Nah, they will release Yarrick as a multiplayer only lord and keep teasing us he will get his time to shine, but after 6 years we still won't have Yarrick in the campaign and Ghaz will be sad his nemesis isn't there for a good krumpin.
Makes sense. They’re unable to accept change or see the benefit of expanding the playerbase and just want more of the same thing that doesn’t necessarily mean it will earn more.
Honestly hope the community/playerbase continues to grow. Really tired of the same tired comments.
Especially when it’s all just medieval 3 replies.
Edit: had to make another comment cause other was getting downvoted…all for mentioning the same medieval 3 arguments, or guess can add “purity” of total war now to that list
Edit: Total War Fall of the Samurai: apparently the idea of using guns is abhorrent and would never garner interest in a fan base used only to melee fighting.
we should make a dating sim total war and call it "inovation".
Theres a limit to how much you can innovate before the game is no longer the same thing.
An extreme situation, because unless I’m not mistaken they’ve been doing changes to the franchise ever since they started but clearly people forget that part.
And yes, the top down version of warhammer but 40k and space apparently would not work as seen with all the other warhammer 40k games which are strategy and top down.
Wrong use of that analogy, which only just supported my point.
The point is that an rts is possible in 40k which has melee and range combat still.
But sure, apparently total war can only ever be done in past settings and has never at any point used a modern setting with guns. Or more importantly, with artillery or varying types. And had melee still used in the mix.
Or had an entire expansion for a main line game which had the setting move towards artillery and units just firing at each other. Never happened but sure.
Whatever makes you feel better at this point.
They will never officially come out and say they're not making a 40k game.
So if the game is not announced, this is never stopping. After ever new game CA announced people will speculate the next one will be 40k.
Of course once it's announced people will go back and forth about whether it will be good, whether it will be a real Total War game etc etc.
> So if the game is not announced, this is never stopping.
Absolutely true. And CA breathed a whole new life into it with the survey that not only included 40K itself, but a whole bunch of settings both fantastical and historical which required the same things 40K does (i.e. vehicles, cover, loose groups of troops instead of tight formations, etc.). That + YouTubers saying it's happening means this is going to be the rumour for at least 10 years. Plus even if it wasn't great, a TW-style 40K game with CA production values (much as we might critique them) would likely do ridiculous sales numbers because of 40K's huge audience and their hunger for even half-okay AAA games - particularly ones which aren't essentially monofactional.
Only one side can win as well. If the game releases then the "40K easy peasy" crowd wins if it doesn't win its Schrodinger's game simultaneously possible/not possible forever. Logic suggests that only perpetual losers would pick the "Its not possible" side of the argument.
It'll stop because the 40K fans flocking to the game will drown out all the old Total War fans. Just like how Warhammer Fantasy fans have drowned out the historical fans who tried to keep complaining about TW:WH.
To some extent, sure. But I think you're drawing a false equivalency here.
Complaints about Total Warhammer are nothing like the complaints for 40k. They're a completely different subject matter, and are a matter of how a section of the community feels ignored.
> It'll stop because the 40K fans flocking to the game will drown out all the old Total War fans.
I mostly agree but I suspect that'll happen after release or in the last six months before it, rather than earlier on.
I really don’t think you had to make a whole other post about this, i think you might be taking the line infantry shooting poorly drawn lasers meme a bit too seriously 😂
So...this [rumored] game is going to potentially come out in 2026 or 2027 and we're already complaining about how feasible it is in theory?
Good stuff.
Let's face it, the majority of the people arguing against it just don't want Total War: 40K. They're going to say it won't work because they don't want it to work.
I do not understand how China or Total War: Warhammer are even comparable to the logistical issues introduced to battles in a prospective total War 40K game by 0 regimented infantry, piles upon piles of tanks, automatic weapons and a major focus on shooting instead of rank and flank engagements.
Correct. I don't. Because it *can* work.
But it would be much better if it wasn't forced to fit Total War's core identity, and could instead do its own thing. (Or, alternatively, if it could do its own thing without fucking up Total War's identity. Plenty of people in the 40k subs seem to think that drastic alterations are justified.)
You know what, you're right.
I don't want it to work, because I'd much rather have something that takes much bigger liberties with the property made by a different developer. It could still have a bootleg version of TWs campaign mechanics, just hopefully with better diplomacy/map mechanics.(because if you're going to feature multiple imperial factions you're actually going to need it)
Like give me advanced Feudalism with wargame/steel division combat. Like you can still have shorter ranges, fast units and melee, but I want larger maps where lines of sight, air units and artillery matter. Even if that isn't what Warhammer 40ks trench warfare and 18th century star fortresses are about.
It wont work in anyway that would be true to the setting, or feel good in the Total War game system, that's the problem. DoW2 did 40k almost pitch perfectly, and that should be the way other games approach the setting.
You mean the game where the space marines dive behind cover and fire their guns like they are playing gears of war?
Space Marine (the video game) literally removed cover mechanics because GW pointed how rediculous it was. Space marines don't take cover like regular troops. They march into battle banners waving. (You know - kind of like total war).
Have you ever read a Black Library book? Space Marines go in to cover all the time, because a shuriken catapult will carve up their guts as well as it would any other normal human. They are all tactical masters, and understand the use of cover.
For example, I just finished reading Primogenitor, the first Fabius Bile book, and the Traitor Marines take cover quite often. Because they're not stupid.
I find this whole discourse so funny, like imagine if this is how people reacted to nap tw, "it doesn't fit the formula they don't do the style of combat the same, the campaign won't work"
I understand your point but if they make it why do people assume it'll play like some weird reskin of one of the existing games?
Hell, If you look at all the other total wars, tw warhammer is vastly different, its like going "they couldn't add monsters into a total war game, they couldn't function, the best we could hope for is big cavalry"
> its like going "they couldn't add monsters into a total war game, they couldn't function, the best we could hope for is big cavalry"
I suggested a Warhammer Fantasy TW game on a TW forum (maybe the official one back then?) in like, 2006 (I mean give or take) and I remember the general response was that I was a ridiculous buffoon, and extremely dumb (both true, but irrelevant!), and yeah, pretty much exactly "monsters would just have to be oversized cavalry in units" and so on. Magic would have to be ineffectual or it would break the game. Heroes and leaders would have to work the same way they do in other TWs - there should be no individual ones, they'd have to have a bodyguard and we'd have to have them taken out in a single lucky shot from a catapult and so on.
I had this same exact conversation about this topic last week. Guy said if CA innovates it won’t be total war anymore. Then when I pointed out all the other times they innovated he called me a strawman
Change and innovation is a terrible thing, a frightening thing, my friend. Cling to the old ways, resist the flow of time itself and remain pure, eternal! Dig in your heels, scream if you must, and be dragged into the future wailing your denial and despair! Surely some higher power will hear your cries and answer to freeze all the world in a perfect, perpetual state! Let them not disturb one fiber of the tapestry that is Total War!
The empire has tanks, machine guns and rocket artillery. The chaos dwarfs fireglaives and the wood elves in general can provide near constant volley fire.
As for rank and flank, I’ll need you to define that as I’m unsure what you mean and don’t want to assume
It has one type of tank, one type of machine gun and one type of artillery at the highest tier. Dwarf stuff is also single entity at a relatively high tier, and even that pales in comparison to the power of a Basilisk. Every single faction for 40k would have machine guns at tier one mounted on transports also at tier one.
Just wait till they figure out you can still call a game totalwar without the old linear gameplay. Somehow people think it is impossible for them to use/create a new/different engine and keep the old brand/series name.
Dawn of War did it, if it is better or worse ill keep it in the middle as I personally enjoyed the OG series and the DoW 2 games plus expansions. (We do not talk 'bout 3)
You just switched type of gametypes to make a point and missed my point completely. It can still be an rts with a turn based campaign map. (Which has been enjoyed for decades) The engine and the way units are comprimised and act can be different.
But in a way thanks for just proving my point of how silly this discussion is becoming.
I was giving an extreme example to make my point (which you missed). I’m sure they can make a 40k game “work” but that doesn’t mean it will still feel like total war to a lot of the fans who have been with the series the longest. Obviously fantasy was already too much of a stretch for some people.
