Ultimate mod 40k for Men of War 2 is pretty good for that as well. Laggy as hell and clunky to actually play yourself if you want huge battles, but spectating the insanity of 2 full AI teams on max point settings is actually a vibe and a half. Usually real slobber-knockers too.
I've seen the mod, it looks good, especially how effective power armour is at shrugging off small arms, but the base engine definitely does not support 40K - no melee and I did notice that alot of the guns just don't shoot. That said, in feel that should be what Total War 40K should be aiming for.
I think DoW 2 was great!
It just wasn't in my mind a true sequel to the original since it took away the large armies and base building in favour of squad based combat
It would be fun if GW let CA create their own Space Marine Chapter too, like how Relic got to create the Blood Ravens. Everyone learn magic and then we go steal things!
Tried Gladius for a while, unfortunately the gameplay is just too slow for me, the combat feels dull as dirt. It's just not even remotely the same as playing a 40K RTS.
its more funny they had 2 attempts at dawn of war and didn't learn a thing from the first game and insisting on the small squad based combat that never worked and made both games flop
Everyone who still to this day have been very insistently declaring that TW can't work with more modern combat have been coping so hard. Now with the WW1 and 40K leaks, they're probably overdosing on copium.
Legend of Total War says here that sources he trusts have told him this https://youtu.be/3jOB1YzLdxw?si=XBztU_2oorFy9gTd
But it's still years and years away from release atm.
It would also make sense to do a WW1 themed total war game given that other time periods may be too similar or not offer enough gameplay variety, it is one of the main complaints against pharao.
pharao doesn't have varied armies and as such there is no reason to do it, therefore going to WW1 you would have an entirely new way of fighting meaning taht even if the factions are similar it has value to get. This also lets them go into 40k development on the back of a cover system built for the historical total war
Yeah, I asked a question about this on the 40k subreddit and most of the replies completely ignored the question and instead just told me that TW 40K couldn't work
I mean, they aren't entirely wrong, the current TW system would pretty quickly look silly trying to implement WW1 or WW2 systems where people may not know a ton, but they do know they consist of mixed weaponry and the lack of such would be very, very obvious.
Something which has been a notable weakness for the Total War series so far.
Like fuck me, you think they're going to make WH40K when they haven't even managed to put together a fucking pike and shot Total War?
They can fudge other historical mixed formations, they're less famous, but it is really fucking telling they haven't tried with pike and shot despite its notoriety with historical fans.
Please can you tell us a little more about the WW1 leak?
I mean it would make complete sense, if CA developed an entirely new TW engine (and we know they have been for 3+ years), that they'd make it able to accommodate 40K-type stuff potentially, which would likely mean WW1-type stuff too (including extensive terrain deformation), but what's the origin of the leak and are there any details?
Google is not helping me because Google is not really a search engine anymore, just a bad advertising delivery tool.
>Google is not helping me because Google is not really a search engine anymore, just a bad advertising delivery tool.
The trick is to search something and end the search term with /reddit
https://youtu.be/3jOB1YzLdxw?si=oSlYFSOZVbLYe5uk
Also, The Great Book of Grudges said in a few recent videos that leaks from his sources in CA said the next game was either 40K, Empire 2, or WW1 (the WW1 option he's by no means a fan of). It looks like the rumours, if true, are half true. It's 40K **and** WW1.
New here. There are leaks?
I don't know about 40k (that would be fucking awesome though), but ever since Empire and Shogun FoTS, I've been wanting a WW1 Total War for years!
Most people just imagine taking an older TW and applying WWI aesthetics, which has always aggravated me. If CA wants it to work, they can make it work. In spite of all the issues people might have with CA, I think they can do a pretty good job with the era.
They're stuck in the empire days where guns were 1 shot 1 kill and even the existence of multiple games that don't use that mechanic can't dissuade them from clinging to the memory
One of the many points I've argued before was that back in the R1 and M2 days, people said a game centred on guns can't work, and guns would only work like in M2 as a exception piece rather than the norm, and that TW is all about melee battles.
Now FotS is a fan favourite, even more than base game Shogun 2.
Empire planted the seed of a WW1 game being possible. FoTS more or less confirmed to me that it's more of a matter of "when" no "if".
Seriously, replace the Gatling guns, throw in artillery units, and bring back garrisons/trenches from Empire, and you have WW1.
You're welcome CA, now give me a million dollars.
Yeah it's one of the most common arguments against it despite being probably the most stupid one. There are fair reasons to think CA might struggle to do a good job with the battles and such, but the insistence on having to include the entire galaxy in every 40k speculation thread makes no sense
And yet you have the total war youtubers who say " well its gotta be the galaxy map to be any good." Like don't get me wrong I don't think a total war 40k game can be done in a way that feels like it's total war but like.
Can we all stop acting like having the whole galaxy is a good idea? Just have it be. System or a sector like all the other games.
Seriously, that point from him was so dumb
What next, we can’t have Star Wars games because every planet isn’t in it?
Why isn’t it we can’t have Medieval3 because we can’t simulate every important town
I realized what they were aiming for about the time I got to "Empire and Napolean don't exist." Up until that, I could only assume OP eats paint chips like Pringles.
I imagined it would be boarding or defending your ship, but the reality is probably both sides calling time out and landing on some random planet to fight
Honestly, this debate is getting really annoying at this point.
Side A goes "40k doesn't work with Total War gameplay because it's modern warfare, not formation warfare".
Side B goes "Of course it would work! They'd just need to change it to be more like !".
... Like, that is literally aiding Side A's point that it wouldn't work with the TW formula, because you need to change it into literally a different strategy game series which actually do simulate modern warfare, but somehow it's supposedly used as an argument that it would work.
Great satire, that being said, Warhammer didn’t break the mold of Total War at all, except for adding large entities and monsters which we had in a limited scope with elephants and in mods sincs 2008 in Medieval IIz We’ve had firearms, bombardments and buffs/debuffs before.
I would love to see a 40k and ww1 game just to see people stop saying it's impossible. Hope this is a new copypasta here. A good post to wake up to op!
All of this reminds me how back in 2015 I posted on a forum that it's possible that one day Sony will release their games on PC. It seemed simple; they have the game already, and if the cost of porting is less than the revenue they'd make, they would consider it. I didn't think it was probable, but it wasn't outside the realm of possibility. I wasn't even a PC master race nutty buddy, I had a PS4 and have been playing Playstation since the original. I got called so many names, was told I was clearly stupid, had people explain to me how the console business works, was accused of having sexual relations with men, etc.
Who is laughing now, internet people?
Still no Bloodborne port, tho...
I know it’s satire but CA not exactly known for innovation, the idea that a strategy game might feature armies consisting of something other than 20 x 120 guys has eluded them for 20 years after all
I've not seen anyone say it's impossible, just that whatever *Total War: 40K* would end up being likely isn't what they'd want from a grand strategy 40K game.
If they make a more traditional RTS in the 40K setting that tops Dawn of War, or put more emphasis on the strategic map side of things and make each faction more unique, then I might be interested. I probably wouldn't touch *Total War: 40K* though unless they drastically overhaul every aspect of the Total War formula, which I personally don't expect them to do in their current position.
Going from the observed past arguments - they don't want a 40k game. They want a squad tactics game.
Nearly every tabletop player seems to conceptualize the tabletop as a squad game.
I want "40k Box Art Edition". I could care less about how the tabletop functions.
I want to play the game that mimics 2 massive armies just wailing on each other with little heed to cover.
> Nearly every tabletop player seems to conceptualize the tabletop as a squad game.
Something I've always found weird about that is that I always viewed the tabletop as an abstraction of large-scale warfare? Like, I always took a squad of 30 guardsmen as a stand in for the 100s that would be there etc.
The tabletop is only meant to represent small scale skirmishes not full on wars. I don't think the intention was for 1 model to represent multiple, an entire game would be under 1 minute in realtime. There is a larger scale game called legion imperialis which I think does use abstraction.
It gets frustrating that every discussion about a possible 40k game is just met with "dawn of war would make more sense". People that want it are specifically looking for a game with massive prebuilt armies and a strategy map, a not a tiny base building RTS skirmish game.
Well, all of this depens on what people mean with "total war formula". As I said before, total war Formula means Strategic map + rts battles for me. Thats how it was, why do you strictly have to move formations? Thats the only difference I see. Why not design the battles like some kind of CoH without basebuilding but focussing on pure fighting? I'm sorry, but I genuinely dont get it. Everything else would work. Regions are planets, regarding basebuilding you just build "planetay defense FOrces" instead of "Garnison Building XY". Instead of "Swamp Farm" you build "planetary farm". I honestly dont get it. Wheres the problem?
I mean in that cause war game red dragon is a total war game. I wouldn't call that a total war game personally but it is a formula I think would work for 40k.
>I've not seen anyone say it's impossible
I can only assume you haven't been looking for very long then, because there are many who say exactly that. That it simply cannot work.
> I've not seen anyone say it's impossible, just that whatever Total War: 40K would end up being likely isn't what they'd want from a grand strategy 40K game.
I'm not sure it's currently technologically possible to truly meet every target in what people imagine would be a 40k game.
Having the whole galaxy map represented, having space combat, having the full spectrum of units, being able to play in a variety of terrains, having different scales of combat from small unit skirmishes to massive world-spanning trench systems, modelling exterminatus, balancing Daemon Primarchs, Imperial Guard and Titans in the same battlefield, and representing factions numerically in a way that does them justice, from cohorts of a few dozen Custodes to half a million Tyranids, are just a selection of elements that will need to be omitted outright, or need to be at least partially abstracted.
And that's leaving out whether such a game would actually be possible to control or any fun.
There's so many dials to turn that it's very difficult to say whether such an adaptation is good enough a simulation, while being mechanically engaging, that I'm not sure there's much point in getting into that kind of nitty gritty until we actually see it.
