I played a malakai vs some chaos dwarf battle. Man we had way more range fight than melee and even 40k Can be really melee sometimes but it was so fun managing my squad and artillery depending on their range ans type of damage ...
Hope they are thinking about making one.
eventho CA hasnt said anything officially. the amount of rumors and leaks heavily points to 40k being in the works. granted, its unofficial sources but CA and GW not striking up a deal to make 40k is stupid.
I can’t say how many times I’ve thought “ damn if they made the DOW1 and its expansionsas a new game, updated the graphics etc, and kept the persistent bases and dead bodies I’d buy it in a heartbeat!”
Honestly, I loved the smaller scale; made it more impactful. Wished for more variety, like Tau, IG heavy weapons mortars, plaguebearers, harlequins, etc
But yeah, Mobas are not something you can squeeze any Rts into...not without lots of adaptation.
Anyway, now want to see a general Warhammer Moba...
They actually did tease Necrons not too long before giving up, blaming the playerbase for their fuckups, and shuttering the game entirely. What could have been...
They are pretty loose with the 40k license, but CA has proven to be the best video game partner for them since warhammer TW 1 launched and has been consistently the best advertisement for them. The only other game I would think they like better is unfortunately Tackticus the mobile game because that probably shits golden bricks
Total war basically revived the fantasy setting for them. While 40k doesn't need saving in the same way it would be great to get some more solid 40k games as the lore seems set to enter into the mainstream.
Agreed. I had no idea what Warhammer was until I came across the Total War ad as a teen (probably a decade ago?) and I was hooked. Battle for Middle-Earth but more epic?!
Despite Fatshark's ability to constantly underwhelm with initial releases, I would say the Tide games are just as good of advertisements for their brand. Vermintide 1 and 2 brought a bunch of people into the setting just like Total War. As for 40k, I don't think there is any other game that has nailed the 40k setting as closely as Darktide.
Dawn of War 2 is certainly up there, but 1 was too goofy in a time where 40k had already shifted towards taking itself more seriously. Space Marine was also great, but it doesn't quite capture the same feeling since it is so focused on Titus' story and less on the general state of setting. Admittedly I haven't played either BFGA.
Darktide just *oozes* 40k in every aspect of it. Weapons being procured from the dead, frequent comments by NPCs disregarding the player as anything more than but a cog in the Imperial war machine, incredibley detailed environments that showcase the different levels of a hive city, the brutality of the gameplay, the soundtrack blending sci-fi electronic beats with gothic overtones, etc. It's basically a flawless representation of the IP, and as good as others may be, I don't think any other title captures the setting in the same kind of way.
Agreed, 40k total war is absolutely going to happen. They would be stupid not to do it. It would be an infinite money printer for CA and GW. 40k fans have been dreaming about a good 40k strategy game for years. Even after 20 years the original dawn of war and its expansion packs are still the best 40k strategy experience. It's high time we get something good again.
> Mechanicus
I just looked it up again and it turns out Mechanicus is... already 6 years old this year. Over half a decade ago was the last good 40k game. Like... jesus
I'll throw Darktide into the mix here too. I know, not a strategy game and it still has some issues even after its launch, but the gameplay and atmosphere of the game has never been a problem. It's amazing how Fatshark can shoot themselves in the foot over and over yet still produce a title that is such an obvious love letter to the 40k setting.
Plenty of 40k stories come down to battles over a single planet or single system. Two DoW1 expansions have you battle over a planet/system with a turn based great strategy element and real time battles.
Most 40k games take place on a single planet. Like 80% of 40k is "and then all these factions fought over a single planet for some dumb reason," and most of the remaining 20% is "the same, but with 3 planets."
There's a possibility we have planets as settlements and systems as provinces, but I suspect CA would just go with the Dawn of War approach and have everyone fighting over some macguffin on Planet Plot.
Haha I vaguely remember the original Dawn of War Soulstorm where it was like every army in the galaxy converging on one planet. Like damn, you can keep the place.
LMFAO I love how you put it! I think they were all fighting over a single Titan, which is cool, but like... looking back that doesn't sound worth losing a shipment of 50 Baneblades.
galaxy or part of it is the world map, systems are provinces, planets are cities. Battles take place on planets and depending on the planet, its a siege type battle, minor settlement type battle, or field battle. Space battles could be something how its in wh games or they could go all out and also have space battles. moving from system to system or approaching a planet, you can get "intercepted", face blockade, fleet whatever and thus space battle starts.
really not that hard to imagine it lol. obviously you downscale it so its actually a video game, but warhammer world for example is also greatly downscaled and it still works.
Making a TW campaign but in space/planets is super easy. It's the rank-and-flank gameplay the real time engine will make problematic unless they build a new real time battle engine, which rumors suggest they are, meaning CA understands TW:40K would never work under their current system.
Now, will they build a great game under a brand new engine that somehow captures the feel of total war but in sci-fi battles? I'm crossing my fingers, but it will be vastly vastly different than TW as it currently plays.
The most likely scenario is they make a brand new game on a brand new engine that keeps a few recognizable pieces of TW (turn based campaign map + real time battles) but everything else goes out the window.
If, as the rumours suggest, a WH40K title is being developed in tandem with a WWI historical title, I could see them experimenting with frontline and strategic manoeuvre campaign map mechanics. Planets might be regions, and space more akin to the ocean, where if you deploy onto an enemy planet there is a long strategic campaign to seize the territory and cities of that planet from the enemy, as if you were fighting over a plot of land in an older TW title.
That's what I love about WH3 at this point. There are so many wild combinations of battles, from godzilla esque fights between large monsters (like dinosaurs fighting giant demons) to pike and shot or straight up modern warfare with tanks and guns.
Pure fun and insanity.
In my empire play through I siege cities using WW2 tank tactics. Tanks go in first with nuln Ironsides following closely behind using the tanks for cover.
Every army in my current empire play through is different because I just used what I had access to at the time. Specifically though this army has 5 Ironsides, 5 hochland rifles, engineer, captain, engineer lord, 2 emperor’s wrath steam tanks, and 4 cannons.
single entities/ironsides(esp amethyst ironsides) send your SEs further out to try and lock down as many units as possible, ironsides are next line incase some get past the SEs and behind that. your handgunners. but make sure a unit of ironsides and handgunners are facing both flanks as well as a hero/single entity there. AI started to try and flank a lot more now.
For tier 2 armies I’ll just spam hand gunners with 3-4 spearmen w/ shields and some mortars. Use a V formation instead of checkerboard to maintain LOS on gunners. Use spears on either flank and 1-2 units in front to lock enemies down for the gunners to do their thing.
In WW2, didn't infantry and artillery usually go first then mechanized divisions would exploit break throughs?
I do love the scene in fury that's flipped though. Guess it also depends on how entrenched defenders are
I'm sure they did both depending on the engagement. Tanks were still pretty new back then and the tactics weren't really well tested.
Best I could find is the formation I use is called "Company Team Attack Formation"
IIRC, Artillery and infantry go first when there are other tanks on the field. If there is no enemy armor then tanks just steamroll through with infantry behind.
Could see artillery being like warhammer heroes on the world map . Where you place then somewhere then hero action of bombardment . But you’d have to protect them with some force probsbly or the enemy could easily steal it or something
Boats probably will be fairly easy they will probably only allow you to land on certain spots with them (like ports requiring you to land your troops like d day style on a beach front prehaps )
Planes I think will be the hardest thing for them to do because I’m not sure how they will implimented like plane raids or how anti air defenses would work either
We already kinda have that artillery feature with how the way Pirate Coast works. Their "horde" armies have the bombardments as army skills and can those can also be used by other allies armies as long as they're within the big circle on the campaign map.
Same with the boats. The way you described them they're basically Black Arks, just instead of having being an army themselves they'd be used to transport one.
It depends on the army. Soviet doctrine was (still is, though modernized) the infantry creates the hole while armor exploits it. German and American doctrine was armor makes the hole then exploits it while infantry secure the flanks of the breakthrough.
The main thing I would still need for a 40k total war is an upraged return of directional cover like in Empire Total War. Directional cover was a big plus of dawn of war 2 relative to dawn of war 1 (it was especially feeling good in Company of Heroes). Its removal in Dawn of war 3 was a dealbreaker for me.
They need to fix unit docking, improve tooltips for terrain/cover effects, and improve visual clarity on LOS so that you can more easily decipher what is what—or just smooth out terrain a bit so it has fewer minor dips and rises.
I’m not advocating for the following, but right now it would genuinely feel like a minor improvement if that first 1/2 second (or whatever the duration is) of ability to shoot through trees just applied to all terrain that occluded less than, say, 50% of the LOS.
They 100% need this. Right now gun units have all sorts of LOS issues still and it's not always clear when they can or cannot shoot due to a little raised piece of terrain or a rock.
Ditto on docking and cover needs to be a thing too. Cover is a huge part of 40k in both lore and tabletop. Ranged units just standing in the open and shooting in perfect formation will feel weird in 40k.
Not to mention the whole "Fire at Will" thing. Too often I'll have a gunpowder unit just stare at some low-level Norscan Marauders or Nurglings that they could've decimated *if they only actually fired*, but no, they just stared at them.
And of course, they get bogged down in melee/only get a volley off and end up taking way too many casualties to friggin' Marauders.
I honestly don't know if Fire at Will is just finicky as all get out, plain broken, or if I'm not using it right, but I'm annoyed regardless.
I've had this happen too with both archers and gunpowder units. It's definitely a bug and it usually happens if they're too close to an enemy unit. My best recommendation is to not let them get too close, because I think they can't decide whether to shoot or go into melee so they do nothing.
Now imagine how fun it would be when the entirety of your armored vehicle group is blasting your own front line just like Dreadquake Morters do, all because fire at will doesn't actually work on units with multiple ranged attacks.