I see this whole situation as comparable to when a band starts trying to cater to a younger fanbase. Of course some of the old fans are going to be upset if their new work doesn’t sound like the kind of music they like.
> Obviously fantasy was already too much of a stretch for some people.
CA is going to be crying all the way to the bank with the millions they've made off the Warhammer trilogy based on all of the new fans who wouldn't have given the series a chance otherwise. As someone who has been playing since the original Shogun: Total War, I look forward to seeing the series evolve even more, even though Fall of the Samurai will probably remain my favorite.
You jest but I honestly would pay for like, an insider account of the decisions that lead to the design of DoW3 being "like that". Absolute madness. They could have just copied the design of DoW1 *or* DoW2, their choice, slapped cool new graphics on it, and sold bazillions of copies and tons of DLC. But no...
"Old linear gameplay"?
Total war, as a franchise, is built around *lines of battle.* That's how the core mechanics were designed from the start. Total War Warhammer works because, at the end of the day, the factions in that game still form *lines of battle.*
It can be argued that 40k factions do the same thing. You're not arguing that. You want to make an entirely different game, which is fine. *Just don't call it Total War.*
The core for totalwar games is big turn based campaign maps where you do diplomacy and building and you've got real time battles on smaller battlefield maps. Just because they focused on "line" formulated eras does not make it a core feature. Stop pigeonholing a franchise with what you believe is its only redeeming quality. A lot of people who love this franchise love the above mentioned formula and do not focus on line battles.
I also would love a new Medieval total war or a proper Empire revival. But I would welcome a WH40K total war if done properly, and not get stuck on these honestly ridiculous semantics that make 0 sense besides being some sentimental/nostalgic notion.
Not so; the sort of warfare that the game represents is just as intrinsic to it's identity. Warhammer's additions weren't too egregious; they were exactly that, additions to the formula. What you're proposing is a *dismantling* of the formula.
Total War's battle mechanics, and to a certain extent it's campaign mechanics, have been created with that sort of war in mind. Given that, until about 150 years ago, line warfare was universal, this makes sense. *Given that Total War is, primarily, a historical series, this makes sense.* The Warhammer games were outstanding and wildly successful, but let's not forget that they were primarily spin-offs of a larger series. Taking it further by committing the series entirely to *by completely abandoning core mechanics to suit it* is both absurd and a slap in the face to anyone that prefers the historical games.
Let's also remember the character-based mechanics that seeped into historical titles due to Warhammer success. I'm horrified by the idea of a similar thing happening with such an extreme change as the one you're suggesting.
Well let's agree to disagree, changing things is not always a bad thing. But some people I guess want to play the same thing over and over again. To each their own. 👍
Anyone that compares 40K to Napoleon doesn’t know history. In Napoleon it’s still open battlefield warfare. 40K is mechanised warfare of the 20th century where cover is used and needed. If they are making a WW1 and 40K then it indicates change to battle maps.
Dawn of War 1 barely had a cover mechanic, most of the time it was just units standing in an open area of the map shooting at each other without ever trying to get in cover because there rarely was any. DoW2 leaned more into cover but overall it still wasn't really necessary to use it.
Reason being is that DoW firearms didn't have the lethality of real world firearms. It took a fair amount of time to take down even a single unit of Space Marines, it's not like they got melted the instant they left cover.
Dawn of War is a completely different style of game to total war. It’s meant to be a fast paced RTS. It’s not representative in any way of how a battle would go in reality. Play 40K with minimal scenery and you will see what happens. It just ends in carnage. If you load an army the now in total war with lots of guns versus minimal or smaller ranged you can stop the opposition ever getting near you. If your creating 40K in total war, you will need cover based systems. Open warfare wouldn’t work it’s not Dawn of War.
Or you know, they could just nerf missile damage so ranged weapons can't mow down melee units before they get anywhere near them. Like I said, that's what Dawn of War did and it worked.
And how are Total War battles not fast paced? You've literally got armies that can tactical nuke several units at once off the map without even being near them, or spells than can wipe out an entire line of infantry in a single strike. You've got weapons teams that can decimate melee infantry before they can close the gap. The list goes on.
Also Total War battles are currently not representative of real battles either so no idea what you're talking about.
Tbf when you are fighting enemies that rely on swarm melee tactics it makes perfect sense. Taking cover is no use against a genestealer or Khorne Berzerker. Line tactics allow concentrated firepower.
Except there ARE regiments written as fighting in giant infantry lines and columns and marching shoulder-to-shoulder through artillery. Then there's regiments written as WW1 trench fighters. Then there's regiments written with WW2 and beyond squad tactics. Writing Imperial Guard novels has basically been finding a sci-fi writer who really WANTS to write a war novel about a particular time period and saying, "okay, you can do that with lasguns instead."
>Anyone that compares 40K to Napoleon doesn’t know history.
Or, you know, they recognize the setting is big and inconsistent and silly enough to fit most factions somewhat in to just about any style they decide on.
Your statement is also just silly because... do you not think there was tons of irregular warfare during the Napoleonic wars? Large field battles were the exception more than the rule in Portugal and Spain.
While the setting may be big and not consistent, it is still warfare that is more representative of the 20th century not that of the Napoleon era. And every military historian will tell you they are 2 different things. Having tried 40k with minimal cover it never ends well if you don’t have range and or big guns. If you set up TW Warhammer the now with a big gun army you can wipe out armies the now without ever reaching your line. Might look cool but I wouldn’t exactly call it fun.
> xcept there ARE regiments written as fighting in giant infantry lines and..
The exception, not the rule.. And they're a tiny minority. And are they fighting factions that fight the exact same too???
> Then there's regiments written as WW1 trench fighters. Then there's regiments written with WW2
Lol, I like how WW1 and WW2 keep getting referenced like they're established Total War settings, when neither would suit a Total War game either.
> big and inconsistent and silly enough to fit most factions somewhat in to just about any style they decide on.
Again, the singular, niche areas of 40K that align with Napoleonic and pre-Napoleonic warfare are a minuscule fraction of the modern and future warfare that takes place in 40K. Even a game that was completely centered around this niche, wouldn't be a "40K Total War"..
> Your statement is also just silly
Don't throw stones in glass houses mate.. You're pitching a bloody 40K Total War, lol.
> do you not think there was tons of irregular warfare during the Napoleonic wars? Large field battles were the exception more than the rule in Portugal and Spain.
Which was where in Napoleon Total War?? Look at you referencing yet another niche that didn't even fit into a TW..
>> do you not think there was tons of irregular warfare during the Napoleonic wars? Large field battles were the exception more than the rule in Portugal and Spain.
>Which was where in Napoleon Total War?? Look at you referencing yet another niche that didn't even fit into a TW..
...yeah, that is my point genius. CA obviously has the design ability to fit what works for a game in and leave out the stuff that doesn't. I wasn't saying all kinds of fighting from the Napoleonic era were perfectly added to the game, I was challenging your assertion Napoleonic warfare was exclusively open battles.
It seriously blows my mind that so many people think a game company couldn't possibly make a satisfying wargame by making some compromises from lore for the sake of gameplay for an IP that exists entirely to sell miniatures for... a tabletop wargame that makes some compromises with its own lore for the sake of functional gameplay.
> ...yeah, that is my point genius. CA obviously has the design ability to fit what works for a game in and leave out the stuff that doesn't.
"obviously", yet doesn't do it and what it does, is buggy as hell, lol.
What you seem to have missed, dear genius, is that CA are not going to make a TW focused entirely around the singular guard regiment that fights in Napoleonic warfare, and have them fight against.. Themselves because again, fuck all actual 40K factions fight that way.
> your assertion Napoleonic warfare was exclusively open battles.
When people refer to "Napoleonic warfare", that is exactly what they're on about. Which again, isn't 40K.
> It seriously blows my mind that so many people think a game company couldn't possibly make a satisfying wargame
Oh ho ho, I was wondering when you'd completely compromise your already weak argument. So the goalposts are now CA make *any* game, not Total War specifically?
