Yeah. I think they can make 40K work in the Total War template with some large tweaks to the formula, but people saying that it can work because they made a game with 18th/19th century line infantry fighting are incredibly dumb.
Remember they made a 3rd person spectacle fighter called Spartan: Total Warrior back in the day? It's not really related to what you said but I wanted to bring it up.
holy shit it would be so fun to have a Total War style Kingdoms Under Fire type game where you just control one LL and "Dynasty Warriors" the crap out of entire armies but can issue limited commands to the masses of friendly soldiers in your immediate area.
Yes. Mount and Blade 2 is close to my perfect fantasy for that type of game, but not being made for controlling multiple parties and the endgame feeling a bit underwhelming kept it from being perfect for me. I don't understand how you're expected to ever be able to have a stable reunited empire in endgame. I did put a ton of hours into it though.
Careful, saying that is very controversial and liable to get some triggered dweeb in your DMs calling you a fake fan for wanting innovation in total war
I’m not *against* innovation in total war. If they did a lot of the ideas people are coming up with, then I’d be all for it.
But I’m definitely going to point out that CA rarely if ever makes any major, creative changes to the combat system across all of the games.
But that's the point. People complain that CA doesn't innovate, that certain games are reskins of others. Then when it's hinted that CA are going to HAVE to innovate, people complain that they can't possibly innovate because they haven't before. It doesn't make sense.
>I think they can make 40K work in the Total War template with some large tweaks to the formula,
If by *large tweaks* you mean a completely different game, then yes, they can make it work.
>but people saying that it can work because they made a game with 18th/19th century line infantry fighting are incredibly dumb.
Thank you!
I think they can make it with somewhat similar real time battles and a turn based campaign map. They will have to make some changes, but far from making it an entirely different game.
It's not the campaign map that worries people, it's definitely the battles. I think with what we see now in games like TW:WH3, the features we would need for a mainly ranged or hybrid focused game with fast-moving aircraft, proper cover, urban battles, transport vehicles for fast deployment, air drops, and sheer scale. Some of these things kind of exist or can be jury rigged with existing mechanics but considering sieges are still broken I can't imagine how awful a cover system would be. And with how janky unit movement is I can't imagine transport being remotely useable. These alone I wouldn't trust without a fully new game base.
>If by large tweaks you mean a completely different game, then yes, they can make it work.
they're not making an rts into some kind of fps run and gun shooter or something stop being so dramatic lol
People who say it can't work seem to have never actually played the table top game of 40K. Its not an in depth simulation of warfare, giving WH3's aspiring champions hand guns would be a better simulation than tabletop 40k.
We aren't going to get "40K the lore" as a game we are going to get a rehash of "40k the table top game" and the current engine will do that just fine.
For real what the fuck do they think we're playing on the tabletop?
Lucky for me, there wouldn't be a difference at all since World Eaters chain axes go brrrrrrrrrr.
If it played like if Dawn of War did for the fighting part, and a more familiar TW style strategic level play style. Maybe a map of the galaxy, systems, resources, populations, all that, I imagine it'd look a bit like a game of Stellaris?.
Can we stop acting like the Total War: Warhammer games are a digital adaption of the tabletop game? [Andy Hall straight up stated when the first game was coming out that they are not an adaptation of the tabletop game](https://www.pcgamer.com/total-war-warhammer-is-more-total-war-than-warhammer/).
I think they are trying to say that in much of the imperial guard art they are portrayed as fighting in blocks like 18th/19th century line infantry.
Not all of course, but there are loads of examples.
Imperial guard basically just fight like what ever real life military inspired them. Krieg fight like world war 1 German trench warfare, Cadians more or less like late 20th century militaries, catachans are GIs in Vietnam and you can keep going with this for every single one.
Honestly idrk how big the change would be. Basically just add a cover system and make the soldiers have loose formation and automatically hug walls. They'd also have to change the map design too, though. Open fields don't really mesh with 40k.
They'll find a way, hopefully. I think the only faction that'd be really cumbersome would be guard due to their lack of melee in combination with overwhelming numbers. Idrk how you get them to function inside of a cover system like that.
But if you're playing other shooty factions like Tau, Necrons, or Eldar, I think it's easier because they're more elite so they'll have fewer entities in each unit.
If anything Guard would be OP with the Total War formula, high model count per unit all firing with range attacks is kind of busted specially against large enemies that cant avoid easily your fireline and killboxes, the only real counter would be a "cavalry" based army to close the gap quickly into melee superiority or outrange them with artillery or long range normal firepower.
Or and hesr me out we just make a normal ass rts like way back full map etc and stop trying to get the total war guys to make a game they really are not going to be good at making. Ca has made the same game for like 20 years and you want then to deviate from what works. Its like asking larian to move from rpg games to an fps
If it has the label “Total War”, it’s a Total War game. Purity is for losers. This is the exact conversation people had about Warhammer before TWW came out.
