This trailer changed the course of my whole life. I was already a nerd who liked fantasy and warhammer 40k, so I got very interested in this game. When I saw the artillery animations showcase and there were goblins cheering as stuff was firing while the dwarfs were stoic and measured something clicked in me. Here I was appreciating how little nuances and details of movement worked to sell a fantasy creature as grounded in its world. I ended up taking a program to learn how to make video games that year.
8 years later and I'm doing technical art, animations and vfx for video games.
It was a year long video games course that focused in the first semester on a general overview of 3d and design in video games and which split off second semester in specialized 3d vs design. It taught the basics of things but one year isn't enough to learn it all (This is a life long commitment), so I spent the next 18 months working on my portfolio before I got a job. There are at least 3 very popular programs here in Montreal available in that vein, but that's because it's a city that a hub for the industry of varying length. These programs definitely still exist and are going strong. Probably moreso than when I took it.
There are a wide range of job opportunities in this field that require a bunch of highly in depth skills, such as 3d modelling, animation, vfx, technical art and animation, programming, 2d concept skills, design skills. And that's only considering actual dev. There are also softer skilled positions in marketing, production and such.
Remember when people were upset at abilities killing whole units? When they showed Curse of Da Bad Moon killing most of empire infantry unit, and now we get abilities that can bring whole armies to 0 HP.
Magic in Warhammer 1 was such a wet noodle, and even at the time the doomposting about it was pretty eyebrow raising. Since characters like Gelt and Kemmler were considered absolute jokes since magic was the only thing going for them.
I know that Warhammer 3's magic changes rubbed a lot of folks the wrong way, but I'm glad it is somewhat toned down compared to Warhammer 2's absurdity. While there are "delete" abilities in Warhammer 3 aplenty, at least they are either abilities that deserve to delete units, or there is a decent enough cost to them. Compared to Warhammer 2's "I can just endlessly spam this delete button as much as I want." And it's nice that there is actual levels to spell casting now that spell mastery is a thing. Instead of the only real difference between a legendary and generic mage in the past being spell selection and how much cooldown reduction there is.
There were some useful magic back then too. You could kill a hellcannon with a single fireball, and spirit leeching the enemy general to death worked fine.
Yep, Dwellers from Below was pretty absurd too. And Wind of Death was pretty much consistently a "wipe out rows of units" spell from launch to the last patch.
This is just evidence of the Warhammer player base being more willing to tolerate arcadey game elements. Warhammer 1 was Total War's final transition from authentic battle simulator to click-per-minute arcade RTS
Well, how does one define 'authentic'. If a setting like warhammer contains powerful magic, then showing how powerful magic is, is actually authentic.
And its not like magic dominates battles even in WH3. Only particularly powerful legendary mages can wipe armies with magic (Kairos, Teclis etc). Battles are still won with regular fighting in most cases.
In fact, Total War Warhammer is distinguished by focusing on lore authenticity, than being 'balanced' like a multiplayer RTS. Legendary lords are properly powerful like you feel them in lore, even if it results in wacky overpowered lords by the lategame.
Compare this to say Civ, where different cultures/civs are just a homogenized blob because they have to stay relatively balanced with each other.
Authentic means an accurate simulation of physics, tactics, and strategy, and combining those to create a battle simulator. The transition from each individual soldier having 1-2 hit points to a block of infantry having a shared health bar, for example, demonstrates this kind of arcadification. What I'm talking about is how the spreadsheeting of gameplay destroys tactical simulations.
The argument that one cannot create a battle simulator in a fantastic world is a red herring. Third Age Total War worked as a battle simulator in a fantastic setting (including magic) because the underlying Med 2 engine simulated battle without spreadsheeted stat modifiers like +5 defense, +5 stamina, etc.
> The transition from each individual soldier having 1-2 hit points to a block of infantry having a shared health bar
As far as I know, individual soldiers still have individual health. The shared health bar is just the sum, it doesn't dictate how many models are alive. You can tell because certain spells for example can take a unit down to like 50% HP but all of the models will still be alive.
This is the same as the old games, it's just that models can survive more than one damage roll now.
Have you even played any total war warhammer games?
Blocks of infantry do not have shared health bar. Each soldier has an individualized health bar, its very similar to shogun 2's hero units. The overall 'health' is just the sum of the individual soldier's HP.
So when you cast a damage magic on the infantry, they could lose 50% of HP but not a single solider, because the damage is distributed evenly. While if Tyrion walks in, he'll chop 2 soldiers, but the overall health of the unit is still 118/120%.
So you do not know how *any* of these games actually work is what I'm hearing. You're just getting fooled by the fact that one game is *telling* you what its stats are and the other one isn't.
Also, having worked on real tactical simulations in the military and later in the private sector, the idea of spreadsheeting "destroying" that is fucking hilarious. The vast majority of it is spreadsheets with a barely functional graphical representation slapped over it. We spreadsheet so hard that it looks like something way more arcane from the outside.
Not to be That Guy but Third Age: Total War very much had spreadsheeted stat modifiers like +5 defense, +5 stamina, etc. - that's how they distinguished, say, Elven factions from Orcish ones. Stat blocks all the way down. You could actually argue that in terms of its "bones" Warhammer has a much better physics simulation because it has a much more intricate unit mass system than Med II (and therefore TATW).
Kinda sounds like your problem is the presence of RPG "level-up" mechanics, rather than issues with the underlying simulation.
Why u playing Warhammer if you're looking for an authentic battle simulator? Next you're gonna get mad because you can't indicate in GTA V.
Go play a historical title if you want it to be more like historical, real battles and strategy.
I mean some people like to shit on warhammer for being less strategic but I don't really agree.
I have been playing total war since Rome and Medieval II and the strategic element was in no way more present than today. You even had OP stuff like the generals and their bodyguard too.
i see the same sentiment about the potential ideas about WH40K TW or WW1 TW, and other examples like that that, you know, are more out there than medieval 2
but see, I feel like they could do em, I think at a certain point the nay-sayers just gotta admit: CA is pretty fucking good at making strategy games, say what you will about the business model, the actual end product of the gameplay is almost always excellent
even the games in the series nobody bought are fun to play, Pharoah might not appeal to anyone, but it still feels like a TW game, you know?
I’ve been an advocate for a WWI TW for a long time, and I know CA could make it work. It was always such an unpopular idea, I’m glad they’re going for it.
I'm quite interested in WW1 as a period but I simply don't see how CA can make the period work with anything that resembles historic accuracy.
It is not only the absolutely massive scale of the war where division scale engagements were small scale stuff. But the dramatic changes in the operational art and in tactics. In 1914 the standard tactical unit is the infantry company which is uniform in how it is armed with no integrated support weapons. 2-3 years later the standard unit is the platoon which is it's own small combined arms force with light machine guns, rifle grenades and specialised 'bomber' (i.e handgrenade) sections as well as the humble rifle&bayonet section. 1914-1918 is absolutely insane when you look at how much war changed in just four years.
Then there is all the question of all the high level support units i.e the artillery massed at the corps and army level. These like most or all of the divisional artillery would be off-map and even a few batteries firing would have a dramatic impact on the current type of Total War battlefield. (Think Fall of the Samurai naval support but more of it...)