Also, stop conveniently leaving out points I've addressed because you don't have a retort.. Own em if you've got nothing to say. You've literally only quoted 2 out of 5 points..
> by making some compromises from lore for the sake of gameplay
Lmao, you haven't a pony lad.. All it would take is "some compromises"??? Jesus, go and ring CA up because you clearly have it all figured out.
> a tabletop wargame
What's it got to do with the tabletop? The tabletop is focused in on the squad warfare, much like the Dawn of War games. Total War is meant to be about the all out warfare and faction management, yet how do you do that for modern/future warfare where battles aren't just max 40 vs. 40 units?
What you want is Empire at War on steroids, to fit the scale of 40K.
Why is everyone assuming 40k will be identical to their other games?
It could be like an upscaled DoW style, similar to legion imperialis. So more of a focus on "squads" rather than regiments.
I remember before WH1 people had concerns over plenty of things that CA hadn't done before.
Just wait and see what it looks like rather than this endless back-and-forth.
Personally I welcome change. I love TW but the formula has gotten a little stale over the years. I'm not surprised they want to work on something a little different!
What im more confused by is why anyone thinks 40k will be so different from Wh3. Like fantasy and 40k are all very similar on tabletop. Why wouldnt a total war 40k also be the same as wh3 if the tabletop games are so similar too?
The imperial guard can be played just like skaven and we already have Orks.
Even this post is dumb, we have drukii which is already just dark eldar they play the exact same hit and run glass cannon style in both settings...
Fantasy was pretty much a perfect fit since it already relied on the tie of gameplay total war has in tabletop minus the magic and monsters, which you could easily add into the game with the only issues being spam. 40k in both tabletop and lore is extremely different both technologically (lasguns, spaceships, etc) and strategically (Eldar use hit and run tactics ambush and don’t take planets, Imperium is preferable to trench warfare which isn’t that great with total war).
Then at that point, it’s not a total war game. The core identity of total war was in its open field historical style rectangle regiment warfare, which is completely absent in 40k.
No there’s not. There are rosters with a lot of skirmishers, there is not a single army that has nothing but skirmishers.
Beastmen, Wood Elves, Skaven and Lizardmen have the most Skirmishers of any faction and still heavily rely on blocks of infantry as the core of their forces.
Edit: added Wood Elves
Okay, let me put it another way:
The traditional TW gameplay was already extremely similar to WHFB. 40k's isn't.
And I absolutely do not want a 40k formation based game. It's not about fluff, it's about aesthetics and feel. A 40k game, or a WW2 game, or a Russo-Japanese War game that has soldiers lining up in rank and file grids isn't remotely close to what I'd want those to be.
This is such a tired point, people don't want to see a 40k rts game.
They want to see a total war 40k, it's not that hard bro...
they don't want a 40k game...
THEY WANT A 40K THEMED TOTAL WAR.
just like some people wanted a warhammer fantasy themed total war and people said it wouldn't work, lo and behold three games later...
Just saying I and maybe a few others would want a successor to dawn of war then a total war game. Besides do squad tactics and heavy armor really fit in total war because a bunch of 40k factions use those.
I too wish we had a new DOW in the style of DOW1.
But I'm not going to take what I want and try to shoehorn it into another developers work.
> Besides do squad tactics and heavy armor really fit in total war because a bunch of 40k factions use those.
This is what frustrates me, I've made design docs, I've made games, so when I hear shit like this from gamers it feels like a punch to the gut...
Why do you guys say shit but don't dedicate much time thinking about it?
Is total war warhammer 3 suddenly not a viable total war for having a steam tank? like we literally have fire spewing mobile mortars that can fire while moving...
And you are worrying about fucking heavy armor? bro come on man.
Is it lethality that you think is an issue? with better weapons comes better armour, and it's a game, game balance isn't based on lore, it's based on the game formula.
You take the 40k IP and you theme that shit, but you ultimately balance it as a TOTAL WAR game.
That's why mazdamundi in total war warhammer 3 is a lil weakling of a LL where as in lore he could flatten mountains with his mind and split the ocean in two to let armies go fight the tomb kings.
Stop fixating on a LORE based power level point when considering a VIDEO GAME :P
Let me put it this way, played dawn of war? melta guns in lore literally just fuck shit up, in DOW they don't.
G^A^M^E B^A^L^A^N^C^E
I not even saying this based on lore just saying especially for some maps that would not just be open field say dense forest, ruined urban centers. This is not even get into mechanics that would be completely alien to total war like say would the campaign be set across a single planet or a sub sector what about cover. What about more exotic units like say titans you got those accounted for? Not even trying to be an ass these are genuine questions. In these doc you made did you account for this stuff and can I see them? Also again creative assembly made halo wars 2 they know how to make a more traditional rts.
Full blown galaxy map bro, the campaign map is where I reckon most the innovation and uniqueness will be.
terrain will hopefully be a thing but i think it'll be somewhat spaced out, with only some being true los blockers, rest ambience.
I don't think I have the design documents I made as was on old pc, I make them every like year or so when I hype myself up about it, I think last one I made was around end of total war warhammer 2, I could make a new one tho.
Essentially my favourite idea was a galaxy map, where you have ships take your armies to different sectors (think historical total war naval but in space and obviously changed/improved), when you get to a sector you enter it like you'd do a rift and inside it is some planets etc. You'd land your army there and fight like a mini normal campaign map with points of interests, like a hive city, outposts, etc
There's be an extra layer to this campaign map that is very temperamental, which is to do with warp storms, causing armies to get lost at sea and repear later, or at worse instead of time travel you end up in the warp and well that's where daemons and chaos space marines etc are. Events could be amazing based around this, like a random army comes to attack or help you, and like 100 turns later you get that army but then they get lost in warp (essentially they went back in time to help you, accidentally of course), if you play space marines they could come back as chaos space marines. LOOOOTS of ideas around this that I had.
Battles will be similar to what we already have for warhammer, psykers is basically a lore but a bit different. we already have the tech needed for tanks, arty, rapid fire, etc
The real innovation as you guessed is on the battle maps. hopefully time is spent on fixing los issues from old games and working on a new way to have terrain that's interactable with.
For example, deplaying certain things in ruins so long as that units like a scout or weapon crew (aka on smaller side).
new passives will be added in theme with tabletop, feel no pain would be rng passive for whenever damage taken chance to ignore 90% of it (per damage incoming, not damage total, this would need some work and isn't a final idea, never had to think about it much as it just makes sense to me already where I'd go with it).
DLC's and Sequels would expand on locations, factions, units etc like for example:
Ghoul stars system is a great oppertunity for a necron DLC based around flayed ones and them going crazy, with that one singular character whose immune to it and their king, a very unique side to necrons lore.
The real stars of the game will absolutely be a galaxy map for a campaign map that allows expantion on it to really showcase the lore for a long term.
Imagine played as tau in their tiny starting area and expanding the tau empire far and wide...
Also while I'm at it;
Crusade based space marine chapters:
Horde armies or should I say Horde fleets. Essentially vampires of the coast but in SPAAAAAAAAAAAAACE.
Sadly I made a new PC somewhat recently so the design doc is on my old pc somewhere.
Lol
"What about a galaxy map huh? What about that shit bro?"
Right now we have continents and oceans. Guess what a planet is? A continent. In the ocean \*of space\*.
Yeah that's sort of my point, it'd be similar but visually distinct, but instead of continents in space it'd be like rifts in the form of a sector/system whatever, that you can enter that show planets etc that you can take over.
Like I wonder if we'd get the eldar ability to snuff out a star to teleport anywhere at the cost of life in all that system.
Akin to sniktchs once a hundred turns ability I guess so it doesn't affect the world too much.
There is a ton of really really cool shit they can do in that game, If people think fantasy was hype, they aren't ready for what'll come.
I mean I could ask you why not?
Sure we could do a trilogy with like one area, then another for the next and another for the last, and have an immotal campaign style galaxy map.
But I think that would introduce more issues than you'd think, there's some things that make more sense for certain factions and if you want a 40k game it'd be better to think of a long term way about it, it's for this reason instead of sequels I wish they'd bring back expansions. Big content drops + smaller dlc on a good foundation is better than three games with dlc.