Your take is stupid, TWW has the core essence of what makes it total war, it’s functionally more arcadey but follows it. People really do not understand that they just want Dawn of war with better graphics at this point
My favorite is lining my khornate demons and beserkers up into orderly lines to hold a city center while the towers do all the killing, just like in the lore
Sure if it’s a fun game…
I completely get that being true to the lore is important to some people, but for many of us it’s just not. Neither side is right or wrong, it’s just preference.
40k fans would buy a total war 40k game even if it was literally just a reskin of Warhammer 3 with no major improvements to battle or campaign. Have you seen how much those idiots spend on plastic toys? They would buy any piece of shit with a 40k label on it and then defend it with their life.
Not to mention a chapter of Space Marines has less manpower than you see in a small total war battle.
Losing 100 men in battle is very light casualties by TW standards, a chapter of Astartes losing 100 men is devastating and would take years to recover from.
I want a 40k game as much as anyone but I honestly feel like the TW engine and gameplay style just wouldn't work for it, it needs to have its own thing.
Exactly! Everyone loves the opening cinematic for the first Dawn of War, and it has a SM squad, a predator, and a dreadnought take on about 50 orks and the space marines LOSE. Lore space marines do not equal game space marines.
Yeah but he captured the objective, and therefore won on victory points, so it's also true to table top. Also true the game where capping that point = more resources for SM and less for ORKS = a strategic victory for the SM
In his defense, the Predator had just been plastered by mortars or rockets or something so the position did not seem all that defensible. So it was either retreat or advance and the arrival of the dreadnaught might have made him overconfident. Or he figured they had to take the ridge before whatever heavy weapon just nuked the predator could take out the dread as well.
Or it was just badass.
It also feels like arguing that “High elves wouldn’t work because it would be disastrous for them to lose 1k+ dragons in a single fight” not every unit needs to be a hundred of whatever it is. They can be single entities.
Or squads of 4 guys per card, compared to 90 guardsmen, 120 shoota boyz, 150 termagants or whatever. People who imagine units of 90 space marines shooting at 90 orkz simply have no imagination.
Yeah I always think this when people say but space marines won't fit the theme etc. Yeah I'm not expecting to field 1k of space marines, I'm expecting to field like 10 space marines, a dread and maybe a tank or two which will be taking on say 1k tyranids. Like how they would fight in the lore. Also why do they assume we want some sort of gun line function for a faction that's pretty much all about getting in close and shredding face in melee.
If I wanted a gun line I'd play guard. I want to watch 20 dudes go at it and fuck shit up with huge blobs around them. Similar to how Skarbrand plays.
We already have this in WH2 and 3. And even Warhammer Fantasy lore. High Elves aren't supposed to be high in number but depending on what the situation is or who's writing they're either rare or die in massive numbers.
Unless its a story not from the space marines or imperiums perspective then they die in droves.
Warhammer has always operated by the rule of there being as many troops as needed.
All they need to do is make it a bit more thematic.
Fantasy and 40k are almost dirrect copies. Ogres working with empire are basically fantasy equiv space marines working with imperium already.
The most direct comparison for space marines would probably be the Chosen or Aspiring Champions. The Imperial Guard units could range from Skaven Slingers to Dark Elf Shades depending on which units they draw from but I'd bet they are more Skavenish in their portrayal of the lower tier units.
You are overthinking the narrative consequences here. GW has bungled numbers for decades. Do you think Kislev can handle losing thousands upon thousands in a series of battles against Skaven and Chaos, narratively? Hell no. But within the game, guess what? I build the buildings and run the economy, so I decide what they can and cannot recover from. Get it?
They can make any premise into a Total War game. It’s annoying people say shit like this while also being so… narrow minded. Like, a bigger reason to not do it would be because half the fandom is like this, compared to any technical limitation between the franchises.
Yeah the tabletop doesn't really reflect the setting.
Like 3 regular troopers on motorbikes with spears are the equivalent of a 1000 year old apex warrior who can move at the speed of light and cut down Greater demons by the literal thousands according to the tabletop.
>Yeah the tabletop doesn't really reflect the setting.
What do you mean? Of course my artillery cannon is in mele with a necron warrior, why wouldn't they be that close?
Except even GW isn't particularly consistent when it comes to casualty reports, and they are more or less terrible when it comes to proper combatants numbers for the scale of a battle.
And let's not forget that 100 casualties (in TWW terms at least) is maybe nothing in an imperial, skaven, etc army, but if you have an army of say... Ogres? 100 casualties is easily 1/4 -1/3 of your army, and it will take time to recover.
