Valrak Total War: Warhammer 40,000

[TheVoidDragon]

1 hour ago, Kallas said:

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.

 

 

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.

 

What is specifically being talked about here is that Napoleonic-style rank and file warfare. Not just large scale, not just there being battle lines, specifically that style of warfare and how units are grouped, maneuvering, operating and fighting. If they are not ranked up and fighting like napoleonic era troops then that is irrelevant.

I've attempted multiple times now to explain this but i'll try once more. if you consider a typical squad of cadian guardsmen in the setting, which of these do you think isn't the case the majority of the time?: They're organized and operating as separate squads consisting of around 10 or so individuals, are not standing in ranks right next to the other members of their unit but are somewhat dispersed, are not standing still in the open but when available may duck behind a wall or at least minimize themselves, and have some level of their own initiative/independence in that they are not waiting around to be literally told when to reload and fire and such, and might make their own decision to say walk a few metres seperate from their squad to get a better position. They are, on the whole, behaving more like you'd except soldiers of say a WW2 movie or series, than them being limited by more strict, precise, regimented, behaviour as seen in something like a Napoleonic era movie or Zulu and historical periods like that because that was how soldiers performed at the time.

Just what novels have you been reading where they do not tend to operate in that way? What books have you read where most units in 40k are not behaving broadly similarly to that? I find it baffling if you genuinely think that is not the way most battle scenes and depictions of 40k are written/shown,  even when large numbers are involved. I really don't know what is so controversial about saying that that is generally the way 40k is depicted.

 

Yes, elements of what would be required for 40k are present in the Total War series, as i have already said. Magic (for psyker powers) and monsterous units and cavalry at least would be fine, air units and vehicles too to some extent. Smaller units are something present in the series already, and yes, there is things like a looser formation and firing on the move for some units - but those are the sort of thing that would need more work to get them better suited for 40k. That's all that's being said here, that at the moment it requires changes for 40k to work properly. I just really don't see what the issue is with saying that I'd prefer having a squad of guardsman act slightly more authentically to how the combat of 40k is shown in novels and animations and all that with them taking cover and such as you would expect imperial guard or tau firewarriors or Eldar Guardians to do, rather than being a re-themed unit of chameleon Skinks just running around out in the open rigidly standing there in a (loose) formation or whatever.

 

 

 

 

Edited Friday at 12:26 AM by TheVoidDragon

[phandaal]

1 hour 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. 

 

What I see is a few people having a circular discussion over whether or not the code to simulate groups of dragons and ogres (and maybe also dragon ogres) is Napoleonic enough to be applicable to 40k units. Or maybe it is too Napoleonic to be applicable. Need more facts and logic to determine for sure.

 

Chinese gaming habits may just be your own personal area of interest. Does not seem to be part of the wider discussion.

 

Either way, looks like people are still enjoying the argument. Rather than stink up other people's good times, I am just going to check back in once this thread gets locked for the second time to catch up on the spicy stuff. 

[Mechanicus Tech-Support]

1 hour 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. 

 

But that's just like your opinion man
I'll give you DoW3

I haven't checked out the card games as theyre not my thing

however the other two:

Gladius has a 91% like among google users, 3.9/5 for GOG, 7.4 user score on metacritic and has a review rating on steam of very positive (Recent and All)

Battlesector has 94% like among google users, 3.1/5 for GOG, 7.8 user score on metacritic and has a Mostly positive/very positive (recent and all) reviews on steam

 

Users seem to think both games are pretty acceptable

 

[Marshal Rohr]

You may be onto something there. It would certainly explain why GW is happy to keeping shoveling [Redacted] into its video game space and call it a win!

Edited Friday at 12:43 AM by Marshal Rohr

[Kallas]

25 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

What is specifically being talked about here is that Napoleonic-style rank and file warfare. Not just large scale, not just there being battle lines, specifically that style of warfare and how units are grouped, maneuvering, operating and fighting. If they are not ranked up and fighting like napoleonic era troops then that is irrelevant.

I've attempted multiple times now to explain this but i'll try once more. if you consider a typical squad of cadian guardsmen in the setting, which of these do you think isn't the case the majority of the time?

This already exists within Total War mechanics, many of the units use a dispersed formation - and again, we have precedent for CA using formation toggles where units can adopt different formations.