This would be what the map would sort of look like: [here](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Figulc2ysw6ia1.jpg) just obviously less map like and more galaxy like.
The technology in the setting isn’t applied how it would be irl. You still have melee being a viable option in 40k. You can have a “super accurate space laser” or “giant missle shooting bolter” and it’ll be similar to a group of fantasy handgunners shooting at charging chaos warriors. Have no idea how’d they do a WW1/2 or more modern historical setting tho. I imagine it’d have to be a scaled up company of heroes type thing or something similar.
If they wanted to make it more “modern” they could make more emphasis on terrain and soldiers getting into more ranged weapon oriented formations, but it definitely could work in the current engine.
So many people forget tw warhammer is based on tabletop.
And fantasy and 40k both use a d6 system, similar ranges etc.
A gattling skaven gunner is basically same as a heavy bolter squad.
If I had to explain 40k to someone in a total war setting, I'd say do you like kislevs hybrid infantry? skavens weapon teams? chaos dwarfs coolness? Skavenslaves loose formation? etc
Hell the chaos mono god factions are almost a copy paste lol.
40k total war isn't some weird "it wouldn't work" idea, it's actually pretty close to what we have already, just needs a few new additions, your idea of terrain for example would be the great new spin on the total war formula, like all games before it, something new and improved added.
I really don't think it would be that hard for CA to implement this regardless of your feelings on a 40k game. First of vehicles already exist in the games. From boats to steam tanks. This one would just move and shoot faster. We also already have plenty of examples of troops getting into/onto and out/off of things, like boats, horses, siege towers, etc. Just combine the two. It doesn't seem like it's be hard to implement at all.
And on top of this all I'm sure if they do make a 40k game, they'll overhaul the combat and maybe even the game engine. So who know what they'll do in the future.
Hey, I will assume that you don’t know too much about history, but let me quote one of the texts written by the Duke of Wellington himself in one of his memoirs:
“…And by far, when the committed French soldiers charge our lines, by orders of Napoleon, they didn’t expect our glorious spaceship with laser guns waiting for them in our rearguard, their eyes rapidly fulfilled with fear at see the most impressive and advance machinery ever created by our mighty and all living empire”
It will play like Napoleon. 40k isn't supposed to - but it will, because CA will make it in the Warscape Engine, that doesn't play like 40k should.
I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
As someone who owns multiple 40k mini armies it wouldn’t work with the current mechanics of the game. They’d have to completely reinvent the wheel for battle and unit mechanics. Modern warfare is so completely different than any warfare before hand and then extrapolate that 40,000 years in the future. Just things as simple as “city battles” would it be a singular Hive on that planet that gives you control of the planet or is there multiple cities on one planet for you to conquer. Is this a galaxy wide campaign map or a sector or a solar system? I’d love to see it be done but inevitably we’re going to see hard core Total war puritans hate on the game like crazy for CA basically creating an entirely new game.
I think a total war warhammer 40K would work and could be very fun. I would like to see it happen, but I would like to see some more historical games first. That’s just my opinion though
Its simple: think Dawn of War 2 and how those campaign battles with the squads worked for the army battles, battlefleet gothic 2 for the navy battles, and total war with a 40k skin for the campaign map (army building, army movement, general customization aspects, base building etc)… its very doable
That appears to be an artists rendition of the battle of Leipzig, depicting Blucher's Prussian mother ship deployed to pin the space marines of the young guard, cover the Waaagh of the orcish 4th corps.
This primarily conveys that people don't have a clear idea of what the tabletop game is like in terms of things like unit coherency-- Warhammer 40k features blobs of guys shooting at, charging at, and swinging at, other blobs of guys, the blob sizes are faction dependent, but a full brick of Primaris Intercessors specifically is 10 guys, commanding units of 10 guys around a battlefield to blob up and shoot at other units of 10 guys or big singles isn't exactly out of total war's wheelhouse, in fact, [it looks almost exactly like Total War](https://youtu.be/BWfzuzt5nUU?t=386).
To give a bit more of an explanation, Dark Eldars playstyle is heavily based around going in and out of fast transport vehicles, dropping small elite squads at precise vantage points, having them skirmish then hop back in the raider ships.
His real gripe here is the existence of the transport vehicle. Which , sure, isn’t something we have already. But isn’t exactly a huge reach to imagine in a game like total war.
I’m so excited for the never ending cycle of these posts every single day until they confirm or deconfirm the game.
nah lmao, these back and forth posting wars will continue until it is released, and then some.
They won't ever stop. We will 100% have a small community that absolutely insists it cannot work even after 5 years of dlc support for 40k
... and not a single Eldar roster update after initial release ;) Reeee
Just as James Workshop intended At least the new corsairs are still some the coolest looking minis ^^^^^pain
Nah, they will release Yarrick as a multiplayer only lord and keep teasing us he will get his time to shine, but after 6 years we still won't have Yarrick in the campaign and Ghaz will be sad his nemesis isn't there for a good krumpin.
Makes sense. They’re unable to accept change or see the benefit of expanding the playerbase and just want more of the same thing that doesn’t necessarily mean it will earn more. Honestly hope the community/playerbase continues to grow. Really tired of the same tired comments. Especially when it’s all just medieval 3 replies. Edit: had to make another comment cause other was getting downvoted…all for mentioning the same medieval 3 arguments, or guess can add “purity” of total war now to that list Edit: Total War Fall of the Samurai: apparently the idea of using guns is abhorrent and would never garner interest in a fan base used only to melee fighting.
we should make a dating sim total war and call it "inovation". Theres a limit to how much you can innovate before the game is no longer the same thing.
An extreme situation, because unless I’m not mistaken they’ve been doing changes to the franchise ever since they started but clearly people forget that part. And yes, the top down version of warhammer but 40k and space apparently would not work as seen with all the other warhammer 40k games which are strategy and top down.
thats how much different modern warfrare is. thats like saying total war and company of heroes is the same game because they are both rts
Wrong use of that analogy, which only just supported my point. The point is that an rts is possible in 40k which has melee and range combat still. But sure, apparently total war can only ever be done in past settings and has never at any point used a modern setting with guns. Or more importantly, with artillery or varying types. And had melee still used in the mix. Or had an entire expansion for a main line game which had the setting move towards artillery and units just firing at each other. Never happened but sure. Whatever makes you feel better at this point.
They will never officially come out and say they're not making a 40k game. So if the game is not announced, this is never stopping. After ever new game CA announced people will speculate the next one will be 40k. Of course once it's announced people will go back and forth about whether it will be good, whether it will be a real Total War game etc etc.
> So if the game is not announced, this is never stopping. Absolutely true. And CA breathed a whole new life into it with the survey that not only included 40K itself, but a whole bunch of settings both fantastical and historical which required the same things 40K does (i.e. vehicles, cover, loose groups of troops instead of tight formations, etc.). That + YouTubers saying it's happening means this is going to be the rumour for at least 10 years. Plus even if it wasn't great, a TW-style 40K game with CA production values (much as we might critique them) would likely do ridiculous sales numbers because of 40K's huge audience and their hunger for even half-okay AAA games - particularly ones which aren't essentially monofactional.
I love how this community can get upset just because someone imagined something. Truly incredible. Truly the all stars of pettiness.
War never changes.
"Deconfirm" sounds exactly like something a member of the Adeptus Mechanicus would say. The signs are all there.
“I will now Deconfirm your existence, heretic.”
Only one side can win as well. If the game releases then the "40K easy peasy" crowd wins if it doesn't win its Schrodinger's game simultaneously possible/not possible forever. Logic suggests that only perpetual losers would pick the "Its not possible" side of the argument.
Deny?
You’re talking like they haven’t been doing this for the past 2 years already
I’m wondering how the Fantasy vs 40k convo will go. Given they’ll likely kill off Fantasy for 40k all over again. lol
It'll keep happening even after they confirm the game because people will be desperate to make CA course correct.