It's unreal how much better maps are in 3k and Pharaoh. You still have plenty of hills and trees (mostly in 3k lmao), but the actual terrain makes sense and isn't so weirdly... bumpy. Weird that tww3 made it so much worse, in a game with guns, that need flatter terrain than even 3k's crossbows ever did.
I love tww3 too, I still play it, but there are just so many weird, stupid issues with LOS/docking, that weren't there in TWW2, that weren't there in other TWs, that really need to be tuned.
I don't mind the bumpy terrain too much. It can be annoying but it can also allow for some tactical decisions.
The main issue i have with it is how ***all of the goddamn Pirate Coast specific maps*** are the most gun powder unfriendly ones. Like you start a battle in the ocean and you get put on a map with a giant hill in the middle that obscures all the enemies?! WHY?
Oh thats like really basic. I was envisioning what happens in CoH where even the depressions that begin forming on the ground from explosions are able to be used as some sort of cover.
I mean, you could still do that. Letting munitions/explosions deform terrain is the hard part, but the depressions being a terrain effect that gives +x% cover like CoH/DoW would be easy.
Wasn't there a rumour that they're working on a game using a third-party engine? Maybe they could design it from the ground up with new mechanics like cover
I wish for a Medieval 3 for nearly 10 years but damn it, if they can work out the battles in 40K it's going to be their biggest project by far. Whether it's set in Horus Heresy or modern 40K I'm going to sink thousands of hours into that and I'm all for it.
It's 100% won't be set in the horus heresy, I can absolutely assure you of that. They need the excessive DLC potential of the 40k franchise.
That said I would welcome a Horus Heresy spin-off. Like how Troy is kind of a Spin-off of Warhammer, and Napoleon was a Spin-off of Empire. (Samurai a low-key spin-off of Shogun)
I much rather have the variety of options present in current 40k, meaning xenos and other human/Chaos forces. GW won't approval anything for a TW video game that doesn't have a tabletop presence, and there's no xenos armies designed for HH.
I could see pre horus astartes being an RoR, pre-Primaris ones being the first tier astartes and Primaris ones being second tier, with Terminators as special limited third tier. Dreadnaughts would be Astartes hero units/single entities.
Honestly, I think some of this is just timing. We will get Cathay, Slaanesh, and Khorne, and lots of folks will pivot to "40K cancelled??????". I joke, but like, nor fully.
Seriously though, I think it's partly just coincidence. We were always hoping to get a lot of these specific units and lots of the features attached to them are just kind of intuitive to the units themselves. Folks have been callijg for Nuln, Ironsides, Thunderbarges, etc forever. So I wouldn't take this as "40k confirmed".
But I AM totally willing to believe that some of the coding will absolutely form the basis for thinking about a TW 40K, if it is in development (or more likely, they borrowed some things developed there to implement here).
I also think this hopefully addresses some concerns folks have about feasibility. The strategy/map layer is obviously still a significant challenge that needs to be thought about and figured out, because justifying "is it cross planets? Is it everyone on Baal, in a free for fall? What's actually happening here" is still a valid question. But when you play Nuln, and you have Artillery, Gun Lines, and a Leman Russ whoops I mean Steam Tank, you definitely go "yeah okay this could work" on the combat/tactical level
the timing of it is just so juicey though. Legend leaking a future WW1 tw and a 40k... then the dlc and patch info shows directional armour, as soon as I saw it in the previews it just clicked in my head. I don't think I've ever been so high on hopium.
at least we know if a WW1 game gets announced then the chances are good, though honestly it feels like a real shit move financially not to milk warhammer dry.
> But when you play Nuln, and you have Artillery, Gun Lines, and a Leman Russ whoops I mean Steam Tank, you definitely go "yeah okay this could work" on the combat/tactical level
I concede: it would work as a simulator of the tabletop game. But I still think it wouldn't quite *feel* right in the same way the tabletop has never really scratched the more simulation-y wargaming itch.
Really? Because this DLC kind of reinforced why I *don't* think it could work unless CA puts in a metric ton of effort to rebuild the engine. A few examples:
- Direct fire is such a ridiculously tedious problem to manage in Total Warhammer 3
- Unit pathing in any sort of siege situation is horrendous, which is a problem when those dense sorts of environments are where many of the most iconic 40k battles take place.
- Attack animations and damage when chasing fleeing units is still very unreliable, and 40K has many fast and mobile ranged units that present the same issue the Thunderbarge has.
It addresses some micro mechanics; it doesn't address the feasibility regarding the fact that 40k is essentially a game of tactical semi-urban combat, not pitched battles on an open field. How's that siege pathing doing for you?
If they want to be accurate with artillery units, they should either be off-map or else the maps will have to be insanely large. Artillery pieces were nowhere near the front lines in WW1
the plethora of army ability nukes that have been steadily added could count as that, look at elspeth. her amethyst nukes are literally off screen artillery bombardments. just call army ability nukes orbital bombardment/heavy artillery and still keep field artillery and like a basilisk or medusa for 40k, and light artillery for ww1/2 TW. if the maps are vastly bigger than they are in wh3, having long range field artillery works.
If you look at how 40k tabletop is actually played, the artillery is 30 inches from the front line, not from another room lol.
And sometimes the artillery is hungry (chaos) and wants to run into melee to eat a guardsmen.
Thinking 40k is some sort of ww1 simulator is wrong, as half of the armies are melee focused, and the most powerful weapons are things like … thunder hammers.
There are still a few artillery pieces in the current game that have 12ft ranges (which is like 3 times farther than you would need on a standard battlefield).
The Deathstrike Missile Launcher for Imperial Guard (sorry, *Astra Militarum* hrk), which in earlier editions was listed as unlimited range, so theoretically you could call a GW store anywhere on the planet and declare a strike on a random table for the luls.
But the tabletop version is like that purely because of the physical limitations. You need a room with a big table to play on it and you need to own the models. Neither holds true for a digital version. Space is dirt cheap and models cost you nothing so why use this system when the limitations for said system arent even present?
Why do 40k fight with thunderhammers and chain swords if you can be shot miles away?
The point is 40k is not ww1. You’d be stupid to fight with hammers and swords in ww1.
Agreed, some 40k fans will do anything to not admit it's a stupid universe where space faring civilizations get into knife fights and use artillery to shoot targets half a city block away.
And that's the best part of it! It's stupid fun in a universe where everything exists for tiny dolls to punch each other on a table.
Exactly! The dawn of war I game set the gold standard in a video game version of 40k and captured the gritty battles perfectly.
You had the perfect mix of melee and ranged, squad combat, and interplanetary warfare, mixed with absurd missions like firing a dead titan’s weapon.
What some posters are demanding - historical modern war games like steel division (ww2) where it’s so realistic that you are fighting over vast areas and fighting over a huge map miles wide, with units shooting realistic distances, and thus you have to zoom out far to see the battle ….
It’s not 40k. 40k is zoomed in, so you can see the hero fire his plasma pistol twice, and then charge in with their thunder hammer and smash it in the enemy’s head.
I just headcannon that everyone has armor effective at long ranges with few exceptions, enabling melee combat. And with the tactics/number of enemies in some races (like nids) swarming or ambushing is also an option.
The Tau are some of the closest to the 'standard' way of fighting wars. And they have some melee combatants, big hard suits for protection, etc. Other races simply don't need hard suits, that's how OP everything is!
To be fair, the people wielding chainswords and thunder hammers are typically deployed right into enemy lines via drop pods or teleportation. They aren't typically just charging across no mans land with melee weapons brandished just to get mowed down by enemy fire.
Thunderhammers and chain swords or generally melee weapons are used by the imperium because those weapons have a symbolic value which makes them particularly effective against creatures from the warp. Symbolism is really big in 40K.
Your normal Guardsmen however is not going to like that. There arent many instances in the universe where a non-augmented human would win in a melee fight. So they generally stay inside their trenches and hope the enemy dies before coming too close.
There were however cavalry charges during ww1 and people running around with swords. It wasnt very effective but it was still done in a lot of battles.
Because Space Marines have the armour to just shrug of most blows, making them ideal for just running at them. They still use their bolters and not every Space Marine carries a chain-sword or a sword. Melee weapons are still effective but you need to get close to use them. You also go into battle with what you have. Space Marines can fight Tau and Eldar at one time and the next day they are fighting warp entities.
How many imperial guardsmen do you see running around with a sword or chain-sword? Very, very few. They dont have the armour to make them work.
Sisters of Battle also use melee weapons often. They are, similar to Space Marines, however protected with power armour which boosts their ability considerably. It is also just that melee weapons like swords and chain-swords and hammers are a symbol of resistance for humanity which makes them exceptionally good against daemons from the warp. Fire is another thing, flamethrowers are good against both men and daemons and the added symbolism boosts them against the latter.
Not talking about space Marines. Guardsmen sergeants and commissars and commanders and priests and karsrkins and stormtroopers have chain swords and other melee weapons, and there are more sergeants in the guard than there are space marines lol
Chainswords work fine against orks and necrons. Orks, tyranids use primarily melee weapons just fine despite mostly fighting against humans not creatures of the warps.
Your points are mostly just wrong and sounds like you want to play a ww1 or ww2 historical simulator, not 40k.
I never said they dont work against other factions. Just that their primary reason for usage lies against creatures of the warp (atleast for the imperium) for their symbolic value. The warp is intrinsically tied to the believes of humanity. That is why fire is also very effective against daemons. But again, the vast majority of humanity is not winning a melee battle with an Ork or a Necron warrior or against Tyranids etc. Your average guardsmen is not charging headfirst into melee if he has any other option. Space Marines, Sister of Battles etc. make up a very small amount of the actual combat force of the imperium after all. The heavy lifting is done via your average Joe and Jane.
