Warhammer Skulls 2025 - May 22nd

[Indy Techwisp]

3 minutes ago, DeadFingers said:

Ah, wonderful.

 

Wonder why they didn't include it in the image above then. Seems to me it'd have more pull than Warpforge or Tacticus.

 

Maybe the Mechanicus II Logo wasn't finalised yet?

[TheVoidDragon]

57 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

Yeah it's even featuring the same posters saying it can't possibly work.  Probably not worth engaging with it anymore.

 

No one is saying it "can't possibly work". Of course they could change the series enough to make it work. That's the exact point though, they'd have to change the series to quite a significant degree to get it to properly fit.

 

1 hour ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

TWWH40k would basically be an Epic Scale game.

TWWHIII already has the systems in place to deal with "full shooting armies", units that shoot on the move, units that seek cover from other units shooting them, systems for units spawning other units (which is how you'd need to do transports), big units of vehicles, very large Shooty units, etc.
And if the rumours are true that the game is being built on the bones of a TWWWI game, then that's already a time period they were planning to do which "broke the Total War Formula" (which, to be fair, has been "broken" for a long time already with stuff like MAGIC in the game).

 

Some of the things which would be required are broadly present to some extent - but those are still all something framed within the "rank and file" style of warfare and it's still quite a long way from what depicting 40k combat would involve. It's not enough just to have some of those elements in isolation.

Edited Tuesday at 10:42 PM by TheVoidDragon

[Indy Techwisp]

Just now, TheVoidDragon said:

Some of the things which would be required are broadly present to some extent - but those are still all something framed within the "rank and file" style of warfare at the core of the game and series.

 

As mentioned in the last conversation where this came up, Total War as a franchise is not required to be "Rank-and-File" and if those rumours are true that TWWH40k is built on the engine of a planned World War I Total War game then I'd say that CA themselves don't consider the setting/mechanics being pure Rank-and-File a requirement either.

 

But rather than have this derail into an Argument like last time, we'll just leave it at that.

[TheVoidDragon]

14 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

As mentioned in the last conversation where this came up, Total War as a franchise is not required to be "Rank-and-File" and if those rumours are true that TWWH40k is built on the engine of a planned World War I Total War game then I'd say that CA themselves don't consider the setting/mechanics being pure Rank-and-File a requirement either.

 

But rather than have this derail into an Argument like last time, we'll just leave it at that.

 

I don't really see why it isn't when it's been what the series has done for the past 16 games ever since the start and it's a big part of what the engine is built to do, that implies it's a pretty fundamental part of the series. 

 

But yes, this sort of argument tends to go nowhere really so best to leave it. From what I remember though, the WW1 game rumours originated alongside some other mentions of stuff that turned out to be fake, unless there's been more since from somewhere else.

[Osteoclast]

Maybe we’ll get a real Chapter Master game in the secret announcements. One can dream…

[Norman Paperman]

14 hours ago, TheVoidDragon said:

 

I don't really see why it isn't when it's been what the series has done for the past 16 games ever since the start and it's a big part of what the engine is built to do, that implies it's a pretty fundamental part of the series. 

 

But yes, this sort of argument tends to go nowhere really so best to leave it. From what I remember though, the WW1 game rumours originated alongside some other mentions of stuff that turned out to be fake, unless there's been more since from somewhere else.

 

14 hours ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

As mentioned in the last conversation where this came up, Total War as a franchise is not required to be "Rank-and-File" and if those rumours are true that TWWH40k is built on the engine of a planned World War I Total War game then I'd say that CA themselves don't consider the setting/mechanics being pure Rank-and-File a requirement either.

 

But rather than have this derail into an Argument like last time, we'll just leave it at that.

