in blocks ranked up next to each other is either what that time period involves, or is just not too out of place. With Warhammer Fantasy, that style of warfare is applicable to the setting, so the total war series was a pretty easy fit for it.

40k is not like that, it is not that type of warfare. Imagine how the battles would be occuring if you saw them taking place in real time; Units within the setting absolutely do not go around fighting like rank-and-file / line infantry formation units as if it's the Napoleonic wars. That should be quite obvious just from reading the novels, or watching the animations, or seeing how the setting is depicted in other real time showings like Space Marine 2. Something like the Mordian Iron Guard might because that is what they do, but the whole, combat in 40k is more fluid and free-form. Units are grouped into smaller squads, and operate closer to soldiers from the early 20th century up to modern day. It is fundamentally a different style of warfare to the historical battles of the Total War series. Guardsman or Tau or Space Marines or Votann or whatever would be near their squadmates but not literally standing next to, they'd be maneuvering on their own and taking cover when able, they'd be making their own decisions to some extent rather than only firing when outright told to etc. It's a significantly different style to what is shown in the total war series as warfare has changed since the sort of thing the series depicts, and 40k goes for something more modern.

That tabletop miniatures in tabletop 40k don't do those things like showing some unit initiative and individuality and taking cover on their own and such that you'd except if it was occuring doesn't matter. They are a depiction of the battles in the setting at a certain level, and one that is not able to have the level of granularity required to properly showcase how things WOULD be occuring....because they're inanimate plastic. That is not the case with the total war video games which being video games, are better able to depict the setting to a more nuanced extent. I would want a 40k total war game to showcase it's setting to just the same level the series has for every other setting it's depicted, and that involves not having 40k shown as if battles take place like 18th century line infantry / rank-and-file / whatever descriptor you think best fits for what the series is. The franchise as it is has always focused on that style of warfare that is not applicable to what 40k involves and does not do those things that would be required to depict 40k combat in a real-time game at this level of abstraction with this level of authenticity.
 

If they took the elements of the series as it currently is but re-themed the units and such to a modern day setting, then I don't think you could really say that that's a reasonable depiction of how modern-day combat occurs and it just wouldn't be an overly satisfying implementation of that time period, that would just be strange to see in a real-time game that's supposed to have a decent level of authenticity to how it depicts its setting. WW1, WW2, Star Wars, Modern day, 40K etc all have that same issue.  They are settings that do not translate over to the formula of the Total War series because they are not the rank-and-file warfare style that the series focuses on.  As as I have already said here, take a look at the WW1 Total War mod, thats Napoleonic Combat with a WW1 theme stuck ontop rather than a WW1 game as such.

Having 40k combat at least somewhat approach looking like 40k combat would require quite a bit of work or you'll have Eldar Guardians and Tau Firewarriors organized into units of dozens in formation standing right next to each other standing still out in the open to trade fire with the enemy, or if lucky slightly looser formations with them firing on the move. I just think that would be a very strange way to have 40k battles be shown, and to me definitely not doing it justice when considering the level of quality the Total War series goes for. I would expect and hope for more than 40k to be depicted like the style of warfare shown (Napoleonic style or whatever you want to call it) in the Total War series when it is absolutely not that outside of certain aspects of the lore like the Mordian Iron guard.

Edited Thursday at 08:25 PM by TheVoidDragon

[Scribe]

38 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

It's a significantly different style to what is shown in the total war series as warfare has changed since the sort of thing the series depicts, and 40k goes for something more modern.

 

There are many many depictions of gun lines, wall sieges (Siege of Terra...) ranked up blocks and head on engagements.

 

This, I dont know, revisionism? that 40K is only tacti-cool COD wannabe just is not remotely accurate.  Drive me closer, I need to hit them with my sword.

[TheVoidDragon]

4 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

There are many many depictions of gun lines, wall sieges (Siege of Terra...) ranked up blocks and head on engagements.

 

This, I dont know, revisionism? that 40K is only tacti-cool COD wannabe just is not remotely accurate.  Drive me closer, I need to hit them with my sword.

 

That there is some variation depending on the situation does not mean that the typical style of combat that takes place in the 40k setting is rank-and-file line infantry warfare.

[Scribe]

32 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

 

That there is some variation depending on the situation does not mean that the typical style of combat that takes place in the 40k setting is rank-and-file line infantry warfare.

 

Sure, but are you so confident that there IS a typical, or is it that squad level takes up the lines share of attention in the fiction because its easier to tell a personalized story?