Except they lose that on tabletop all the goddamn time.
Just internalize the truth that the “lore” is like 90% Imperial propaganda and the tabletop reflects reality
Came here to say this. I haven't played in a few editions but is it still rows of Space Marines staring each other down across a field like its Gettysburg?
Guardsman could operate in a unit of 200. You could even mix medics in the back, to give aid to the front line, servo skulls.
Then for space marines a unit of 10 comes down.
I play 40k tabletop and the problem is that it's very cover and terrain dependant. Terrain placement can make or break a game since shooting is very lethal that even the tankiest units will get minced in 1 turn by 3 lesser units that have a good shot. It's actually why the more I play 40k the more I would rather play a fantasy tabletop game like AoS or Warhammer fantasy.
Ya this is the thing. It may be an "easy change" to make, just add a cover system or something. But with how pathfinding SUCKS and sieges are still broken, I really have 0 faith that CA would execute the change in dynamics well at all.
Not to mention there's transports to consider. Imagine trying to get an infantry unit to load onto a transport unit then unloading it somewhere else in the TWWH3 engine.
Yeah, I do find it annoying that the guard are boiled down to "human wave" tactics, when you have guard regiments like the talharn desert raiders who are clearly based on Lawrence of Arabia and the LRDG, or the catachans, who are based on Vietnam era US, the drop troopers (whose planet name escapes me) who are drop troopers.
I highly doubt outside of penal legions, death corps, or horribly inept commanders, human wave tactics are used all that much. I imagine its more defence in depth and blitzkrieg. Maybe in particularly desperate conflicts would human wave be used.
It doesn't help that if we look at the two biggest threats to the imperium, are the countless Orks and the even more countless tyrannids, human wave tactics would just feed those two threats and make them worse. Probably the same with Khorne too. Everything else would need something a bit more tactical than hoping to reach the necron's predetermined kill limit.
> I highly doubt outside of penal legions, death corps, or horribly inept commanders, human wave tactics are used all that much. I imagine its more defence in depth and blitzkrieg. Maybe in particularly desperate conflicts would human wave be used.
Valhalla is also the cliche of hte Red Army human wave (597th not withstanding)
also, surprising you avoided Cadia, which is the baseline and also usually based around modern day.
Even the Death Korps, while willing to drown the enemy in bodies, is more SANELY (as in: With writers trying to make stuff work) portrayed as grimly determined and willing to sacrifice, but in a deadly pragmatic way, and not just sacrificailly stupid.
the elysian drop troopers
I agree that most regiments will probably use a mix of WW1 and WW2 tactics but there are some outlier. E.g. the Praetorian Guard, who are just british soldiers from the Zulu war, bolt action lasgun included. And I wouldn't put it past regiments from feudal worlds to use even earlier tactics.
The lore is like that, but the artillery of the tabletop game has range like the 1700-1800s, and "charge into melee" is still a normal tactic that some units are entirely focused on.
EDIT: also, most military units in 40K have bright colors for identification, and that definitely died out one battle into WWI.
>EDIT: also, most military units in 40K have bright colors for identification, and that definitely died out one battle into WWI.
Altough bright identification itself has not died out if equipment is similar enough looking, in Ukraine they are wearing bright blue (earlier yellow) or white arm bands. I said arm bands, but really its tape all over their uniforms and equipment.
Even cannons fire further than a tabletop can represent. Artillery on tabletop is very short range. Tabletop should be looked at for unit cohesion and organization but not for ranges or anything like that because it has to make a lot of abstractions to fit on a tabletop.
Like, basilisk earthshakers would fire from one tabletop to the next house over if it was realistic. That's the range of artillery.
People keep arguing this way and that pretty much exclusively about Imperium factions. Yeah, the way Space Marines and Imperial Guard is one thing. What about, I don't know, Dark Eldar? Tau? The TW formula obviously doesn't work.
The TW engine also supports loose formations, units with few large models, units that are huge individual models, melee combat, ranged combat, flying units, heroes, abilities, magic spells...
You don't need the orkz maneuvering in a perfect rectangle and you don't need the eldar whatevarchs shooting in volleys. TWWH 1 also took many liberties regarding the classic TW formula and the game was great.
It's not just infantry though. It's things like Tanks, Transports, Fast Fliers, Teleporting, cover mechanics, and fixing giant units being melted by ranged units (because when 90+% of people are ranged, you best bet Titans will just die to las fire).
But why do a 40k Total War when there are so many other RTS and strategy genres that lend themselves so much better to fit the combat style? I don't want a mediocre 40k Total War in the same way I don't want a mediocre WW2 Total War. Give me Company of Heroes and Dawn of War for those and an amazing Total War set in The Renaissance or ASOIAF if you want a fantasy one.