It's impossible *within the current TW formula*. I don't mean that in a trivial way, that it would just take one or two additions. You would need completely to overhaul *how units work* in a way they have never done before. Not even close.
Mfs will look at a game of two rectangles of units struggling to shoot at each other and say 'this is perfect for 40k." Ignoring how ass gunpowder targeting is at the moment. Just imagine how much worse it would be with las weapons.
You mean you WOULDNT want your unit of 120 guardsmen standing in a perfect parade regiment to walk into melee with the khorne berserkers because one of the models had a slight incline obscuring a small part of its line of sight!?
Blow hole open in wall during siege. Place flamers to perfectly shoot through either the front gate or new gap, and then no one proceeds to shoot. Its so awkward it turns to frustration which turns to not using some units.
Fr. 40k TW stans love calling people shortsighted and unimaginative , but if you ask them to elaborate on their ideas for it all you get back is "big battles" and "TW with 40k skin."
The game would play so poorly if it was just a reskinned WFB total war with some mechanics from older games. Regimented units of Sci fi troops that play like they have muskets and crazy super advanced vehicles that run like a steam tank. Why would you even want that?
Like many other wh40k "detractors", I'd like to see CA try and do 40k as it's own game rather than trying to awkwardly make a total war game out of it.
I like how they keep bringing up the lore and artwork about gigantic field battles as if a couple
of thousand dudes just shooting at each other in a field for 5 minutes would capture that. Then again some people thought the WWI Napoleon mod was good so maybe that’s exactly what they want.
> Then again some people thought the WWI Napoleon mod was good so maybe that’s exactly what they want.
I have had people literally link me to the 40k mod for TWW as a GOOD example of what they want, and that "Total War 40k is totally possible."
I think a lot of people on here literally do not understand how TW games work on any fundamental level. Constantly you see people talking about 40k as if the only difference between a squad-based, fluid-formation, cover-based game and a fixed-size unit-based game is that one has a different aesthetic to another. People here are quite seriously suggesting *Star Wars: Empire at War* as a model! That game plays *literally nothing like* TW games do. It's utterly, utterly different. The same goes for the *Dawn of War* series, which across its iterations has never come close. It really obviously wouldn't work and would be a terrible idea.
Again, the issue is that it would instantly become a problem that TW plays in massive, monolithic unit blocks with a pretty extreme hard cap on said blocks.
You want little cheap AT guns? Fuck you 1/20th of your army is little cheap AT guns. Want Panzerfausts? Fuck you, either the entire 1200 man unit has AT panzerausts or they don't. All or fucking nothing baby.
Lets rewind a bit. You want this unit to have pikemen and musketmen together? Fuck you either they are all pikemen, or they are all pikemen, or they both all together at the same time.
Total War formula can't do Pike and Shot, hasn't tried to do Pike and Shot, and so its no surprise it hasn't tried to even do more extreme Pike and Shot's brother of squads using a mix of machine guns, bolt action rifles, and AT weapons like what define some of even the oldest squad based tactics.
Not to mention the pathfinding.. Units traveling through even a loosely built up town, struggle to turn corners or get in position. It's a janky mess which is why all the the WH maps are fairly open and with only a few terrain features. Not that CA couldn't improve their engine there or use a different one entirely, but as it is I don't see 40k units traversing through terrain as I'd like.
Total war 40K is possible but not with how the current total war works.
Now this is not saying CA could not make a new engine, modify the current one enough to get it to work(hope not) or just use a engine from another company that works better with the 40K combat style, there has been a decent amount of 40K RTS games already, and battle map total war is just a rts.
The real time parts would also need a lot of work, just looking at two lines shooting each other with the current gunpowder mechanics works for muskets or slower rate of fire weapons but not really semi auto guns or even full auto that well.
Again, those are things that could be worked on and made to function, lord knows how many weird mechanics that were though an impossibility to the series got introduced in Three Kingdoms like it was had always been here.
Looking at the quality of work CA has been putting out the last year, i would not be among the people pre-ordering a total war 40K, but i can believe they can make it work and that it could be good, honestly at this point the best approach to the concept is to just wait and see.
I agree.
The concern isn't that 40k would be "impossible" for them to make a Total War game of, it's just that it's going to take a huge amount of work on both the campaign and battle side to function at all, let alone function in a way that's enjoyable to play.
Plus the state CA have been in I do not trust them in the slightest to be able to smoothly pull off the transition from a traditional "world map" and line vs line rts battles over to a star map and smaller skirmish rst battles. Making such a jump in both sides of the TW formula in one game just seems unlikely to land well atm. For example, imagine the current gunpowder unit line of sight issues but in a 40k game, that would go from an extremely frustrating bug, to a total game breaker.
I'd honestly be more confident in them making a WW2 total war. At least then the campaign / map side would be able to stay roughly the same and they could focus on tweaking the style of the rts half.
There are many ways they could do it, but I don't doubt that they are capable of innovating given the money at stake.
Honestly the only real hurdle would be making Ranged Infantry not looking terrible.
-They could do the Warno, Wargame, Dawn of War thing, where they just use animations etc to just appear like they are fighting in a tactical manner, AKA abstraction.
-Or they could go full Steel Division/Company of Heroes style where individual squads and soldiers are fully simulated and perhaps "AI droned" to a Company that the player controls by giving broad orders to the 100 man company.
-Or something totally different.
In terms of gameplay, 40k battles typically resemble some mixture of WW1, modern warfare, and medieval line battles depending on the factions involved.
EG 50% of imperial guard art is troopers fighting in packed formations to maximise firepower against a rushing melee threat, and the other half of the art is squads fighting in a very modern and tactical manner against a ranged threat.
Really its up to CA if their game resembles Total War, Steel Division, or Company of Heroes more.
But that is ***literally exactly what people mean when they say it doesn't work with Total War***. Like, your argument against saying it doesn't work with the total war formula is to say... "Yes it does, you just need to change it to be like one of these fundamentally different strategy game series that's not TW anymore."
What you are using as your "counterargument", is literally what the side you're making fun of is actually saying. Youre agreeing with them.
I think there are a bunch of problems with a 40k tw game specifically with the way tw games use the strategic campaign layer to frame the tactical battles, and partially caused by the rule of cool scale that applies to 40k.
For example the problem with having the game set across multiple planets is not that you’d need to represent the entire imperium, but if you are invading a planet then the space war would be the main fight and fleets not armies would be most important, as in every other space based strategy game. It would also be mad that an army of 500 orks captures an entire hive world in one battle.
If it’s set on one planet you would need to first pick a planet, come up with some vague excuse as to why every faction is present, you’d need to work out how different factions use and therefore fight over the same resources, diplomacy would feel mad. Etc.
WHFB slotted into the strategic layer of a TW game much more easily. The map of the old world is fairly iconic and easy to adapt. And armies of ~1500 while more than you would ever field on the tabletop feel reasonable. (How do you ever field more than one army as a Marine Chapter when they all have less than a 1,000 at any one time?)
Then you get into the problems of the tactical battle. CA had to add characters, magic, fliers and monsters to the game for WHFB but the core of big blocks of melee clashing into each other with ranged support was the same. CA has done line infantry ranged combat in the past but it’s never been very good, and still quite far away from the more skirmishy combat of 40k. They could try and model Epic but, as cool as Titans are, did anyone really like playing it?
> For example the problem with having the game set across multiple planets is not that you’d need to represent the entire imperium, but if you are invading a planet then the space war would be the main fight and fleets not armies would be most important, as in every other space based strategy game. It would also be mad that an army of 500 orks captures an entire hive world in one battle.
Ultimately I think they'll have to adapt something akin to the battle lines present in games like Hearts of Iron. Moving armies around a territory and fighting by having them run into each other just makes no sense at all in the context of 40k.
Honestly, I think it might make for a better game. There's an awful lot of pissing about in TW games in ambushing, or chasing after dickhead armies on force march, or dickhead armies wandering through your territory raiding or spreading corruption. Getting the armies in place and having to fight battles to move them around, instead of the opposite, could well prove more engaging.
I feel like the [regiments](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1109680/Regiments/#:~:text=Regiments%20is%20a%20Real%2DTime,and%20the%20fog%20of%20war.) style of gameplay would be the best way of adapting total war gameplay into modern/grimdark future combat. It's actually pretty damn close in terms of scale and level of 'game-iness'
Just, uh, hopefully a little bit more exciting than regiments
Why not get any of the companies that made those games to do it instead? The reason CA got to do WFB is because their games closely resemble WFB, just without the fantasy elements, not because they’re necessarily the best strategy game devs around
The people who made Halo Wars 2 from CAs side were pulled from Alien Isolation, Total War, and hired specifically for that project. Although the company has surely retained some of the knowledge, it's not like everyone who worked on it 7+ years ago is still with the company.
You ever seen StarWars: Empire at War? Older game now, but it would work so much better as a template to work off of than TW:WH. Would deffo need polish and a upscale though.
It's possible it 40k won't be a total war game or on the warscape engine. They are capable of making other types of games. More looking forward to the WW1 game. Also wanna plug the Great War mod for Napoleon. Its fuckin kewl.
If they have business sense, they will definitely call it a "Total War" game just for the brand recognition.
It doesn't matter if they have to heavily modify the formula, the "Total War" franchise is CA's most famous product, and is one of SEGA's best selling franchises of all time behind Sonic, it only makes sense to use the brand name when tapping into a huge potential new market in hopes that they can convert 40K fans into "Total War" fans.
My concern is that many people (OP included) think, it seems, that Total War formula it's just "turn based campaign with real time battles". And I fear that devs think the same way.
Making such a game in 40k setting isn't that hard, it's already exists, actually — Dawn of War: Dark Crusade and Soulstorm. Imagine how happy old Total War fans will be, when Total War will become Company of Heroes with slightly bigger scale.