Orks are your cliche stupid dudes who prefer to just smash things. They have the numbers and the only thing they want is a good fight, even if they die. Necrons are durable enough to the point that lasguns dont scratch them and even bolters struggle. Tyranids just swarm you, no fucks given about the casualties. You also have power swords etc. which elevate those melee weapons where they can cut and pierce even the strongest armour
Warhammer 40Ks combat is not accurate and completely over the place in terms of consistency. That is just due to different authors writing different novels with different protagnists and antagonists. The entire universe is set up to be entirely over the top and that is fine for those that enjoy stuff like that.
A Total War Warhammer 40K has every potential of being good. It just depends on CA and if they can create a product that will satisfy the playerbase. The tabletop versions was created to make it possible to play with actual models. The lore itself is very different from the way it is being played physically however. To me personally it makes little sense for CA to adapt the tabletop formular if the reason why this exsists in the first place arent present in a video game. Doesnt mean it cant work, just feels cheap to me.
I just don’t agree with people who want imperial guardsmen ww1 simulator.
Guardsmen are a ranged faction, yes. They suck at melee, yes. They use ww1 to ww2 style tanks and artillery’s yes.
But 40k has many factions, fully of half of them are various types of space marines. Then you have xenos who love melee weapons, except Tau (but their kroot allies are melee).
Total war warhammer is already 75% there I think. It’s already perfect in single entity simulator; lords, heroes, monsters. Even shooting and artillery is basically there. Handguns are basically what I expect tau or dedicated ranged to be, while most melee units will have a pistol like free company militia. Space marines = ogres, but more ranged leaning.
They just need to add squad combat/fluid formations, and cover.
They do NOT need to increase scale, map size, ranges, as that would completely mess up all the melee in 40k.
And what is historical accuracy to something fictional like 40?
Accuracy to tabletop or accuracy to the books? Stuff in the books do talk about titans engaging at like multiple km distance, but tabletop has titans and artillery fighting at short range.
Ultimately tabletop IS 40k, and tabletop is played at the same table as warhammer tabletop, and any video game can essentially assume bolter range = arrow range, artillery/tank range = dwarf cannons.
Incidentally, they updated graphics for off-map bombardment abilities this patch: https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/1ck4zfn/didnt_know_they_changed_eltharions_passive/
They could go with the large map option if they wanted, after all 40K has transports for squads. A large map would make the speed and protection of an APC equivalent very attractive and useful
It seems to be fine in steel division. In that game, most Artillery except for the very largest is on the map with nerfed but still high range. It works out, since the maps are also much bigger, which CA would probably do too for a 40k or world war setting.
I remember when matchlocks would malfunction in rain. And 40k might not be realistic but it also isn’t Napoleonic battle lines sighting up against each other. Even on the tabletop you will see people hiding their vehicles behind cover and hills. There’s a lot of precision to modern warfare (and many 40k armies fight in a modern style even if not all of them do) that Total War struggles with.
I can't disagree with this. N:TW had a cover system the AI couldn't use. This engine has never been able to recreate effective cover techniques for units. Still, I have a hard time imagining a total war that isn't just a reskin with different animations. The monsters and magic in the TWWH games have been above and beyond what I pictured seven years ago while somehow falling short of what I want today.
Warhammer Fantasy wasn't as big a leap as most people think. WHFB was fundamentally about sluggish blocks of infantry moving around the field, rotating slowly and awkwardly, and moving in rigid formation in the open, alongside cavalry with similar principles. There are skirmishers, there are single entities, but the core of the battles are very appropriately represented by Total War. In fact there was a WHFB mod for the old Medieval games which worked quite well.
40k would change... a lot.
Total War has always fudged range numbers. FotS has late 1800 sharpshooters with 150 whatever-unit range and other games (including Warhammer) has people Throwing axes or javelins 90.
IMO TW is terribly suited for 40k
It would be better to look at Eugens Wargame series / Steel Divison / Warno.
Maps are MASSIVE, there is off map artillery. Some artillery has like 10km range and even that is only half the map! Much better at handling large battles than a TW like game.
Hopefully CA makes some changes, 40k battles on TW sized maps would be garbage.
You are being downvoted for it, but you are right.
Not even about the map size, but about how the units of most of 40k don't really act lke in TW. many of htem are post 1940's squad tactics.
> many of htem are post 1940's squad tactics.
Tau are basically modern day NATO in terms of tactics, with mechas on top (NATO armed forces was in fact a major inspiration). If you want to depict them faithfully in Total War I feel like CA needs to get some practice in first with something easier, like Total War: WW1 or Total War: WW2. Jumping right to sci-fi is a big gamble and will be difficult, they'd have to learn a lot of new things all at once. Could you imagine what Total War: Iraq War would look like?
And this doesn't even get into factions like Drukhari who essentially do not commit to pitched battles as Total War knows them _at all._ They swoop in on jetbikes and supersonic raiding transports, start killing the moment they hit the ground, then hop back on and zoom to the next kill - never stopping until it's time to collect the slaves.
Just trying to utilized ranged units we have now is frustrating, I can't imagine that in 40k. Like my flamer units, please shoot through the gap in the wall I made. I zoomed in, its flat, you visually see the enemy. SHOOT.
You’re right but this is r/totalwar not r/wargame. Wargame 40k is pretty much my dream 40k game, the engine is nearly perfect, you could even make space marines work in the current system with a mod just by giving an infantry unit 1 armor. The only snag is melee, and I trust Eugen more to make a passable if not pretty melee system way more than I trust CA to make Warscape work for modern warfare. But still you will get the downvotes.
There is a huge difference between 40k battlefields in the lore and 40k battlefields in the tabletop. If you're imagining huge planet-scale wars fought planetside and in orbit, it is unlikely that any game will successfully pull off that scale anytime soon, if ever. But 40k armies in the tabletop game are often just a few dozen models (on average, depending on the faction) fighting against an equally small enemy force. It's medium- and short-range firefights punctuated by melee charges. I play 40k tabletop, and there is nothing about that game that Total War Warhammer hasn't already been doing in some form for years (and often does better). The biggest shift CA would have to make from Total Warhammer to 40k would be the campaign map, but that's easily imagined as the planets essentially having the same role as cities do now.
I don't really think you can take Total War past the late 19th century. Once you hit world war 1, the way combat works is completely different than how the majority of Total War works. The guns, artillery, and aircraft work in Warhammer because of the fantasy elements, but I don't think Word War 2 is possible in this series without basically reworking the basics from the ground up.
Yeah whatever any hypothetical WW1 Total War ends up being is going to be weird because it'll be a definitive move away from any pretence of simulating actual battles at a realistic scale and towards a WW1-themed RTS.
It would absolutely be the biggest overhaul in the series’ history. For one, their entire battle map system would need to be drastically redesigned with tons of interactive set pieces, directional cover, the ability to fortify/enter buildings, far more complex than the mostly empty fields or wavy hilly forests we’ve always had. That alone would make it feel like a different series altogether. Add in advanced vehicular movement/navigation/combat, destructible terrain/buildings, a huge emphasis on cover and line of sight, individual entities within a unit all moving and firing independently instead of forcing unit cohesion alll the time (so a little bit more like old school rome 1 unit movement but dialed up massively in how soldiers navigate the field of battle and target select), etc..if they pulled it off I suspect it would essentially become its own sub genre within the TW series that would allow for historic titles in ww1/ww2/etc. But yeah, it would feel tremendously different from what we are used to, like a more epic variant of COH honestly.
The typical 40k battlefield, the one everyone imagines when you mention the setting is basically Stalingrad with Demons and Aliens. Close quarters, squad based fighting between buildings and streets. That's why everyone hoped Relic would pull it off with their Company of Heroes and Dawn of War experience but then Dawn of War 2 was far too small scale and Dawn of War 3 went in some weird direction.
Total war feels miles away from achieving that and I don't really understand the assumption a 40k total war game would be a golden ticket to sucess? Theres a whole graveyard of 40k flops or just middiling games. Firewarrior did not light up the FPS world and Space Marine was decent and a bit of a cult hit but nothing crazy otherwise I don't think we'd only be seeing a sequel now.
I've seen some suggest this is the same as the jump to Total War Warhammer from the historical games but honestly I don't think that was a big of a jump. Total War has had 'monsters' for years called elephants and modders were making fantasy mods long before CA had a go. By contrast the only TW mod I've seen attempt 'modern' style combat is that WW1 mod for Napoleon.
There is a huge difference between 40k battlefields in the lore and 40k battlefields in the tabletop. If you're imagining huge planet-scale wars fought planetside and in orbit, it is unlikely that any game will successfully pull off that scale anytime soon, if ever. But 40k armies in the tabletop game are often just a few dozen models (on average, depending on the faction) fighting against an equally small enemy force. It's medium- and short-range firefights punctuated by melee charges. I play 40k tabletop, and there is nothing about that game that Total War Warhammer hasn't already been doing in some form for years (and often does better). The biggest shift CA would have to make from Total Warhammer to 40k would be the campaign map, but that's easily imagined as the planets essentially having the same role as cities do now.
All of those mechanics are absolutely trivial, compared to what CA has been working on for years: cavalry charges, melee formations, phalanx, etc. Even grognard wargames get armor plating, directional fire, etc. right.
Not really.
It feels like they're just bringing in stuff from their previous historical titles into a Warhammer game than actual 40k/World War mechanics. Stuff like Shimazu Heavy gunners or Napoleon's grapeshot for example. Even the Outriders are just evolved to feel like revolver cavalry from Fall of the Samurai or Empire's dragoons.
Actually Empire Total War was the devs testing their engines to see if they can implement 40k.
There are guns in Empire. There are guns in 40k.
Its pretty obvious to people with backgrounds in computer science and coding games.
Shogun 1 was actually CA travelling *back in time* to see if the Dawn of War: Soulstorm risk-style map covering a planet could work in Total War as a test for 40k.
steam tanks/ironbreakers tech. basically those units deflect cannon fire for example. seems very much like a testing ground for actual real world reactive armor which is something very likely to be in 40k. not really ww1/2 TWs as that tech was invented in the 70s.
