Comment on Total War: Warhammer 40k

False@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• menas@lemmy.wtf ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Napoleon Total War and Fall of the Samurai was great. But yes, a lot of innovation has to be done

  source

  • JakoJakoJako13@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Its more of a paradigm shift than a need for innovation. There’s a lot more solid bodies to work with. The animation workflow might actually be less of a task because of that. Less dangly bits until you get to Tyranids. Everything is a ranged unit first. Instead of line battles with clashing melee units, siege battles with constricting maps and city scapes should be a lot more common. The real problem I can see them having is adjusting the pace of the units. 40k has things zipping around the field. The battles should be more rts like than the slow and methodical clash of lines.

    Whatever they do I’m pretty hyped about this. All the Total War games have been a staple in my library since Medieval 2. Despite all the trash that CA has been up to the past few years they still make good games. I think having a fresh slate with a familiar enough adjacent setting will be good for them.

    source

    • menas@lemmy.wtf ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I fill like the line of sight think in warhammer total war was more link with maps than engine. It was less an issue in Empire, Napoleon or Fall of the Samurai. Since, they added “smog”, and the need to not flat terrain … and the dumbziness of direct hit unit. With modern building, it should not be an issue.

      I do relate on the tempo; I couldn’t imagine how to deal with thousands SM engaging at the same time. I’d rather smallest and intense fight (like in DoW II or World in Conflict), or a way to program actions and reactions of units. I do not see how it would be feasible with the mechanics they made.

      However, their making for Three Kingdoms were brilliant, so maybe …

      source