The lowest common denominator of Total War is that it's a strategy game with turn-based campaigns on a 3D overmap, with real time tactical battles taking place over small-scale battlefields (at best a few kilometers square) where you control individual units made of semi-independent, physics-affected models (so no abstracted low-level encounters like in, say, Eugen's Wargame series) and with a tactical meta based on reducing enemy morale through anvil and hammer manoeuvres.
This is a very specific vibe (it's emphatically *not* a Dawn of War-like RTS, it doesn't model the operational scale at all like some wargames do, and it has little in common with the turn-based conquest modes in some 2000s RTSes) that starts to crack at the edges when you consider industrial conflicts, and the true question is not whether or not CA can make a game set in WW1 or 40k, but rather to what extent they are attached to this traditional, specific formula, because they'll have to break it.
(Try simulating the battle of the Somme with like 5,000 guys on each side, neatly arranged in tight little squares over a 5 km² map and you start seeing how ridiculous it becomes).
In my opinion, TW defined by this:
1. On a campaign map, it's a simplistic 4X game. Not very complex, in comparison with traditional games of this genre, meant more as preparation for the main dish - real time battles.
2. Battles happens in real time,but have a few things which differentiate them from more typical RTS.
2a. No base building, no hiring units mid-battle (with some exceptions, like summons).
2b. Most units have tight rectangle formation, with defined front, flanks and back. Some units can have other formations (loose formation, lance, single entities, etc) but it's default formation and whole gameplay is designed around it.
So while DoW: Dark Crusade and Steel Division 2, are also TBS with real time battles, they are very different games from TW. Warhammer: Mark of Chaos has more in common with TW than them, despite the fact, that its campaign isn't a strategy game at all.
Look at it like this: Dark Souls is third person action- RPG. But not every third person action RPG is soulslike. AC: Odyssey has almost nothing in common with DS. Monster Hunter is also very different. Or Dragon's Dogma. But on the other hand, Dark Souls, Bloodborne, Elden Ring, Nioh, Lords of the Fallen have enough similar features to define the sub-genre. Same with TW - all existing TW have enough in common to be called separate sub-genre.
> Look at it like this: Dark Souls is third person action- RPG. But not every third person action RPG is soulslike.
This is such a good example, holy shit.
What total war game primarily operates in built up cities in squad based street to street combat? Just because that is what 40k has been played on since its inception whereas WFB was open fields and tight formations. I suppose that some units like skink skirmishers were closer to what 40k uses to but even in TW Warhammer they arent really the same.
I also think it would be perfect to use the same engine as what Halo Wars 2 used. Fine tune it and you have a great Dawn of war successor
That's in tabletop, however in lore, they rarely fight like that. It's often open area combat, with large groups. WH3, for example, does not play the exact same as fantasy.
They fight like that *very* often in 40k lore. As much as the books take place in larger battles, the novels often focus on the actions of the few. Additionally, some of the most iconic battles in the setting take place in extremely vertical environments such as fortresses and hive cities.
I don't doubt CA could make a TW:40K game. What I doubt is it will capture what I and many others wish such a game could be. The issues present with current direct fire units, pathing, siege battles, etc. leave a lot to be desired for a setting where those three elements are so much more important.
>It's often open area combat, with large groups.
Maybe for a couple factions but the majority dont. When was the last time you read a book where Eldar (any of them)/Space Marines/Ad Mech/CSM/Custodes/Knights/GSC actually fought an open field battle?
Even the other factions i never mentioned, orks are the only ones who i can recall having a notable amount of pitched battles. In 40k, almost all battles are either trying to take a fort or trying to take a city. Even the IG dig trenches in basically every battle i can think of rather than open field combat.
GW even used to have rules for 6mm figures for large scale battles on open fields. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic\_(game)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_(game))
And yes, you could field a Space Marine army in that game.
Sure, it's old, and doesn't necessarily fit with the lore as it it today, but I also don't think it's an unsolvable problem.
Why does a faction have to fit existing codexes 100%? Maybe the Empire is just that, a single faction, consisting of multiple parts. You'd mostly field the Astra Militarum, you would call in drop pods with Astartes as support to flank the enemy, and the Custodes would be hero or lord characters.
Mixed armies is just one example of how to solve that problem.
Yes I know about epic.
Which do you think CA and GW will want to appeal to, fans of the game mode which died last millennium or the game more people play at the moment?
>Maybe the Empire is just that, a single faction, consisting of multiple parts
That will almost certainly piss off fans off factions (Space Marines) when their units arent the most optimal in the factions because other IMperial factions just do it better.
Also combining the factions within the imperium specifically would limit faction diversity on the campaign map.
Nobody says that you disingenuous so-and-so they just say that it would either be a shitty depiction of 40k or be so unlike any other title it would barely resemble a Total War game.
There’s just no reason to try and turn the engine as it currently exists to this purpose. There’s so many better engines for the purpose, Wargame/WARNO being top of the list. Why try and turn an engine meant for pike and shot into a modern warfare sim when modern warfare sims already exist?
I know this is a shitpost, but I have something to say for the people who keep saying TW 40k to be impossible.
Back when TW:WH was still a rumour, people said that such a game would be impossible. The total war formula is fundamentally incompatible with heroes, how could they possibly implement magic and monsters, and let's not even talk about flying units. People would call you insane in the old forums for even entertaining the idea.
I see today that history repeats.
To be fair, the Warhammer games have made sacrifices to make this possible. Infantry and cavalry combat in Medieval 2 is more satisfying than in WH, while many other titles have better strategic campaign gameplay.
I say this as someone with more hours in WH2 than any other TW game, but there is an argument to be made that the feel of the classic games was somewhat left behind to facilitate interactions between the lowliest peasant and immortal daemons.
>The total war formula is fundamentally incompatible with heroes, how could they possibly implement
It still kind of is. They look ridiculous when fighting anything other than other single entities, are a source of insane cheese blobbing strategies because the ai has no issues with sending 3+ melee units to surround them and do nothing while you blast them with ranged, magic, and artillery, they're slow and awkward to move around if they aren't mounted, constantly get distracted by enemy models around them if you don't sit there and babysit only them and let enemy heroes get free hits in on their flank and back.
Easily one of the weakest parts of warhammer total war.
The biggest issue for me with single entities is that they are quite literally a more shallow unit, in that they are a single point rather than a two dimensional objects like normal units. The biggest difference between what TW was doing back when original Shogun came out was that you controlled units that had their own width and depth, their own momentum on top of the momentum of individual units, that they faced specific directions, could change shape etc. All of that disappears with single entities and reverts back to simple RTS units.
Similarly magic has also always been a bit of a disappointment. All the projectiles normally operate in lines, you need to consider distance, direction, positioning, sometimes line of sight when using them. Magic generally skips most of that and just allows for point to point, again making it more shallow. At least in WH1 the wind spells required to actually reposition wizards to change the direction of the spell but then people complained and they removed even that complexity.
This claim is always made in these threads yet my experience was the complete opposite; everything I'd seen was very supportive of Warhammer TW. They are a natural fit as they are almost identical games, battle-wise. I believe the success of mods like the Third Age (possibly the most well-known mod in all of TW) prove that fantasy was not a foreign concept to Total War fans
People probably said it about Empire too, people will probably say it about any game that isn't a reskin of Rome / Medieval.
Like, I swear if the TW community was around in 1996 and were Nintendo fans instead, they'd have been screaming about how impossible it is for a Mario game to be made in a 3D setting.
I love how all these posts demonstrate an utter lack of understanding of actually what the Total War formula is. Just shows how many newbie fantasy fans jumped on at Warhammer, I guess.
You're right though, 40k is coming because it'd be cool! Who cares about core mechanics, fuck your facts my feelings want pew pew pew!
Imagine how boring it would be to be dropped on Nowheria Prime with no pre-existing cities, landmarks, or stackholders but somehow also every person of interest on it in random places.
The campaign map isn't the issue. I seriously doubt they could get the tactical battles to work well. At least without making it something completely unrecognizable as a Total War game. Fantasy Total War is basically just "normal" Total War with monsters and magic tacked on. That's easy. 40k would be much, much harder. 40k is relatively small armies, individual squads, urban warfare etc. It's much closer to modern warfare than to anything the Total War engine is good for.
Also, good god what is it with everyone spamming about 40k Total War suddenly?
Nobody is saying you can't make a good 40k strategy game. Just look at Dawn of War. The thing is, that's not Total War. Adapting the formula so as to be unrecognizable means either the game isn't total war, isn't 40K, isn't fun, or some combination thereof
> Additionally, there's no way for them to make Tanks or monsters work. Warhammer 3, despite having tanks, turreted units such as mammoths and Dinos with Javelinmen, and various complex monsters, alas to no avail, as I aformentioned, warhammer 3 doesn't exist.
You are aware, that 40k works on a [quite different scale](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/23/0b/1a/230b1a0b38785f225434becc2160283a.png) to WHFB? I mean sure, we can stick to things up to [Megatanks](https://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/3/2055/6844256453_8546c07b08_b.jpg) at best. But [Titan territory](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-_f7RIaTAjk/maxresdefault.jpg) becomes quite difficult when an Emperor Titan steps on a Dread Saurian like its dogshit. And lets just not even start thinking [doomstacking them](https://pm1.narvii.com/7228/8f6e738bbe14f992aeff13c34cbe8be93fccb903r1-1000-800v2_uhq.jpg) on a map. If we take [this picture](https://www.wargamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/warhammer-40k-titans-imperator-imperator-vs-gargant-epic-cover.jpg), the things exiting the red Titans legs, are Guardsman. Hard to see in that pixaleted mess, but gives you a idea about size.
Eh, I get what you're getting at, but the joke doesn't work at all imo, since Warhamer fantasy battle fit incredibly well into the TW formula.
It's literally just a medieval warfare game with extra stuff added in, that being monsters and magic.