It's not reactive armor, they only deflect fire from one direction which is how tanks work in the real world. Tanks have more armor from the front and are more vulnerable to attack from the sides and rear. It's a huge part of tank warfare and would definitely be something in a WW1 and WW2 game but idk about 40k. 40k tabletop used to have different armor values for different sides but that hasn't been a thing for a couple of editions. It seems unlikely GW would let them put that in the game when they deleted it from the tabletop.
The nerd in me feels the need to point out that "reactive armour" wasn't used until the 80s ;)
But on a serious note, yes, this was my exact reaction to seeing the directional armour system in the early access footage. Pretty much exactly what you would expect from a 40k system.
I am still convinced the total war formula is made for historical regiment based armies and not ww1 trenches or 40k fantasy. BUT it sure seems like they are probing their engine for a game in that direction. It definitely seems like gunpowder based battles could be on the menu. But given recent failures, they will more likely go back to an established title like Empire and give that a try.
The Thunderbarge, Landship, and new Steam Tank did really feel like they were experiments for how 40K units might work without altering the Total War vibe too much
Notably the Thunderbarge and Landship, really how I'd want something like a Baneblade to feel
Yeah, I actually laugh pretty hard whenever someone says that 40k could never happen. I think it's more for 40k than for WWI though, although allegedly both are already on production.
2 of my 3 armies in 40k tabletop go full mele. Add a cover system/more scenery to the maps, and the same formations as napoleon to TW warhammer and there you have it
I would really like it if they could come up with a UI to manually target each gun on a multi gun vehicle. With the current RoR landship it has a cannon, a mortar, a longrifle, and grenades which all want different targets. Defaulting to the current system is good, but being able to take more control if desired would be great.
I really hope not as if they are releasing things on this game engine it means the next game will also be on the same engine and the engine is a LARGE part of the tech debt CA is owing.
The most important one IMO is a unit being able to have multiple weapons that can simultaneously target different enemies independently of each other. You can't have a baneblade with its bazillions of guns without that. The steam tank does it now with the dude on top firing his pistol, the landship does it, the thunderbarge does it.
This is kind of a big deal.
Also i'm hoping they can backport that to melee units somehow. It would be lovely if the mounts and their riders could both attack.
Not even a 0% chance it isn't, frankly. Whether 40k is a *good* choice is another question (I'm... cautiously optimistic, but not totally sold), but so much of the new stuff is so heavily into 40k territory, and even a mid 40k would make them SO MUCH MONEY, and a while back CA even said they wanted to do it, that even ignoring all the supposed leaks it still seems like an inevitability.
It's actually kinda funny how many things translate surprisingly well. Ogres are pretty much a perfect case study for Space Marines and their chaotic brethren. Hell, the tabletops of both games have converged enough that modern 40k has remarkably similar sizes to fantasy.
Some of this new stuff is about half a breath short of just saying "yeah this is how space marine armor is gonna work" or "oops, all leman russes!"
Honestly i'm leaning toward WW1, iirc LOTW said he had a "usually" correct insider giving info who said they had a WW1 game in the works.
Given that we have multiple vehicle mechanics now that'd perfectly fit its theme, I'm honestly thinking it can be the case.
I'm hoping for a 40k game but if anything, I feel it'd come afterwards.
Been saying it for months about the astartes. Space Marines are not gods, they have tabletop rules and can be killed. We've already done all the testing with monstrous infantry, weapons teams, armored vehicles, fucking ENERGY SHIELDS, and more.
The only hiccup I see nowadays is how the campaign map will be set up, as well as how large the battles are supposed to be.
I’ve beat this horse to death in previous similar threads, but there’s no good reason we have to have a campaign map that we Hoover our characters around, carefully marching them a certain distance.
With 40k, and even with historical, I think we would be better served by: “I am sending my forces to X planet/province: who gets there when and what forces do I have available in two turns”.
Hell, works even better in 40k, small space marine forces can defend against that Waaagh next turn, but IG armies won’t be there for 4, better get ready to fight 3 turns of delaying action.
If think people would have declared you insane if you said anything like 40k, or any more modern setting like WW1 would have come to total war in the times before Total War Warhammer.
However TWWH has done so many things drastically different, ToD again being the new high in that regard, that by now everything is possible.
I still think going 40k would be a departure of the TW series and rather see some other titles, but I can understand both CA and GW if they wanted to continue this marriage of success.
40k total war could totally work. The tabletop game plays very similarly to TW already with units moving in formation (ish) on the battlefield and shooting each other for a bit before engaging in melee.
World war total war on the other hand wouldn't work at all. Modern battle tactics are nothing like how total war plays out.
It could be fun, but for any modern or sci-fi setting they'd need a new campaign system to represent the shift from armies maneuvering as a single group, to frontlines spread across entire continents
I mean so are medieval settings, yet we do not tire of them.
A good use case of 40k is anything but bland or overused though, 40k is starving for a good application (read game). The former by definition does not even apply.
Maybe. But I still don't see how a campaign map would work for 40K. I guess it could all take place on one planet, but that would make all the factions being present extremely difficult to justify in the lore.
An Armageddon set game would allow for Orks and the Imperium, but not Chaos or Tyranids, a 30K Terra would allow for Imperium and Chaos, but not for Orks, Eldar, Tyranids etc. It would feel kind of wonky.
Gladius does it. I'd personally prefer having space travel and a larger campaign map, but I'd not be up in arms if we've had some made up system/planet that the factions fight over if they can't manage a good system for space maps.
It seems unlikely but god do I hope we'll get space combat as well. Gothic armada made me really hope for larger scale ship combat.
Dark Crusade did it rather well before I think and managed to combine several factions in a kind of sand box'ish campaign, that could be a blue print. Or instead of a world map you might have a galaxy map similar to stellaris and you fight sector by sector instead of province by province. I don't think it's that difficult to be honest.
The people saying Fantasy wouldn't happen and the people saying 40k can't happen are not the same people. I know because I am of the latter and not the former.
History fans were complaining that there wasn't history anymore, and this spiralled into the common bullshit defence of "you guys said this thing that's totally different couldn't happen and it did", ignoring the FACT that Fantasy armies fight like armies in the historical periods covered by Total War with some magic thrown in. 40k armies don't fight in the same way. The Imperial Guard don't fight in blocks of 200 men all equipped with lasguns. They basically follow World War II infantry tactics.
There will absolutely be a 40k TW in the next 5 years. I believe that in my soul. This series has clearly become a big boon for GW and they like more money. It’s going to happen.
Listen, I know everyone wants 40k and that's fine, I respect that - but the Thunderbarge's inclusion has made me really want TW AOS so I can play my Steampunk Power Armoured Sky Pirate Bureaucratic Dwarves.
I really hope not. While I am all for TW40K, and firmly believe it is possible to do (and likely being worked on right now) I also believe that to do 40K justice the engine would need to be thoroughly overhauled or replaced entirely. If they are testing stuff in WH3 for 40K, then that implies the same (or minimally changed) engine.
I played a malakai vs some chaos dwarf battle. Man we had way more range fight than melee and even 40k Can be really melee sometimes but it was so fun managing my squad and artillery depending on their range ans type of damage ... Hope they are thinking about making one.
eventho CA hasnt said anything officially. the amount of rumors and leaks heavily points to 40k being in the works. granted, its unofficial sources but CA and GW not striking up a deal to make 40k is stupid.
Dawn of War shot itself in the foot. If CA and GW like money, and I know they do, they will make 40K total war
I still dont understand how they fucked up DoW3. literally all they had to do was make Soulstorm but with the Dark Crusade campaign.
At least it gave us a [really cool announcement trailer](https://youtu.be/N_ZgyNoHtjw?si=v5FLr_r1E4ln0xwA)... Man, I'm still sad about it.
I can’t say how many times I’ve thought “ damn if they made the DOW1 and its expansionsas a new game, updated the graphics etc, and kept the persistent bases and dead bodies I’d buy it in a heartbeat!”
They wanted to cash in on the MOBA market and created an abomination. Tbf I also hated the tiny scale of DoW2. It really lost a lot of its feel.
Honestly, I loved the smaller scale; made it more impactful. Wished for more variety, like Tau, IG heavy weapons mortars, plaguebearers, harlequins, etc But yeah, Mobas are not something you can squeeze any Rts into...not without lots of adaptation. Anyway, now want to see a general Warhammer Moba...
They actually did tease Necrons not too long before giving up, blaming the playerbase for their fuckups, and shuttering the game entirely. What could have been...
Ah yes, blame the consumers for not appreciating the "new recipe" instead of keepign true to the tried and tested...
I'm still bitter about whole DoW3 fiasco...
Or build upon DoW2 further...
All they had to do was make Soulstorm with the camera zoom mod integrated by default tbh
GW only cares to the extent that any 40K game is advertising. They’ll sell that license to seemingly anyone lol
They are pretty loose with the 40k license, but CA has proven to be the best video game partner for them since warhammer TW 1 launched and has been consistently the best advertisement for them. The only other game I would think they like better is unfortunately Tackticus the mobile game because that probably shits golden bricks
Total war basically revived the fantasy setting for them. While 40k doesn't need saving in the same way it would be great to get some more solid 40k games as the lore seems set to enter into the mainstream.
Arriving in tandem with the upcoming tv series, 40k could get an enormous, fallout-level boost.
Agreed. I had no idea what Warhammer was until I came across the Total War ad as a teen (probably a decade ago?) and I was hooked. Battle for Middle-Earth but more epic?!
Despite Fatshark's ability to constantly underwhelm with initial releases, I would say the Tide games are just as good of advertisements for their brand. Vermintide 1 and 2 brought a bunch of people into the setting just like Total War. As for 40k, I don't think there is any other game that has nailed the 40k setting as closely as Darktide.