 

Total War isn't so much a rank and file game as it is a Brigade(ish) level tactical maneuver game, with the bulk of the fighting done in melee. The slogging attritional grind that comes to mind from the 1st WW Western Front would be a fairly different kind of game than Total War, but I also think that with the exception of a few scenarios like the Siege of Vraks, 40k is not a grinding siege game. It's a tactical maneuver game, just more shooting heavy. Total War is played by the commander of a decently large formation and battles are fought on the scale where individual terrain features such as woods, hills, and water influence tactical decision making. There's no reason that this doesn't apply to 40k, even when the majority of a battleline is wielding bolters instead of battleaxes, or the terrain features are a shattered city. You use your deep striking units to hit the enemy from behind. You place strong units on your flanks so your side doesn't get rolled up, giving enemy cavalry/bikes access to your rear. A tank or a troll are going to smash the enemy's front line. A dragon launching fireballs or a Tau Hammerhead are going to cause the same problems. Fabius Bile and Arkhan the Black will probably have some similar abilities and feel equally good when they take out half a heavy unit in one click. 40k isn't a trench warfare attrition game, there's no reason that a Total War counterpart would need to be (and I can see why they'd shelve a WW1 game as just being too far from their formula). 

 

The difference between melee and shooting for a game when we're at the Brigade tactical level comes down to animations and balance. Space Marines and their bolters are generally depicted as getting right into the thick of things, they're not using their personal firearms as standoff weapons or lying prone and sharpshooting. If you just animate shooting into the melee of a Total War fight, you're going to get the power fantasy of some Space Marines chewing up a hive of Nids. There's lots of Total War Warhammer 3 videos on YouTube of Skaven armies using guns and artillery as their primary damage dealers, so a Forgefiend or a Heavy Weapons Squad aren't some new design hurdle. Even an army like Guard, for whom the 1st WW trenchline supported by heavy artillery is the core identity, this is just a question of balance. Give the Guard units the ability to dig in and form a trench line, because they'll get absolutely smoked if they get caught in the open.  Now you're playing a Khorne Army and are about to go fight a campaign against a Guard planet? Better get some rhinos into your army list so that you can get your troops up to the trench line, which fits completely within Total War and Warhammer game design, both thematically and balance wise. The Guard player will need some anti-tank, and on and on, with the only real design "problem" being balance of these units. This is the exact tension of play and counter-play that make for fun games. 

 

Ultimately, whether a game works or not comes down to whether it feels like its subject matter, and whether it feels good to play. The balance of combat weighing more heavily to shooting is a design challenge to be overcome while retaining the feel of the setting and tabletop game, and feeling good to the players. Based on what I've laid out here, I assume it's manageable to do so while maintaining the formula that Total War players enjoy. 

[TheVoidDragon]

There are quite a few potentially rumours of big 40k games being worked on at the moment, hopefully something gets shown of them at this as. Apparantly Owl Cat might be working on a Dark Heresy themed game, which would be great.

 

1 hour ago, Norman Paperman said:

 

 

Total War isn't so much a rank and file game as it is a Brigade(ish) level tactical maneuver game, with the bulk of the fighting done in melee. The slogging attritional grind that comes to mind from the 1st WW Western Front would be a fairly different kind of game than Total War, but I also think that with the exception of a few scenarios like the Siege of Vraks, 40k is not a grinding siege game. It's a tactical maneuver game, just more shooting heavy. Total War is played by the commander of a decently large formation and battles are fought on the scale where individual terrain features such as woods, hills, and water influence tactical decision making. There's no reason that this doesn't apply to 40k, even when the majority of a battleline is wielding bolters instead of battleaxes, or the terrain features are a shattered city. You use your deep striking units to hit the enemy from behind. You place strong units on your flanks so your side doesn't get rolled up, giving enemy cavalry/bikes access to your rear. A tank or a troll are going to smash the enemy's front line. A dragon launching fireballs or a Tau Hammerhead are going to cause the same problems. Fabius Bile and Arkhan the Black will probably have some similar abilities and feel equally good when they take out half a heavy unit in one click. 40k isn't a trench warfare attrition game, there's no reason that a Total War counterpart would need to be (and I can see why they'd shelve a WW1 game as just being too far from their formula). 

 

 

 

It isn't the scale or size of battles that's the problem though, those parts can be fit in just fine. It's the style of warfare and how individual members of a unit behave. It would require quite significant changes to the series to be a more reasonable depiction of 40k than what would be closer to simply "40k fit within line infantry style warfare" with the series as-is.