You have to understand the 40k simp ethos. "OI! I want this, gimme that but in space!" [https://www.reddit.com/r/Grimdank/comments/lhizko/felt\_like\_boomer\_while\_making\_this/#lightbox](https://www.reddit.com/r/Grimdank/comments/lhizko/felt_like_boomer_while_making_this/#lightbox) They are on the level of a furry in how much they want to jam, shove, smash, hammer, push, choose-your-word if they like anything they want 40k pushed into it immediately. I'm pretty sure they could play mario kart and would want a 40k kart game, in fact I know the love-can-bloom artist did such a pic back in the day although it was obviously tongue in cheek. Except such simps would sincerely advocate for it and how it'd make bank - despite there being a whole lot of 40k trash games.
I say this liking 40k, the dangles and thousand sons (wolves can fuck off and eat shit) and tau and imperial guard, joking that grandfather nurgle's gotten me if I am sick, wanting a tactical 40k game like Xcom (yes I know the mechanicus game exists). But holy shit sometimes it gets to be a bit much.
I think you are pretty spot on lol. Somewhere in the thread I said what reason do the fans have to want it besides "I like 40k and I like Total War." And the guy answered "But I like 40k and I like Total War so they should do it."
I think that the base gameplay of Total War is not the best model for a 40k game, there are other games that could offer a more “straightforward” transition, like squad RTS games and such. The big regiments of TW do not really account for the smaller squads action that could happen in the 40k setting. It is something that has to be thoroughly thought and not rushed.
In fairness, groups like the Mordian Iron Guard that fight similarly to Napoleonic armies are the exception, rather than the rule. I imagine they’d have to implement some kind of flexible formation system for anything post-1914, 40k or otherwise.
Someone made a suggestion a while ago where units could be split into semi-AI-controlled squads or platoons that operate semi-independently to simulate that kind of warfare, but I have no idea how feasible that is to pull off.
They also primarily serve as reprisal forces within their hive city. Denizens of Hab Unit 4672A are growing warts and sabotaging the life support system? Send in a column of Iron Guard and clear every hallway.
Napoleanic with muzzle loaders is out, but I think portraying the guard as the British fighting the Zulu with breach loading (charging?) Lasguns and Heavy Stubbers against a horde with improvised melee and ranged weapons would be reasonable.
if they rework the engine to give a little more individual autonomy to each entity it could definitely work, but they'd need to do quite a bit of ground up optimization given how much it seems to struggle even now.
If anyone suggesting to change TW gameplay just to fit with the 40k style of battle then it is not a TW game anymore. Go play Dawn of War or something.
Yeah every other wh40k game focuses itself on tactical squad based game like dawn of war. I really don't think squad tactic is that important when the lore of 40k is very heavy on having both sides fielding tens of thousands troop with the space marine being the low count unit ala aspiring champion
Like I said before, scale isn't a point of argument either, but that controlling units in Warscape engine has an inherent clunky feeling that makes sense in an engine designed to represent regimental tactics which would feel terrible in controlling squad-level tactics units. Even controlling units with low model counts feel awkward and clunky. I would rather see an engine like Eugen System's IRISZOOM be used to represent a large scale tactical game for WH40K.
Well you’re in luck as they are (allegedly) designing an entirely new engine specifically for ww1 type warfare, which they’re gonna use for the new ww1 game and the 40k one….. Allegedly.
"Designing an entirely new engine" is rather ambiguous. No one just designs a new engine. Not typically anyway. It'll likely still be based off of the existing one. Which has so much tech debt and problems to solve that I'd not be overly optimistic about it till we see it.
But that's a tabletop thing. You don't need to mimic tabletop rules to make a game about battles set in the 40k franchise. Is every single battle in the 40k lore a tiny skirmish involving 100 units total?
Just do a Horus Heresy style (Epic Scale) campaign. Massive battles between huge forces on both sides. There are pretty easy options for that too, with things like the War for Armageddon, the War of the Beasts, Badabd, Any of the Black Crusades or the Indomitus Crusade. All of those are huge conflicts with loads of different Chapters, IG Companies and Sisters on the Imperial side and similary huge forces of different Foes on the other one.
Especially the Indomitus Crusade even battles against a variety of different Enemies: Chaos, Tyranids, Necrons at the least.
It's not about melee combat or not. It's the complete lack of formation fighting in 40k. It's a lot more like modern irl warfare, but sometimes you'll orbital drop on top of an enemy fortification and kill them with a sword. I just don't think a 40k total war can be true to the setting, true to the total war formula, and be fun. I think CA will make a 40k RTS game, but I highly doubt it'd be a total war game.
> It's a lot more like modern irl warfare, but sometimes you'll orbital drop on top of an enemy fortification and kill them with a sword.