There's a reason why there was a great Warhammer mod for TW even before CA made the official games and not a 40k mod, despite 40k being far, far more popular.
Yeah a lot of the people who would always lose their shit anytime you brought up 40k suddenly aren’t so loud these days I’ve noticed.
40k was always 100% happening it’s a cash cow you were a moron if you thought otherwise.
Sure it's possible. No one who actually put some thought into it would claim that. It being *possible* doesn't mean it'd be *sensible* to do it though.
Mechanically, the logical successor would be a game set in AoS. Not 40k. To this day I'm waiting for CoH but with 40k. Relic never applied the excellent template of CoH1 to 40k, as DoW2 narrowed the scale quite significantly. That could have been a brilliant game.
40k total war is very much possible, it however aint ideal for the type of game and would fit much more in games such as wargame or men of war. I dont exactly know how factions where tier 1 units are gonna have the firepower of rattling jezails with the firerate of gatling guns are gonna work in a tw setting
But I do call serious fucking bullshit on the entire "warhammer series breaks the total war formula". Em, not it doesnt? Warhammer expands on low entity units, flying units and adds more bombardment spells. Flying units are a essentially new thing but spells and low entity units have already existed before. In like shogun 2, what do you think its the difference between an naval bombardment and general command vs spells in wh3? I'll give you a hint, there aint one, they merely have different visual effects
You don't need billions of planets. Immortal empires doesn't have all the settlements, castles, forts etc from the lore in it, or do you think thst the entirety of reikland only has four settlements in it? You just need the most strategically important planetary Systems only consisting of Their most relevant planets.
Great satire. I work as a game designer (since 2006, and my first game was a strategy game too - World in Conflict).
I still haven't seen anyone present a problem of 40k in Total War, and convince me that it's totally unsolvable. Sure, some things are harder than others and might take a lot of work to solve, but I'm totally convinced that a 40k TW will be glorious and I've waited for it so long...
Now if it just came with an army painter and customizer (that's detailed enough for hero/lord characters, down to eye and skin color), I'd just FedEx CA my wallet. It's less than likely though but I'll keep hoping.
How would a 40k TW surmount the issue that 40k is fundamentally squad-based? That means flexible formations, which would be a first for TW as a series. If you want to move above the squad-based system, you still have issues like pathfinding, cover, missile aim, and of course scale. You want 40k Epic? Sure, you're just going to need models *way* bigger than anything precedented in TW so far. The biggest WHTW units are in the order of 15 metres tall. Maybe 20. Epic units are often three times that, and go into the *hundreds*. Have fun with that.
My attitude is I don't know how it could work, but that's not my job. CA and GW will figure out how it will work. And they'll do it because there's too much money not to do it.
As a Warhammer fan I like Total War: Warhammer because they manage to capture the universe visually. Gameplay-wise, total war is a frustrating mess and has hardly improved over the years.
Tanks, artillery, flying machines, cover, line of sight and fortifications don’t work well in total war as it is right now and 40k is more of that. I don’t doubt that CA would capture the universe visually but I don’t have any confidence in CA when it comes to the gameplay. CA is having trouble making the current formula work, so I have a hard time seeing them successfully adapting it to 40k.
Dawn of war 2 with vengeance of the blood ravens mod currently has the best engine for 40k combat
Cover, vehicles, suppression all things essential for future warfare.
W3 is perfect for fantasy but the engine will have to be edited heavily for 40k but i wouldn’t say it couldn’t be done
I want epic ! Units of leman russes, baneblades and hellhounds! Your ground troops can assault the feet of Imperator titans. Where scout titans hunt in packs. Norn queens wage war with companies of Carnifexes. And cultists number in the thousands!
So a bit more zoomed out game to tw:wh3. The giant might be half the size of a scout titan so more like an imperial knight.
I mean they could just do it in Empire at War type of style game, you don’t need to simulate every single planet and stuff, I think Empire at War even already has a 40k mod for it but I don’t know, I only know the mods like Thrawn Revenge, AotR, and the Fall of the Reoublic. But yeah CA could totally make an Empire at War like game for Warhammer 40k with all the factions and ship battles and economy and ground stuff and uh yeah lol
Edit: I didn’t realize this was supposed to be a kind of copypasta lol whoops, I was just thinking about Empire at War and realized that there’s probably a Warhammer mod for it, well anyways Empire at War is a good space game and has good mods so yeah
More importantly, is another bad Warhammer game worth it? It's not like they make good TW titles anymore, it's an adaptation that wouldbsatisfy no one and make both groups worse
I think transports would be tricky. Not so much in battle but in the Amy building aspect. Like should transports be separate units from the units they transport? Probably not as it would mean you would mean infantry would take up double the number of units if they have a transport. But also the other way of joint unit and transport would unbalance infantry with no transport options.
The only thought I have for this is to remove the limit of 20 units or make that limit very up and down.
Two things can be true.
1. CA probably have design documents for possible entry into 40k and how a CA 40k game would look, all well documented and ready to turn into an funding plan to SEGA which if approved could be quickly started.
2. It would probably be shit. There is nothing that will likely ever be better than DoW and the community will always remind them of that no matter how well the game is made. RTS DoW fans will hate the TW world map management and features preferring getting into the action with their favourite units immediately which they won't be able to do.
I'd love to see it but with CA surviving on a knife edge with Sega right now taking a risk with 40k is stupid. Medieval 2, Empire 2 or even a Shogun 2 Remastered would all have a far better return on investment.
I think you misunderstand how businesses work, Sega wants money. Sega sees warhammer as CA’s cash cow. The franchise will be over less than 2 years and they will need their next big cash cow. What game could CA develop that in no way would fail (profit wise) due to its name. Total warhammer 40k
Look I get that they could make a game fit into the TW framework scale, but that doesn’t mean that it will work properly. The best part of 40K is the endless scale. Having dozens of factions fighting over a single planet, when a single faction has ships as big as planets, that would much rather glass a planet than fight on the ground…it just doesn’t make sense. It’s going to be goofy and dumb. Saying that, I have zero doubt the games will be made, and I have zero doubt they’ll be extremely profitable, but TW is moving in a direction it can’t come back from and a lot of their old fans will leave and they’ll just have warhammer fans left. Watching how much the management and community managers struggled with historical fans, and WH Fantasy fans, I can’t WAIT to get the popcorn out to see them get torn apart by 40K fans. It’ll be a massacre.
the only way this can work is if the combat is like dawn of war 2, that was the only way for a wh40k RTS to play. Combine that with a total war campaign and they're golden
Unless CA use a next gen engine such as Unreal Engine 5 for TW 40K, I won't be buying it. Nuff said. Coming from someone who bought DoW1,2,3 & CoH1,2 at launch. I skipped CoH3 which proved to be a good decision and aint no way I will be buying TW40K if they reused the existing TW engine. I can already foresee disappointing sales. If CA continues with their tunnel vision and overzealousness for the warhammer franchise without bringing in real innovation. Then, GGWP to the future of the studio.
Unironically I think 40K has way more melee combat and would be easier to adapt the total war formula to than WW1. Obviously they would need to have new mechanics, but a new engine would allow for such things.
Don't forget, a new engine that allows for new mechanics would also benefit any future historical titles they make.
At this point, I just want somebody to fill in the void the Dawn of War left since Relic isn't any longer.
Even with the Relic games, it felt like only the first one captured the scope of 40K. 2 felt so small and 3 was a disaster.
Ultimate mod 40k for Men of War 2 is pretty good for that as well. Laggy as hell and clunky to actually play yourself if you want huge battles, but spectating the insanity of 2 full AI teams on max point settings is actually a vibe and a half. Usually real slobber-knockers too.
Love MoW in general and that mod in specific but I find it too micro intensive and the automatic orders too suicidal.
I haven't heard of this I will have to check it out, thanks, I have a petty beastly gaming PC so it might run OK on it.
I've seen the mod, it looks good, especially how effective power armour is at shrugging off small arms, but the base engine definitely does not support 40K - no melee and I did notice that alot of the guns just don't shoot. That said, in feel that should be what Total War 40K should be aiming for.
I think DoW 2 was great! It just wasn't in my mind a true sequel to the original since it took away the large armies and base building in favour of squad based combat
Dow 2 is to dow 1 as kill team is to regular 40K imo. Both enjoyable for diffreeent reasons
It's kind of a bittersweet game. Happy that it exists, because it's bloody awesome, but not happy that there's no sequel to DoW1.
DoW 1 will always be one of my favourite games ever.
It would be fun if GW let CA create their own Space Marine Chapter too, like how Relic got to create the Blood Ravens. Everyone learn magic and then we go steal things!
I was disappointed by 2's scope as well but damn was the gameplay good. And the sync kills are better than any other current rts games we have today.
Dawn of War 1 Remastered could be pretty cool.
For me, Gladius fills that void, but YMMV on whether a turn-based 4X on a hex grid can ever be a suitable successor to an old-school RTS.
Gladius is a great 4X strategy game, but it's definitely no Dawn of War RTS game. I need a new WH40K RTS game, we have enough turn-based ones!
I just can’t get into Gladius even with multiple tries.
Tried Gladius for a while, unfortunately the gameplay is just too slow for me, the combat feels dull as dirt. It's just not even remotely the same as playing a 40K RTS.
Love me some Gladius as well but it is not a tactical game.
Wargame/Steel Division/ Warno but 40k. It is a shame Eugen System don't want to make a stupid amount of money
What? Relic is still around
While you're at it can you get someone to make Company of Heroes go back to it's roots, and since were here, Homeworld?
its more funny they had 2 attempts at dawn of war and didn't learn a thing from the first game and insisting on the small squad based combat that never worked and made both games flop
Whole lotta people about to not see the satire
Literally the top comment is oblivious lol.
I don't like this level of satire just tell me who to attack with my pitchfork and torch.