 

The vast majority of units in the series behave as rank & file. They're organized into structured units fighting right alongside each other (whether line or skirmish/loose formation) standing still to trade fire with the enemy, operating and maneuvring like a single block/unit. That isn't what having something set in WW1/WW2/Modern/40K would involve, it would have to be closer to something like Dawn of War 2 or Company of Heroes with how units function and behave, and that is just very different to what the series does.

 

 

 

[Norman Paperman]

2 hours ago, TheVoidDragon said:

It isn't the scale or size of battles that's the problem though, those parts can be fit in just fine. It's the style of warfare and how individual members of a unit behave. It would require quite significant changes to the series to be a more reasonable depiction of 40k than what would be closer to simply "40k fit within line infantry style warfare" with the series as-is.

 

The vast majority of units in the series behave as rank & file. They're organized into structured units fighting right alongside each other (whether line or skirmish/loose formation) standing still to trade fire with the enemy, operating and maneuvring like a single block/unit. That isn't what having something set in WW1/WW2/Modern/40K would involve, it would have to be closer to something like Dawn of War 2 or Company of Heroes with how units function and behave, and that is just very different to what the series does.

 

 

 

 

I haven't played Company of Heroes or Dawn of War, but google gives me the idea that they're at the squad or squad+ level. But maneuvering like a single block unit is exactly what military formations do, whatever their size. A platoon commander will tactically maneuver their squads around the terrain to engage with the enemy. The squad will work together as a single unit (spread out over the terrain they're operating in) to achieve their objective. A company commander will tactically maneuver their platoons, a battalion commander their companies, a brigade commander their battalions, a division commander their brigades, a corps commander their divisions, an army commander their corps, and a supreme commander their armies. It's why an officer starts off commanding a platoon before getting promoted into larger commands. It's all the same idea as big or as small as you go.

 

As for style of warfare, there isn't really such a thing unless we're talking about the difference between field armies and guerilla campaigns. Field armies fight wars based on practical factors such as their weapons available and the terrain. The 1st WW Western Front was an attritive stalemate in large part because modern manufacturing made artillery extremely easy to produce and shrapnel rounds are completely and utterly devastating to troops maneuvering in a field, so they went to ground in the defensive. Then by the 2nd WW, tanks and airplanes have proliferated which counters the artillery threat to a degree, which frees up the maneuver elements considerably. Rolling up the enemy's flank to attack them from the rear is the same devastating tactic at the divisional or platoon level, and units at the platoon and divisional levels always behave by making the best use they can of their weapons and the terrain.

 

A game that focuses on the squad level is going to give those epic moments where a small group makes a huge difference, that's admittedly not what the Total War series is about, but the group of four space marines who make the scalpel cut were still put into place by their chain of command who are thinking in bigger and bigger pictures. The 40k player who loves the squad level might not feel that Total War is right for them, but a player who likes the typical Total War scale would probably think it's great.

 

TLDR - I think it is all about scale, actually.

 

 

 

 

 

[TheVoidDragon]

53 minutes ago, Norman Paperman said:

 

I haven't played Company of Heroes or Dawn of War, but google gives me the idea that they're at the squad or squad+ level. But maneuvering like a single block unit is exactly what military formations do, whatever their size. A platoon commander will tactically maneuver their squads around the terrain to engage with the enemy. The squad will work together as a single unit (spread out over the terrain they're operating in) to achieve their objective. A company commander will tactically maneuver their platoons, a battalion commander their companies, a brigade commander their battalions, a division commander their brigades, a corps commander their divisions, an army commander their corps, and a supreme commander their armies. It's why an officer starts off commanding a platoon before getting promoted into larger commands. It's all the same idea as big or as small as you go.

 

 

 

The sort of thing that's meant here isn't organization in that sense or scale itself. It's that the Total War games involve rank & file warfare; A unit of Empire Spearmen, or Skaven Ratling Gunners, or Medieval Knights, or Samurai, or whatever it is, organized into a unit with members of that unit standing abreast of each other in line or similar sort of formation, who operate as a single structured block when it comes to positioning, moving, firing etc. There are a few units that aren't quite that (I.e. because they consist of a single individual or monster or vehicle) but the vast majority function as you'd broadly expect from combat involving rank & file warfare like something about of the 18th century. That's why WHF wasn't an issue, because it's literally a rank & file wargame. 40k isn't that, that isn't how you'd expect a unit of Tau Firewarrior or Eldar Guardians or Orks or Space marines to behave on the battlefield, they aren't operating as historical line infantry standing in the open right next to each other to trade fire with the enemy while in a box formation or whatever. There's a big difference between the style of fighting the settings depicted by the series are about, and what 40k involves.