 

Was the Siege of Vraks one of tactical insertion and mobile flanking? When the Big Guns Never Tire line was uttered, was that because of all the Black Ops Marine engagements?

[Mechanicus Tech-Support]

Its not modern day combat, its 40k combat where people still run at each other with swords and in BL and literally the majority of the art depicting battles its gun lines or big blobs of infantry running at each other.

 

That there is some variation depending on the situation does not mean that the typical style of combat that takes place in the 40k setting is tacticool infantry warfare when in universe factions that act like that are generally called out as specialists ie. Raven guard, raptors, scions, alpha legion, gaunts ghosts.

A mentor marine fights as you suggest in Spear of the emperor and everyone else finds it weird

 

I'm sure you can find BL novels in which everyone is acting as you suggest and like wise I can pull up other novels in which we have non-mordians in rank and file, this setting has been around long enough and is such a mishmash of ideas that I find it difficult that one can say this or that is typical 40k combat. Which is why I think CA will be able to make a game that yes feels very much to be 40k, will there be abstractions? yes but that has literally been the case with every single medium warhammer is in

 

 

 

[Scribe]

1 minute ago, Mechanicus Tech-Support said:

will there be abstractions? yes but that has literally been the case with every single medium warhammer is in

 

Up to and including 10th edition of the bloody 40K rules. 

[TheVoidDragon]

6 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Sure, but are you so confident that there IS a typical, or is it that squad level takes up the lines share of attention in the fiction because its easier to tell a personalized story?

 

Was the Siege of Vraks one of tactical insertion and mobile flanking? When the Big Guns Never Tire line was uttered, was that because of all the Black Ops Marine engagements?

 

I think it's a bit absurd if you're seriously using that there are some lore examples of regiments or situations that involved something somewhat different to try and claim that the most common style of warfare shown within the setting is not something with units grouped and operating at a squad level and fighting using tactics closer to Post 20th century soldiers (Just with more melee) than Napoleonic Line Infantry.  It's how the majority of Imperial guard regiments, Space Marines, Tau and Votann and Eldar and such are written in most novels. It's how tabletop 40k units behave. It's typically how things are depicted in the animations from over the past few years.

That there are sometimes variation and exceptions to that does not mean that is not the case. Those are just that, exceptions.

[Marshal Rohr]

22 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Sure, but are you so confident that there IS a typical, or is it that squad level takes up the lines share of attention in the fiction because its easier to tell a personalized story?

 

Was the Siege of Vraks one of tactical insertion and mobile flanking? When the Big Guns Never Tire line was uttered, was that because of all the Black Ops Marine engagements?

Vraks did a really good job showing 40K Trench Warfare ends up being more like what’s happening currently in a certain Eastern European hot spot than World War One, and also depicting the non-fantastical major breakthroughs always followed something we would think of as more modern than World War One. Also don’t forget a good portion of the first and second books were space marines showing up for a single fight and making more gains than the Krieg did in a matter of hours. The Badab Siege was also an infiltration that took down the Lightning Shield wasn’t it? 
 

I was thinking more about it last night and I think they will be adopting something more similar to the 3 Kingdoms armies, where you have up to three distinct groups in a single stack and that is what you will be dragging and moving. Some kind of 360 degree engagement zone for each group and instead of clicking one individual squad or company of marines you select one of those groups and put it into a defend, shoot, or assault stance and it’ll just be a various stew of calculations. Like picking a group of guard will have leman Russes and infantry and maybe some field guns and you select defend and then they get attacked by an opposing group of black legions that’s fewer entities but because they’re set in assault stance or something they get a charge bonus. 
 

Unfortunately we won’t actually know how the game is until we buy it, given all the revelations from the guy that worked on Rome 2 about how shady and dishonest the CA developers are. 

Edited Thursday at 10:01 PM by Marshal Rohr

[Mechanicus Tech-Support]

On 1/1/2025 at 11:09 AM, Indy Techwisp said:

How do we think they'll deal with Legendary Lords, Lords and Heroes?

 

Let's say I boot up TWWH:40k and I want to play Ultramarines, so go to Faction select and click Space Marines.

Am I going to see Marneus Calgar here as my Legendary Lord, or Guilliman?

If it's not Guilliman, is he an exclusive Lord or Hero for Ultramarines or could any Marine faction pick him up?

If I chose Dark Angels instead and Lion wasn't the Legendary Lord, would it be Azrael or Asmodai?

Would Dark Angels and other Divergent Chapters be their own factions entirely with the Codex chapters all bundled into a general Space Marines faction?