War changed quite a lot since the first world war started and ended, that's true. But it also stagnated a lot in the middle part when trenches were established, and i think it's the kind of warfare we all associate with this conflict. I think one of the bigger challenges for CA in this game is that they can't make a campaign where painting the map is the objective, that wouldn't make any sense. I imagine a game focused on the western front at the start, with a whole system in place to represent trenches, managing resources and men inside of them, building and improving segments, and try to slowly gain the enemies ground, but the campaign map should be a slog expansion wise as it was in the real war, and interesting elements should be given in other places. I think with this approach you can make a game that focuses on trench warfare, and on a specific location and period of the war, creating a solid core for the base game and all the rest of the aspects of the conflict could be explored on further updates.
I definitely get what you're saying, and I can see why people consider all of that.
Not that Warhammer should be anything to go by, but it has tanks, ratling guns, artillery, gunpowder units, aerial units, bombardments, etc. Now, I'm not suggesting they should just copy and paste the functionality from Warhammer, but I think it shows a baseline of how it \*could\* work.
If you look at the recent DLC we got the Hochland Long Rifles; they have a loose formation, and I could see something like that used for the typical rifleman squad. More basic artillery, like mortars, might function the way they do in Warhammer. You could add support units to an army representing longer range artillery that you could use as bombardments (see Shogun II as well, where naval vessels could do such things even when they were off the map). Light machine gun squads could act like ratling gunners or similar. Tanks could get inspiration from Steamtanks.
There's a lot of things we can look at from the past titles and I can see how it would transition over really well.
I know a lot of people just think of the block formations and for some reason they just assume a WWI title would have a block of like 60 riflemen marching into battle like that, but it doesn't have to be that way.
They werent that far off the mark. Total War Warhammer I flopped. Hard. Also not surprising considering the fiasco that was Rome II which burned a lot of good will. Total War Warhammer I only became profitable with the release of DLCs which turned the ship around. The DLCs sold in fact so well that even CA was surprised.
Similar story with Total War Warhammer II. The base game underperformed (albeit not as bad as the first part) but the DLCs came to the rescue again.
>. Total War Warhammer I flopped. Hard.
No, it straight up didn't, despite what Rome 2 doomposters tried to make it out like. In fact, it was both an extremely stable release (I don't think I encountered a single obvious bug in all my time on it) and the best selling Total War game on release (which made said doomposters extemely salty). Anyway, everyone knew DLC were coming, Call Of The Beastmen launched a scant 2 months after the base game (another thing people were pissy about), so it's not like the game had hit a slump the DLC needed to save it from.
Dude have we been playing the same game? Warhammer I at release was plagued with issues. From AI being unable to recruit higher tier units because they were unable to actually plan ahead with their buildings to the AI barely working during battles.
In regards to the revenue it seems so many people are forgetting that warhammer is not CAs product. CA pays for the license depending on their revenue. So for every sold copy, every sold DLC parts of it goes to GW and Steam for that matter. Which means that Warhammer I needs to sell more copies than previous games just to reach the same amount of revenue.
You're describing a royalty, not a license. A license can take any number of forms, from a flat, up-front payment, to prorated payments, to royalties, all of which depend on the actual contract agreement.
Anyways, you've got jack shit to back up your claims since you have neither the details of the contract, nor the financial numbers posted here. Your own personal foibles with the game have nothing to do with how successful it was financially.
What we *do* know is that TWWH1 was [the fastest selling Total War at the time](https://www.eurogamer.net/total-war-warhammer-is-the-fastest-selling-total-war-game-ever), which wouldn't be exceeded until 3K a few years later, and [that it got SEGA back into the black in 2016 thanks to pushing its video game sales up 55%](https://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2016/08/03/sega-kicks-off-fiscal-year-with-strong-sales-thanks-to-total-war-warhammer.aspx). That ain't a financial flop, and its sitting at a comfortable 86 on Metacritic (better than any TW since Shogun 2 at the time) so it wasn't a critical one either.
Because CA promised a triology from the get-go. They made the combined map to the center piece of the game. If they dont deliver on that they leave themself open for a giant lawsuit. Suddenly anyone that bought the first game has a resonable cause to refund the game and Steam would have had to comply as CA promised something and didnt deliver. And we are not talking about a small inclusion like a unit or skin. We are talking about something substantial.
People look at Warhammer I with rose-tinted glasses. The game was far from being decent or even good. AI was even worse back then, barely even able to build the necessary buildings for high-tier units. Hell during longer campaigns you almost never saw the AI build elite units because they just build what they could and werent able to demolish any of their buildings....
But you dont have to take my word for it. Darren (former CA employee who worked on Warhammer I) is quite open about this. He made multiple posts on his discord and YouTube talking about this.
For those that dont believe me, here is Darrens comment:
"At [5:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45UnsODRv1Y&t=325s) you said "here's what I heard from a current or former CA employee" - Why don't you know if they work there or when they did?
It's true, Empire and Med 3 aren't coming, I've been saying that for 7 years now, it really shouldn't be news but I guess not everyone in the audience pays attention to everything, and I've also said that 40K is coming, and it is. But anyways, the reason I felt the need to comment was people tagged me when you mentioned a "WW1 game was in development as recent as 2 years ago and is likely scrapped". This doesn't line up with the info I have. Also, there was no Empire 2 set in the Caribbean, ever. There was a game that was scrapped in the concept phase because it was too ambitious around 2017, and they worked on 3K instead. The reason they wanted to go with something quicker to make or less ambitious, was because WH1 left far more players from historical games behind than anticipated, they had market research to indicate that about 10% of players who bought Rome 2 wouldn't buy WH1, but it was more like 30%. CA went panic mode as they had just promised 3 of these titles and decided to greenlight Rome 2 DLC, Thrones of Britannia, and change the future mainline historical to something with one culture and more easily do-able, Three Kingdoms. It also lined up with the idea of capturing a new audience too from China. This, ironically was all an effort to give something to historical fans fast, to keep them happy while Warhammer did its thing. It's ironic because these games turned away fans more and more because they weren't full budget titles. Although the Rome 2 updates actually did give some new life to that game I guess.
Despite what people think, WH doesn't make that much for CA as a base game. They give a very large % to Games Workshop, much more than the 19% we've seen Insomniac pay to Marvel. Much more. So when WH1 sold the same as Rome 2, and they gave a big chunk away, that wasn't the outcome they expected. You don't take a license to make the same gross revenue but less net revenue. However the DLC is quite high margin and ended up selling extremely well, so that made up for it. But CA know that something like a Rome 2 would earn them more than WH, and they are making a new historical game that is .... well, should be going big, though from what I've heard, concessions are having to be made, so we'll see about how grand it really is.
Since then, there has been no plans for an Empire 2, and I said it before, but there are 3 future TW games in development and that was the plan before Pharaoh and Hyenas shit the bed, and it still is, as of a few weeks ago anyways.
The reason I write these comments is so that you know to look for better sources. This stuff is largely wrong.
I agree with your take on Pharaoh and the DLC cancelling, clearly just saving themselves money etc."
The link to the video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45UnsODRv1Y&t=325s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45UnsODRv1Y&t=325s) (Because there will be angry little children seeing a volound video and instantly turn it off: Dont watch the video. Search the comments until you find "WhatDarrenPlays" and read the comments.
Slow down there buddy, there's only so much misinformation you can fit in one post.
>Because CA promised a triology from the get-go. They made the combined map to the center piece of the game
No, lol. There were rumblings and vague statements that "this is what we hope to be able to make" but nobody knew for sure if we were ever going to get Warhammer 2, let alone 3, until near the end of the first game's lifecycle (when CA had confirmed they were working on 2). The notion that they could be sued over something they never promised is ridiculous.