 

How dispersed does a unit need to be before it's no longer Napoleonic-style? Because you say that once that happens it's irrelevant, but when given examples of this you dismiss them; and when it's brought up that they could absolutely do more than what is currently displayed in all the various prior games, it's still deemed not enough to represent 40k - it must be individual-level AI that thinks for itself in squad-based tactics thinking, or at least that's what it seems like your argument is.

 

26 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

They're organized and operating as separate squads consisting of around 10 or so individuals, are not standing in ranks right next to the other members of their unit but are somewhat dispersed, are not standing still in the open but when available may duck behind a wall or at least minimize themselves, and have some level of their own initiative/independence in that they are not waiting around to be literally told when to reload and fire and such, and might make their own decision to say walk a few metres seperate from their squad to get a better position. They are, on the whole, behaving more like you'd except soldiers of say a WW2 movie or series, than them being limited by more strict, precise, regimented, behaviour as seen in something like a Napoleonic era movie or Zulu and historical periods like that because that was how soldiers performed at the time.

Here's where you're asking for units to behave independently of the player. Which is not how...pretty much any game works.

 

If you tell a unit in CoH or DoW to go stand in the open, they'll stand in the open until given new orders to move somewhere else; same with Chaos Gate, or X-Com or any other similar game. In almost every game ever units don't act on their own initiative because that's the point of you the player - you're the one giving orders and planning the strategies, and enacting the tactics.

 

Simply, what you want is something much more detailed than the Grand Strategy and RTS systems have ever produced, or will ever produce, because it is far more granular than any GS/RTS will ever be capable of going in to without losing itself in the minutiae. Ultimately, yes, it could be possible to program that level of detail, but it's generally not going to be worth the effort when that scale of detail isn't the point of a GS/RTS.

[Indy Techwisp]

Honestly the only games I can think of where individual characters act entirely independently from you are Dwarf Fortress, Rimworld and the various games in the Sims series, and even then you can still make a (often futile) attempt to tell them to do stuff.

 

Alternatively, you don't mean fully independent of player units and instead want the units to automatically "do stuff" once you send them off.

Say, you tell Guard Squad A to go here and once they get here they automatically find cover, shoot at hostiles and retreat if needed without your command.

Sounds great in practice, right?

Cool, you have about 30 Guard units to do this with, plus the Tanks while also trying to make sure your Command Squad unit isn't nailed from halfway across the map by an invisible Cultist Unit with Stalk parking in light terrain nearby and peppering the squad with Autogun fire.

 

It would still be micro-hell because you'd need to make sure your autonomous Guard Squads are actually doing what they need to and not just robotically going through the motions while something outside their logic loop kills them.

 

Also, imagine the processing power needed to make each individual model of a 30-60 block of Cadian Whiteshields run though the logic loop of "Do I meet the criteria to flee?" every game tick.

There's a reason that Total War usually uses a Squad Based Morale system where either everyone bottles or no-one does.

[Mithrilforge]

TLDR  ... I stopped playing PC games after my son was born... as much as these games seem cool I'm Glad i stopped... building powerful Gaming PC's on a budget was a slight chore  ... Painting models (although they're getting stupidly expensive now too, Thanks GW ) is a more time consuming and rewarding experience..

 

M.

[Mechanicus Tech-Support]

So faction wise, I wouldn't mind if we initially get a smaller selection but have multiple lord options. Gives more opportunity for tweaking a factions playstyle

I think we could initially see something like:

Imperium: Guard/SM seem most likely

Xenos: Orcs and Eldar also seem like a given

Chaos: Black Legion unaligned, Aligned legions and demons (This feels like prime DLC fodder though)

 

I was going to say 2 lords each faction but that falls apart when you get to the god aligned legions, which is why I think it'll be DLC and we may see nids/crons as a 3rd xeno faction at the start

Edited Friday at 01:59 AM by Mechanicus Tech-Support

[Mechanicus Tech-Support]

6 minutes ago, Mithrilforge said:

TLDR  ... I stopped playing PC games after my son was born... as much as these games seem cool I'm Glad i stopped... building powerful Gaming PC's on a budget was a slight chore  ... Painting models (although they're getting stupidly expensive now too, Thanks GW ) is a more time consuming and rewarding experience..

 

M.

Ah you see building powerful budget gaming PC's IS the hobby, gaming is the truckstop before you get to do it again!