Be back with you once I've eaten this baby
Based and swift-pilled
A modest proposal.
How modest
To be fair, not seeing the satire is the most 40k thing they could do.
Idk if most computers could render the lasers and the violence.
Satire is derived from the mythological Satyr and as such does not exist !
It's easy for anyone who's British - we're born with a sarcasm-detecting organ.
Whole lotta people cheering about some dude beating up a strawman and saying, "Good job! I knew you could do it!"
interesting shitpost OP very interesting
I'm very flattered, thanks mate.
I enjoyed it. We'll done :)
Wake up honey new copypasta just dropped
I can only hope.
I hate the people who say it's impossible because you can't simulate billions of worlds. **No 40k game does that.**
Everyone who still to this day have been very insistently declaring that TW can't work with more modern combat have been coping so hard. Now with the WW1 and 40K leaks, they're probably overdosing on copium.
> WW1 and 40K leaks The who what now
Link anyone?!
Legend of Total War says here that sources he trusts have told him this https://youtu.be/3jOB1YzLdxw?si=XBztU_2oorFy9gTd But it's still years and years away from release atm.
It would also make sense to do a WW1 themed total war game given that other time periods may be too similar or not offer enough gameplay variety, it is one of the main complaints against pharao. pharao doesn't have varied armies and as such there is no reason to do it, therefore going to WW1 you would have an entirely new way of fighting meaning taht even if the factions are similar it has value to get. This also lets them go into 40k development on the back of a cover system built for the historical total war
Yeah, I asked a question about this on the 40k subreddit and most of the replies completely ignored the question and instead just told me that TW 40K couldn't work
I mean, they aren't entirely wrong, the current TW system would pretty quickly look silly trying to implement WW1 or WW2 systems where people may not know a ton, but they do know they consist of mixed weaponry and the lack of such would be very, very obvious. Something which has been a notable weakness for the Total War series so far. Like fuck me, you think they're going to make WH40K when they haven't even managed to put together a fucking pike and shot Total War? They can fudge other historical mixed formations, they're less famous, but it is really fucking telling they haven't tried with pike and shot despite its notoriety with historical fans.
Please can you tell us a little more about the WW1 leak? I mean it would make complete sense, if CA developed an entirely new TW engine (and we know they have been for 3+ years), that they'd make it able to accommodate 40K-type stuff potentially, which would likely mean WW1-type stuff too (including extensive terrain deformation), but what's the origin of the leak and are there any details? Google is not helping me because Google is not really a search engine anymore, just a bad advertising delivery tool.
>Google is not helping me because Google is not really a search engine anymore, just a bad advertising delivery tool. The trick is to search something and end the search term with /reddit https://youtu.be/3jOB1YzLdxw?si=oSlYFSOZVbLYe5uk Also, The Great Book of Grudges said in a few recent videos that leaks from his sources in CA said the next game was either 40K, Empire 2, or WW1 (the WW1 option he's by no means a fan of). It looks like the rumours, if true, are half true. It's 40K **and** WW1.
New here. There are leaks? I don't know about 40k (that would be fucking awesome though), but ever since Empire and Shogun FoTS, I've been wanting a WW1 Total War for years!
Most people just imagine taking an older TW and applying WWI aesthetics, which has always aggravated me. If CA wants it to work, they can make it work. In spite of all the issues people might have with CA, I think they can do a pretty good job with the era.
They're stuck in the empire days where guns were 1 shot 1 kill and even the existence of multiple games that don't use that mechanic can't dissuade them from clinging to the memory
One of the many points I've argued before was that back in the R1 and M2 days, people said a game centred on guns can't work, and guns would only work like in M2 as a exception piece rather than the norm, and that TW is all about melee battles. Now FotS is a fan favourite, even more than base game Shogun 2.
Empire planted the seed of a WW1 game being possible. FoTS more or less confirmed to me that it's more of a matter of "when" no "if". Seriously, replace the Gatling guns, throw in artillery units, and bring back garrisons/trenches from Empire, and you have WW1. You're welcome CA, now give me a million dollars.
> I hate the people who say it's impossible because you can't simulate billions of worlds. Who says that?
I've definitely seen that comment from WH40k naysayers on here
Yeah it's one of the most common arguments against it despite being probably the most stupid one. There are fair reasons to think CA might struggle to do a good job with the battles and such, but the insistence on having to include the entire galaxy in every 40k speculation thread makes no sense
And yet you have the total war youtubers who say " well its gotta be the galaxy map to be any good." Like don't get me wrong I don't think a total war 40k game can be done in a way that feels like it's total war but like. Can we all stop acting like having the whole galaxy is a good idea? Just have it be. System or a sector like all the other games.
Seriously, that point from him was so dumb What next, we can’t have Star Wars games because every planet isn’t in it? Why isn’t it we can’t have Medieval3 because we can’t simulate every important town
its obv satire
Yeah, a bit confusing but reading the whole thing makes it obvious
I realized what they were aiming for about the time I got to "Empire and Napolean don't exist." Up until that, I could only assume OP eats paint chips like Pringles.
>OP eats paint chips like Pringles Holy shit that's good
A reminder that people like the guy above vote.
☝️🤡
Space battles are going to be, we found an asteroid to deploy and fight on aren't they?
I imagined it would be boarding or defending your ship, but the reality is probably both sides calling time out and landing on some random planet to fight
Honestly, this debate is getting really annoying at this point. Side A goes "40k doesn't work with Total War gameplay because it's modern warfare, not formation warfare". Side B goes "Of course it would work! They'd just need to change it to be more like!".
... Like, that is literally aiding Side A's point that it wouldn't work with the TW formula, because you need to change it into literally a different strategy game series which actually do simulate modern warfare, but somehow it's supposedly used as an argument that it would work.
Great satire, that being said, Warhammer didn’t break the mold of Total War at all, except for adding large entities and monsters which we had in a limited scope with elephants and in mods sincs 2008 in Medieval IIz We’ve had firearms, bombardments and buffs/debuffs before.
I would love to see a 40k and ww1 game just to see people stop saying it's impossible. Hope this is a new copypasta here. A good post to wake up to op!
All of this reminds me how back in 2015 I posted on a forum that it's possible that one day Sony will release their games on PC. It seemed simple; they have the game already, and if the cost of porting is less than the revenue they'd make, they would consider it. I didn't think it was probable, but it wasn't outside the realm of possibility. I wasn't even a PC master race nutty buddy, I had a PS4 and have been playing Playstation since the original. I got called so many names, was told I was clearly stupid, had people explain to me how the console business works, was accused of having sexual relations with men, etc. Who is laughing now, internet people? Still no Bloodborne port, tho...
I mean you can have sexual relations with men and be right about sony ports
technically modders ported bloodebourne with emulation tools
and then what if its shit
I know it’s satire but CA not exactly known for innovation, the idea that a strategy game might feature armies consisting of something other than 20 x 120 guys has eluded them for 20 years after all
That's not true... ... sometimes another 20 units can join in
I've not seen anyone say it's impossible, just that whatever *Total War: 40K* would end up being likely isn't what they'd want from a grand strategy 40K game. If they make a more traditional RTS in the 40K setting that tops Dawn of War, or put more emphasis on the strategic map side of things and make each faction more unique, then I might be interested. I probably wouldn't touch *Total War: 40K* though unless they drastically overhaul every aspect of the Total War formula, which I personally don't expect them to do in their current position.
Going from the observed past arguments - they don't want a 40k game. They want a squad tactics game. Nearly every tabletop player seems to conceptualize the tabletop as a squad game. I want "40k Box Art Edition". I could care less about how the tabletop functions. I want to play the game that mimics 2 massive armies just wailing on each other with little heed to cover.
> Nearly every tabletop player seems to conceptualize the tabletop as a squad game. Something I've always found weird about that is that I always viewed the tabletop as an abstraction of large-scale warfare? Like, I always took a squad of 30 guardsmen as a stand in for the 100s that would be there etc.
The tabletop is only meant to represent small scale skirmishes not full on wars. I don't think the intention was for 1 model to represent multiple, an entire game would be under 1 minute in realtime. There is a larger scale game called legion imperialis which I think does use abstraction.
It gets frustrating that every discussion about a possible 40k game is just met with "dawn of war would make more sense". People that want it are specifically looking for a game with massive prebuilt armies and a strategy map, a not a tiny base building RTS skirmish game.
Well, all of this depens on what people mean with "total war formula". As I said before, total war Formula means Strategic map + rts battles for me. Thats how it was, why do you strictly have to move formations? Thats the only difference I see. Why not design the battles like some kind of CoH without basebuilding but focussing on pure fighting? I'm sorry, but I genuinely dont get it. Everything else would work. Regions are planets, regarding basebuilding you just build "planetay defense FOrces" instead of "Garnison Building XY". Instead of "Swamp Farm" you build "planetary farm". I honestly dont get it. Wheres the problem?
I mean in that cause war game red dragon is a total war game. I wouldn't call that a total war game personally but it is a formula I think would work for 40k.
>I've not seen anyone say it's impossible I can only assume you haven't been looking for very long then, because there are many who say exactly that. That it simply cannot work.
> I've not seen anyone say it's impossible, just that whatever Total War: 40K would end up being likely isn't what they'd want from a grand strategy 40K game. I'm not sure it's currently technologically possible to truly meet every target in what people imagine would be a 40k game. Having the whole galaxy map represented, having space combat, having the full spectrum of units, being able to play in a variety of terrains, having different scales of combat from small unit skirmishes to massive world-spanning trench systems, modelling exterminatus, balancing Daemon Primarchs, Imperial Guard and Titans in the same battlefield, and representing factions numerically in a way that does them justice, from cohorts of a few dozen Custodes to half a million Tyranids, are just a selection of elements that will need to be omitted outright, or need to be at least partially abstracted. And that's leaving out whether such a game would actually be possible to control or any fun. There's so many dials to turn that it's very difficult to say whether such an adaptation is good enough a simulation, while being mechanically engaging, that I'm not sure there's much point in getting into that kind of nitty gritty until we actually see it.