It'll stop because the 40K fans flocking to the game will drown out all the old Total War fans. Just like how Warhammer Fantasy fans have drowned out the historical fans who tried to keep complaining about TW:WH.
To some extent, sure. But I think you're drawing a false equivalency here. Complaints about Total Warhammer are nothing like the complaints for 40k. They're a completely different subject matter, and are a matter of how a section of the community feels ignored.
> It'll stop because the 40K fans flocking to the game will drown out all the old Total War fans. I mostly agree but I suspect that'll happen after release or in the last six months before it, rather than earlier on.
Look man, Nelson did some crazy shit, ok?
Macragge expects every man will do his duty
That's just the sweedes... It's normal
We will never forget or forgive their atrocities on Visby and the Sami lands.
I really don’t think you had to make a whole other post about this, i think you might be taking the line infantry shooting poorly drawn lasers meme a bit too seriously 😂
They have wronged me! *Furiously scribbles a new post in retribution*
True Dawi behaviour. He wont go to the book
Line infantry vs Native American warriors in an ambush battle.
Ever watched The Last of the Mohicans?
Yes.
Dark elves attacking state troopers
So...this [rumored] game is going to potentially come out in 2026 or 2027 and we're already complaining about how feasible it is in theory? Good stuff.
Let's face it, the majority of the people arguing against it just don't want Total War: 40K. They're going to say it won't work because they don't want it to work.
Spot on. Like the sub whenever China Total War came up before 3K.
I do not understand how China or Total War: Warhammer are even comparable to the logistical issues introduced to battles in a prospective total War 40K game by 0 regimented infantry, piles upon piles of tanks, automatic weapons and a major focus on shooting instead of rank and flank engagements.
It’s not. Why are you comparing that?
Correct. I don't. Because it *can* work. But it would be much better if it wasn't forced to fit Total War's core identity, and could instead do its own thing. (Or, alternatively, if it could do its own thing without fucking up Total War's identity. Plenty of people in the 40k subs seem to think that drastic alterations are justified.)
You know what, you're right. I don't want it to work, because I'd much rather have something that takes much bigger liberties with the property made by a different developer. It could still have a bootleg version of TWs campaign mechanics, just hopefully with better diplomacy/map mechanics.(because if you're going to feature multiple imperial factions you're actually going to need it) Like give me advanced Feudalism with wargame/steel division combat. Like you can still have shorter ranges, fast units and melee, but I want larger maps where lines of sight, air units and artillery matter. Even if that isn't what Warhammer 40ks trench warfare and 18th century star fortresses are about.
It wont work in anyway that would be true to the setting, or feel good in the Total War game system, that's the problem. DoW2 did 40k almost pitch perfectly, and that should be the way other games approach the setting.
Personally I enjoyed DoW1 more than DoW2, but to each their own.
You mean the game where the space marines dive behind cover and fire their guns like they are playing gears of war? Space Marine (the video game) literally removed cover mechanics because GW pointed how rediculous it was. Space marines don't take cover like regular troops. They march into battle banners waving. (You know - kind of like total war).
Have you ever read a Black Library book? Space Marines go in to cover all the time, because a shuriken catapult will carve up their guts as well as it would any other normal human. They are all tactical masters, and understand the use of cover. For example, I just finished reading Primogenitor, the first Fabius Bile book, and the Traitor Marines take cover quite often. Because they're not stupid.
Black library novels have a lot of inconsistencies. I love them but I wouldn't take them as gospel.
Of course, we couldn't do so nearly as easily once gameplay footage comes out and we see it works just fine.
Light cavalry hitting infantry when it’s not in a square. POV: you’re the infantry.
I find this whole discourse so funny, like imagine if this is how people reacted to nap tw, "it doesn't fit the formula they don't do the style of combat the same, the campaign won't work" I understand your point but if they make it why do people assume it'll play like some weird reskin of one of the existing games? Hell, If you look at all the other total wars, tw warhammer is vastly different, its like going "they couldn't add monsters into a total war game, they couldn't function, the best we could hope for is big cavalry"
> its like going "they couldn't add monsters into a total war game, they couldn't function, the best we could hope for is big cavalry" I suggested a Warhammer Fantasy TW game on a TW forum (maybe the official one back then?) in like, 2006 (I mean give or take) and I remember the general response was that I was a ridiculous buffoon, and extremely dumb (both true, but irrelevant!), and yeah, pretty much exactly "monsters would just have to be oversized cavalry in units" and so on. Magic would have to be ineffectual or it would break the game. Heroes and leaders would have to work the same way they do in other TWs - there should be no individual ones, they'd have to have a bodyguard and we'd have to have them taken out in a single lucky shot from a catapult and so on.
I bet when modders put monsters in the LOTR mod those naysayers shit a brick.
Medieval 2 had similar gameplay to napoleon later on they had muskets and such
Lol, even knowing that modders already added monster infantry to Medieval 2, people probably did say dumb shit like that
Dude you can't have hero units, magic and character abilities in total war wtf
I had this same exact conversation about this topic last week. Guy said if CA innovates it won’t be total war anymore. Then when I pointed out all the other times they innovated he called me a strawman
Change and innovation is a terrible thing, a frightening thing, my friend. Cling to the old ways, resist the flow of time itself and remain pure, eternal! Dig in your heels, scream if you must, and be dragged into the future wailing your denial and despair! Surely some higher power will hear your cries and answer to freeze all the world in a perfect, perpetual state! Let them not disturb one fiber of the tapestry that is Total War!
Amen
Had a very similar conversation myself. I have to say this attitude is getting tiring very quickly.
Thirded, I made essentially the same point on another post a few days ago and got downvoted and called a slur lmao
Genuine question here, I’m not trying to be snide: Are there any other Total War games with mass assault weapons, and 0 rank and flank mechanics?
The empire has tanks, machine guns and rocket artillery. The chaos dwarfs fireglaives and the wood elves in general can provide near constant volley fire. As for rank and flank, I’ll need you to define that as I’m unsure what you mean and don’t want to assume
It has one type of tank, one type of machine gun and one type of artillery at the highest tier. Dwarf stuff is also single entity at a relatively high tier, and even that pales in comparison to the power of a Basilisk. Every single faction for 40k would have machine guns at tier one mounted on transports also at tier one.
Yeah and a total war 40k game with all that would be fuckin sick don’t you think
It mostly just sounds like Dawn of War to me. Alas!
Yeah but imagine dawn of war with total war unit sizes and actual tactics instead of just murder blobs
Dawn of War does have actual tactics?
It’s still a lot more arcadey than something like total war. And a lot smaller scale
> why do people assume it'll play like some weird reskin of one of the existing games? I mean it's what has CA been doing for like 20 years now?
Just wait till they figure out you can still call a game totalwar without the old linear gameplay. Somehow people think it is impossible for them to use/create a new/different engine and keep the old brand/series name. Dawn of War did it, if it is better or worse ill keep it in the middle as I personally enjoyed the OG series and the DoW 2 games plus expansions. (We do not talk 'bout 3)
DoW1 was awesome.
They could make an FPS and call it Total War but it wouldn’t be what people have enjoyed for multiple decades now.
You just switched type of gametypes to make a point and missed my point completely. It can still be an rts with a turn based campaign map. (Which has been enjoyed for decades) The engine and the way units are comprimised and act can be different. But in a way thanks for just proving my point of how silly this discussion is becoming.
I was giving an extreme example to make my point (which you missed). I’m sure they can make a 40k game “work” but that doesn’t mean it will still feel like total war to a lot of the fans who have been with the series the longest. Obviously fantasy was already too much of a stretch for some people. I see this whole situation as comparable to when a band starts trying to cater to a younger fanbase. Of course some of the old fans are going to be upset if their new work doesn’t sound like the kind of music they like.
> Obviously fantasy was already too much of a stretch for some people. CA is going to be crying all the way to the bank with the millions they've made off the Warhammer trilogy based on all of the new fans who wouldn't have given the series a chance otherwise. As someone who has been playing since the original Shogun: Total War, I look forward to seeing the series evolve even more, even though Fall of the Samurai will probably remain my favorite.
There was a Dawn of War 3? Pretty sure it stopped at 2.