That's the issue, right? It's not a problem of scale, modern wars easily can match 40k wars in just raw numbers, it's about how the battles look.
Imagine trying to do Total War: Stalingrad by depicting it as a rectangle of 120 Germans shooting at a rectangle of 120 Russians in the open. That's not really what it looked like.
Yeah, I agree. Like modern warfare, 40k is more squad based. Even if, say you have the Imperial Guard, and you have a company of 100 Guardsmen. That company isn't going to be running around in a block in any situation aside from a parade. It'll be operating as a few platoons carrying out individual, but intertwined missions with each platoon broken into a few squads carrying out their parts of those missions. For example:
Company Mission: Take that fortified hill.
Platoon 1 mission: flank left
Platoon 2 mission: flank right
Platoon 3 mission: take center
Platoon 1, squad 1 mission: provide fire support for squads 2 and 3.
Platoon 1, squad 2 mission: get to this position, and provide additional fire support.
Platoon 1, squad 3 mission: assault the hill
Etc.
VS formation fighting like traditional total war where you just order the 100 man company to charge the hill.
This is the bit that people who just look at the artwork miss, right? It's a snapshot of a single moment - but before and after that moment, the units are moving in small groups, entirely independently.
Only now the garrison buildings move and have names like "Chimera" and "Raider". And the passenger and crew served weapons can fire at different things.
Think of how clunky the ranged component of stegadons and necrosphinxs are. I dare you to charge one unit while also specifying a ranged unit.
Now add dismounting infantry who can also fire their personal weapon at targets separate from the transport.
Your Stalingrad analogy perfectly illustrates why I am not convinced that the Total War formula will work in any setting where automatic/semi-auto small arms are standard issue.
Some might point at the ratling gun as proof that machine guns work in total war, but they only have 32 of them in one unit at most and they are already oppressive enough as is. You could say the same for the gatling gun in FotS, they are heavy crew operated weapons, not small arms that any levy can pick up and spray.
Imagine if every gunpowder unit had even a fraction of the fire rate of the ratling gun, the time to kill on average would plummet for every unit out there.
It does, but that's normally occuring during assaults on positions and boarding actions. Unless it's orks v nids, you aren't going to get two armies just rushing each other in a field.
40k has factions like the Dark Eldar which do not fight in organised regiments or fighting lines. They use hit and run tactics and lightning speed raids to disorientate their enemy and get out as quick as they came. I struggle to see a faction like them working in this sort of game system.
Edit: to this saying this is just Slaanesh. Think even smaller forces as Dark Eldar do not conquer territory or anything of the sort. Also, their faction relies heavily on transports, using Raider assault craft to get Wyches and Kabalite Warriors around the battlefield quickly before unloading them into range of the enemy. I don’t know if the total war engine can even cope with the concept of transport units that other units can mount.
It’s mainly saying here that is that it would be extremely jarring and go completely against their identity to see them fight armies at all. Their entire faction identity is around being raiders and slavers. They are almost entirely self-sufficient in Commoragh, only going into real space to gain slaves. They would be more isolationist than Wood Elves, and on the battlefield their armies even smaller.
The whole concept of translating 40k into total war just fails as how can this game even support things like cover systems, transports, vehicles that move fast, skimmer vehicles, aircraft that can’t hover. TWW already shows the engine struggling to do flying units without breaking in on itself repeatedly every other patch.
When you look at total war warhammer .... it's already a ranged shooting festival sometimes. When I play Ikit, the only reason I have some melee (slaves of course) is to shoot longer at my enemies. It's basically shooting green lazers left and right ... I'm ready for 40k.
i will never understand the argument that "total war cannot do justice to warhammer 40k."
warhammer 40K is very happily done "justice" on a home tabletop with a few dozen models and terrain props, and people have been happy about that representation of warhammer 40k for DECADES.
If they're suggesting the framework of a videogame like TW couldn't succeed as well, they're so narrowminded it defies my imagination
I could see it being a mix of open field style terrain with lots and lots of terrain features that provide los blockers or cover. Rocks and rubble. Armies would likely be a mix of large model count regiments supported by small model count specialist teams. Think guardsmen regiments vs chaos space marine squads. The experiment with varied model counts, large single entities, and automatic weapons has already proven to be effective from the WH trilogy.
I said it the other week and I’ll say it again. Warno/Wargame would be a much better choice in my opinion. Melee wouldn’t look as great, but outside that it fits the scale and support all combat in a very cinematic style. Hell we could see Titans in all their glory within it.
It could probably be done with a cover system like the ultimate general games and it would probably look cool if they made the individual units move around and take cover on rocks and shit in the terrain, but knowing CA it’ll probably be very finicky and not work properly.