 

As much as I would like to keep primarchs out of it, thats probably not in the cards if I'm being honest with myself.

I can see it initially starting out like WH1 where you have multiple heroes starting in the same location but as the game and map(s) grow that could change.

So you may be able to select either Guilliman or Calgar who both begin at the same location but we will be able to recruit the hero you didnt pick later in the campaign. 

 

DA and other divergent chapters may come in time, depends on what CA wants to do. We could have a single marine faction at the start with 2-3 selectable leaders or they could make it so the leader of the SM dictates which chapter it is, so you have an option of lets say Calgar, Azreal, Dante etc. But if they go that route we probably wont see all the unique units of some divergent chapters at the start (to then be released later in a DLC or something)

[Scribe]

18 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

It's how tabletop 40k units behave.

 

Units in loose blobs, shooting at other units, or engaging in an assault/charge?

 

I've been playing a lot of Total War over the holiday, and its the exact same thing.

[TheVoidDragon]

15 minutes ago, Mechanicus Tech-Support said:

Its not modern day combat, its 40k combat where people still run at each other with swords and in BL and literally the majority of the art depicting battles its gun lines or big blobs of infantry running at each other.

 

That there is some variation depending on the situation does not mean that the typical style of combat that takes place in the 40k setting is tacticool infantry warfare when in universe factions that act like that are generally called out as specialists ie. Raven guard, raptors, scions, alpha legion, gaunts ghosts.

A mentor marine fights as you suggest in Spear of the emperor and everyone else finds it weird

 

I'm sure you can find BL novels in which everyone is acting as you suggest and like wise I can pull up other novels in which we have non-mordians in rank and file, this setting has been around long enough and is such a mishmash of ideas that I find it difficult that one can say this or that is typical 40k combat. Which is why I think CA will be able to make a game that yes feels very much to be 40k, will there be abstractions? yes but that has literally been the case with every single medium warhammer is in

 

 

 

 

Quite a lot of especially classic 40k art shows big battles with large numbers of units, yes, but those are still not the rank-and-file warfare that's being discussed. They're just large scale battles with lots of participants.

 

Units like the Raven Guard, Raptors, Scions and so on are specialists in specifically stealth, spec-ops, infiltration etc, not what's being referred to by saying "operating closer to modern day soldiers". Do you think every other unit in 40k is grouped into dozens-strong regimental block units and stands in tight formation in ranks right next to each other member of their unit standing still as they trade fire with the enemy?

I have the novel Spear of the Emperor but have yet to read it. Can you please specify where that scene you mention is so i can read that for myself? If you could name the other books you claim show rank & file combat too that would help as i get the impression that maybe there's some misunderstanding over the sort of thing that is particularly being talked about here.
 

[phandaal]

Not to belittle anyone's passion here, but what are people hoping to accomplish by explaining in detail how Total War can or cannot support 40k battles?

 

We will find out when they release the game, yeah? Until then it just seems like a debate over opinions, and those will never change.

[Scribe]

10 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

Quite a lot of especially classic 40k art shows big battles with large numbers of units, yes, but those are still not the rank-and-file warfare that's being discussed. They're just large scale battles with lots of participants.

 

Nobody is discussing 'rank and file' battle but you though. Those of us playing the most recent Total War offering are telling you that you dont have to play a rank and file battle at all.

 

You want 20 Tanks? You got it. 20 Dragons? You got it. 20 Single Minotaur Lord/Heros? You got it. A tide of Ogres? Where is the 'rank and file'?

 

There is no requirement to play rank and file in 2025, why would you need to play as such in a hypothetical 40K with CA having decades of experience in a NOT rank and file game?

[Mechanicus Tech-Support]

Rome2 was a :cuss: show of a release thats for sure, probably their worst

 

I know there was rumours of a TW world war game that got scrapped so wonder if we might see some mechanics from that which never made it into the series.

 

Didn't even consider the army mechanic from kingdoms but that would slot in quite nicely. I would like to see a return to being able to move troops without needing a general with them.

Haven't played pharaoh yet or troy so dont know if they have anything new to offer that could be pulled from.

 

Wonder how indepth the diplomacy system will be, they keep tinkering with it and making it either really strong or something you can generally ignore

[Scribe]

5 minutes ago, phandaal said:

Not to belittle anyone's passion here, but what are people hoping to accomplish by explaining in detail how Total War can or cannot support 40k battles?

 

We will find out when they release the game, yeah? Until then it just seems like a debate over opinions, and those will never change.

 

Yeah fair enough.