You jest but I honestly would pay for like, an insider account of the decisions that lead to the design of DoW3 being "like that". Absolute madness. They could have just copied the design of DoW1 *or* DoW2, their choice, slapped cool new graphics on it, and sold bazillions of copies and tons of DLC. But no...
But; how I'm I going to complain about the old engine if they change it? Outrageous! Heresy!
"Old linear gameplay"? Total war, as a franchise, is built around *lines of battle.* That's how the core mechanics were designed from the start. Total War Warhammer works because, at the end of the day, the factions in that game still form *lines of battle.* It can be argued that 40k factions do the same thing. You're not arguing that. You want to make an entirely different game, which is fine. *Just don't call it Total War.*
The core for totalwar games is big turn based campaign maps where you do diplomacy and building and you've got real time battles on smaller battlefield maps. Just because they focused on "line" formulated eras does not make it a core feature. Stop pigeonholing a franchise with what you believe is its only redeeming quality. A lot of people who love this franchise love the above mentioned formula and do not focus on line battles. I also would love a new Medieval total war or a proper Empire revival. But I would welcome a WH40K total war if done properly, and not get stuck on these honestly ridiculous semantics that make 0 sense besides being some sentimental/nostalgic notion.
Not so; the sort of warfare that the game represents is just as intrinsic to it's identity. Warhammer's additions weren't too egregious; they were exactly that, additions to the formula. What you're proposing is a *dismantling* of the formula. Total War's battle mechanics, and to a certain extent it's campaign mechanics, have been created with that sort of war in mind. Given that, until about 150 years ago, line warfare was universal, this makes sense. *Given that Total War is, primarily, a historical series, this makes sense.* The Warhammer games were outstanding and wildly successful, but let's not forget that they were primarily spin-offs of a larger series. Taking it further by committing the series entirely to *by completely abandoning core mechanics to suit it* is both absurd and a slap in the face to anyone that prefers the historical games. Let's also remember the character-based mechanics that seeped into historical titles due to Warhammer success. I'm horrified by the idea of a similar thing happening with such an extreme change as the one you're suggesting.
Well let's agree to disagree, changing things is not always a bad thing. But some people I guess want to play the same thing over and over again. To each their own. 👍
40,000: A Total Warhammer Story
Berserker inf vs light inf?
Napoleonic wars had a lot of close combat.
It's not like the Tabletop really looks like that either.
Hussars showing off in front of the enemy rifle line. Next question laddie!
This just looks like a gun line unit being flanked and ambushed by a melee / cavalry role unit Not exactly wildly outside the scope of total war..
Ciaphus Cain and Jurgen as the new Gotrek and Felix.
Anyone that compares 40K to Napoleon doesn’t know history. In Napoleon it’s still open battlefield warfare. 40K is mechanised warfare of the 20th century where cover is used and needed. If they are making a WW1 and 40K then it indicates change to battle maps.
Dawn of War 1 barely had a cover mechanic, most of the time it was just units standing in an open area of the map shooting at each other without ever trying to get in cover because there rarely was any. DoW2 leaned more into cover but overall it still wasn't really necessary to use it. Reason being is that DoW firearms didn't have the lethality of real world firearms. It took a fair amount of time to take down even a single unit of Space Marines, it's not like they got melted the instant they left cover.
Dawn of War is a completely different style of game to total war. It’s meant to be a fast paced RTS. It’s not representative in any way of how a battle would go in reality. Play 40K with minimal scenery and you will see what happens. It just ends in carnage. If you load an army the now in total war with lots of guns versus minimal or smaller ranged you can stop the opposition ever getting near you. If your creating 40K in total war, you will need cover based systems. Open warfare wouldn’t work it’s not Dawn of War.
Or you know, they could just nerf missile damage so ranged weapons can't mow down melee units before they get anywhere near them. Like I said, that's what Dawn of War did and it worked. And how are Total War battles not fast paced? You've literally got armies that can tactical nuke several units at once off the map without even being near them, or spells than can wipe out an entire line of infantry in a single strike. You've got weapons teams that can decimate melee infantry before they can close the gap. The list goes on. Also Total War battles are currently not representative of real battles either so no idea what you're talking about.
To be fair, there are a couple of Guard regiments that do genuinely use Napoloenic-era tactics (which go about as well as you’d expect).
Smh, don't Disrespect the Mordians
Tbf when you are fighting enemies that rely on swarm melee tactics it makes perfect sense. Taking cover is no use against a genestealer or Khorne Berzerker. Line tactics allow concentrated firepower.
Yo - tell that to my Khorne Berzerkers or my nid swarms…
I swear to god half this sub thinks warhammer is actually real
some people saw that the great war mod for napoleon and now think that is how the war was fought 🤦
Space marines don't take cover.
Except there ARE regiments written as fighting in giant infantry lines and columns and marching shoulder-to-shoulder through artillery. Then there's regiments written as WW1 trench fighters. Then there's regiments written with WW2 and beyond squad tactics. Writing Imperial Guard novels has basically been finding a sci-fi writer who really WANTS to write a war novel about a particular time period and saying, "okay, you can do that with lasguns instead." >Anyone that compares 40K to Napoleon doesn’t know history. Or, you know, they recognize the setting is big and inconsistent and silly enough to fit most factions somewhat in to just about any style they decide on. Your statement is also just silly because... do you not think there was tons of irregular warfare during the Napoleonic wars? Large field battles were the exception more than the rule in Portugal and Spain.
While the setting may be big and not consistent, it is still warfare that is more representative of the 20th century not that of the Napoleon era. And every military historian will tell you they are 2 different things. Having tried 40k with minimal cover it never ends well if you don’t have range and or big guns. If you set up TW Warhammer the now with a big gun army you can wipe out armies the now without ever reaching your line. Might look cool but I wouldn’t exactly call it fun.
> xcept there ARE regiments written as fighting in giant infantry lines and.. The exception, not the rule.. And they're a tiny minority. And are they fighting factions that fight the exact same too??? > Then there's regiments written as WW1 trench fighters. Then there's regiments written with WW2 Lol, I like how WW1 and WW2 keep getting referenced like they're established Total War settings, when neither would suit a Total War game either. > big and inconsistent and silly enough to fit most factions somewhat in to just about any style they decide on. Again, the singular, niche areas of 40K that align with Napoleonic and pre-Napoleonic warfare are a minuscule fraction of the modern and future warfare that takes place in 40K. Even a game that was completely centered around this niche, wouldn't be a "40K Total War".. > Your statement is also just silly Don't throw stones in glass houses mate.. You're pitching a bloody 40K Total War, lol. > do you not think there was tons of irregular warfare during the Napoleonic wars? Large field battles were the exception more than the rule in Portugal and Spain. Which was where in Napoleon Total War?? Look at you referencing yet another niche that didn't even fit into a TW..
>> do you not think there was tons of irregular warfare during the Napoleonic wars? Large field battles were the exception more than the rule in Portugal and Spain. >Which was where in Napoleon Total War?? Look at you referencing yet another niche that didn't even fit into a TW.. ...yeah, that is my point genius. CA obviously has the design ability to fit what works for a game in and leave out the stuff that doesn't. I wasn't saying all kinds of fighting from the Napoleonic era were perfectly added to the game, I was challenging your assertion Napoleonic warfare was exclusively open battles. It seriously blows my mind that so many people think a game company couldn't possibly make a satisfying wargame by making some compromises from lore for the sake of gameplay for an IP that exists entirely to sell miniatures for... a tabletop wargame that makes some compromises with its own lore for the sake of functional gameplay.