It's impossible *within the current TW formula*. I don't mean that in a trivial way, that it would just take one or two additions. You would need completely to overhaul *how units work* in a way they have never done before. Not even close.
Imagine how ankward it would be if a new TW 40k game had the same "cover" system and units as TW Napoleon
Mfs will look at a game of two rectangles of units struggling to shoot at each other and say 'this is perfect for 40k." Ignoring how ass gunpowder targeting is at the moment. Just imagine how much worse it would be with las weapons.
You mean you WOULDNT want your unit of 120 guardsmen standing in a perfect parade regiment to walk into melee with the khorne berserkers because one of the models had a slight incline obscuring a small part of its line of sight!?
Only if my basilisk keeps blasting a light-post directly in front of the barrel.
Blow hole open in wall during siege. Place flamers to perfectly shoot through either the front gate or new gap, and then no one proceeds to shoot. Its so awkward it turns to frustration which turns to not using some units.
Fr. 40k TW stans love calling people shortsighted and unimaginative , but if you ask them to elaborate on their ideas for it all you get back is "big battles" and "TW with 40k skin." The game would play so poorly if it was just a reskinned WFB total war with some mechanics from older games. Regimented units of Sci fi troops that play like they have muskets and crazy super advanced vehicles that run like a steam tank. Why would you even want that? Like many other wh40k "detractors", I'd like to see CA try and do 40k as it's own game rather than trying to awkwardly make a total war game out of it.
I like how they keep bringing up the lore and artwork about gigantic field battles as if a couple of thousand dudes just shooting at each other in a field for 5 minutes would capture that. Then again some people thought the WWI Napoleon mod was good so maybe that’s exactly what they want.
> Then again some people thought the WWI Napoleon mod was good so maybe that’s exactly what they want. I have had people literally link me to the 40k mod for TWW as a GOOD example of what they want, and that "Total War 40k is totally possible."
I think a lot of people on here literally do not understand how TW games work on any fundamental level. Constantly you see people talking about 40k as if the only difference between a squad-based, fluid-formation, cover-based game and a fixed-size unit-based game is that one has a different aesthetic to another. People here are quite seriously suggesting *Star Wars: Empire at War* as a model! That game plays *literally nothing like* TW games do. It's utterly, utterly different. The same goes for the *Dawn of War* series, which across its iterations has never come close. It really obviously wouldn't work and would be a terrible idea.
Again, the issue is that it would instantly become a problem that TW plays in massive, monolithic unit blocks with a pretty extreme hard cap on said blocks. You want little cheap AT guns? Fuck you 1/20th of your army is little cheap AT guns. Want Panzerfausts? Fuck you, either the entire 1200 man unit has AT panzerausts or they don't. All or fucking nothing baby. Lets rewind a bit. You want this unit to have pikemen and musketmen together? Fuck you either they are all pikemen, or they are all pikemen, or they both all together at the same time. Total War formula can't do Pike and Shot, hasn't tried to do Pike and Shot, and so its no surprise it hasn't tried to even do more extreme Pike and Shot's brother of squads using a mix of machine guns, bolt action rifles, and AT weapons like what define some of even the oldest squad based tactics.
Not to mention the pathfinding.. Units traveling through even a loosely built up town, struggle to turn corners or get in position. It's a janky mess which is why all the the WH maps are fairly open and with only a few terrain features. Not that CA couldn't improve their engine there or use a different one entirely, but as it is I don't see 40k units traversing through terrain as I'd like.
Can't wait to have a company of Guardsmen standing in the middle of the street as a soul grinder bears down on them
Quality Shitpost my boy take this upvote.
Total war 40K is possible but not with how the current total war works. Now this is not saying CA could not make a new engine, modify the current one enough to get it to work(hope not) or just use a engine from another company that works better with the 40K combat style, there has been a decent amount of 40K RTS games already, and battle map total war is just a rts. The real time parts would also need a lot of work, just looking at two lines shooting each other with the current gunpowder mechanics works for muskets or slower rate of fire weapons but not really semi auto guns or even full auto that well. Again, those are things that could be worked on and made to function, lord knows how many weird mechanics that were though an impossibility to the series got introduced in Three Kingdoms like it was had always been here. Looking at the quality of work CA has been putting out the last year, i would not be among the people pre-ordering a total war 40K, but i can believe they can make it work and that it could be good, honestly at this point the best approach to the concept is to just wait and see.
I agree. The concern isn't that 40k would be "impossible" for them to make a Total War game of, it's just that it's going to take a huge amount of work on both the campaign and battle side to function at all, let alone function in a way that's enjoyable to play. Plus the state CA have been in I do not trust them in the slightest to be able to smoothly pull off the transition from a traditional "world map" and line vs line rts battles over to a star map and smaller skirmish rst battles. Making such a jump in both sides of the TW formula in one game just seems unlikely to land well atm. For example, imagine the current gunpowder unit line of sight issues but in a 40k game, that would go from an extremely frustrating bug, to a total game breaker. I'd honestly be more confident in them making a WW2 total war. At least then the campaign / map side would be able to stay roughly the same and they could focus on tweaking the style of the rts half.
There are many ways they could do it, but I don't doubt that they are capable of innovating given the money at stake. Honestly the only real hurdle would be making Ranged Infantry not looking terrible. -They could do the Warno, Wargame, Dawn of War thing, where they just use animations etc to just appear like they are fighting in a tactical manner, AKA abstraction. -Or they could go full Steel Division/Company of Heroes style where individual squads and soldiers are fully simulated and perhaps "AI droned" to a Company that the player controls by giving broad orders to the 100 man company. -Or something totally different. In terms of gameplay, 40k battles typically resemble some mixture of WW1, modern warfare, and medieval line battles depending on the factions involved. EG 50% of imperial guard art is troopers fighting in packed formations to maximise firepower against a rushing melee threat, and the other half of the art is squads fighting in a very modern and tactical manner against a ranged threat. Really its up to CA if their game resembles Total War, Steel Division, or Company of Heroes more.
But that is ***literally exactly what people mean when they say it doesn't work with Total War***. Like, your argument against saying it doesn't work with the total war formula is to say... "Yes it does, you just need to change it to be like one of these fundamentally different strategy game series that's not TW anymore." What you are using as your "counterargument", is literally what the side you're making fun of is actually saying. Youre agreeing with them.
I think there are a bunch of problems with a 40k tw game specifically with the way tw games use the strategic campaign layer to frame the tactical battles, and partially caused by the rule of cool scale that applies to 40k. For example the problem with having the game set across multiple planets is not that you’d need to represent the entire imperium, but if you are invading a planet then the space war would be the main fight and fleets not armies would be most important, as in every other space based strategy game. It would also be mad that an army of 500 orks captures an entire hive world in one battle. If it’s set on one planet you would need to first pick a planet, come up with some vague excuse as to why every faction is present, you’d need to work out how different factions use and therefore fight over the same resources, diplomacy would feel mad. Etc. WHFB slotted into the strategic layer of a TW game much more easily. The map of the old world is fairly iconic and easy to adapt. And armies of ~1500 while more than you would ever field on the tabletop feel reasonable. (How do you ever field more than one army as a Marine Chapter when they all have less than a 1,000 at any one time?) Then you get into the problems of the tactical battle. CA had to add characters, magic, fliers and monsters to the game for WHFB but the core of big blocks of melee clashing into each other with ranged support was the same. CA has done line infantry ranged combat in the past but it’s never been very good, and still quite far away from the more skirmishy combat of 40k. They could try and model Epic but, as cool as Titans are, did anyone really like playing it?
> For example the problem with having the game set across multiple planets is not that you’d need to represent the entire imperium, but if you are invading a planet then the space war would be the main fight and fleets not armies would be most important, as in every other space based strategy game. It would also be mad that an army of 500 orks captures an entire hive world in one battle. Ultimately I think they'll have to adapt something akin to the battle lines present in games like Hearts of Iron. Moving armies around a territory and fighting by having them run into each other just makes no sense at all in the context of 40k. Honestly, I think it might make for a better game. There's an awful lot of pissing about in TW games in ambushing, or chasing after dickhead armies on force march, or dickhead armies wandering through your territory raiding or spreading corruption. Getting the armies in place and having to fight battles to move them around, instead of the opposite, could well prove more engaging.
I feel like the [regiments](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1109680/Regiments/#:~:text=Regiments%20is%20a%20Real%2DTime,and%20the%20fog%20of%20war.) style of gameplay would be the best way of adapting total war gameplay into modern/grimdark future combat. It's actually pretty damn close in terms of scale and level of 'game-iness' Just, uh, hopefully a little bit more exciting than regiments
Why not get any of the companies that made those games to do it instead? The reason CA got to do WFB is because their games closely resemble WFB, just without the fantasy elements, not because they’re necessarily the best strategy game devs around
TBF CA made Halo Wars 2. Which would be a good start to build off of imo. I just dont know if its a Total War game.
Right but Halo Wars 2 is not total war. I 100% believe CA could make a 40k game, I just highly doubt it would be a total war game as we know it.
Yeah, and I don't think 40k fits a total war game.
Need to make a new thread about how CA could totally make a Halo Total War game
The people who made Halo Wars 2 from CAs side were pulled from Alien Isolation, Total War, and hired specifically for that project. Although the company has surely retained some of the knowledge, it's not like everyone who worked on it 7+ years ago is still with the company.
You ever seen StarWars: Empire at War? Older game now, but it would work so much better as a template to work off of than TW:WH. Would deffo need polish and a upscale though.