[Kallas]

7 hours ago, Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla said:

Those squares can be anything. It doesn't matter if they are dense lines of Greek hoplites, loose blobs of Skinks, or rows of Napoleon's Old Guard. It doesn't matter if they are shooting at each other, throwing spears or fighting melee. It doesn't matter whether the artillery sprinkled here and there is called ballista, warplock jezzail or canon de 12 Gribeauval. None of these changes the basic philosophy underlying how TW abstacts pre-modern battle.

So...much like how 40k operates in general? Kind of like how in 3rd through 6th you couldn't split fire, your units were forced to shoot everything at the same target.

 

Sure, if you want to be picky, yes, everything comes down to Unit A does [attacks] at Unit B, whether it's melee or ranged. But yeah, that's kind of what happens when controlling at the scale that most TW games operate at.

 

Why are we assuming that a Guard Infantry Squad is the basic formation and not something like a Guard Infantry Platoon? Even at that scale, things like Marines still fit in as we've seen with things like the hero units in Shogun ("but lined up formation!") or the much smaller units in TWWH like Aspiring Champions and Wrathmongers, or even Heroes and Lords, which are single entities.

 

Fundamentally, it doesn't matter what period you're looking at, if you zoom out far enough, everything is Unit A [attacks] Unit B. This isn't inherently a bad thing, and I don't get how this is somehow making TW:40k an impossibility for some folks (especially when some of those same folks also want a Stellaris:40k which is zoomed out even further).

 

There will always be some gamified mechanics required, the granularity that you want is not from a Total War game, but it hasn't been recreated in anything other than something like X-Com or Chaos Gate - because those are actually zoomed in enough to allow you to manoeuvre individual models.

 

7 hours ago, Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla said:

Honorable mention must be made for the maps issue. TW maps are largely irrelevant to fighting, simply cosmetic drapings for your lines of infantry.

I mean, this kind of shows a complete misunderstanding of how TW games play. Sorry, but terrain has been important in most TW games (including Warhammer), and while it's certainly not always been done well, it has always played an important role in winning engagements - as someone who is quite involved in the TWWH3 MP tournament scene, terrain very much plays an important part in winning fights.

 

Is map making a significant challenge for CA? Yes, absolutely, making fitting maps that can be properly traversed without pathing and line of sight issues is absolutely a concern - but it doesn't invalidate the notion that it can absolutely be done, and done well while keeping the aesthetic and feel of 40k.

 

7 hours ago, Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla said:

It's meant to abstract pre-modern warfare with few big armies searching each other for battle. This is not modern warfare and this is not WH40k warfare.

Um, a lot of 40k pulls a lot of inspiration from these kinds of battles and circumstances. While 40k is absolutely sci-fi/sci-fantasy, it also maintains a certain tech-illiteracy: the Imperium, especially, is not actually particularly great at using technology to find things (the Kreig that have been mentioned, for example, utilise cav as scouts; very much a WW1 and prior method of scouting).

 

Simply, 40k isn't modern warfare. Some parts of it are for sure, especially the Tau and maybe the Eldar, but the Imperium certainly isn't as a whole - the Imperial Guard, the main fighting force of the Imperium, absolutely does participate in pitched battles; it also undertakes reconnaisance missions, small scale skirmishes and other asymmetrical warfare, but to say that the large scale battles not only don't exist but are "not WH40k warfare" is, simply, wrong - one of the things about 40k is that it kind is everything.

 

While TW wouldn't be able to capture every aspect of it, neither have any of the other very well received 40k games - and yet we still enjoyed those games, despite knowing that what they were was not the entirety of 40k's scope.

 

2 hours ago, TheVoidDragon said:

40k is not like that, it is not that type of warfare. Imagine how the battles would be occuring if you saw them taking place in real time; Units within the setting absolutely do not go around fighting like rank-and-file / line infantry formation units as if it's the Napoleonic wars. That should be quite obvious just from reading the novels, or watching the animations, or seeing how the setting is depicted in other real time showings like Space Marine 2. Something like the Mordian Iron Guard might because that is what they do, but the whole, combat in 40k is more fluid and free-form.

 

I actually think you need to go reread some of the books and stories, because 40k does have armies fighting in large scale formations. Are they ranked up like Napoleonic era troops? No, but they are still fighting largely in battle lines that would still be represented just fine by varying degrees of skirmish formation - much like how DoW/DoW2 handled things.

 

To acheive the level of granularity you're talking about would warrant a game more like DoW or CoH. TW is a more zoomed out scale - and it could absolutely work, but mechanically it'd be different from those games, of course.