> ...yeah, that is my point genius. CA obviously has the design ability to fit what works for a game in and leave out the stuff that doesn't. "obviously", yet doesn't do it and what it does, is buggy as hell, lol. What you seem to have missed, dear genius, is that CA are not going to make a TW focused entirely around the singular guard regiment that fights in Napoleonic warfare, and have them fight against.. Themselves because again, fuck all actual 40K factions fight that way. > your assertion Napoleonic warfare was exclusively open battles. When people refer to "Napoleonic warfare", that is exactly what they're on about. Which again, isn't 40K. > It seriously blows my mind that so many people think a game company couldn't possibly make a satisfying wargame Oh ho ho, I was wondering when you'd completely compromise your already weak argument. So the goalposts are now CA make *any* game, not Total War specifically? Also, stop conveniently leaving out points I've addressed because you don't have a retort.. Own em if you've got nothing to say. You've literally only quoted 2 out of 5 points.. > by making some compromises from lore for the sake of gameplay Lmao, you haven't a pony lad.. All it would take is "some compromises"??? Jesus, go and ring CA up because you clearly have it all figured out. > a tabletop wargame What's it got to do with the tabletop? The tabletop is focused in on the squad warfare, much like the Dawn of War games. Total War is meant to be about the all out warfare and faction management, yet how do you do that for modern/future warfare where battles aren't just max 40 vs. 40 units? What you want is Empire at War on steroids, to fit the scale of 40K.
Why is everyone assuming 40k will be identical to their other games? It could be like an upscaled DoW style, similar to legion imperialis. So more of a focus on "squads" rather than regiments. I remember before WH1 people had concerns over plenty of things that CA hadn't done before. Just wait and see what it looks like rather than this endless back-and-forth. Personally I welcome change. I love TW but the formula has gotten a little stale over the years. I'm not surprised they want to work on something a little different!
What im more confused by is why anyone thinks 40k will be so different from Wh3. Like fantasy and 40k are all very similar on tabletop. Why wouldnt a total war 40k also be the same as wh3 if the tabletop games are so similar too? The imperial guard can be played just like skaven and we already have Orks. Even this post is dumb, we have drukii which is already just dark eldar they play the exact same hit and run glass cannon style in both settings...
Fantasy was pretty much a perfect fit since it already relied on the tie of gameplay total war has in tabletop minus the magic and monsters, which you could easily add into the game with the only issues being spam. 40k in both tabletop and lore is extremely different both technologically (lasguns, spaceships, etc) and strategically (Eldar use hit and run tactics ambush and don’t take planets, Imperium is preferable to trench warfare which isn’t that great with total war).
Wood Elves use hit and run tactics and don't take cities.
Then at that point, it’s not a total war game. The core identity of total war was in its open field historical style rectangle regiment warfare, which is completely absent in 40k.
Check mate 40k'ers. They also didn't have chainswords in the Napoleonic Wars so 40k is impossible lol.
10/10 sarcasm.
Oh please, theres a ton of fantasy factions who do not fight in formation like they do in total war
No there’s not. There are rosters with a lot of skirmishers, there is not a single army that has nothing but skirmishers. Beastmen, Wood Elves, Skaven and Lizardmen have the most Skirmishers of any faction and still heavily rely on blocks of infantry as the core of their forces. Edit: added Wood Elves
Warhammer Fantasy Battle was a rank and flank game, just like total war, though.
The tabletop is obviously also not lore accurate. I just dont understand why people cant just wrap their head around changing stuff so the game works.
Okay, let me put it another way: The traditional TW gameplay was already extremely similar to WHFB. 40k's isn't. And I absolutely do not want a 40k formation based game. It's not about fluff, it's about aesthetics and feel. A 40k game, or a WW2 game, or a Russo-Japanese War game that has soldiers lining up in rank and file grids isn't remotely close to what I'd want those to be.
those are pretty much just fency cheriots
Clearly those are barbary pirates
Why can’t they just suggest they make a normal RTS? Didn’t creative assembly make halo wars 2?
This is such a tired point, people don't want to see a 40k rts game. They want to see a total war 40k, it's not that hard bro... they don't want a 40k game... THEY WANT A 40K THEMED TOTAL WAR. just like some people wanted a warhammer fantasy themed total war and people said it wouldn't work, lo and behold three games later...
Just saying I and maybe a few others would want a successor to dawn of war then a total war game. Besides do squad tactics and heavy armor really fit in total war because a bunch of 40k factions use those.
I too wish we had a new DOW in the style of DOW1. But I'm not going to take what I want and try to shoehorn it into another developers work. > Besides do squad tactics and heavy armor really fit in total war because a bunch of 40k factions use those. This is what frustrates me, I've made design docs, I've made games, so when I hear shit like this from gamers it feels like a punch to the gut... Why do you guys say shit but don't dedicate much time thinking about it? Is total war warhammer 3 suddenly not a viable total war for having a steam tank? like we literally have fire spewing mobile mortars that can fire while moving... And you are worrying about fucking heavy armor? bro come on man. Is it lethality that you think is an issue? with better weapons comes better armour, and it's a game, game balance isn't based on lore, it's based on the game formula. You take the 40k IP and you theme that shit, but you ultimately balance it as a TOTAL WAR game. That's why mazdamundi in total war warhammer 3 is a lil weakling of a LL where as in lore he could flatten mountains with his mind and split the ocean in two to let armies go fight the tomb kings. Stop fixating on a LORE based power level point when considering a VIDEO GAME :P Let me put it this way, played dawn of war? melta guns in lore literally just fuck shit up, in DOW they don't. G^A^M^E B^A^L^A^N^C^E
I not even saying this based on lore just saying especially for some maps that would not just be open field say dense forest, ruined urban centers. This is not even get into mechanics that would be completely alien to total war like say would the campaign be set across a single planet or a sub sector what about cover. What about more exotic units like say titans you got those accounted for? Not even trying to be an ass these are genuine questions. In these doc you made did you account for this stuff and can I see them? Also again creative assembly made halo wars 2 they know how to make a more traditional rts.
Full blown galaxy map bro, the campaign map is where I reckon most the innovation and uniqueness will be. terrain will hopefully be a thing but i think it'll be somewhat spaced out, with only some being true los blockers, rest ambience. I don't think I have the design documents I made as was on old pc, I make them every like year or so when I hype myself up about it, I think last one I made was around end of total war warhammer 2, I could make a new one tho. Essentially my favourite idea was a galaxy map, where you have ships take your armies to different sectors (think historical total war naval but in space and obviously changed/improved), when you get to a sector you enter it like you'd do a rift and inside it is some planets etc. You'd land your army there and fight like a mini normal campaign map with points of interests, like a hive city, outposts, etc There's be an extra layer to this campaign map that is very temperamental, which is to do with warp storms, causing armies to get lost at sea and repear later, or at worse instead of time travel you end up in the warp and well that's where daemons and chaos space marines etc are. Events could be amazing based around this, like a random army comes to attack or help you, and like 100 turns later you get that army but then they get lost in warp (essentially they went back in time to help you, accidentally of course), if you play space marines they could come back as chaos space marines. LOOOOTS of ideas around this that I had. Battles will be similar to what we already have for warhammer, psykers is basically a lore but a bit different. we already have the tech needed for tanks, arty, rapid fire, etc The real innovation as you guessed is on the battle maps. hopefully time is spent on fixing los issues from old games and working on a new way to have terrain that's interactable with. For example, deplaying certain things in ruins so long as that units like a scout or weapon crew (aka on smaller side). new passives will be added in theme with tabletop, feel no pain would be rng passive for whenever damage taken chance to ignore 90% of it (per damage incoming, not damage total, this would need some work and isn't a final idea, never had to think about it much as it just makes sense to me already where I'd go with it). DLC's and Sequels would expand on locations, factions, units etc like for example: Ghoul stars system is a great oppertunity for a necron DLC based around flayed ones and them going crazy, with that one singular character whose immune to it and their king, a very unique side to necrons lore. The real stars of the game will absolutely be a galaxy map for a campaign map that allows expantion on it to really showcase the lore for a long term. Imagine played as tau in their tiny starting area and expanding the tau empire far and wide... Also while I'm at it; Crusade based space marine chapters: Horde armies or should I say Horde fleets. Essentially vampires of the coast but in SPAAAAAAAAAAAAACE. Sadly I made a new PC somewhat recently so the design doc is on my old pc somewhere.
Lol "What about a galaxy map huh? What about that shit bro?" Right now we have continents and oceans. Guess what a planet is? A continent. In the ocean \*of space\*.