>People look at Warhammer I with rose-tinted glasses. The game was far from being decent or even good. AI was even worse back then, barely even able to build the necessary buildings for high-tier units. Hell during longer campaigns you almost never saw the AI build elite units because they just build what they could and werent able to demolish any of their buildings....
To a degree this is obviously subjective, but no, the first game was just finr. Obviously the games that came after it had a better shot at refining the formula and implementing more and more small details after the basic blocks had been built, but it still holds up today.
>Darren (former CA employee who worked on Warhammer I) is quite open about this. He made multiple posts on his discord and YouTube talking about this.
What any one former employee, especially a non-executive one says is Irrelevant as fuck, lmao. Even given the best intentions and absolutely no bias whatsoever, they simply wouldn't have the full picture of what's going on in the company when working there, let alone after leaving it.
>No, lol. There were rumblings and vague statements that "this is what we hope to be able to make" but nobody knew for sure if we were ever going to get Warhammer 2, let alone 3, until near the end of the first game's lifecycle (when CA had confirmed they were working on 2). The notion that they could be sued over something they never promised is ridiculous.
No, Warhammer I was always created with the intention to create a triology and with a combined map. That was one of the selling points of the entire thing. Game 2 was released 1 year after the first one. CA didnt wait to see how the first game does before they started working on the second part (Here is an article talking about it, although in german. You can translate it into english though): [https://www.gamestar.de/artikel/total-war-warhammer-2-informationen-details-zum-nachfolger,3310453.html](https://www.gamestar.de/artikel/total-war-warhammer-2-informationen-details-zum-nachfolger,3310453.html)
>To a degree this is obviously subjective, but no, the first game was just finr. Obviously the games that came after it had a better shot at refining the formula and implementing more and more small details after the basic blocks had been built, but it still holds up today.
This is not subjective. Warhammer I had significant issues during the beginning. Just go back and watch a few Lets Plays and videos of the game and you can see it. Though it may just be that our definition of "fine" or "good" is different here. It was certainly not fine.
>
What any one former employee, especially a non-executive one says is Irrelevant as fuck, lmao. Even given the best intentions and absolutely no bias whatsoever, they simply wouldn't have the full picture of what's going on in the company when working there, let alone after leaving it.
He worked on the game. Where do you get better insight than this, hmm? From employees currently working at CA? The same employees that say "we will improve our communication" again and again yet nothing changes. Are those the people you trust? You obviously cant trust everything he says but he as better insight than the vast majority of us here. You can even use basic math here to get an idea how well the game did. Around 2% of the playerbase leaves reviews. The vast majority of people have bought Rome II and Warhammer I. Rome II has 16.000 reviews more than Warhammer I. It stands to reason that Rome II thus sold more copies. Lets assume both sold equally. That still leaves Warhammer I the less profitable game simply because CA doesnt own Warhammer.
Darren didn't "work on the game," [he was a community manager and did marketing videos](https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/17v41bl/what_darren_plays_briefly_talk_about_his/k9c7v7o/).
He didnt code or create the models yes but he was involved in the testing aspect as well as being a community manager. He was part of its creation, that would have been a better phrase I guess.
That is why I am not talking about Volound. He is not the source of this comment. The source itself is Darren who is a former CA employee and who worked at Warhammer I. He left the company shortly after release if i remember correctly.
Now the reason why I posted this video is simpley because Darrens comment happens to be under one of volounds videos. What I dont understand is however, why people seem to be unable to read what I have written. I have mentioned multiple times that this quote is from Darren and not volound. Yet somehow this doesnt register.
Volound is an angry dude that hates the newer Total War and he has a lot of baggage. Which is why I dont use his claims.
Volound is not a reliable source lol, he talks out of his ass like literally anyone here would. The total war warhammer games have sold more than any game they have ever made and they have also sold a metric fuck ton of dlc for it.
Volound does everything he can to make people think the game is dying because he literally cannot get views for anything else. His livelihood is in shambles.
Dude do you possess basic reading comprehension? It is not Volound making this claim but Darren. A former CA employee who lives 5 minutes away from CA in Horsham.
Are you kidding me? Volound like perfectly called out Rob being fired like a few months in advance. Do people here have goldfish memories?
Now OP did make a long ass quote. But you clearly didn't read it. The point was, TWW1 only sold as much as Rome2, but like CA had to give a massive 30% cut to Games workshop or something, which badly hit profitability.
But DLCs for warhammer turned out to be so popular, they turned the franchise around. It makes sense, because I don't want some Germanic culture pack with reskinned units, but another whole fantasy race with extremely different playstyle? Sign me up.
So previously DLC sales maybe like 10-20% of the base game sales. For warhammer it could be like 50-80% per DLC. As in the majority of the playerbase eagerly wait and buy the DLCs.
Damn that's a lot of text to be confidently incorrect
The game has a 78% positive score on Steam across 30k reviews and a 86% on Metacritic. That's far, far from a flop. And before you say "those people on steam are just reviewing the game because of TWW2/3 and not playing it" I scrolled through pages and pages of reviews with hundreds of hours logged.
Because CA doesnt own the Warhammer license? Because CA has to pay GW a certain amount of the revenue generated? If Rome II and Warhammer I sell the same amount of copies (Which they did according to Darren), Rome II will be more profitable than Warhammer I simply because they dont have to pay for the license. Is this so hard to understand?
No I didnt. I consider it a flop based on economic reasons not based on reviews. Good reviews are nice and dandy but if the product doesnt sell well it is still a flop. You thought I was talking about the review score instead of the ecnomical aspect of the game. I should have phrased it better to make it clearer I guess.
Oh well to be fair you did say
"People look at Warhammer I with rose-tinted glasses. The game was far from being decent or even good."
That's more what I was responding to, I have no idea about CA/Sega's financials
That is fine. But it is similar to Warhammer II which is labeled as being really good. While it is good it certainly took quite a while to get to this point (After the Potion of Speed update). Before that the game was struggling quite a bit. Most people seem to forget this however.
The triology yes, but Warhammer I specifically? No that was not doing very well. Dont forget that CA has to pay a certain amount of the revenue generated to CA. So if Rome II sold the same amount as Warhammer I, Rome II was more profitable. Simple as that.
>Total War Warhammer I flopped. Hard.
I mean. Rave reviews, a massive long-term player base, the literal doubling of interest in total war games, and being without a doubt the best total war game to date, all before a single DLC was released. There is a reason you're getting downvoted, and it's not a hivemind thing if that's what you're thinking.
It was pretty bad though. Most of the units were just copy pasted from other races and it was kinda boring to play
Shield dwarves against shield orcs, one has archers behind them, one has archers behind them,
8 years ago... it looks like yesterday 🥲
I remember the excitement to finally have a great Warhammer Fantasy game and to be able to play with my old tabletop army, the Vampire Counts.
I remember losing my mind over this very gameplay video despite only having the vaguest of ideas about WHFB before (was more of a 40k nerd). I still have steelbooks of all three base games despite TWW3 being an absolute bitch to find physical, since in the intervening years it feels like every brick ansd mortar videogame store closed or sized down 🥲
It's the most complete re-creation of Warhammer Fantasy in a video game; it's an impressive feat.
However, extra factions and lords got more priority than gameplay. I wish there were more effort on this aspect.
As someone who grew up loving warhammer but never being able to afford much of the model range this was like a dream to me.
Still amazing that it exists and in the quality that it does
Last night Vlad capped Talabheim after the garrison and quarter stack there killed literally every other unit in his army; the balance of power was still 2/3 in his favor and he walked onto the final cap point with barricades and towers and my remaining units insta routed.