Kid takes precedent over hobbies of course and plus the hobbies will always be there when they finally leave the nest 

[Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla]

Edit: useless post

Edited Friday at 09:58 AM by Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla

[DemonGSides]

14 hours ago, TheVoidDragon said:

 

What is specifically being talked about here is that Napoleonic-style rank and file warfare. Not just large scale, not just there being battle lines, specifically that style of warfare and how units are grouped, maneuvering, operating and fighting. If they are not ranked up and fighting like napoleonic era troops then that is irrelevant.

I've attempted multiple times now to explain this but i'll try once more. if you consider a typical squad of cadian guardsmen in the setting, which of these do you think isn't the case the majority of the time?: They're organized and operating as separate squads consisting of around 10 or so individuals, are not standing in ranks right next to the other members of their unit but are somewhat dispersed, are not standing still in the open but when available may duck behind a wall or at least minimize themselves, and have some level of their own initiative/independence in that they are not waiting around to be literally told when to reload and fire and such, and might make their own decision to say walk a few metres seperate from their squad to get a better position. They are, on the whole, behaving more like you'd except soldiers of say a WW2 movie or series, than them being limited by more strict, precise, regimented, behaviour as seen in something like a Napoleonic era movie or Zulu and historical periods like that because that was how soldiers performed at the time.

Just what novels have you been reading where they do not tend to operate in that way? What books have you read where most units in 40k are not behaving broadly similarly to that? I find it baffling if you genuinely think that is not the way most battle scenes and depictions of 40k are written/shown,  even when large numbers are involved. I really don't know what is so controversial about saying that that is generally the way 40k is depicted.

 

Yes, elements of what would be required for 40k are present in the Total War series, as i have already said. Magic (for psyker powers) and monsterous units and cavalry at least would be fine, air units and vehicles too to some extent. Smaller units are something present in the series already, and yes, there is things like a looser formation and firing on the move for some units - but those are the sort of thing that would need more work to get them better suited for 40k. That's all that's being said here, that at the moment it requires changes for 40k to work properly. I just really don't see what the issue is with saying that I'd prefer having a squad of guardsman act slightly more authentically to how the combat of 40k is shown in novels and animations and all that with them taking cover and such as you would expect imperial guard or tau firewarriors or Eldar Guardians to do, rather than being a re-themed unit of chameleon Skinks just running around out in the open rigidly standing there in a (loose) formation or whatever.

 

 

You should look into the game "The Great War: Western Front".  It's not CA, but it's basically total war done in a WW1 arena.  It's not that big of a deal.

I think you've decided how this game works and are mad about it already.  Perhaps taking a step back and realizing that Total War is just a phrase applied to loose 4X games with a more intense rts style battle layer.  There's lots of room for 40k to work in that and not look exactly like old Total Wars did.

You're really not saying much of anything, and that's kind of the problem; none of the things you've identified as problematic for making 40k work in Total War are actually all that problematic.  If you had come in here and complained that grand galactic maps would be weird and that's how you like your 40k, then sure, that's something that sounds like an honest gripe.

"The real time battle section won't feel like 40k" is something that is wholly unknowable at this time.

[Subtleknife]

I hope I am completely wrong about this, but having CA as the devs for this doesn't leave me feeling confident that this will work. Their recent work has been patchy. And for me personally they have been veering towards a more arcade game style over the years which I don't like - I want something with depths to it rather than just smashing two opposing armies together on a map. Ie logistics, espionage etc are taken into account so we have deeper gameplay loops.

 

 

[TheVoidDragon]

14 hours ago, Kallas said:

This already exists within Total War mechanics, many of the units use a dispersed formation - and again, we have precedent for CA using formation toggles where units can adopt different formations.

 

How dispersed does a unit need to be before it's no longer Napoleonic-style? Because you say that once that happens it's irrelevant, but when given examples of this you dismiss them; and when it's brought up that they could absolutely do more than what is currently displayed in all the various prior games, it's still deemed not enough to represent 40k - it must be individual-level AI that thinks for itself in squad-based tactics thinking, or at least that's what it seems like your argument is.

 

Here's where you're asking for units to behave independently of the player. Which is not how...pretty much any game works.

 

If you tell a unit in CoH or DoW to go stand in the open, they'll stand in the open until given new orders to move somewhere else; same with Chaos Gate, or X-Com or any other similar game. In almost every game ever units don't act on their own initiative because that's the point of you the player - you're the one giving orders and planning the strategies, and enacting the tactics.