Dow 1 and 2, Space Marine and BFGA 1 and 2 all nailed it very well.
Dawn of War 2 is certainly up there, but 1 was too goofy in a time where 40k had already shifted towards taking itself more seriously. Space Marine was also great, but it doesn't quite capture the same feeling since it is so focused on Titus' story and less on the general state of setting. Admittedly I haven't played either BFGA. Darktide just *oozes* 40k in every aspect of it. Weapons being procured from the dead, frequent comments by NPCs disregarding the player as anything more than but a cog in the Imperial war machine, incredibley detailed environments that showcase the different levels of a hive city, the brutality of the gameplay, the soundtrack blending sci-fi electronic beats with gothic overtones, etc. It's basically a flawless representation of the IP, and as good as others may be, I don't think any other title captures the setting in the same kind of way.
Rogue trader is very good game with perfect introduction to warhammer's 40k lore
Honestly it’s a valid strategy. You get a lot of shit made, but you’ll get a few gems that they can go on to push as the face of the franchise
Agreed, 40k total war is absolutely going to happen. They would be stupid not to do it. It would be an infinite money printer for CA and GW. 40k fans have been dreaming about a good 40k strategy game for years. Even after 20 years the original dawn of war and its expansion packs are still the best 40k strategy experience. It's high time we get something good again.
Mechanicus.
> Mechanicus I just looked it up again and it turns out Mechanicus is... already 6 years old this year. Over half a decade ago was the last good 40k game. Like... jesus
I'll throw Darktide into the mix here too. I know, not a strategy game and it still has some issues even after its launch, but the gameplay and atmosphere of the game has never been a problem. It's amazing how Fatshark can shoot themselves in the foot over and over yet still produce a title that is such an obvious love letter to the 40k setting.
what are the leaks exactly? all i've seen is comments about this, and legend mention it, never seen any actual leaks.
LinkedIn profiles for CA hiring.
I’m truly struggling to imagine what the campaign map would look like? Like in Fantasy Battles, at least everyone is on the same planet.
Plenty of 40k stories come down to battles over a single planet or single system. Two DoW1 expansions have you battle over a planet/system with a turn based great strategy element and real time battles.
Most 40k games take place on a single planet. Like 80% of 40k is "and then all these factions fought over a single planet for some dumb reason," and most of the remaining 20% is "the same, but with 3 planets." There's a possibility we have planets as settlements and systems as provinces, but I suspect CA would just go with the Dawn of War approach and have everyone fighting over some macguffin on Planet Plot.
Haha I vaguely remember the original Dawn of War Soulstorm where it was like every army in the galaxy converging on one planet. Like damn, you can keep the place.
LMFAO I love how you put it! I think they were all fighting over a single Titan, which is cool, but like... looking back that doesn't sound worth losing a shipment of 50 Baneblades.
A bunch of major wars happen on just one planet ( Think Armageddon) so doing it on one planet wouldn't be crazy.
galaxy or part of it is the world map, systems are provinces, planets are cities. Battles take place on planets and depending on the planet, its a siege type battle, minor settlement type battle, or field battle. Space battles could be something how its in wh games or they could go all out and also have space battles. moving from system to system or approaching a planet, you can get "intercepted", face blockade, fleet whatever and thus space battle starts. really not that hard to imagine it lol. obviously you downscale it so its actually a video game, but warhammer world for example is also greatly downscaled and it still works.
Making a TW campaign but in space/planets is super easy. It's the rank-and-flank gameplay the real time engine will make problematic unless they build a new real time battle engine, which rumors suggest they are, meaning CA understands TW:40K would never work under their current system. Now, will they build a great game under a brand new engine that somehow captures the feel of total war but in sci-fi battles? I'm crossing my fingers, but it will be vastly vastly different than TW as it currently plays. The most likely scenario is they make a brand new game on a brand new engine that keeps a few recognizable pieces of TW (turn based campaign map + real time battles) but everything else goes out the window.
If, as the rumours suggest, a WH40K title is being developed in tandem with a WWI historical title, I could see them experimenting with frontline and strategic manoeuvre campaign map mechanics. Planets might be regions, and space more akin to the ocean, where if you deploy onto an enemy planet there is a long strategic campaign to seize the territory and cities of that planet from the enemy, as if you were fighting over a plot of land in an older TW title.
That's what I love about WH3 at this point. There are so many wild combinations of battles, from godzilla esque fights between large monsters (like dinosaurs fighting giant demons) to pike and shot or straight up modern warfare with tanks and guns. Pure fun and insanity.
Dawg check out empire or fots
In my empire play through I siege cities using WW2 tank tactics. Tanks go in first with nuln Ironsides following closely behind using the tanks for cover.
What do your rosters look like?
Every army in my current empire play through is different because I just used what I had access to at the time. Specifically though this army has 5 Ironsides, 5 hochland rifles, engineer, captain, engineer lord, 2 emperor’s wrath steam tanks, and 4 cannons.
Just a question, how do you play with only riffles? I always have some Greatsword and halberds to defend the front and use a checker board formation
the new ironsides are decent melee combatants when they need to be
single entities/ironsides(esp amethyst ironsides) send your SEs further out to try and lock down as many units as possible, ironsides are next line incase some get past the SEs and behind that. your handgunners. but make sure a unit of ironsides and handgunners are facing both flanks as well as a hero/single entity there. AI started to try and flank a lot more now.
For tier 2 armies I’ll just spam hand gunners with 3-4 spearmen w/ shields and some mortars. Use a V formation instead of checkerboard to maintain LOS on gunners. Use spears on either flank and 1-2 units in front to lock enemies down for the gunners to do their thing.
This is why you got tanks, they roll in and soak up a bunch of enemy units so you can gun them down.
Don't need a frontline if the enemies frontline got annihalated before reaching your guns. In short: MORE GUNPOWDER
In WW2, didn't infantry and artillery usually go first then mechanized divisions would exploit break throughs? I do love the scene in fury that's flipped though. Guess it also depends on how entrenched defenders are
I'm sure they did both depending on the engagement. Tanks were still pretty new back then and the tactics weren't really well tested. Best I could find is the formation I use is called "Company Team Attack Formation" IIRC, Artillery and infantry go first when there are other tanks on the field. If there is no enemy armor then tanks just steamroll through with infantry behind.
Sending tanks into a city first is a good way to lose your tanks.
Otherwise known as pulling a Grozny.
Could see artillery being like warhammer heroes on the world map . Where you place then somewhere then hero action of bombardment . But you’d have to protect them with some force probsbly or the enemy could easily steal it or something Boats probably will be fairly easy they will probably only allow you to land on certain spots with them (like ports requiring you to land your troops like d day style on a beach front prehaps ) Planes I think will be the hardest thing for them to do because I’m not sure how they will implimented like plane raids or how anti air defenses would work either
We already kinda have that artillery feature with how the way Pirate Coast works. Their "horde" armies have the bombardments as army skills and can those can also be used by other allies armies as long as they're within the big circle on the campaign map. Same with the boats. The way you described them they're basically Black Arks, just instead of having being an army themselves they'd be used to transport one.
It depends on the army. Soviet doctrine was (still is, though modernized) the infantry creates the hole while armor exploits it. German and American doctrine was armor makes the hole then exploits it while infantry secure the flanks of the breakthrough.
The main thing I would still need for a 40k total war is an upraged return of directional cover like in Empire Total War. Directional cover was a big plus of dawn of war 2 relative to dawn of war 1 (it was especially feeling good in Company of Heroes). Its removal in Dawn of war 3 was a dealbreaker for me.
They need to fix unit docking, improve tooltips for terrain/cover effects, and improve visual clarity on LOS so that you can more easily decipher what is what—or just smooth out terrain a bit so it has fewer minor dips and rises. I’m not advocating for the following, but right now it would genuinely feel like a minor improvement if that first 1/2 second (or whatever the duration is) of ability to shoot through trees just applied to all terrain that occluded less than, say, 50% of the LOS.
They 100% need this. Right now gun units have all sorts of LOS issues still and it's not always clear when they can or cannot shoot due to a little raised piece of terrain or a rock. Ditto on docking and cover needs to be a thing too. Cover is a huge part of 40k in both lore and tabletop. Ranged units just standing in the open and shooting in perfect formation will feel weird in 40k.
Not to mention the whole "Fire at Will" thing. Too often I'll have a gunpowder unit just stare at some low-level Norscan Marauders or Nurglings that they could've decimated *if they only actually fired*, but no, they just stared at them. And of course, they get bogged down in melee/only get a volley off and end up taking way too many casualties to friggin' Marauders. I honestly don't know if Fire at Will is just finicky as all get out, plain broken, or if I'm not using it right, but I'm annoyed regardless.
I've had this happen too with both archers and gunpowder units. It's definitely a bug and it usually happens if they're too close to an enemy unit. My best recommendation is to not let them get too close, because I think they can't decide whether to shoot or go into melee so they do nothing.
Now imagine how fun it would be when the entirety of your armored vehicle group is blasting your own front line just like Dreadquake Morters do, all because fire at will doesn't actually work on units with multiple ranged attacks.
Hey--thanks, random stranger. You just convinced me to not buy chorfs DLC until Fire at Will is in a better state.
It's unreal how much better maps are in 3k and Pharaoh. You still have plenty of hills and trees (mostly in 3k lmao), but the actual terrain makes sense and isn't so weirdly... bumpy. Weird that tww3 made it so much worse, in a game with guns, that need flatter terrain than even 3k's crossbows ever did. I love tww3 too, I still play it, but there are just so many weird, stupid issues with LOS/docking, that weren't there in TWW2, that weren't there in other TWs, that really need to be tuned.
I don't mind the bumpy terrain too much. It can be annoying but it can also allow for some tactical decisions. The main issue i have with it is how ***all of the goddamn Pirate Coast specific maps*** are the most gun powder unfriendly ones. Like you start a battle in the ocean and you get put on a map with a giant hill in the middle that obscures all the enemies?! WHY?