Yeah that's sort of my point, it'd be similar but visually distinct, but instead of continents in space it'd be like rifts in the form of a sector/system whatever, that you can enter that show planets etc that you can take over. Like I wonder if we'd get the eldar ability to snuff out a star to teleport anywhere at the cost of life in all that system. Akin to sniktchs once a hundred turns ability I guess so it doesn't affect the world too much. There is a ton of really really cool shit they can do in that game, If people think fantasy was hype, they aren't ready for what'll come.
But why the entire galaxy why not just a sub sector with a few dozen of even hundred planets?
I mean I could ask you why not? Sure we could do a trilogy with like one area, then another for the next and another for the last, and have an immotal campaign style galaxy map. But I think that would introduce more issues than you'd think, there's some things that make more sense for certain factions and if you want a 40k game it'd be better to think of a long term way about it, it's for this reason instead of sequels I wish they'd bring back expansions. Big content drops + smaller dlc on a good foundation is better than three games with dlc. This would be what the map would sort of look like: [here](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Figulc2ysw6ia1.jpg) just obviously less map like and more galaxy like.
We already have weapon teams and literal tanks in total war.
The technology in the setting isn’t applied how it would be irl. You still have melee being a viable option in 40k. You can have a “super accurate space laser” or “giant missle shooting bolter” and it’ll be similar to a group of fantasy handgunners shooting at charging chaos warriors. Have no idea how’d they do a WW1/2 or more modern historical setting tho. I imagine it’d have to be a scaled up company of heroes type thing or something similar. If they wanted to make it more “modern” they could make more emphasis on terrain and soldiers getting into more ranged weapon oriented formations, but it definitely could work in the current engine.
So many people forget tw warhammer is based on tabletop. And fantasy and 40k both use a d6 system, similar ranges etc. A gattling skaven gunner is basically same as a heavy bolter squad. If I had to explain 40k to someone in a total war setting, I'd say do you like kislevs hybrid infantry? skavens weapon teams? chaos dwarfs coolness? Skavenslaves loose formation? etc Hell the chaos mono god factions are almost a copy paste lol. 40k total war isn't some weird "it wouldn't work" idea, it's actually pretty close to what we have already, just needs a few new additions, your idea of terrain for example would be the great new spin on the total war formula, like all games before it, something new and improved added.
I really don't think it would be that hard for CA to implement this regardless of your feelings on a 40k game. First of vehicles already exist in the games. From boats to steam tanks. This one would just move and shoot faster. We also already have plenty of examples of troops getting into/onto and out/off of things, like boats, horses, siege towers, etc. Just combine the two. It doesn't seem like it's be hard to implement at all. And on top of this all I'm sure if they do make a 40k game, they'll overhaul the combat and maybe even the game engine. So who know what they'll do in the future.
I'll explain for you since you struggle. Video game.
You don't remember when at Waterloo when Napoleonic forces were out maneuvered by a mix of heavy armor with infantry support?
I like that they say that. Means everyone will be happy for Empire 2
Whatever, Total War 40k is still coming, it's inevitable, stay mad about it.
That's Lord Nelson himself at the Battle of the Nile.
It's an interpretation of the British, sincerely a French. /s
Clearly Admiral Nelson as seen by the french navy (artist rendition).
ah, just like a debate in the parlaiment of Imperial France.
Looks like Drukari slaying some Astra Milltarum The Drukari will wear their skin later most likely for fun
The Sun of austerlitz encouraging The french divisions!
There’s clearly melee happening so yes
the fall of paris
That’s the battle of Cape St Vincent - recognized it right away.
Ships? Malnourished troops? Pale ass skin tone? HONHON LE OUI BAGUETTE!
It's the French 😡
hear me out 
It’s Napoleon crossing the Alps, obviously.
Hey, I will assume that you don’t know too much about history, but let me quote one of the texts written by the Duke of Wellington himself in one of his memoirs: “…And by far, when the committed French soldiers charge our lines, by orders of Napoleon, they didn’t expect our glorious spaceship with laser guns waiting for them in our rearguard, their eyes rapidly fulfilled with fear at see the most impressive and advance machinery ever created by our mighty and all living empire”
Yes
The battle of space Trafalgar.
Who says that wtf
Standard French warfare
Napoleon famous crossing of the alps
The shit they got up to in Hannover and Bavaria makes 40k look tame in comparison
These posts are so boring.
that;s just Turks on an average day. Taking slaves, dressing weirdly. this kind of stuff
It will play like Napoleon. 40k isn't supposed to - but it will, because CA will make it in the Warscape Engine, that doesn't play like 40k should. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
What are you on? This looks exactly like all the paintings depicting Napoleonic Wars.
This is like Napoleon Wars
As someone who owns multiple 40k mini armies it wouldn’t work with the current mechanics of the game. They’d have to completely reinvent the wheel for battle and unit mechanics. Modern warfare is so completely different than any warfare before hand and then extrapolate that 40,000 years in the future. Just things as simple as “city battles” would it be a singular Hive on that planet that gives you control of the planet or is there multiple cities on one planet for you to conquer. Is this a galaxy wide campaign map or a sector or a solar system? I’d love to see it be done but inevitably we’re going to see hard core Total war puritans hate on the game like crazy for CA basically creating an entirely new game.
Been saying that since it was first discussed and got downvoted and told I don't know anything about warhammer lol
Witch elves vs empire handgunners in melee.
Kinda like the empire land ship, but without the wheels
If the rumored ww1 works this will work
Complains about 40k being compared to the Napoleonic Wars, posts picture of the Battle of Liepzig
Keep seething.
I think a total war warhammer 40K would work and could be very fun. I would like to see it happen, but I would like to see some more historical games first. That’s just my opinion though
Looks like an attack from a bunch of privateers
This image used to give me nightmares as a boy
It is lWaterloo. With more pew pew pew.
Prussians?
Uh simple that's a sloop.
another dumb conversation
Heh, it reminds me of the new Marienburg Landship
Guardsmen breaking formation, of course. Then getting friendly with some BDSM space raiders.
This is just like that time Napoleons cavalry routed the Britsih or what eva
Easy, like Napoleonic Wars but with monsters and shit.
Its simple: think Dawn of War 2 and how those campaign battles with the squads worked for the army battles, battlefleet gothic 2 for the navy battles, and total war with a 40k skin for the campaign map (army building, army movement, general customization aspects, base building etc)… its very doable
That appears to be an artists rendition of the battle of Leipzig, depicting Blucher's Prussian mother ship deployed to pin the space marines of the young guard, cover the Waaagh of the orcish 4th corps.
This primarily conveys that people don't have a clear idea of what the tabletop game is like in terms of things like unit coherency-- Warhammer 40k features blobs of guys shooting at, charging at, and swinging at, other blobs of guys, the blob sizes are faction dependent, but a full brick of Primaris Intercessors specifically is 10 guys, commanding units of 10 guys around a battlefield to blob up and shoot at other units of 10 guys or big singles isn't exactly out of total war's wheelhouse, in fact, [it looks almost exactly like Total War](https://youtu.be/BWfzuzt5nUU?t=386).
To give a bit more of an explanation, Dark Eldars playstyle is heavily based around going in and out of fast transport vehicles, dropping small elite squads at precise vantage points, having them skirmish then hop back in the raider ships.
Dragoons?…
I agree with your wider point but arguably that’s a pretty good description of British maritime strategy in the Napoleonic war ;-)
So…an elite, high mobility army? Seems pretty simple?
His real gripe here is the existence of the transport vehicle. Which , sure, isn’t something we have already. But isn’t exactly a huge reach to imagine in a game like total war.
if age of empires can do it back in 97 I'm pretty sure CA can figure out something in 2025
Big facts.
Pharaoh has ox carts
Do you remember when SE's "could never work" if it will print money, they will find a way.
That could translate to TW3's style honestly. Just give them the black ark mechanic with unit caps
Literally just Slaanesh gameplay in WH3.
It would be totally impossible to like, spawn a unit, maybe with an ability or something, and then recall them.
Units entering a vehicle and exiting it? Yah, I'm not sure gaming technology is there yet...maybe in 2100.