 

Simply, what you want is something much more detailed than the Grand Strategy and RTS systems have ever produced, or will ever produce, because it is far more granular than any GS/RTS will ever be capable of going in to without losing itself in the minutiae. Ultimately, yes, it could be possible to program that level of detail, but it's generally not going to be worth the effort when that scale of detail isn't the point of a GS/RTS.

 

What makes it Napoleonic or not is that rank-and-file style of warfare involving formations. That can include consisting of looser formation as well as the big blocks, loose formations of skirmishers were even available in Empire: Total War. Outside of things like vehicles and heroes, units in the Total War series are organized and function in that way. A unit of Chameleon Skinks isn't suddenly not using that warfare style because they're in a more open formation and skirmishing, both of which were tactics of the era. A unit of Chaos champions isn't suddenly not operating and moving and fighting as a singular unit like they're a formation of historical infantry.  It is still within the same sort of thing the series focuses on, block/formation tactics rather than more free-form squad based tactics.

The combat in the total war series is neither Grand Strategy or RTS, it's RTT, while the campaign map would be grand strategy. RTT games absolutely do have more of a focus on detail than other genres like RTS, I don't know how you could get the impression than the Total War games don't just from playing them and seeing the battles. The series goes for a reasonable level of detail and authenticity for its settings combat, they at least try and get something close and that's been fine with historical based periods because they can all be fit within that style of warfare. 40k deserves to be depicted to that same extent and level of quality and that would note easily fit into that style of warfare because it is not that.  What I am asking for is not "more detailed than ever produced" at all. I am not saying that each squad member needs to have individual AI to the extent you give them an order and then they'll just completely do their own thing instead as if they're a person with their own free will, I don't want it like games such as Men of War or Xcom where you individually control each member and all that either.. What I am saying is that 40k combat would be closer to the Company of Heroes series, or Dawn of War 2, than the style of warfare focused on in the Total War series, because how combat in 40k takes place involves Squad-level warfare and tactics far more similar to 20th and 21st century soldiers operate, not like how units in the historical periods depicted in the Total War series are, they are fundamentally a different style of thing. Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2 are far closer to what's needed; they aren't in formation as rank-and-file infantry, they're operating instead as a squad and have some degree of fluidity where while they might still stand mostly still while under attack unless you tell them to get into cover yourself for example, they still overall a level of pathfinding, behaviour and animations that gives them a semblance of being less strict and structured than how 18th century line infantry perform. They're move around a bit and crouch and aren't glued to the person next to them and all that, they overall behave and function in a quite different way to the units of the Total War series.

That's pretty much what a Total War 40k would have to be to better depict 40k, basically COH or DOW2 unit gameplay on a bigger scale and I think a 40k game like that would be great , I've played a lot of both Company of Heroes and DOW2, but the question then becomes if that's a move away from what the total war series does with it no longer being rank-and-file focused time periods and warfare and just to what extent the series/engine is suitable for it in the first place.

 

39 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

 

You should look into the game "The Great War: Western Front".  It's not CA, but it's basically total war done in a WW1 arena.  It's not that big of a deal.

I think you've decided how this game works and are mad about it already.  Perhaps taking a step back and realizing that Total War is just a phrase applied to loose 4X games with a more intense rts style battle layer.  There's lots of room for 40k to work in that and not look exactly like old Total Wars did.

You're really not saying much of anything, and that's kind of the problem; none of the things you've identified as problematic for making 40k work in Total War are actually all that problematic.  If you had come in here and complained that grand galactic maps would be weird and that's how you like your 40k, then sure, that's something that sounds like an honest gripe.

"The real time battle section won't feel like 40k" is something that is wholly unknowable at this time.

 

I have played some of that already, it's was fairly enjoyable. It does broadly have some similarities to the Total War series but not quite at the same level of detail.

 

I really don't appreciate you claiming i'm "mad about" this and being somewhat condescending simply because you disagree, though. I'm not mad about anything, I'm just saying that 40k being stuck ontop of the rank-and-file warfare of the series rather than adjusted to be more suitable would be a bit of a strange way to do things, so the series would require quite a few adjustments to get it fitting properly. I hope Creative Assembly make a 40k game at some point, they've even said in the past they're open to it and more 40k games of that level of quality and variety as the WHF games would be fantastic.

Edited Friday at 03:53 PM by TheVoidDragon

[Blindhamster]

Have they said itll have napoleonic style formation fighting?

 

if not, conversation honestly seems sort of moot.

[Son of Rawl]

3 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

Have they said itll have napoleonic style formation fighting?