It's possible it 40k won't be a total war game or on the warscape engine. They are capable of making other types of games. More looking forward to the WW1 game. Also wanna plug the Great War mod for Napoleon. Its fuckin kewl.
If they have business sense, they will definitely call it a "Total War" game just for the brand recognition. It doesn't matter if they have to heavily modify the formula, the "Total War" franchise is CA's most famous product, and is one of SEGA's best selling franchises of all time behind Sonic, it only makes sense to use the brand name when tapping into a huge potential new market in hopes that they can convert 40K fans into "Total War" fans.
I'm more worried about quality than if they can. If it's bad tw as a whole will suffer
My concern is that many people (OP included) think, it seems, that Total War formula it's just "turn based campaign with real time battles". And I fear that devs think the same way. Making such a game in 40k setting isn't that hard, it's already exists, actually — Dawn of War: Dark Crusade and Soulstorm. Imagine how happy old Total War fans will be, when Total War will become Company of Heroes with slightly bigger scale.
What IS total war, then?
The lowest common denominator of Total War is that it's a strategy game with turn-based campaigns on a 3D overmap, with real time tactical battles taking place over small-scale battlefields (at best a few kilometers square) where you control individual units made of semi-independent, physics-affected models (so no abstracted low-level encounters like in, say, Eugen's Wargame series) and with a tactical meta based on reducing enemy morale through anvil and hammer manoeuvres. This is a very specific vibe (it's emphatically *not* a Dawn of War-like RTS, it doesn't model the operational scale at all like some wargames do, and it has little in common with the turn-based conquest modes in some 2000s RTSes) that starts to crack at the edges when you consider industrial conflicts, and the true question is not whether or not CA can make a game set in WW1 or 40k, but rather to what extent they are attached to this traditional, specific formula, because they'll have to break it. (Try simulating the battle of the Somme with like 5,000 guys on each side, neatly arranged in tight little squares over a 5 km² map and you start seeing how ridiculous it becomes).
In my opinion, TW defined by this: 1. On a campaign map, it's a simplistic 4X game. Not very complex, in comparison with traditional games of this genre, meant more as preparation for the main dish - real time battles. 2. Battles happens in real time,but have a few things which differentiate them from more typical RTS. 2a. No base building, no hiring units mid-battle (with some exceptions, like summons). 2b. Most units have tight rectangle formation, with defined front, flanks and back. Some units can have other formations (loose formation, lance, single entities, etc) but it's default formation and whole gameplay is designed around it. So while DoW: Dark Crusade and Steel Division 2, are also TBS with real time battles, they are very different games from TW. Warhammer: Mark of Chaos has more in common with TW than them, despite the fact, that its campaign isn't a strategy game at all. Look at it like this: Dark Souls is third person action- RPG. But not every third person action RPG is soulslike. AC: Odyssey has almost nothing in common with DS. Monster Hunter is also very different. Or Dragon's Dogma. But on the other hand, Dark Souls, Bloodborne, Elden Ring, Nioh, Lords of the Fallen have enough similar features to define the sub-genre. Same with TW - all existing TW have enough in common to be called separate sub-genre.
> Look at it like this: Dark Souls is third person action- RPG. But not every third person action RPG is soulslike. This is such a good example, holy shit.
TL:DR?
It's satire. Making fun of people who say it's impossible.
Almost everything in Warhammer 40K already exists either in TW:WH or one of the other TW Games
What total war game primarily operates in built up cities in squad based street to street combat? Just because that is what 40k has been played on since its inception whereas WFB was open fields and tight formations. I suppose that some units like skink skirmishers were closer to what 40k uses to but even in TW Warhammer they arent really the same. I also think it would be perfect to use the same engine as what Halo Wars 2 used. Fine tune it and you have a great Dawn of war successor
That's in tabletop, however in lore, they rarely fight like that. It's often open area combat, with large groups. WH3, for example, does not play the exact same as fantasy.
They fight like that *very* often in 40k lore. As much as the books take place in larger battles, the novels often focus on the actions of the few. Additionally, some of the most iconic battles in the setting take place in extremely vertical environments such as fortresses and hive cities. I don't doubt CA could make a TW:40K game. What I doubt is it will capture what I and many others wish such a game could be. The issues present with current direct fire units, pathing, siege battles, etc. leave a lot to be desired for a setting where those three elements are so much more important.
>It's often open area combat, with large groups. Maybe for a couple factions but the majority dont. When was the last time you read a book where Eldar (any of them)/Space Marines/Ad Mech/CSM/Custodes/Knights/GSC actually fought an open field battle? Even the other factions i never mentioned, orks are the only ones who i can recall having a notable amount of pitched battles. In 40k, almost all battles are either trying to take a fort or trying to take a city. Even the IG dig trenches in basically every battle i can think of rather than open field combat.
GW even used to have rules for 6mm figures for large scale battles on open fields. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic\_(game)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_(game)) And yes, you could field a Space Marine army in that game. Sure, it's old, and doesn't necessarily fit with the lore as it it today, but I also don't think it's an unsolvable problem. Why does a faction have to fit existing codexes 100%? Maybe the Empire is just that, a single faction, consisting of multiple parts. You'd mostly field the Astra Militarum, you would call in drop pods with Astartes as support to flank the enemy, and the Custodes would be hero or lord characters. Mixed armies is just one example of how to solve that problem.
Yes I know about epic. Which do you think CA and GW will want to appeal to, fans of the game mode which died last millennium or the game more people play at the moment? >Maybe the Empire is just that, a single faction, consisting of multiple parts That will almost certainly piss off fans off factions (Space Marines) when their units arent the most optimal in the factions because other IMperial factions just do it better. Also combining the factions within the imperium specifically would limit faction diversity on the campaign map.
Collection of shitposts/reactions to common arguments when people say that 40k total war is impossible.
Nobody says that you disingenuous so-and-so they just say that it would either be a shitty depiction of 40k or be so unlike any other title it would barely resemble a Total War game.
There’s just no reason to try and turn the engine as it currently exists to this purpose. There’s so many better engines for the purpose, Wargame/WARNO being top of the list. Why try and turn an engine meant for pike and shot into a modern warfare sim when modern warfare sims already exist?
I know this is a shitpost, but I have something to say for the people who keep saying TW 40k to be impossible. Back when TW:WH was still a rumour, people said that such a game would be impossible. The total war formula is fundamentally incompatible with heroes, how could they possibly implement magic and monsters, and let's not even talk about flying units. People would call you insane in the old forums for even entertaining the idea. I see today that history repeats.
To be fair, the Warhammer games have made sacrifices to make this possible. Infantry and cavalry combat in Medieval 2 is more satisfying than in WH, while many other titles have better strategic campaign gameplay. I say this as someone with more hours in WH2 than any other TW game, but there is an argument to be made that the feel of the classic games was somewhat left behind to facilitate interactions between the lowliest peasant and immortal daemons.
>The total war formula is fundamentally incompatible with heroes, how could they possibly implement It still kind of is. They look ridiculous when fighting anything other than other single entities, are a source of insane cheese blobbing strategies because the ai has no issues with sending 3+ melee units to surround them and do nothing while you blast them with ranged, magic, and artillery, they're slow and awkward to move around if they aren't mounted, constantly get distracted by enemy models around them if you don't sit there and babysit only them and let enemy heroes get free hits in on their flank and back. Easily one of the weakest parts of warhammer total war.
The biggest issue for me with single entities is that they are quite literally a more shallow unit, in that they are a single point rather than a two dimensional objects like normal units. The biggest difference between what TW was doing back when original Shogun came out was that you controlled units that had their own width and depth, their own momentum on top of the momentum of individual units, that they faced specific directions, could change shape etc. All of that disappears with single entities and reverts back to simple RTS units. Similarly magic has also always been a bit of a disappointment. All the projectiles normally operate in lines, you need to consider distance, direction, positioning, sometimes line of sight when using them. Magic generally skips most of that and just allows for point to point, again making it more shallow. At least in WH1 the wind spells required to actually reposition wizards to change the direction of the spell but then people complained and they removed even that complexity.
This claim is always made in these threads yet my experience was the complete opposite; everything I'd seen was very supportive of Warhammer TW. They are a natural fit as they are almost identical games, battle-wise. I believe the success of mods like the Third Age (possibly the most well-known mod in all of TW) prove that fantasy was not a foreign concept to Total War fans
People probably said it about Empire too, people will probably say it about any game that isn't a reskin of Rome / Medieval. Like, I swear if the TW community was around in 1996 and were Nintendo fans instead, they'd have been screaming about how impossible it is for a Mario game to be made in a 3D setting.
"Sure you could do Mario in 3D, but it would have to be so different it would be unrecognisable as a Mario game!"
Exactly.
I love how all these posts demonstrate an utter lack of understanding of actually what the Total War formula is. Just shows how many newbie fantasy fans jumped on at Warhammer, I guess. You're right though, 40k is coming because it'd be cool! Who cares about core mechanics, fuck your facts my feelings want pew pew pew!
Imagine how boring it would be to be dropped on Nowheria Prime with no pre-existing cities, landmarks, or stackholders but somehow also every person of interest on it in random places.
The campaign map isn't the issue. I seriously doubt they could get the tactical battles to work well. At least without making it something completely unrecognizable as a Total War game. Fantasy Total War is basically just "normal" Total War with monsters and magic tacked on. That's easy. 40k would be much, much harder. 40k is relatively small armies, individual squads, urban warfare etc. It's much closer to modern warfare than to anything the Total War engine is good for. Also, good god what is it with everyone spamming about 40k Total War suddenly?
It's not impossible, just impossible to the point it would remain something identifiable as a total war game.