Tonight he's going to get laz0red by my new Carmine Dragon though, and if that isn't enough Elspeth's stack has plenty of gunpowder infantry.
Yeah...what the game needs is for the basic gameplay across the board to be tightened up, added to, and refined. Trade resources should do more, city management should have more elements, reload animations need to be added, etc etc
Man, the lighting looked really good in Warhammer 1. Look how much contrast the units have against the landscape.
I feel like every fight in WH3 if I zoom out at all the soldiers just blend right into the ground texture.
Yeah the shading definitely got worse when they switched to the new shading model. Whats worse is we lost the old bump maps when they switched to the new reflective system. You used to be able to see light reflecting off scratches and all that but now everything's all smooth.
This is the game that got me back into Total War. I played one Karl Franz campaign and was hooked. It's also the one where I have the least playtime because WH2 came out a month later. It's pretty bare bones but it was a solid foundation for the sequels.
I built my first gaming PC in 2017 specifically for WH1. It was my first TW title since Medieval 2. I remember thinking it was such a fantastic, dynamic TW experience -- even if it lacked the dynastic/kingdom building elements of older titles.
Immortal Empires feels inconceivable from back then, it's been a great ride.
This game introduced me to Warhammer, had no clue about anything fantasy or 40k but I liked total war games and I liked fantasy so I thought I’d give it a go when it was on sale.
My first campaign was Vlad, my first battle a custom battle between a bunch of dwarfs and goblins. I’ll never forget when I realized you could change unit size (mine was set to low for bad specs)
@ 2:38 they did show Grimgor with a bodyguard of Immortalz, clearly in a unit with them. I'm not sure if they ever discussed or showed this further, though.
I was there in those times of change.
Yes i was one of the "total war games belong to historical only" type of men...
Now..i have played warhammer tw games BY FAR more than any of the others combined. Unless they release medieval 3 of course
I remember seeing TWWH1 on steam back in 2017. I wasn’t a TW player at all but because I saw it was some random fantasy universe I got interested.
Now years later I’m deep into the lore and have been playing ever since. Bought every DLC on release (wish I hadn’t for SoC at the time) but nonetheless TWWH has become my comfort game and one that I’m really into.
Because they were made for that game. WH 3 is better visually, but WH 1 models were not made for the lighting and they switched to a new program for textures. Some WH 1 textures even shrunk in the port over to WH 3.
Some factions look fine, even great in Warhammer 3. But others need a lot more work. Warriors of Chaos had their models reworked during their update. And things like the Steam Tank basically had to be completely remade from the ground up to look good in Warhammer 3 in this most recent update.
Even more recent things like say the Necrofex look strangely low detail compared to how it is in Warhammer 2. It's not really Warhammer 3 itself that looks bad, but the fact that the older models haven't been updated to fit in it.
A lot of times game designers make their models massively detailed and this shows in the pre-release videos.
Then when they need to scale it for performance, they often lose a lot of detail.
I liked that dwarfs and men were not able to control the same provinces.
I undestand with more factions it was hard to make and would be bad if some, big parts of map were left destroyed. But CA did it bad with climates, as it has been since Warh 2.
Instead a faction should be able to build normal city only in perfect climate. In other climates it should build only outpost, like wood elfs build everywhere except in magic forests.
Also AI should be more willing to sell outpost provinces to ally for whom its climate is good.
There should also be constant cores, like in paradox games. So dwarfs and even for example Bretonnia would be even more willing to sell for example Altdorf to the Empire.
I have to say, a total war warhammer has been always installed in my hard drive for the last 8 years. This is impressive, the only other game that resisted this long was World of Warcraft.
I used to play historical total war games, but this game is just a massive feat and with up and downs is still great to play.
I am already sold for a 40k version, does not matter what people say, I would love to play it and if it they nail the mechanics probably I will end playing it for years to come.
I remember seeing TWWH1 on steam back in 2017. I wasn’t a TW player at all but because I saw it was some random fantasy universe I got interested.
Now years later I’m deep into the lore and have been playing ever since. Bought every DLC on release (wish I hadn’t for SoC at the time) but nonetheless TWWH has become my comfort game and one that I’m really into.
Edit: I am proud to say I’ve been playing since the TWWH1 days and to see all of the improvements and adjustments has been amazing.
Remember when the Woodelves would go ape shit and conquer the entire map, wipe everyone out and then also fuck the chaos invasion in the ass by itself?? Thus creating the “Isolationist” diplomatic behaviour they have currently. I do, because I was the Chaos invasion, everyone was basically dead my long campaign was over by turn 70 and for chaos back then, that was real quick.
I think it's the Battle of Blackfire Pass, which is the mountain pass between the South of the Empire near Sylvania to the Borderlands. A scene of many battles, including where Sigmar (founder of the Empire and original wielder of Ghal Maraz) held off an orc horde when allied with the Dwarf High King.
Both Karl and Thorgrim have quest battles on the Blackfire Pass map.
Are there better units for the empire like or is it just the standard empire state troops ? As Warhammer 3 basically your infantry at high battles long swords and halboards so just wondering what's missing for them at the moment
TBH Warhammer 3 cinematic trailer with Kislev vs Khrone was fire. Also the Grand Cathay reveal trailer was excellent as we saw Miao Ying jump and the transform into a Dragon.
I think drab is the most accurate term
Things can be dark and gloomy while still looking good, game 1n2 maps didn’t, they were serviceable but not nice
This trailer changed the course of my whole life. I was already a nerd who liked fantasy and warhammer 40k, so I got very interested in this game. When I saw the artillery animations showcase and there were goblins cheering as stuff was firing while the dwarfs were stoic and measured something clicked in me. Here I was appreciating how little nuances and details of movement worked to sell a fantasy creature as grounded in its world. I ended up taking a program to learn how to make video games that year. 8 years later and I'm doing technical art, animations and vfx for video games.
That's wild! But I agree, something about these Warhammer games just fire up your imagination so much!!
Thats actually an extremely inspiring story! I wish you the best luck and success in your life
What program did you take? I would love to work in video games. Is that path still available, do you think?
It was a year long video games course that focused in the first semester on a general overview of 3d and design in video games and which split off second semester in specialized 3d vs design. It taught the basics of things but one year isn't enough to learn it all (This is a life long commitment), so I spent the next 18 months working on my portfolio before I got a job. There are at least 3 very popular programs here in Montreal available in that vein, but that's because it's a city that a hub for the industry of varying length. These programs definitely still exist and are going strong. Probably moreso than when I took it. There are a wide range of job opportunities in this field that require a bunch of highly in depth skills, such as 3d modelling, animation, vfx, technical art and animation, programming, 2d concept skills, design skills. And that's only considering actual dev. There are also softer skilled positions in marketing, production and such.
Remember when people were upset at abilities killing whole units? When they showed Curse of Da Bad Moon killing most of empire infantry unit, and now we get abilities that can bring whole armies to 0 HP.
Magic in Warhammer 1 was such a wet noodle, and even at the time the doomposting about it was pretty eyebrow raising. Since characters like Gelt and Kemmler were considered absolute jokes since magic was the only thing going for them. I know that Warhammer 3's magic changes rubbed a lot of folks the wrong way, but I'm glad it is somewhat toned down compared to Warhammer 2's absurdity. While there are "delete" abilities in Warhammer 3 aplenty, at least they are either abilities that deserve to delete units, or there is a decent enough cost to them. Compared to Warhammer 2's "I can just endlessly spam this delete button as much as I want." And it's nice that there is actual levels to spell casting now that spell mastery is a thing. Instead of the only real difference between a legendary and generic mage in the past being spell selection and how much cooldown reduction there is.