Edited 17 hours ago by TheVoidDragon

[Indy Techwisp]

2 hours ago, TheVoidDragon said:

 

The sort of thing that's meant here isn't organization in that sense or scale itself. It's that the Total War games involve rank & file warfare; A unit of Empire Spearmen, or Skaven Ratling Gunners, or Medieval Knights, or Samurai, or whatever it is, organized into a unit with members of that unit standing abreast of each other in line or similar sort of formation, who operate as a single structured block when it comes to positioning, moving, firing etc. There are a few units that aren't quite that (I.e. because they consist of a single individual or monster or vehicle) but the vast majority function as you'd broadly expect from combat involving rank & file warfare like something about of the 18th century. That's why WHF wasn't an issue, because it's literally a rank & file wargame. 40k isn't that, that isn't how you'd expect a unit of Tau Firewarrior or Eldar Guardians or Orks or Space marines to behave on the battlefield, they aren't operating as historical line infantry standing in the open right next to each other to trade fire with the enemy while in a box formation or whatever. There's a big difference between the style of fighting the settings depicted by the series are about, and what 40k involves.

 

Considering things like the T'au Shieldline and the Guard Fortifications, I'd say that 40k does have a tendency for units to form up into firing lines.
Also forming up into a vague rectangle is a pretty common unit placement in the IRL game.

[ZeroWolf]

29 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

Considering things like the T'au Shieldline and the Guard Fortifications, I'd say that 40k does have a tendency for units to form up into firing lines.
Also forming up into a vague rectangle is a pretty common unit placement in the IRL game.

Was about to post a similar comment, I absolutely do put my units in formations like that on actual tabletop  Even down to my nids.

 

However, I believe TVD means how the unit would actually behave irl without the abstraction the tabletop game makes. That being said, I'm interested in seeing what Creative Assembly do (if it's real of course)

 

[DemonGSides]

Also to repeat this whole conversation again for who knows how many times; total war isn't JUST a fighting battles game and this whole angle of made up complaint ignores that. I honestly think the fighting part is going to be the most TW similar thing; navigating a campaign map and doing diplomacy is going to look VERY different than what we are used to I think. 

[Magos Takatus]

Interesting how the video features the Mechanicus 2 and Vermintide logos, but the image does not. I'm curious as to why that is. Was the image published first or the video? Have those games been pulled from the presentation, or recently added?

 

As for how rank and file combat differs from the combat portrayed in 40k? Each squad member takes two small steps away from each other. Sometimes to fit behind cover they stand closer to each other again. This is making a mountain out of a molehill.

[ZeroWolf]

1 hour ago, Magos Takatus said:

Interesting how the video features the Mechanicus 2 and Vermintide logos, but the image does not. I'm curious as to why that is. Was the image published first or the video? Have those games been pulled from the presentation, or recently added?

 

As for how rank and file combat differs from the combat portrayed in 40k? Each squad member takes two small steps away from each other. Sometimes to fit behind cover they stand closer to each other again. This is making a mountain out of a molehill.

I think the video is often more reliable than the articles where things might be missed. As is the often the case though, best to wait and see.

[TheVoidDragon]

14 hours ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

Considering things like the T'au Shieldline and the Guard Fortifications, I'd say that 40k does have a tendency for units to form up into firing lines.
Also forming up into a vague rectangle is a pretty common unit placement in the IRL game.

There's a big difference between standing at the parapet of a defensive structure, and typically performing on the battlefield itself like a rank & file warfare formation.

 

Same with just choosing to have your unit in a vague rectangle near each other in a 40k game. That isn't something that means if you saw the battle taking place in Real-time, they'd be behaving like a unit of 18th century line infantry.

Edited 14 minutes ago by TheVoidDragon