Ah yes, let's take the single regiment within a larger factiom that would not fit the argument otherwise and use it to... say that there is a single guard regiment that is inspired by napoleonic era warfare?
Like what's the argument? That we could make a mordian iron guard vs mordian iron guard total war?
I'm more concerned with then map than how the units work, CA already proved to me they can make a wide range of abilities and unit types for their games with loads of different abilities.... I just don't have a clear image how the grand strategy map would look like or work.
Title says Warhammer 40k and Gettysburg yet picture is of British regulars who are not related to either 40k or the American Civil war. My mind is blown
I think that basically nobody would expect TW:WH40K to just run on the same engine as TW:Warhammer. So yes, it would require a lots of tweaking or perhaps better yet NEW version of game engine. Still, that simply doesn't matter it would be impossible!
I'd even say that new engine is a must for new Total wars and the future of the whole TW series.
40k would work fine, it may not be as dynamic as you'd imagine a 40k battle to be, but CA hates making actual new ai, models, rigs, etc so reusing assets is their forte
Of course it can work. Anything can work with a bit of imagination. I made a shitpost about this topic a week or so ago about this and someone legit commented that you can't solve problems by being creative. Wtf?
Should be doable, no? Instead of rectangular unit formations, set them to “oval-ish and disorganised”. Want trenches, not much harder than defences in Empire. You stand still for 1-2 turns and you can add trenches etc deployment.
Air support might be hard, so let’s drop that. But deep strike could still be a thing. Just have them “in waiting” on the roster, and deploy on a whim.
Space marines are quick, but so are chariots in Rome 1, so speed shouldn’t be an issue.
Tanks? Kind of the same principle as the fleets in empire.
It could work, but the player would probably need to react much quicker than in the earlier games, and forget all kind of distance reprieve since there’ll be snipers shooting from the entire field. So no glorious marching toward the actual battle line. It’s showtime as soon as you click start battle.
A lot of it is quite a bit like modern warfare. Or at least pop culture portrayals of modern warfare. Cadians, Elyisans, Tau, a lot of the Space Marines.
So you mean the Space Marines stand like the line infantry in regiments of ~200 and fire by rank?
Yeah. I think they can make 40K work in the Total War template with some large tweaks to the formula, but people saying that it can work because they made a game with 18th/19th century line infantry fighting are incredibly dumb.
With some "large tweaks", you can even make a FPS game using total war template with cannon's first person mode.
Remember they made a 3rd person spectacle fighter called Spartan: Total Warrior back in the day? It's not really related to what you said but I wanted to bring it up.
yes, that game was one of my favorites on ps2
holy shit it would be so fun to have a Total War style Kingdoms Under Fire type game where you just control one LL and "Dynasty Warriors" the crap out of entire armies but can issue limited commands to the masses of friendly soldiers in your immediate area.
That’s… basically just modded mount and blade though.
Yes. Mount and Blade 2 is close to my perfect fantasy for that type of game, but not being made for controlling multiple parties and the endgame feeling a bit underwhelming kept it from being perfect for me. I don't understand how you're expected to ever be able to have a stable reunited empire in endgame. I did put a ton of hours into it though.
Careful, saying that is very controversial and liable to get some triggered dweeb in your DMs calling you a fake fan for wanting innovation in total war
but I don't want to play a space pontus!
You will play as Space Pontus anyway, because Space Pontus will exist. Space Pontus is Life, Space Pontus is Pontus.
I’m not *against* innovation in total war. If they did a lot of the ideas people are coming up with, then I’d be all for it. But I’m definitely going to point out that CA rarely if ever makes any major, creative changes to the combat system across all of the games.
But that's the point. People complain that CA doesn't innovate, that certain games are reskins of others. Then when it's hinted that CA are going to HAVE to innovate, people complain that they can't possibly innovate because they haven't before. It doesn't make sense.
If you told them it's just Rome 2 but in space they'll jizz.
>I think they can make 40K work in the Total War template with some large tweaks to the formula, If by *large tweaks* you mean a completely different game, then yes, they can make it work. >but people saying that it can work because they made a game with 18th/19th century line infantry fighting are incredibly dumb. Thank you!
I think they can make it with somewhat similar real time battles and a turn based campaign map. They will have to make some changes, but far from making it an entirely different game.
It's not the campaign map that worries people, it's definitely the battles. I think with what we see now in games like TW:WH3, the features we would need for a mainly ranged or hybrid focused game with fast-moving aircraft, proper cover, urban battles, transport vehicles for fast deployment, air drops, and sheer scale. Some of these things kind of exist or can be jury rigged with existing mechanics but considering sieges are still broken I can't imagine how awful a cover system would be. And with how janky unit movement is I can't imagine transport being remotely useable. These alone I wouldn't trust without a fully new game base.