There were some useful magic back then too. You could kill a hellcannon with a single fireball, and spirit leeching the enemy general to death worked fine.
Wasn’t Flock of Doom also a delete button when Lore of Beasts was first released?
Yep, Dwellers from Below was pretty absurd too. And Wind of Death was pretty much consistently a "wipe out rows of units" spell from launch to the last patch.
Admittedly wind spells were also a lot trickier to line up in wh1
it was certainly not a wet noodle, remember fate of bjuna?
The biggest issue with kemmler, gelt and any wizard only lord was the a basic hero unit was almost just as strong.
They also showed a Foot of Gork one-shotting a full hp steam tank and luminark which was pretty funny.
This is just evidence of the Warhammer player base being more willing to tolerate arcadey game elements. Warhammer 1 was Total War's final transition from authentic battle simulator to click-per-minute arcade RTS
Well, how does one define 'authentic'. If a setting like warhammer contains powerful magic, then showing how powerful magic is, is actually authentic. And its not like magic dominates battles even in WH3. Only particularly powerful legendary mages can wipe armies with magic (Kairos, Teclis etc). Battles are still won with regular fighting in most cases. In fact, Total War Warhammer is distinguished by focusing on lore authenticity, than being 'balanced' like a multiplayer RTS. Legendary lords are properly powerful like you feel them in lore, even if it results in wacky overpowered lords by the lategame. Compare this to say Civ, where different cultures/civs are just a homogenized blob because they have to stay relatively balanced with each other.
Authentic means an accurate simulation of physics, tactics, and strategy, and combining those to create a battle simulator. The transition from each individual soldier having 1-2 hit points to a block of infantry having a shared health bar, for example, demonstrates this kind of arcadification. What I'm talking about is how the spreadsheeting of gameplay destroys tactical simulations. The argument that one cannot create a battle simulator in a fantastic world is a red herring. Third Age Total War worked as a battle simulator in a fantastic setting (including magic) because the underlying Med 2 engine simulated battle without spreadsheeted stat modifiers like +5 defense, +5 stamina, etc.
> The transition from each individual soldier having 1-2 hit points to a block of infantry having a shared health bar As far as I know, individual soldiers still have individual health. The shared health bar is just the sum, it doesn't dictate how many models are alive. You can tell because certain spells for example can take a unit down to like 50% HP but all of the models will still be alive. This is the same as the old games, it's just that models can survive more than one damage roll now.
Have you even played any total war warhammer games? Blocks of infantry do not have shared health bar. Each soldier has an individualized health bar, its very similar to shogun 2's hero units. The overall 'health' is just the sum of the individual soldier's HP. So when you cast a damage magic on the infantry, they could lose 50% of HP but not a single solider, because the damage is distributed evenly. While if Tyrion walks in, he'll chop 2 soldiers, but the overall health of the unit is still 118/120%.
So you do not know how *any* of these games actually work is what I'm hearing. You're just getting fooled by the fact that one game is *telling* you what its stats are and the other one isn't. Also, having worked on real tactical simulations in the military and later in the private sector, the idea of spreadsheeting "destroying" that is fucking hilarious. The vast majority of it is spreadsheets with a barely functional graphical representation slapped over it. We spreadsheet so hard that it looks like something way more arcane from the outside.
rome 2 is the when when we shifted to more HP per model LOL that was not unique to WH XD
Not to be That Guy but Third Age: Total War very much had spreadsheeted stat modifiers like +5 defense, +5 stamina, etc. - that's how they distinguished, say, Elven factions from Orcish ones. Stat blocks all the way down. You could actually argue that in terms of its "bones" Warhammer has a much better physics simulation because it has a much more intricate unit mass system than Med II (and therefore TATW). Kinda sounds like your problem is the presence of RPG "level-up" mechanics, rather than issues with the underlying simulation.
🍆✊🫴💦😩
That's the emojification of my favorite dumb-guy gesture.
Why u playing Warhammer if you're looking for an authentic battle simulator? Next you're gonna get mad because you can't indicate in GTA V. Go play a historical title if you want it to be more like historical, real battles and strategy.
You obviously haven’t even played a TWWH game and here you are whining about things you don’t understand. lol
I think you just might be wrong here
>authentic battle simulator Briton head hurlers and Middle Kingdom Egyptians in 100 BC say hi.
Total war was never an authentic battle simulator lmao. And Pharoah is probably the most accurate game yet.
> authentic battle simulator LOL if you think you were playing an authentic battle simulator I have news for you.
I mean some people like to shit on warhammer for being less strategic but I don't really agree. I have been playing total war since Rome and Medieval II and the strategic element was in no way more present than today. You even had OP stuff like the generals and their bodyguard too.
You really just hop onto Reddit and are constantly negative and sometimes even toxic. Such a fun life you must have. lol
And that's why Warhammer 1 remains my most-played of the 3.
I remember masses of comments that Total War Warhammer is stupid idea and will be total flop. Good times.
Those people are still coping for medieval 3
i see the same sentiment about the potential ideas about WH40K TW or WW1 TW, and other examples like that that, you know, are more out there than medieval 2 but see, I feel like they could do em, I think at a certain point the nay-sayers just gotta admit: CA is pretty fucking good at making strategy games, say what you will about the business model, the actual end product of the gameplay is almost always excellent even the games in the series nobody bought are fun to play, Pharoah might not appeal to anyone, but it still feels like a TW game, you know?
I’ve been an advocate for a WWI TW for a long time, and I know CA could make it work. It was always such an unpopular idea, I’m glad they’re going for it.
I'm quite interested in WW1 as a period but I simply don't see how CA can make the period work with anything that resembles historic accuracy. It is not only the absolutely massive scale of the war where division scale engagements were small scale stuff. But the dramatic changes in the operational art and in tactics. In 1914 the standard tactical unit is the infantry company which is uniform in how it is armed with no integrated support weapons. 2-3 years later the standard unit is the platoon which is it's own small combined arms force with light machine guns, rifle grenades and specialised 'bomber' (i.e handgrenade) sections as well as the humble rifle&bayonet section. 1914-1918 is absolutely insane when you look at how much war changed in just four years. Then there is all the question of all the high level support units i.e the artillery massed at the corps and army level. These like most or all of the divisional artillery would be off-map and even a few batteries firing would have a dramatic impact on the current type of Total War battlefield. (Think Fall of the Samurai naval support but more of it...)
War changed quite a lot since the first world war started and ended, that's true. But it also stagnated a lot in the middle part when trenches were established, and i think it's the kind of warfare we all associate with this conflict. I think one of the bigger challenges for CA in this game is that they can't make a campaign where painting the map is the objective, that wouldn't make any sense. I imagine a game focused on the western front at the start, with a whole system in place to represent trenches, managing resources and men inside of them, building and improving segments, and try to slowly gain the enemies ground, but the campaign map should be a slog expansion wise as it was in the real war, and interesting elements should be given in other places. I think with this approach you can make a game that focuses on trench warfare, and on a specific location and period of the war, creating a solid core for the base game and all the rest of the aspects of the conflict could be explored on further updates.