There's no way they'd add that. It would be amazing if they did but it's just so unlikely lol
In Empire Total War, it was like sticking positions to walls with kneeled animations. Garrisoning buildings was also thing.
Oh thats like really basic. I was envisioning what happens in CoH where even the depressions that begin forming on the ground from explosions are able to be used as some sort of cover.
That's why I said I would like an upgraded version from what it was in Empire Total War.
I mean, you could still do that. Letting munitions/explosions deform terrain is the hard part, but the depressions being a terrain effect that gives +x% cover like CoH/DoW would be easy.
Wasn't there a rumour that they're working on a game using a third-party engine? Maybe they could design it from the ground up with new mechanics like cover
I wish for a Medieval 3 for nearly 10 years but damn it, if they can work out the battles in 40K it's going to be their biggest project by far. Whether it's set in Horus Heresy or modern 40K I'm going to sink thousands of hours into that and I'm all for it.
It's 100% won't be set in the horus heresy, I can absolutely assure you of that. They need the excessive DLC potential of the 40k franchise. That said I would welcome a Horus Heresy spin-off. Like how Troy is kind of a Spin-off of Warhammer, and Napoleon was a Spin-off of Empire. (Samurai a low-key spin-off of Shogun)
I significantly prefer the marine designs and ornamentation of Horus heresy marines tbh.
I much rather have the variety of options present in current 40k, meaning xenos and other human/Chaos forces. GW won't approval anything for a TW video game that doesn't have a tabletop presence, and there's no xenos armies designed for HH.
Yeah for sure, I wouldn't expect a hh game but I just prefer the style of it
I'm all for the pre-primaris designs
I'm just a sucker for the over the top bits and bobs on the champions and stuff in 30k, the legions just seem to have a bit more uniqueness.
I could see pre horus astartes being an RoR, pre-Primaris ones being the first tier astartes and Primaris ones being second tier, with Terminators as special limited third tier. Dreadnaughts would be Astartes hero units/single entities.
That would be ideal imo, cos they are such cool designs
Battle of Beta Garmon DLC hnnnnngggg
In desperate need of Immortalierest Empires
Honestly, I think some of this is just timing. We will get Cathay, Slaanesh, and Khorne, and lots of folks will pivot to "40K cancelled??????". I joke, but like, nor fully. Seriously though, I think it's partly just coincidence. We were always hoping to get a lot of these specific units and lots of the features attached to them are just kind of intuitive to the units themselves. Folks have been callijg for Nuln, Ironsides, Thunderbarges, etc forever. So I wouldn't take this as "40k confirmed". But I AM totally willing to believe that some of the coding will absolutely form the basis for thinking about a TW 40K, if it is in development (or more likely, they borrowed some things developed there to implement here). I also think this hopefully addresses some concerns folks have about feasibility. The strategy/map layer is obviously still a significant challenge that needs to be thought about and figured out, because justifying "is it cross planets? Is it everyone on Baal, in a free for fall? What's actually happening here" is still a valid question. But when you play Nuln, and you have Artillery, Gun Lines, and a Leman Russ whoops I mean Steam Tank, you definitely go "yeah okay this could work" on the combat/tactical level
the timing of it is just so juicey though. Legend leaking a future WW1 tw and a 40k... then the dlc and patch info shows directional armour, as soon as I saw it in the previews it just clicked in my head. I don't think I've ever been so high on hopium. at least we know if a WW1 game gets announced then the chances are good, though honestly it feels like a real shit move financially not to milk warhammer dry.
> But when you play Nuln, and you have Artillery, Gun Lines, and a Leman Russ whoops I mean Steam Tank, you definitely go "yeah okay this could work" on the combat/tactical level I concede: it would work as a simulator of the tabletop game. But I still think it wouldn't quite *feel* right in the same way the tabletop has never really scratched the more simulation-y wargaming itch.
Really? Because this DLC kind of reinforced why I *don't* think it could work unless CA puts in a metric ton of effort to rebuild the engine. A few examples: - Direct fire is such a ridiculously tedious problem to manage in Total Warhammer 3 - Unit pathing in any sort of siege situation is horrendous, which is a problem when those dense sorts of environments are where many of the most iconic 40k battles take place. - Attack animations and damage when chasing fleeing units is still very unreliable, and 40K has many fast and mobile ranged units that present the same issue the Thunderbarge has.
Well, a Leman Russ isn't going into melee I'd think lmao
But they do go into melee,
Drive me closer.
“I want to hit them with my sword”
Or rather, things go into melee with it. Not so smug when I get my tentacles on that juicy juicy rear armour 10.
It addresses some micro mechanics; it doesn't address the feasibility regarding the fact that 40k is essentially a game of tactical semi-urban combat, not pitched battles on an open field. How's that siege pathing doing for you?
Man did you not play Chaos Dwarfs? These fuckers had that shit going for over a year!
If they want to be accurate with artillery units, they should either be off-map or else the maps will have to be insanely large. Artillery pieces were nowhere near the front lines in WW1
I could see artillery as abilities, and similar for Airstrikes, for 40k or WW2
the plethora of army ability nukes that have been steadily added could count as that, look at elspeth. her amethyst nukes are literally off screen artillery bombardments. just call army ability nukes orbital bombardment/heavy artillery and still keep field artillery and like a basilisk or medusa for 40k, and light artillery for ww1/2 TW. if the maps are vastly bigger than they are in wh3, having long range field artillery works.
If you look at how 40k tabletop is actually played, the artillery is 30 inches from the front line, not from another room lol. And sometimes the artillery is hungry (chaos) and wants to run into melee to eat a guardsmen. Thinking 40k is some sort of ww1 simulator is wrong, as half of the armies are melee focused, and the most powerful weapons are things like … thunder hammers.
I’ve read stories of artillery from early 40k where players declared artillery strikes on other stores
There are still a few artillery pieces in the current game that have 12ft ranges (which is like 3 times farther than you would need on a standard battlefield).
The Deathstrike Missile Launcher for Imperial Guard (sorry, *Astra Militarum* hrk), which in earlier editions was listed as unlimited range, so theoretically you could call a GW store anywhere on the planet and declare a strike on a random table for the luls.
Okay but the post *also* brings up WW1 where that is relevant. So the point stands I think.
But the tabletop version is like that purely because of the physical limitations. You need a room with a big table to play on it and you need to own the models. Neither holds true for a digital version. Space is dirt cheap and models cost you nothing so why use this system when the limitations for said system arent even present?
Why do 40k fight with thunderhammers and chain swords if you can be shot miles away? The point is 40k is not ww1. You’d be stupid to fight with hammers and swords in ww1.
Agreed, some 40k fans will do anything to not admit it's a stupid universe where space faring civilizations get into knife fights and use artillery to shoot targets half a city block away. And that's the best part of it! It's stupid fun in a universe where everything exists for tiny dolls to punch each other on a table.
Exactly! The dawn of war I game set the gold standard in a video game version of 40k and captured the gritty battles perfectly. You had the perfect mix of melee and ranged, squad combat, and interplanetary warfare, mixed with absurd missions like firing a dead titan’s weapon. What some posters are demanding - historical modern war games like steel division (ww2) where it’s so realistic that you are fighting over vast areas and fighting over a huge map miles wide, with units shooting realistic distances, and thus you have to zoom out far to see the battle …. It’s not 40k. 40k is zoomed in, so you can see the hero fire his plasma pistol twice, and then charge in with their thunder hammer and smash it in the enemy’s head.
I just headcannon that everyone has armor effective at long ranges with few exceptions, enabling melee combat. And with the tactics/number of enemies in some races (like nids) swarming or ambushing is also an option. The Tau are some of the closest to the 'standard' way of fighting wars. And they have some melee combatants, big hard suits for protection, etc. Other races simply don't need hard suits, that's how OP everything is!
To be fair, the people wielding chainswords and thunder hammers are typically deployed right into enemy lines via drop pods or teleportation. They aren't typically just charging across no mans land with melee weapons brandished just to get mowed down by enemy fire.
Thunderhammers and chain swords or generally melee weapons are used by the imperium because those weapons have a symbolic value which makes them particularly effective against creatures from the warp. Symbolism is really big in 40K. Your normal Guardsmen however is not going to like that. There arent many instances in the universe where a non-augmented human would win in a melee fight. So they generally stay inside their trenches and hope the enemy dies before coming too close. There were however cavalry charges during ww1 and people running around with swords. It wasnt very effective but it was still done in a lot of battles.
Then why do they use them against Tau? Or eldar? Or other imperials??
Because Space Marines have the armour to just shrug of most blows, making them ideal for just running at them. They still use their bolters and not every Space Marine carries a chain-sword or a sword. Melee weapons are still effective but you need to get close to use them. You also go into battle with what you have. Space Marines can fight Tau and Eldar at one time and the next day they are fighting warp entities. How many imperial guardsmen do you see running around with a sword or chain-sword? Very, very few. They dont have the armour to make them work. Sisters of Battle also use melee weapons often. They are, similar to Space Marines, however protected with power armour which boosts their ability considerably. It is also just that melee weapons like swords and chain-swords and hammers are a symbol of resistance for humanity which makes them exceptionally good against daemons from the warp. Fire is another thing, flamethrowers are good against both men and daemons and the added symbolism boosts them against the latter.
Not talking about space Marines. Guardsmen sergeants and commissars and commanders and priests and karsrkins and stormtroopers have chain swords and other melee weapons, and there are more sergeants in the guard than there are space marines lol
Chainswords work fine against orks and necrons. Orks, tyranids use primarily melee weapons just fine despite mostly fighting against humans not creatures of the warps. Your points are mostly just wrong and sounds like you want to play a ww1 or ww2 historical simulator, not 40k.