 

if not, conversation honestly seems sort of moot.

It hasn't been announced yet, everything is just speculation. There is also rumours about a Total War Star Wars, plus the announcement could be something else entirely. They did just get the greenlight for Alien Isolation 2.

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, TheVoidDragon said:

I have played some of that already, it's was fairly enjoyable. It does broadly have some similarities to the Total War series but not quite at the same level of detail.

 

I really don't appreciate you claiming i'm "mad about" this and being somewhat condescending simply because you disagree, though. I'm not mad about anything, I'm just saying that 40k being stuck ontop of the rank-and-file warfare of the series rather than adjusted to be more suitable would be a bit of a strange way to do things, so the series would require quite a few adjustments to get it fitting properly. I hope Creative Assembly make a 40k game at some point, they've even said in the past they're open to it and more 40k games of that level of quality and variety as the WHF games would be fantastic.

 

You come across as mad about it because you've made breathless post after breathless post to other people in this thread about how it can't possibly work in TW.  You're doing it in the same paragraph where you think someone's condescending to you when they're telling you how you're being perceived.

Read the room.

[ZeroWolf]

29 minutes ago, Son of Rawl said:

It hasn't been announced yet, everything is just speculation. There is also rumours about a Total War Star Wars, plus the announcement could be something else entirely. They did just get the greenlight for Alien Isolation 2.

Pretty much, if it is real, we won't even get the announcement trailer (leaks aside) for 6 months at the very least. That's when we'd get preliminary footage and details of how the system actually plays. At the moment, saying it won't work is putting the cart before the horse as we don't know what the developers intentions are or what they're planning to do to make it more 40k like. 

 

Assuming it actually happens.

 

On a side note, I can sort of believe them doing TW: SW and TW: 40k at the same time as any they'd both share the same base 

[TheVoidDragon]

2 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

You come across as mad about it because you've made breathless post after breathless post to other people in this thread about how it can't possibly work in TW.  You're doing it in the same paragraph where you think someone's condescending to you when they're telling you how you're being perceived.

Read the room.

 

You seem to be missing that it's a discussion thread, and this is what is being discussed. I am responding to the points being made, that's not "being mad".

 

3 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

Have they said itll have napoleonic style formation fighting?

 

if not, conversation honestly seems sort of moot.

 

They have not, but it is what the Total War series is about and what it focuses on. The only game to not be that has been the mobile card game total War: Elysium.

 

They could obviously not do the usual formation warfare and go for something more suitable, but that's  what is meant when someone says it "wouldn't work" or "doesn't fit" with the series as it would have to change that core of the series quite a bit, unlike something like a switch between the time periods the game has done where it's broadly the same formation warfare some adjustments/additions over the years.

And there's that just how much of the series' foundational elements can you change before it's no longer a "total war" game as such but just using the name.

Edited Friday at 07:44 PM by TheVoidDragon

[DemonGSides]

3 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

Have they said itll have napoleonic style formation fighting?

 

if not, conversation honestly seems sort of moot.

 

That's kind of the whole point anyone's been trying to make to them over five pages but they just want to insist that it has to be Napoleonic style fighting, despite there really only being two and a half games that work that way.

 

Total war games aren't even just the battle layer but so far they've only focussed on the one thing so I wonder how much of it's actual earnest complaining. I guess we will see in a year. 

[TheVoidDragon]

2 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

That's kind of the whole point anyone's been trying to make to them over five pages but they just want to insist that it has to be Napoleonic style fighting, despite there really only being two and a half games that work that way.

 

 

I think you really need to go back and play or watch some gameplay of the series again if you think it's only "two and a half" games like that, because every single game other than the mobile card game is based around that as its core. Every game from Shogun up until Warhammer 3 has involved that style of formation/regimental/Napoleonic/line infantry/whatever name you want to give it warfare, the presence of things like dragons and steamtanks doesn't mean that's suddenly not the case and WH3 doesn't have the majority of its units fighting like that.

 

But yes, we'll (hopefully) see later in the year. If the game ends up being basically a 40K themed re-skin of how the series currently operates with units in formation and all that then you and those disagreeing will have been right after all, or if it turns out it's changed to something closer to DOW2 or COH on a Total War scale as I have been saying.