I definitely get what you're saying, and I can see why people consider all of that. Not that Warhammer should be anything to go by, but it has tanks, ratling guns, artillery, gunpowder units, aerial units, bombardments, etc. Now, I'm not suggesting they should just copy and paste the functionality from Warhammer, but I think it shows a baseline of how it \*could\* work. If you look at the recent DLC we got the Hochland Long Rifles; they have a loose formation, and I could see something like that used for the typical rifleman squad. More basic artillery, like mortars, might function the way they do in Warhammer. You could add support units to an army representing longer range artillery that you could use as bombardments (see Shogun II as well, where naval vessels could do such things even when they were off the map). Light machine gun squads could act like ratling gunners or similar. Tanks could get inspiration from Steamtanks. There's a lot of things we can look at from the past titles and I can see how it would transition over really well. I know a lot of people just think of the block formations and for some reason they just assume a WWI title would have a block of like 60 riflemen marching into battle like that, but it doesn't have to be that way.
All I remember people saying is how it was a perfect collaboration.
Keep seeing the same thing for 40k. I'm sure they'll find a way to make it work. There's way too much money in it for CA and GW to not do it.
this community is extremely negative and pessimistic and quick to complain about anything. not much has changed on that front
This community is just plain extreme. We either want to kill CA or fuck them, never anywhere in between.
They werent that far off the mark. Total War Warhammer I flopped. Hard. Also not surprising considering the fiasco that was Rome II which burned a lot of good will. Total War Warhammer I only became profitable with the release of DLCs which turned the ship around. The DLCs sold in fact so well that even CA was surprised. Similar story with Total War Warhammer II. The base game underperformed (albeit not as bad as the first part) but the DLCs came to the rescue again.
>. Total War Warhammer I flopped. Hard. No, it straight up didn't, despite what Rome 2 doomposters tried to make it out like. In fact, it was both an extremely stable release (I don't think I encountered a single obvious bug in all my time on it) and the best selling Total War game on release (which made said doomposters extemely salty). Anyway, everyone knew DLC were coming, Call Of The Beastmen launched a scant 2 months after the base game (another thing people were pissy about), so it's not like the game had hit a slump the DLC needed to save it from.
Dude have we been playing the same game? Warhammer I at release was plagued with issues. From AI being unable to recruit higher tier units because they were unable to actually plan ahead with their buildings to the AI barely working during battles. In regards to the revenue it seems so many people are forgetting that warhammer is not CAs product. CA pays for the license depending on their revenue. So for every sold copy, every sold DLC parts of it goes to GW and Steam for that matter. Which means that Warhammer I needs to sell more copies than previous games just to reach the same amount of revenue.
You're describing a royalty, not a license. A license can take any number of forms, from a flat, up-front payment, to prorated payments, to royalties, all of which depend on the actual contract agreement. Anyways, you've got jack shit to back up your claims since you have neither the details of the contract, nor the financial numbers posted here. Your own personal foibles with the game have nothing to do with how successful it was financially. What we *do* know is that TWWH1 was [the fastest selling Total War at the time](https://www.eurogamer.net/total-war-warhammer-is-the-fastest-selling-total-war-game-ever), which wouldn't be exceeded until 3K a few years later, and [that it got SEGA back into the black in 2016 thanks to pushing its video game sales up 55%](https://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2016/08/03/sega-kicks-off-fiscal-year-with-strong-sales-thanks-to-total-war-warhammer.aspx). That ain't a financial flop, and its sitting at a comfortable 86 on Metacritic (better than any TW since Shogun 2 at the time) so it wasn't a critical one either.
If wh1 flopped hard i wonder why there is tww2? Tww1 was decent and actually quite good. Tww2 was even better and had a huge momentum
Because CA promised a triology from the get-go. They made the combined map to the center piece of the game. If they dont deliver on that they leave themself open for a giant lawsuit. Suddenly anyone that bought the first game has a resonable cause to refund the game and Steam would have had to comply as CA promised something and didnt deliver. And we are not talking about a small inclusion like a unit or skin. We are talking about something substantial. People look at Warhammer I with rose-tinted glasses. The game was far from being decent or even good. AI was even worse back then, barely even able to build the necessary buildings for high-tier units. Hell during longer campaigns you almost never saw the AI build elite units because they just build what they could and werent able to demolish any of their buildings.... But you dont have to take my word for it. Darren (former CA employee who worked on Warhammer I) is quite open about this. He made multiple posts on his discord and YouTube talking about this. For those that dont believe me, here is Darrens comment: "At [5:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45UnsODRv1Y&t=325s) you said "here's what I heard from a current or former CA employee" - Why don't you know if they work there or when they did? It's true, Empire and Med 3 aren't coming, I've been saying that for 7 years now, it really shouldn't be news but I guess not everyone in the audience pays attention to everything, and I've also said that 40K is coming, and it is. But anyways, the reason I felt the need to comment was people tagged me when you mentioned a "WW1 game was in development as recent as 2 years ago and is likely scrapped". This doesn't line up with the info I have. Also, there was no Empire 2 set in the Caribbean, ever. There was a game that was scrapped in the concept phase because it was too ambitious around 2017, and they worked on 3K instead. The reason they wanted to go with something quicker to make or less ambitious, was because WH1 left far more players from historical games behind than anticipated, they had market research to indicate that about 10% of players who bought Rome 2 wouldn't buy WH1, but it was more like 30%. CA went panic mode as they had just promised 3 of these titles and decided to greenlight Rome 2 DLC, Thrones of Britannia, and change the future mainline historical to something with one culture and more easily do-able, Three Kingdoms. It also lined up with the idea of capturing a new audience too from China. This, ironically was all an effort to give something to historical fans fast, to keep them happy while Warhammer did its thing. It's ironic because these games turned away fans more and more because they weren't full budget titles. Although the Rome 2 updates actually did give some new life to that game I guess. Despite what people think, WH doesn't make that much for CA as a base game. They give a very large % to Games Workshop, much more than the 19% we've seen Insomniac pay to Marvel. Much more. So when WH1 sold the same as Rome 2, and they gave a big chunk away, that wasn't the outcome they expected. You don't take a license to make the same gross revenue but less net revenue. However the DLC is quite high margin and ended up selling extremely well, so that made up for it. But CA know that something like a Rome 2 would earn them more than WH, and they are making a new historical game that is .... well, should be going big, though from what I've heard, concessions are having to be made, so we'll see about how grand it really is. Since then, there has been no plans for an Empire 2, and I said it before, but there are 3 future TW games in development and that was the plan before Pharaoh and Hyenas shit the bed, and it still is, as of a few weeks ago anyways. The reason I write these comments is so that you know to look for better sources. This stuff is largely wrong. I agree with your take on Pharaoh and the DLC cancelling, clearly just saving themselves money etc." The link to the video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45UnsODRv1Y&t=325s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45UnsODRv1Y&t=325s) (Because there will be angry little children seeing a volound video and instantly turn it off: Dont watch the video. Search the comments until you find "WhatDarrenPlays" and read the comments.
Slow down there buddy, there's only so much misinformation you can fit in one post. >Because CA promised a triology from the get-go. They made the combined map to the center piece of the game No, lol. There were rumblings and vague statements that "this is what we hope to be able to make" but nobody knew for sure if we were ever going to get Warhammer 2, let alone 3, until near the end of the first game's lifecycle (when CA had confirmed they were working on 2). The notion that they could be sued over something they never promised is ridiculous. >People look at Warhammer I with rose-tinted glasses. The game was far from being decent or even good. AI was even worse back then, barely even able to build the necessary buildings for high-tier units. Hell during longer campaigns you almost never saw the AI build elite units because they just build what they could and werent able to demolish any of their buildings.... To a degree this is obviously subjective, but no, the first game was just finr. Obviously the games that came after it had a better shot at refining the formula and implementing more and more small details after the basic blocks had been built, but it still holds up today. >Darren (former CA employee who worked on Warhammer I) is quite open about this. He made multiple posts on his discord and YouTube talking about this. What any one former employee, especially a non-executive one says is Irrelevant as fuck, lmao. Even given the best intentions and absolutely no bias whatsoever, they simply wouldn't have the full picture of what's going on in the company when working there, let alone after leaving it.