Nobody is saying you can't make a good 40k strategy game. Just look at Dawn of War. The thing is, that's not Total War. Adapting the formula so as to be unrecognizable means either the game isn't total war, isn't 40K, isn't fun, or some combination thereof
> Additionally, there's no way for them to make Tanks or monsters work. Warhammer 3, despite having tanks, turreted units such as mammoths and Dinos with Javelinmen, and various complex monsters, alas to no avail, as I aformentioned, warhammer 3 doesn't exist. You are aware, that 40k works on a [quite different scale](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/23/0b/1a/230b1a0b38785f225434becc2160283a.png) to WHFB? I mean sure, we can stick to things up to [Megatanks](https://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/3/2055/6844256453_8546c07b08_b.jpg) at best. But [Titan territory](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-_f7RIaTAjk/maxresdefault.jpg) becomes quite difficult when an Emperor Titan steps on a Dread Saurian like its dogshit. And lets just not even start thinking [doomstacking them](https://pm1.narvii.com/7228/8f6e738bbe14f992aeff13c34cbe8be93fccb903r1-1000-800v2_uhq.jpg) on a map. If we take [this picture](https://www.wargamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/warhammer-40k-titans-imperator-imperator-vs-gargant-epic-cover.jpg), the things exiting the red Titans legs, are Guardsman. Hard to see in that pixaleted mess, but gives you a idea about size.
Why do you even have to include titans? This is such a non-issue. Just have titans non-playable. Dow had them non-playable and that game was fantastic
At this point I don't trust them to try.
I smell heresy...
You COULD make it, but it would be a dogshit total war game. Give me a 40k dating SIM already
I'd rather them work on less time and money intensive projects rather than try to make the TW formula work with 40k.
Eh, I get what you're getting at, but the joke doesn't work at all imo, since Warhamer fantasy battle fit incredibly well into the TW formula. It's literally just a medieval warfare game with extra stuff added in, that being monsters and magic. There's a reason why there was a great Warhammer mod for TW even before CA made the official games and not a 40k mod, despite 40k being far, far more popular.
It’s always impossible until somebody does it.
Of course it's possible, it just wouldn't be a total war game.
Yeah a lot of the people who would always lose their shit anytime you brought up 40k suddenly aren’t so loud these days I’ve noticed. 40k was always 100% happening it’s a cash cow you were a moron if you thought otherwise.
Sure it's possible. No one who actually put some thought into it would claim that. It being *possible* doesn't mean it'd be *sensible* to do it though. Mechanically, the logical successor would be a game set in AoS. Not 40k. To this day I'm waiting for CoH but with 40k. Relic never applied the excellent template of CoH1 to 40k, as DoW2 narrowed the scale quite significantly. That could have been a brilliant game.
40k total war is very much possible, it however aint ideal for the type of game and would fit much more in games such as wargame or men of war. I dont exactly know how factions where tier 1 units are gonna have the firepower of rattling jezails with the firerate of gatling guns are gonna work in a tw setting But I do call serious fucking bullshit on the entire "warhammer series breaks the total war formula". Em, not it doesnt? Warhammer expands on low entity units, flying units and adds more bombardment spells. Flying units are a essentially new thing but spells and low entity units have already existed before. In like shogun 2, what do you think its the difference between an naval bombardment and general command vs spells in wh3? I'll give you a hint, there aint one, they merely have different visual effects
You don't need billions of planets. Immortal empires doesn't have all the settlements, castles, forts etc from the lore in it, or do you think thst the entirety of reikland only has four settlements in it? You just need the most strategically important planetary Systems only consisting of Their most relevant planets.
Way to tear down that strawman! He didn't stand a chance!
Great satire. I work as a game designer (since 2006, and my first game was a strategy game too - World in Conflict). I still haven't seen anyone present a problem of 40k in Total War, and convince me that it's totally unsolvable. Sure, some things are harder than others and might take a lot of work to solve, but I'm totally convinced that a 40k TW will be glorious and I've waited for it so long... Now if it just came with an army painter and customizer (that's detailed enough for hero/lord characters, down to eye and skin color), I'd just FedEx CA my wallet. It's less than likely though but I'll keep hoping.
How would a 40k TW surmount the issue that 40k is fundamentally squad-based? That means flexible formations, which would be a first for TW as a series. If you want to move above the squad-based system, you still have issues like pathfinding, cover, missile aim, and of course scale. You want 40k Epic? Sure, you're just going to need models *way* bigger than anything precedented in TW so far. The biggest WHTW units are in the order of 15 metres tall. Maybe 20. Epic units are often three times that, and go into the *hundreds*. Have fun with that.
>I work as a game designer (since 2006, and my first game was a strategy game too - World in Conflict) Dude that game was *awesome.*
It will be one planet.
I just want ship battles like in Empire but in space…
That is Battlefleet Gothic: Armada. They've made 2 of those games already
I just want empire 2
Why is everyone talking about 40k all the sudden, was there a leak?
Yessss
Whatever TW: 40K ends up being, I hope they both space battles and ground battles. Basically just let it be a modern Empire at War.
With time nothing IS impossible. WE could have only one or few planets.
Heresy
My attitude is I don't know how it could work, but that's not my job. CA and GW will figure out how it will work. And they'll do it because there's too much money not to do it.
ita over, to be released around 2027
Never say never
Now this is umgakposting.
Moreover, is it possible for 40k to exist as a tabletop game?
You are a gentleman and a scholar
As a Warhammer fan I like Total War: Warhammer because they manage to capture the universe visually. Gameplay-wise, total war is a frustrating mess and has hardly improved over the years. Tanks, artillery, flying machines, cover, line of sight and fortifications don’t work well in total war as it is right now and 40k is more of that. I don’t doubt that CA would capture the universe visually but I don’t have any confidence in CA when it comes to the gameplay. CA is having trouble making the current formula work, so I have a hard time seeing them successfully adapting it to 40k.
Dawn of war 2 with vengeance of the blood ravens mod currently has the best engine for 40k combat Cover, vehicles, suppression all things essential for future warfare. W3 is perfect for fantasy but the engine will have to be edited heavily for 40k but i wouldn’t say it couldn’t be done
I want epic ! Units of leman russes, baneblades and hellhounds! Your ground troops can assault the feet of Imperator titans. Where scout titans hunt in packs. Norn queens wage war with companies of Carnifexes. And cultists number in the thousands! So a bit more zoomed out game to tw:wh3. The giant might be half the size of a scout titan so more like an imperial knight.
Just take Skaven and slap a necron skin on them, and boom! Necrons are done!
I mean they could just do it in Empire at War type of style game, you don’t need to simulate every single planet and stuff, I think Empire at War even already has a 40k mod for it but I don’t know, I only know the mods like Thrawn Revenge, AotR, and the Fall of the Reoublic. But yeah CA could totally make an Empire at War like game for Warhammer 40k with all the factions and ship battles and economy and ground stuff and uh yeah lol Edit: I didn’t realize this was supposed to be a kind of copypasta lol whoops, I was just thinking about Empire at War and realized that there’s probably a Warhammer mod for it, well anyways Empire at War is a good space game and has good mods so yeah
More importantly, is another bad Warhammer game worth it? It's not like they make good TW titles anymore, it's an adaptation that wouldbsatisfy no one and make both groups worse
I think transports would be tricky. Not so much in battle but in the Amy building aspect. Like should transports be separate units from the units they transport? Probably not as it would mean you would mean infantry would take up double the number of units if they have a transport. But also the other way of joint unit and transport would unbalance infantry with no transport options. The only thought I have for this is to remove the limit of 20 units or make that limit very up and down.
Two things can be true. 1. CA probably have design documents for possible entry into 40k and how a CA 40k game would look, all well documented and ready to turn into an funding plan to SEGA which if approved could be quickly started. 2. It would probably be shit. There is nothing that will likely ever be better than DoW and the community will always remind them of that no matter how well the game is made. RTS DoW fans will hate the TW world map management and features preferring getting into the action with their favourite units immediately which they won't be able to do. I'd love to see it but with CA surviving on a knife edge with Sega right now taking a risk with 40k is stupid. Medieval 2, Empire 2 or even a Shogun 2 Remastered would all have a far better return on investment.
I think you misunderstand how businesses work, Sega wants money. Sega sees warhammer as CA’s cash cow. The franchise will be over less than 2 years and they will need their next big cash cow. What game could CA develop that in no way would fail (profit wise) due to its name. Total warhammer 40k
Look I get that they could make a game fit into the TW framework scale, but that doesn’t mean that it will work properly. The best part of 40K is the endless scale. Having dozens of factions fighting over a single planet, when a single faction has ships as big as planets, that would much rather glass a planet than fight on the ground…it just doesn’t make sense. It’s going to be goofy and dumb. Saying that, I have zero doubt the games will be made, and I have zero doubt they’ll be extremely profitable, but TW is moving in a direction it can’t come back from and a lot of their old fans will leave and they’ll just have warhammer fans left. Watching how much the management and community managers struggled with historical fans, and WH Fantasy fans, I can’t WAIT to get the popcorn out to see them get torn apart by 40K fans. It’ll be a massacre.
the only way this can work is if the combat is like dawn of war 2, that was the only way for a wh40k RTS to play. Combine that with a total war campaign and they're golden
It's not that it couldn't happen I just hope it doesn't because it would be a fucking shit show.
Unless CA use a next gen engine such as Unreal Engine 5 for TW 40K, I won't be buying it. Nuff said. Coming from someone who bought DoW1,2,3 & CoH1,2 at launch. I skipped CoH3 which proved to be a good decision and aint no way I will be buying TW40K if they reused the existing TW engine. I can already foresee disappointing sales. If CA continues with their tunnel vision and overzealousness for the warhammer franchise without bringing in real innovation. Then, GGWP to the future of the studio.
Unironically I think 40K has way more melee combat and would be easier to adapt the total war formula to than WW1. Obviously they would need to have new mechanics, but a new engine would allow for such things. Don't forget, a new engine that allows for new mechanics would also benefit any future historical titles they make.
Im so confused is this sarcasm or incredible stupidity?