Edited Friday at 10:13 PM by TheVoidDragon

[Kallas]

6 hours ago, TheVoidDragon said:

What I am saying is that 40k combat would be closer to the Company of Heroes series, or Dawn of War 2, than the style of warfare focused on in the Total War series, because how combat in 40k takes place involves Squad-level warfare and tactics far more similar to 20th and 21st century soldiers operate

This is the fundamentally point we disagree on. 40k does not take place in squad-level warfare - it takes place in squad-level, company-level, regimental-level and army-level and beyond.

 

It is often depicted in squad-level because that's where we as readers generally interact with specific characters, but warfare in 40k is vast. There absolutely is room for the squad-level warfare, and the platoon-level warfare, of things like the DoW and CoH, but to state that these are the only things that 40k warfare is is, quite simply wrong.

 

Even the games we play on the tabletop are not limited to squad-level warfare: Kill Team is individual-level; Combat Patrol is squad-level; core 40k is either platoon- or company-level depending on the battle size; Apocalypse is regimental- or army-level; and things like Legions Imperialis are army-level or larger. In many of these games we are not controlling individual models with the detail you are demanding TW:40k should have, but they are all still very much 40k.

 

You want a CoH:40k, and that's totally valid, I'd like a new DoW that doesn't suck too! But if we're talking about a Total War 40k, it can absolutely be done while representing the 40k universe well, despite your reservations - how well CA could translate it is absolutely something to be concerned about, but the notion that they could only portray it as some kind of Napoleonic-style of warfare is incorrect.

[Marshal Rohr]

3 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

That's kind of the whole point anyone's been trying to make to them over five pages but they just want to insist that it has to be Napoleonic style fighting, despite there really only being two and a half games that work that way.

 

Total war games aren't even just the battle layer but so far they've only focussed on the one thing so I wonder how much of it's actual earnest complaining. I guess we will see in a year. 

If the Campaign Map is like Pharoah Dynasties with various resources and they iterate on the council system for various Imperial politicking it’ll be simple enough for the casuals they want and fun enough for dedicated players. The next round of rumors on Reddit and 4chan indicate a single planet or handful of planets with rudimentary naval battles. 

[Mechanicus Tech-Support]

Probably for the best, CA has been spotty at navel battles for a while (and peaked in empire in my opinion)

[TheVoidDragon]

2 hours ago, Kallas said:

This is the fundamentally point we disagree on. 40k does not take place in squad-level warfare - it takes place in squad-level, company-level, regimental-level and army-level and beyond.

 

It is often depicted in squad-level because that's where we as readers generally interact with specific characters, but warfare in 40k is vast. There absolutely is room for the squad-level warfare, and the platoon-level warfare, of things like the DoW and CoH, but to state that these are the only things that 40k warfare is is, quite simply wrong.

 

Even the games we play on the tabletop are not limited to squad-level warfare: Kill Team is individual-level; Combat Patrol is squad-level; core 40k is either platoon- or company-level depending on the battle size; Apocalypse is regimental- or army-level; and things like Legions Imperialis are army-level or larger. In many of these games we are not controlling individual models with the detail you are demanding TW:40k should have, but they are all still very much 40k.

 

You want a CoH:40k, and that's totally valid, I'd like a new DoW that doesn't suck too! But if we're talking about a Total War 40k, it can absolutely be done while representing the 40k universe well, despite your reservations - how well CA could translate it is absolutely something to be concerned about, but the notion that they could only portray it as some kind of Napoleonic-style of warfare is incorrect.

 

That is not really what I am saying though, I am not talking about the scale itself and saying that nothing bigger or smaller than something consisting of a few squads takes place. Of course there's different scales and you can go from individual all the way up to armies consisting of thousands or more in a single battle, A 40K battle can very well take place with the amount of things/individuals on the battlefield being in the hundreds or more as the Total War games tend to depict.

Edited Saturday at 12:50 AM by TheVoidDragon

[Mogger351]

10 hours ago, TheVoidDragon said:

 

But yes, we'll (hopefully) see later in the year. If the game ends up being basically a 40K themed re-skin of how the series currently operates with units in formation and all that then you and those disagreeing will have been right after all, or if it turns out it's changed to something closer to DOW2 or COH on a Total War scale as I have been saying.

People aren't claiming it'll end up as a re-skin, they're saying that nobody has any idea how it'll look, if it exists. 

 

This is the repeated problems with your posts, you're tunnel visioning on the weird fixation about napoleonic warfare and how it is 100% impractical for 40k, when everyone else is just happy to let them cook and see what they make.