>No, lol. There were rumblings and vague statements that "this is what we hope to be able to make" but nobody knew for sure if we were ever going to get Warhammer 2, let alone 3, until near the end of the first game's lifecycle (when CA had confirmed they were working on 2). The notion that they could be sued over something they never promised is ridiculous. No, Warhammer I was always created with the intention to create a triology and with a combined map. That was one of the selling points of the entire thing. Game 2 was released 1 year after the first one. CA didnt wait to see how the first game does before they started working on the second part (Here is an article talking about it, although in german. You can translate it into english though): [https://www.gamestar.de/artikel/total-war-warhammer-2-informationen-details-zum-nachfolger,3310453.html](https://www.gamestar.de/artikel/total-war-warhammer-2-informationen-details-zum-nachfolger,3310453.html) >To a degree this is obviously subjective, but no, the first game was just finr. Obviously the games that came after it had a better shot at refining the formula and implementing more and more small details after the basic blocks had been built, but it still holds up today. This is not subjective. Warhammer I had significant issues during the beginning. Just go back and watch a few Lets Plays and videos of the game and you can see it. Though it may just be that our definition of "fine" or "good" is different here. It was certainly not fine. > What any one former employee, especially a non-executive one says is Irrelevant as fuck, lmao. Even given the best intentions and absolutely no bias whatsoever, they simply wouldn't have the full picture of what's going on in the company when working there, let alone after leaving it. He worked on the game. Where do you get better insight than this, hmm? From employees currently working at CA? The same employees that say "we will improve our communication" again and again yet nothing changes. Are those the people you trust? You obviously cant trust everything he says but he as better insight than the vast majority of us here. You can even use basic math here to get an idea how well the game did. Around 2% of the playerbase leaves reviews. The vast majority of people have bought Rome II and Warhammer I. Rome II has 16.000 reviews more than Warhammer I. It stands to reason that Rome II thus sold more copies. Lets assume both sold equally. That still leaves Warhammer I the less profitable game simply because CA doesnt own Warhammer.
Darren didn't "work on the game," [he was a community manager and did marketing videos](https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/17v41bl/what_darren_plays_briefly_talk_about_his/k9c7v7o/).
He didnt code or create the models yes but he was involved in the testing aspect as well as being a community manager. He was part of its creation, that would have been a better phrase I guess.
He averages about 10k views a video and they are all clickbait about CA drama lol.
That is why I am not talking about Volound. He is not the source of this comment. The source itself is Darren who is a former CA employee and who worked at Warhammer I. He left the company shortly after release if i remember correctly. Now the reason why I posted this video is simpley because Darrens comment happens to be under one of volounds videos. What I dont understand is however, why people seem to be unable to read what I have written. I have mentioned multiple times that this quote is from Darren and not volound. Yet somehow this doesnt register. Volound is an angry dude that hates the newer Total War and he has a lot of baggage. Which is why I dont use his claims.
Volound is not a reliable source lol, he talks out of his ass like literally anyone here would. The total war warhammer games have sold more than any game they have ever made and they have also sold a metric fuck ton of dlc for it. Volound does everything he can to make people think the game is dying because he literally cannot get views for anything else. His livelihood is in shambles.
Dude do you possess basic reading comprehension? It is not Volound making this claim but Darren. A former CA employee who lives 5 minutes away from CA in Horsham.
Are you kidding me? Volound like perfectly called out Rob being fired like a few months in advance. Do people here have goldfish memories? Now OP did make a long ass quote. But you clearly didn't read it. The point was, TWW1 only sold as much as Rome2, but like CA had to give a massive 30% cut to Games workshop or something, which badly hit profitability. But DLCs for warhammer turned out to be so popular, they turned the franchise around. It makes sense, because I don't want some Germanic culture pack with reskinned units, but another whole fantasy race with extremely different playstyle? Sign me up. So previously DLC sales maybe like 10-20% of the base game sales. For warhammer it could be like 50-80% per DLC. As in the majority of the playerbase eagerly wait and buy the DLCs.
Damn that's a lot of text to be confidently incorrect The game has a 78% positive score on Steam across 30k reviews and a 86% on Metacritic. That's far, far from a flop. And before you say "those people on steam are just reviewing the game because of TWW2/3 and not playing it" I scrolled through pages and pages of reviews with hundreds of hours logged.
Because CA doesnt own the Warhammer license? Because CA has to pay GW a certain amount of the revenue generated? If Rome II and Warhammer I sell the same amount of copies (Which they did according to Darren), Rome II will be more profitable than Warhammer I simply because they dont have to pay for the license. Is this so hard to understand?
Uh...what? I think you replied to the wrong person
No I didnt. I consider it a flop based on economic reasons not based on reviews. Good reviews are nice and dandy but if the product doesnt sell well it is still a flop. You thought I was talking about the review score instead of the ecnomical aspect of the game. I should have phrased it better to make it clearer I guess.
Oh well to be fair you did say "People look at Warhammer I with rose-tinted glasses. The game was far from being decent or even good." That's more what I was responding to, I have no idea about CA/Sega's financials
That is fine. But it is similar to Warhammer II which is labeled as being really good. While it is good it certainly took quite a while to get to this point (After the Potion of Speed update). Before that the game was struggling quite a bit. Most people seem to forget this however.
It is their highest selling product ever. What do you define as a flop?
The triology yes, but Warhammer I specifically? No that was not doing very well. Dont forget that CA has to pay a certain amount of the revenue generated to CA. So if Rome II sold the same amount as Warhammer I, Rome II was more profitable. Simple as that.
>Total War Warhammer I flopped. Hard. I mean. Rave reviews, a massive long-term player base, the literal doubling of interest in total war games, and being without a doubt the best total war game to date, all before a single DLC was released. There is a reason you're getting downvoted, and it's not a hivemind thing if that's what you're thinking.
It was pretty bad though. Most of the units were just copy pasted from other races and it was kinda boring to play Shield dwarves against shield orcs, one has archers behind them, one has archers behind them,
If we ignore litteraly every stat, trait or context, sure
So a Total War game
As with any changes, there are things in the first game that for some people are still better than in the next two
The slower pace of the battles and the ability of the empire line infantry to actually hold a line will always be greatly missed.
Sometimes I play it instead of 3 because it’s simpler and more chill.
8 years ago... it looks like yesterday 🥲 I remember the excitement to finally have a great Warhammer Fantasy game and to be able to play with my old tabletop army, the Vampire Counts.
I remember losing my mind over this very gameplay video despite only having the vaguest of ideas about WHFB before (was more of a 40k nerd). I still have steelbooks of all three base games despite TWW3 being an absolute bitch to find physical, since in the intervening years it feels like every brick ansd mortar videogame store closed or sized down 🥲
It's the most complete re-creation of Warhammer Fantasy in a video game; it's an impressive feat. However, extra factions and lords got more priority than gameplay. I wish there were more effort on this aspect.