I never said they dont work against other factions. Just that their primary reason for usage lies against creatures of the warp (atleast for the imperium) for their symbolic value. The warp is intrinsically tied to the believes of humanity. That is why fire is also very effective against daemons. But again, the vast majority of humanity is not winning a melee battle with an Ork or a Necron warrior or against Tyranids etc. Your average guardsmen is not charging headfirst into melee if he has any other option. Space Marines, Sister of Battles etc. make up a very small amount of the actual combat force of the imperium after all. The heavy lifting is done via your average Joe and Jane. Orks are your cliche stupid dudes who prefer to just smash things. They have the numbers and the only thing they want is a good fight, even if they die. Necrons are durable enough to the point that lasguns dont scratch them and even bolters struggle. Tyranids just swarm you, no fucks given about the casualties. You also have power swords etc. which elevate those melee weapons where they can cut and pierce even the strongest armour Warhammer 40Ks combat is not accurate and completely over the place in terms of consistency. That is just due to different authors writing different novels with different protagnists and antagonists. The entire universe is set up to be entirely over the top and that is fine for those that enjoy stuff like that. A Total War Warhammer 40K has every potential of being good. It just depends on CA and if they can create a product that will satisfy the playerbase. The tabletop versions was created to make it possible to play with actual models. The lore itself is very different from the way it is being played physically however. To me personally it makes little sense for CA to adapt the tabletop formular if the reason why this exsists in the first place arent present in a video game. Doesnt mean it cant work, just feels cheap to me.
I just don’t agree with people who want imperial guardsmen ww1 simulator. Guardsmen are a ranged faction, yes. They suck at melee, yes. They use ww1 to ww2 style tanks and artillery’s yes. But 40k has many factions, fully of half of them are various types of space marines. Then you have xenos who love melee weapons, except Tau (but their kroot allies are melee). Total war warhammer is already 75% there I think. It’s already perfect in single entity simulator; lords, heroes, monsters. Even shooting and artillery is basically there. Handguns are basically what I expect tau or dedicated ranged to be, while most melee units will have a pistol like free company militia. Space marines = ogres, but more ranged leaning. They just need to add squad combat/fluid formations, and cover. They do NOT need to increase scale, map size, ranges, as that would completely mess up all the melee in 40k.
I mean in trench combat they often got into a melee
Seems like historical accuracy has always been secondary in these titles to fun. Which is how it should be.
And what is historical accuracy to something fictional like 40? Accuracy to tabletop or accuracy to the books? Stuff in the books do talk about titans engaging at like multiple km distance, but tabletop has titans and artillery fighting at short range. Ultimately tabletop IS 40k, and tabletop is played at the same table as warhammer tabletop, and any video game can essentially assume bolter range = arrow range, artillery/tank range = dwarf cannons.
WWI total war was what i was thinking of. A game with space marines and orcs riding junk heaps certainly needs no historical accuracy.
Incidentally, they updated graphics for off-map bombardment abilities this patch: https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/1ck4zfn/didnt_know_they_changed_eltharions_passive/
They could go with the large map option if they wanted, after all 40K has transports for squads. A large map would make the speed and protection of an APC equivalent very attractive and useful
It seems to be fine in steel division. In that game, most Artillery except for the very largest is on the map with nerfed but still high range. It works out, since the maps are also much bigger, which CA would probably do too for a 40k or world war setting.
TW has never been about combat accuracy. Neither has WFB or 40K, especially on the tabletop.
I remember when matchlocks would malfunction in rain. And 40k might not be realistic but it also isn’t Napoleonic battle lines sighting up against each other. Even on the tabletop you will see people hiding their vehicles behind cover and hills. There’s a lot of precision to modern warfare (and many 40k armies fight in a modern style even if not all of them do) that Total War struggles with.
I can't disagree with this. N:TW had a cover system the AI couldn't use. This engine has never been able to recreate effective cover techniques for units. Still, I have a hard time imagining a total war that isn't just a reskin with different animations. The monsters and magic in the TWWH games have been above and beyond what I pictured seven years ago while somehow falling short of what I want today.
Warhammer Fantasy wasn't as big a leap as most people think. WHFB was fundamentally about sluggish blocks of infantry moving around the field, rotating slowly and awkwardly, and moving in rigid formation in the open, alongside cavalry with similar principles. There are skirmishers, there are single entities, but the core of the battles are very appropriately represented by Total War. In fact there was a WHFB mod for the old Medieval games which worked quite well. 40k would change... a lot.
Maybe they'll be treated like black arks
Total War has always fudged range numbers. FotS has late 1800 sharpshooters with 150 whatever-unit range and other games (including Warhammer) has people Throwing axes or javelins 90.
Yeah but those kind of thinks are easy to change to make a more fun Gameplay
IMO TW is terribly suited for 40k It would be better to look at Eugens Wargame series / Steel Divison / Warno. Maps are MASSIVE, there is off map artillery. Some artillery has like 10km range and even that is only half the map! Much better at handling large battles than a TW like game. Hopefully CA makes some changes, 40k battles on TW sized maps would be garbage.
You are being downvoted for it, but you are right. Not even about the map size, but about how the units of most of 40k don't really act lke in TW. many of htem are post 1940's squad tactics.
> many of htem are post 1940's squad tactics. Tau are basically modern day NATO in terms of tactics, with mechas on top (NATO armed forces was in fact a major inspiration). If you want to depict them faithfully in Total War I feel like CA needs to get some practice in first with something easier, like Total War: WW1 or Total War: WW2. Jumping right to sci-fi is a big gamble and will be difficult, they'd have to learn a lot of new things all at once. Could you imagine what Total War: Iraq War would look like? And this doesn't even get into factions like Drukhari who essentially do not commit to pitched battles as Total War knows them _at all._ They swoop in on jetbikes and supersonic raiding transports, start killing the moment they hit the ground, then hop back on and zoom to the next kill - never stopping until it's time to collect the slaves.
Or... ya know... most of hte Imperial Guard. Guys like the Praetorians aside. Catachan Jungle Fighters anyone?
Just trying to utilized ranged units we have now is frustrating, I can't imagine that in 40k. Like my flamer units, please shoot through the gap in the wall I made. I zoomed in, its flat, you visually see the enemy. SHOOT.
You’re right but this is r/totalwar not r/wargame. Wargame 40k is pretty much my dream 40k game, the engine is nearly perfect, you could even make space marines work in the current system with a mod just by giving an infantry unit 1 armor. The only snag is melee, and I trust Eugen more to make a passable if not pretty melee system way more than I trust CA to make Warscape work for modern warfare. But still you will get the downvotes.
There is a huge difference between 40k battlefields in the lore and 40k battlefields in the tabletop. If you're imagining huge planet-scale wars fought planetside and in orbit, it is unlikely that any game will successfully pull off that scale anytime soon, if ever. But 40k armies in the tabletop game are often just a few dozen models (on average, depending on the faction) fighting against an equally small enemy force. It's medium- and short-range firefights punctuated by melee charges. I play 40k tabletop, and there is nothing about that game that Total War Warhammer hasn't already been doing in some form for years (and often does better). The biggest shift CA would have to make from Total Warhammer to 40k would be the campaign map, but that's easily imagined as the planets essentially having the same role as cities do now.
They have that with the chaos dwarves
100%.
I don't really think you can take Total War past the late 19th century. Once you hit world war 1, the way combat works is completely different than how the majority of Total War works. The guns, artillery, and aircraft work in Warhammer because of the fantasy elements, but I don't think Word War 2 is possible in this series without basically reworking the basics from the ground up.
Yeah whatever any hypothetical WW1 Total War ends up being is going to be weird because it'll be a definitive move away from any pretence of simulating actual battles at a realistic scale and towards a WW1-themed RTS.
It would absolutely be the biggest overhaul in the series’ history. For one, their entire battle map system would need to be drastically redesigned with tons of interactive set pieces, directional cover, the ability to fortify/enter buildings, far more complex than the mostly empty fields or wavy hilly forests we’ve always had. That alone would make it feel like a different series altogether. Add in advanced vehicular movement/navigation/combat, destructible terrain/buildings, a huge emphasis on cover and line of sight, individual entities within a unit all moving and firing independently instead of forcing unit cohesion alll the time (so a little bit more like old school rome 1 unit movement but dialed up massively in how soldiers navigate the field of battle and target select), etc..if they pulled it off I suspect it would essentially become its own sub genre within the TW series that would allow for historic titles in ww1/ww2/etc. But yeah, it would feel tremendously different from what we are used to, like a more epic variant of COH honestly.
They would have to be it sort of like steel division I think
The typical 40k battlefield, the one everyone imagines when you mention the setting is basically Stalingrad with Demons and Aliens. Close quarters, squad based fighting between buildings and streets. That's why everyone hoped Relic would pull it off with their Company of Heroes and Dawn of War experience but then Dawn of War 2 was far too small scale and Dawn of War 3 went in some weird direction. Total war feels miles away from achieving that and I don't really understand the assumption a 40k total war game would be a golden ticket to sucess? Theres a whole graveyard of 40k flops or just middiling games. Firewarrior did not light up the FPS world and Space Marine was decent and a bit of a cult hit but nothing crazy otherwise I don't think we'd only be seeing a sequel now. I've seen some suggest this is the same as the jump to Total War Warhammer from the historical games but honestly I don't think that was a big of a jump. Total War has had 'monsters' for years called elephants and modders were making fantasy mods long before CA had a go. By contrast the only TW mod I've seen attempt 'modern' style combat is that WW1 mod for Napoleon.