 

32 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

Do you think every other unit in 40k is grouped into dozens-strong regimental block units and stands in tight formation in ranks right next to each other member of their unit standing still as they trade fire with the enemy?

 

Nobody but you is insisting on this being the template. As already mentioned earlier, we have the templates that you desire that already exist within TWWH (eg, Aspiring Champions - a small, 16-strong [on the largest scale: Ultra]) that would fit something like Astartes. Varying degrees of skirmish-style spacing would fit various different factions (eg, Orcs in TWWH already are a looser, less organised version of the regimental blocks than, say, High Elves) and we already have the option in previous TW titles where units could change their formations (eg, loose and tight spacing in Rome 2) to fit different battlefield scenarios that could absolutely be applied to TW:40k.

 

The insistence that TW could not function is, frankly, short sighted and ignores all of the available tools that already exist, and any possible changes that CA could make to create a properly fitting 40k aesthetic.

[Marshal Rohr]

25 minutes ago, phandaal said:

Not to belittle anyone's passion here, but what are people hoping to accomplish by explaining in detail how Total War can or cannot support 40k battles?

 

We will find out when they release the game, yeah? Until then it just seems like a debate over opinions, and those will never change.

People are expressing disappointment that after the disastrous DoW3, the travesty that is Gladius, the cash grab Battlesector, and an seemingly infinite number of card games solely designed to extract money from Chinese people with gambling addictions the next major 40K game won’t be something cool like Space Marine it will probably be another square peg in a round hole. 

[Mogger351]

7 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

People are expressing disappointment that after the disastrous DoW3, the travesty that is Gladius, the cash grab Battlesector, and an seemingly infinite number of card games solely designed to extract money from Chinese people with gambling addictions the next major 40K game won’t be something cool like Space Marine it will probably be another square peg in a round hole. 

There's a lot of projecting your personal opinions out as a group consciousness there. Maybe give someone a chance before spitting the dummy out is the point. Let them have a crack, produce some in game footage and judge for yourself.

 

It's utterly stupid to simply think of it as twwh3 with 40k skins, which is how you're presenting the idea. But even if that was, it still might be good for a majority.

[Vassakov]

11 minutes ago, Marshal Rohr said:

People are expressing disappointment that after the disastrous DoW3, the travesty that is Gladius, the cash grab Battlesector, and an seemingly infinite number of card games solely designed to extract money from Chinese people with gambling addictions the next major 40K game won’t be something cool like Space Marine it will probably be another square peg in a round hole. 

 

Are we just ignoring Rogue Trader, Chaos Gate and Darktide? Admittedly Rogue Trader was unfortunate in being released just after Baldur's Gate 3, but it's still a solid game and a great look at a corner of 40k.

 

Also, generally speaking CA have handed the GW licence well, are likely a major reason why The Old World exists, and in my view have earned the benefit of the doubt - assuming of course that any such game is in the works. We have 0 firm evidence for that thus far.

 

 

Just now, Vassakov said:

 

 

Edited Thursday at 11:07 PM by Vassakov

[Kallas]

12 minutes ago, Vassakov said:

Are we just ignoring Rogue Trader, Chaos Gate and Darktide? Admittedly Rogue Trader was unfortunate in being released just after Baldur's Gate 3, but it's still a solid game and a great look at a corner of 40k.

Yeah for sure.

 

Chaos Gate: Daemonhunters is an excellent game in the X-Com 2 style.

Darktide, while it had a rocky start, is an awesome Left4Dead style game.

Rogue Trader, while it has had some bugginess, is an excellent CRPG.

TW Warhammer 1-3, again have had issues, but are an excellent RTS/Grand Strategy series and definitely capture the feel of Warhammer Fantasy.

Gladius is a solid 4X, I don't get where the "travesty" is, unless it's about the cost of the DLC packs (which is separate from the actual quality of the game itself - which is also about a decade old at this point and still solid).

Boltgun is an awesome boomer shooter.

Battlefleet Gothic Armada/2 is a good fleet game (though honestly not my personal thing, as much as I wanted it to be).

Space Marine/SM2 are excellent, and the Secret Level episode obviously pulls from and continues the Titus story to much acclaim.

 

40k has definitely had its IP plastered all over a ton of dross, but a lot of the big titles have not been overall disappointing, or have been excellent.

[ZeroWolf]

No love for Mechancius?

[Kallas]

11 minutes ago, ZeroWolf said:

No love for Mechancius?

Ah yes, of course! Personally not a fan, but I know it's generally well regarded!