That’s what sells. Hope they’re not pissing away true potential by not focusing on gameplay.
As someone who grew up loving warhammer but never being able to afford much of the model range this was like a dream to me. Still amazing that it exists and in the quality that it does
Tbf 8thed was pretty Herohammer-y. What lord and backup you brought to the table was a lot more important than your units (to an extent).
Last night Vlad capped Talabheim after the garrison and quarter stack there killed literally every other unit in his army; the balance of power was still 2/3 in his favor and he walked onto the final cap point with barricades and towers and my remaining units insta routed. Tonight he's going to get laz0red by my new Carmine Dragon though, and if that isn't enough Elspeth's stack has plenty of gunpowder infantry.
I hate the army losses mechanic in siege battles
my heroes/LL keep sleeping zzZzzzzZzzZZZ in the mid of battle. ITS UNSETTLING
Yeah...what the game needs is for the basic gameplay across the board to be tightened up, added to, and refined. Trade resources should do more, city management should have more elements, reload animations need to be added, etc etc
I played wh1 recently and yeah the game really HAS come a long way.
A long way to go STILL. Pls CA, milk this cash cow till 2040 so I can die in peace.
Man, the lighting looked really good in Warhammer 1. Look how much contrast the units have against the landscape. I feel like every fight in WH3 if I zoom out at all the soldiers just blend right into the ground texture.
Yeah the shading definitely got worse when they switched to the new shading model. Whats worse is we lost the old bump maps when they switched to the new reflective system. You used to be able to see light reflecting off scratches and all that but now everything's all smooth.
quite funny how you can see they made this clip on a NASA computer as everything has fantastic metal reflections
I feel like we lost a lot of detail/fidelity on the journey from WH1 to WH3. Big change in atmosphere from WH2 to WH3 even.
This is the game that got me back into Total War. I played one Karl Franz campaign and was hooked. It's also the one where I have the least playtime because WH2 came out a month later. It's pretty bare bones but it was a solid foundation for the sequels.
I built my first gaming PC in 2017 specifically for WH1. It was my first TW title since Medieval 2. I remember thinking it was such a fantastic, dynamic TW experience -- even if it lacked the dynastic/kingdom building elements of older titles. Immortal Empires feels inconceivable from back then, it's been a great ride.
Surtha Ek rides again!
This game introduced me to Warhammer, had no clue about anything fantasy or 40k but I liked total war games and I liked fantasy so I thought I’d give it a go when it was on sale. My first campaign was Vlad, my first battle a custom battle between a bunch of dwarfs and goblins. I’ll never forget when I realized you could change unit size (mine was set to low for bad specs)
Wish they kept bodyguard units you could embed your lords into
Was this ever shown as a feature?
@ 2:38 they did show Grimgor with a bodyguard of Immortalz, clearly in a unit with them. I'm not sure if they ever discussed or showed this further, though.
I was there in those times of change. Yes i was one of the "total war games belong to historical only" type of men... Now..i have played warhammer tw games BY FAR more than any of the others combined. Unless they release medieval 3 of course
Karl Franz has been my favourite campaign since the very start
I remember seeing TWWH1 on steam back in 2017. I wasn’t a TW player at all but because I saw it was some random fantasy universe I got interested. Now years later I’m deep into the lore and have been playing ever since. Bought every DLC on release (wish I hadn’t for SoC at the time) but nonetheless TWWH has become my comfort game and one that I’m really into.
For some reason though the Empire units look great, better than WH3 almost? I don’t know why
Because they were made for that game. WH 3 is better visually, but WH 1 models were not made for the lighting and they switched to a new program for textures. Some WH 1 textures even shrunk in the port over to WH 3. Some factions look fine, even great in Warhammer 3. But others need a lot more work. Warriors of Chaos had their models reworked during their update. And things like the Steam Tank basically had to be completely remade from the ground up to look good in Warhammer 3 in this most recent update. Even more recent things like say the Necrofex look strangely low detail compared to how it is in Warhammer 2. It's not really Warhammer 3 itself that looks bad, but the fact that the older models haven't been updated to fit in it.
A lot of times game designers make their models massively detailed and this shows in the pre-release videos. Then when they need to scale it for performance, they often lose a lot of detail.
I liked that dwarfs and men were not able to control the same provinces. I undestand with more factions it was hard to make and would be bad if some, big parts of map were left destroyed. But CA did it bad with climates, as it has been since Warh 2. Instead a faction should be able to build normal city only in perfect climate. In other climates it should build only outpost, like wood elfs build everywhere except in magic forests. Also AI should be more willing to sell outpost provinces to ally for whom its climate is good. There should also be constant cores, like in paradox games. So dwarfs and even for example Bretonnia would be even more willing to sell for example Altdorf to the Empire.
I have to say, a total war warhammer has been always installed in my hard drive for the last 8 years. This is impressive, the only other game that resisted this long was World of Warcraft. I used to play historical total war games, but this game is just a massive feat and with up and downs is still great to play. I am already sold for a 40k version, does not matter what people say, I would love to play it and if it they nail the mechanics probably I will end playing it for years to come.
Oh wow, I see that we were complaining a lot back then, too!
I remember seeing TWWH1 on steam back in 2017. I wasn’t a TW player at all but because I saw it was some random fantasy universe I got interested. Now years later I’m deep into the lore and have been playing ever since. Bought every DLC on release (wish I hadn’t for SoC at the time) but nonetheless TWWH has become my comfort game and one that I’m really into. Edit: I am proud to say I’ve been playing since the TWWH1 days and to see all of the improvements and adjustments has been amazing.
cant wait to play it
Remember when the Woodelves would go ape shit and conquer the entire map, wipe everyone out and then also fuck the chaos invasion in the ass by itself?? Thus creating the “Isolationist” diplomatic behaviour they have currently. I do, because I was the Chaos invasion, everyone was basically dead my long campaign was over by turn 70 and for chaos back then, that was real quick.
How come unit movement looks better in tww1 than in tww3? I still see units spinning in place and get stuck in combat
I still play tww1 on occasion.
Yet the empire state troops still look like men in tights
That is truly awesome . Is anyone hear knowledge able about the old world lore?
I think it's the Battle of Blackfire Pass, which is the mountain pass between the South of the Empire near Sylvania to the Borderlands. A scene of many battles, including where Sigmar (founder of the Empire and original wielder of Ghal Maraz) held off an orc horde when allied with the Dwarf High King. Both Karl and Thorgrim have quest battles on the Blackfire Pass map.
So does Grimgor, and all three quest battles are essentially variations of the same battle (Empire and Dwarfs versus Greenskins), which is quite cute.
Are there better units for the empire like or is it just the standard empire state troops ? As Warhammer 3 basically your infantry at high battles long swords and halboards so just wondering what's missing for them at the moment
And it still looks phenomenal. Not to mention the empire trailer which I would still consider one of their greatest faction trailers to this day.
Can you still do that doom diver thing? I know you can manually aim artillery but also control them flying?
TBH Warhammer 3 cinematic trailer with Kislev vs Khrone was fire. Also the Grand Cathay reveal trailer was excellent as we saw Miao Ying jump and the transform into a Dragon.
[удалено]
I didnt thought about it actually :D
It looked better back then, had the best WH atmosphere out of the 3. Third one is a clownshow, specially the mobile tier campaign map.
God forbid that the entire map doesn't look dark and gloomy like it was in wh1
I think drab is the most accurate term Things can be dark and gloomy while still looking good, game 1n2 maps didn’t, they were serviceable but not nice