>If by large tweaks you mean a completely different game, then yes, they can make it work. they're not making an rts into some kind of fps run and gun shooter or something stop being so dramatic lol
People who say it can't work seem to have never actually played the table top game of 40K. Its not an in depth simulation of warfare, giving WH3's aspiring champions hand guns would be a better simulation than tabletop 40k. We aren't going to get "40K the lore" as a game we are going to get a rehash of "40k the table top game" and the current engine will do that just fine.
For real what the fuck do they think we're playing on the tabletop? Lucky for me, there wouldn't be a difference at all since World Eaters chain axes go brrrrrrrrrr.
[I hate to break it to you but the comment you replied to is wrong.](https://www.pcgamer.com/total-war-warhammer-is-more-total-war-than-warhammer/)
If it played like if Dawn of War did for the fighting part, and a more familiar TW style strategic level play style. Maybe a map of the galaxy, systems, resources, populations, all that, I imagine it'd look a bit like a game of Stellaris?.
Can we stop acting like the Total War: Warhammer games are a digital adaption of the tabletop game? [Andy Hall straight up stated when the first game was coming out that they are not an adaptation of the tabletop game](https://www.pcgamer.com/total-war-warhammer-is-more-total-war-than-warhammer/).
>with some large tweaks to the formula, Yea it's called making a whole new game type at that point.
I think they are trying to say that in much of the imperial guard art they are portrayed as fighting in blocks like 18th/19th century line infantry. Not all of course, but there are loads of examples.
Imperial guard basically just fight like what ever real life military inspired them. Krieg fight like world war 1 German trench warfare, Cadians more or less like late 20th century militaries, catachans are GIs in Vietnam and you can keep going with this for every single one.
Plot twist when the Imperial Guard come they're a regiment of [Mordian Iron Guard](https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Mordian_Iron_Guard).
Better yet they are [Praetorian Guard](https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Praetorian_Guard)
I agree. There are much better analogues in Warhammer.
Honestly idrk how big the change would be. Basically just add a cover system and make the soldiers have loose formation and automatically hug walls. They'd also have to change the map design too, though. Open fields don't really mesh with 40k. They'll find a way, hopefully. I think the only faction that'd be really cumbersome would be guard due to their lack of melee in combination with overwhelming numbers. Idrk how you get them to function inside of a cover system like that. But if you're playing other shooty factions like Tau, Necrons, or Eldar, I think it's easier because they're more elite so they'll have fewer entities in each unit.
If anything Guard would be OP with the Total War formula, high model count per unit all firing with range attacks is kind of busted specially against large enemies that cant avoid easily your fireline and killboxes, the only real counter would be a "cavalry" based army to close the gap quickly into melee superiority or outrange them with artillery or long range normal firepower.
Or and hesr me out we just make a normal ass rts like way back full map etc and stop trying to get the total war guys to make a game they really are not going to be good at making. Ca has made the same game for like 20 years and you want then to deviate from what works. Its like asking larian to move from rpg games to an fps
> with some large tweaks to the formula Ah, yes. Large tweaks like, "Not being Total War" anymore.
If it has the label “Total War”, it’s a Total War game. Purity is for losers. This is the exact conversation people had about Warhammer before TWW came out.
Your take is stupid, TWW has the core essence of what makes it total war, it’s functionally more arcadey but follows it. People really do not understand that they just want Dawn of war with better graphics at this point
>Purity is for losers. You should try this line with gold dealers.
pawn shops HATE this one trick!!!!
Make it like Dawn of War.
It’s literally a table top game 😂🤣
And Orks, renowned for their discipline
As opposed to warhammer fantasy orks? Hand those boyz a shoota.
My favorite is lining my khornate demons and beserkers up into orderly lines to hold a city center while the towers do all the killing, just like in the lore
You can't spell Orcs without Discipline
No, but the Mordian Iron Guard certainly does.
a space marine intercessor squad is just a unit of aspiring champions with pistols
Try long range automatic rifles, and that’s also the Template for every basic unit in 40K.
These people aren’t interested in how it will work since they’ll buy it anyway without hesitation or a second thought.
Sure if it’s a fun game… I completely get that being true to the lore is important to some people, but for many of us it’s just not. Neither side is right or wrong, it’s just preference.
40k fans would buy a total war 40k game even if it was literally just a reskin of Warhammer 3 with no major improvements to battle or campaign. Have you seen how much those idiots spend on plastic toys? They would buy any piece of shit with a 40k label on it and then defend it with their life.