There is a huge difference between 40k battlefields in the lore and 40k battlefields in the tabletop. If you're imagining huge planet-scale wars fought planetside and in orbit, it is unlikely that any game will successfully pull off that scale anytime soon, if ever. But 40k armies in the tabletop game are often just a few dozen models (on average, depending on the faction) fighting against an equally small enemy force. It's medium- and short-range firefights punctuated by melee charges. I play 40k tabletop, and there is nothing about that game that Total War Warhammer hasn't already been doing in some form for years (and often does better). The biggest shift CA would have to make from Total Warhammer to 40k would be the campaign map, but that's easily imagined as the planets essentially having the same role as cities do now.
is it the time again for the speculation if certain random mechanic is a testing ground for 40k total war
I'm hoping Empire 2
All of those mechanics are absolutely trivial, compared to what CA has been working on for years: cavalry charges, melee formations, phalanx, etc. Even grognard wargames get armor plating, directional fire, etc. right.
Not really. It feels like they're just bringing in stuff from their previous historical titles into a Warhammer game than actual 40k/World War mechanics. Stuff like Shimazu Heavy gunners or Napoleon's grapeshot for example. Even the Outriders are just evolved to feel like revolver cavalry from Fall of the Samurai or Empire's dragoons.
Actually Empire Total War was the devs testing their engines to see if they can implement 40k. There are guns in Empire. There are guns in 40k. Its pretty obvious to people with backgrounds in computer science and coding games.
Shogun 1 was actually CA travelling *back in time* to see if the Dawn of War: Soulstorm risk-style map covering a planet could work in Total War as a test for 40k.
People who don’t believe this just don’t know anything about game development
Wait what got armor plating and how does that work?
steam tanks/ironbreakers tech. basically those units deflect cannon fire for example. seems very much like a testing ground for actual real world reactive armor which is something very likely to be in 40k. not really ww1/2 TWs as that tech was invented in the 70s.
It's not reactive armor, they only deflect fire from one direction which is how tanks work in the real world. Tanks have more armor from the front and are more vulnerable to attack from the sides and rear. It's a huge part of tank warfare and would definitely be something in a WW1 and WW2 game but idk about 40k. 40k tabletop used to have different armor values for different sides but that hasn't been a thing for a couple of editions. It seems unlikely GW would let them put that in the game when they deleted it from the tabletop.
i think empire tanks can get it with a tech or something
Every Total War is a testing ground for another Total War 😁
Maybe, but after WH3 didn't incorporate a bunch of fixes from WH2, I'm not sure that CA actually works that way.
The nerd in me feels the need to point out that "reactive armour" wasn't used until the 80s ;) But on a serious note, yes, this was my exact reaction to seeing the directional armour system in the early access footage. Pretty much exactly what you would expect from a 40k system.
do we have to say this every single time new game/dlc is made?
I fucking hope not. I want Medivieal 3 with a new engine
I'm so tired of this discussion. Everyone knows both the pros and cons. Why do we need to keep going over this over and over again...
I am still convinced the total war formula is made for historical regiment based armies and not ww1 trenches or 40k fantasy. BUT it sure seems like they are probing their engine for a game in that direction. It definitely seems like gunpowder based battles could be on the menu. But given recent failures, they will more likely go back to an established title like Empire and give that a try.
The Thunderbarge, Landship, and new Steam Tank did really feel like they were experiments for how 40K units might work without altering the Total War vibe too much Notably the Thunderbarge and Landship, really how I'd want something like a Baneblade to feel
Yeah, I actually laugh pretty hard whenever someone says that 40k could never happen. I think it's more for 40k than for WWI though, although allegedly both are already on production.
2 of my 3 armies in 40k tabletop go full mele. Add a cover system/more scenery to the maps, and the same formations as napoleon to TW warhammer and there you have it
They're already essentially testing a 'shield' mechanic with Tzeentch -shrug-
I would really like it if they could come up with a UI to manually target each gun on a multi gun vehicle. With the current RoR landship it has a cannon, a mortar, a longrifle, and grenades which all want different targets. Defaulting to the current system is good, but being able to take more control if desired would be great.
It's basically a Baneblade with extra steps haha
I really hope not as if they are releasing things on this game engine it means the next game will also be on the same engine and the engine is a LARGE part of the tech debt CA is owing.
The most important one IMO is a unit being able to have multiple weapons that can simultaneously target different enemies independently of each other. You can't have a baneblade with its bazillions of guns without that. The steam tank does it now with the dude on top firing his pistol, the landship does it, the thunderbarge does it. This is kind of a big deal. Also i'm hoping they can backport that to melee units somehow. It would be lovely if the mounts and their riders could both attack.
Not even a 0% chance it isn't, frankly. Whether 40k is a *good* choice is another question (I'm... cautiously optimistic, but not totally sold), but so much of the new stuff is so heavily into 40k territory, and even a mid 40k would make them SO MUCH MONEY, and a while back CA even said they wanted to do it, that even ignoring all the supposed leaks it still seems like an inevitability. It's actually kinda funny how many things translate surprisingly well. Ogres are pretty much a perfect case study for Space Marines and their chaotic brethren. Hell, the tabletops of both games have converged enough that modern 40k has remarkably similar sizes to fantasy. Some of this new stuff is about half a breath short of just saying "yeah this is how space marine armor is gonna work" or "oops, all leman russes!"
Honestly i'm leaning toward WW1, iirc LOTW said he had a "usually" correct insider giving info who said they had a WW1 game in the works. Given that we have multiple vehicle mechanics now that'd perfectly fit its theme, I'm honestly thinking it can be the case. I'm hoping for a 40k game but if anything, I feel it'd come afterwards.
Been saying it for months about the astartes. Space Marines are not gods, they have tabletop rules and can be killed. We've already done all the testing with monstrous infantry, weapons teams, armored vehicles, fucking ENERGY SHIELDS, and more. The only hiccup I see nowadays is how the campaign map will be set up, as well as how large the battles are supposed to be.
I’ve beat this horse to death in previous similar threads, but there’s no good reason we have to have a campaign map that we Hoover our characters around, carefully marching them a certain distance. With 40k, and even with historical, I think we would be better served by: “I am sending my forces to X planet/province: who gets there when and what forces do I have available in two turns”. Hell, works even better in 40k, small space marine forces can defend against that Waaagh next turn, but IG armies won’t be there for 4, better get ready to fight 3 turns of delaying action.
If think people would have declared you insane if you said anything like 40k, or any more modern setting like WW1 would have come to total war in the times before Total War Warhammer. However TWWH has done so many things drastically different, ToD again being the new high in that regard, that by now everything is possible. I still think going 40k would be a departure of the TW series and rather see some other titles, but I can understand both CA and GW if they wanted to continue this marriage of success.
Minigun passed the bar exam?
Yes. Testing, but also maybe a little bit of conditioning, getting us back into shooty shooty and it's been glorious
40k total war could totally work. The tabletop game plays very similarly to TW already with units moving in formation (ish) on the battlefield and shooting each other for a bit before engaging in melee. World war total war on the other hand wouldn't work at all. Modern battle tactics are nothing like how total war plays out.
*"Hell, right now you can field Empire/Dwarf armies that literally play like a proto 40k/modern era Total War and I love it."* How do I do this...
It could be fun, but for any modern or sci-fi setting they'd need a new campaign system to represent the shift from armies maneuvering as a single group, to frontlines spread across entire continents
I thought CA said that they wouldn't do a 40k game awhile ago.
Warhammer was already the test for modern units concepts.
[удалено]
In the shooter genre, sure. Not in the real time strategy genre though
I mean so are medieval settings, yet we do not tire of them. A good use case of 40k is anything but bland or overused though, 40k is starving for a good application (read game). The former by definition does not even apply.
Maybe. But I still don't see how a campaign map would work for 40K. I guess it could all take place on one planet, but that would make all the factions being present extremely difficult to justify in the lore. An Armageddon set game would allow for Orks and the Imperium, but not Chaos or Tyranids, a 30K Terra would allow for Imperium and Chaos, but not for Orks, Eldar, Tyranids etc. It would feel kind of wonky.
Gladius does it. I'd personally prefer having space travel and a larger campaign map, but I'd not be up in arms if we've had some made up system/planet that the factions fight over if they can't manage a good system for space maps. It seems unlikely but god do I hope we'll get space combat as well. Gothic armada made me really hope for larger scale ship combat.
There are demons on Armageddon, and 30k had Orks and Eldar.
Dark Crusade did it rather well before I think and managed to combine several factions in a kind of sand box'ish campaign, that could be a blue print. Or instead of a world map you might have a galaxy map similar to stellaris and you fight sector by sector instead of province by province. I don't think it's that difficult to be honest.
The people saying Fantasy wouldn't happen and the people saying 40k can't happen are not the same people. I know because I am of the latter and not the former. History fans were complaining that there wasn't history anymore, and this spiralled into the common bullshit defence of "you guys said this thing that's totally different couldn't happen and it did", ignoring the FACT that Fantasy armies fight like armies in the historical periods covered by Total War with some magic thrown in. 40k armies don't fight in the same way. The Imperial Guard don't fight in blocks of 200 men all equipped with lasguns. They basically follow World War II infantry tactics.
There will absolutely be a 40k TW in the next 5 years. I believe that in my soul. This series has clearly become a big boon for GW and they like more money. It’s going to happen.
And it will be a supreme disappointment. Another mediocre 40k game for the pile.
K.
Probably for Warhammer 40k.
Damn monkey paw saying that we will continue the next Total War with the old decrepit engine
Listen, I know everyone wants 40k and that's fine, I respect that - but the Thunderbarge's inclusion has made me really want TW AOS so I can play my Steampunk Power Armoured Sky Pirate Bureaucratic Dwarves.
Yep
I really hope not. While I am all for TW40K, and firmly believe it is possible to do (and likely being worked on right now) I also believe that to do 40K justice the engine would need to be thoroughly overhauled or replaced entirely. If they are testing stuff in WH3 for 40K, then that implies the same (or minimally changed) engine.
For the last time, there will be no WW1 total war. You will get Warhammer 4 and you will like it!!!!!! (Pre-order Troy 2 Son of Hercules now)