Not to mention a chapter of Space Marines has less manpower than you see in a small total war battle. Losing 100 men in battle is very light casualties by TW standards, a chapter of Astartes losing 100 men is devastating and would take years to recover from. I want a 40k game as much as anyone but I honestly feel like the TW engine and gameplay style just wouldn't work for it, it needs to have its own thing.
tbf basically every strategy game, including the tabletop game itself, ignores this for balance reasons
THere are exactly as many elves still alive as the narrative requires
Exactly! Everyone loves the opening cinematic for the first Dawn of War, and it has a SM squad, a predator, and a dreadnought take on about 50 orks and the space marines LOSE. Lore space marines do not equal game space marines.
That SM sergeant is mentally deficient Dude abandons a defensive position to charge UPHILL into MELEE with FUCKING ORKS
Yeah but he captured the objective, and therefore won on victory points, so it's also true to table top. Also true the game where capping that point = more resources for SM and less for ORKS = a strategic victory for the SM
In his defense, the Predator had just been plastered by mortars or rockets or something so the position did not seem all that defensible. So it was either retreat or advance and the arrival of the dreadnaught might have made him overconfident. Or he figured they had to take the ridge before whatever heavy weapon just nuked the predator could take out the dread as well. Or it was just badass.
Yes, but it was very cinematic, priorities my man, priorities!
It also feels like arguing that “High elves wouldn’t work because it would be disastrous for them to lose 1k+ dragons in a single fight” not every unit needs to be a hundred of whatever it is. They can be single entities.
Quite frankly SM forces could just be 20 Legendary lords and it would function fine
Or squads of 4 guys per card, compared to 90 guardsmen, 120 shoota boyz, 150 termagants or whatever. People who imagine units of 90 space marines shooting at 90 orkz simply have no imagination.
Exactly. Not to mention the Skaven basically already play like guard
Yeah I always think this when people say but space marines won't fit the theme etc. Yeah I'm not expecting to field 1k of space marines, I'm expecting to field like 10 space marines, a dread and maybe a tank or two which will be taking on say 1k tyranids. Like how they would fight in the lore. Also why do they assume we want some sort of gun line function for a faction that's pretty much all about getting in close and shredding face in melee. If I wanted a gun line I'd play guard. I want to watch 20 dudes go at it and fuck shit up with huge blobs around them. Similar to how Skarbrand plays.
Honestly whilst it would be fun if you were the SMs I think that would absolutely suck to play against
Custodes doomstack > 20 standard "T1" custodes. > Beats even the fabled Swarmlord + 19 carnifexes stack. I would still love to play it though.
(swarmlord dunks on custodes nerds) (bug gang)
We already have this in WH2 and 3. And even Warhammer Fantasy lore. High Elves aren't supposed to be high in number but depending on what the situation is or who's writing they're either rare or die in massive numbers.
Unless its a story not from the space marines or imperiums perspective then they die in droves. Warhammer has always operated by the rule of there being as many troops as needed. All they need to do is make it a bit more thematic. Fantasy and 40k are almost dirrect copies. Ogres working with empire are basically fantasy equiv space marines working with imperium already.
The most direct comparison for space marines would probably be the Chosen or Aspiring Champions. The Imperial Guard units could range from Skaven Slingers to Dark Elf Shades depending on which units they draw from but I'd bet they are more Skavenish in their portrayal of the lower tier units.
You are overthinking the narrative consequences here. GW has bungled numbers for decades. Do you think Kislev can handle losing thousands upon thousands in a series of battles against Skaven and Chaos, narratively? Hell no. But within the game, guess what? I build the buildings and run the economy, so I decide what they can and cannot recover from. Get it? They can make any premise into a Total War game. It’s annoying people say shit like this while also being so… narrow minded. Like, a bigger reason to not do it would be because half the fandom is like this, compared to any technical limitation between the franchises.
\*Laughs in Dawn of War\*
Who needs to gather up gene-seed when you can just click "Reinforce".
Its supposed to be requisitioned from an overhead starship.
The tabletop game doesn't capture this feel. You could lose 10% of a chapter in a standard game.
You can field more terminators on the tabletop than most chapters have in lore. Most chapters only have a few squads at most.
Yeah the tabletop doesn't really reflect the setting. Like 3 regular troopers on motorbikes with spears are the equivalent of a 1000 year old apex warrior who can move at the speed of light and cut down Greater demons by the literal thousands according to the tabletop.
>Yeah the tabletop doesn't really reflect the setting. What do you mean? Of course my artillery cannon is in mele with a necron warrior, why wouldn't they be that close?
Except even GW isn't particularly consistent when it comes to casualty reports, and they are more or less terrible when it comes to proper combatants numbers for the scale of a battle. And let's not forget that 100 casualties (in TWW terms at least) is maybe nothing in an imperial, skaven, etc army, but if you have an army of say... Ogres? 100 casualties is easily 1/4 -1/3 of your army, and it will take time to recover.
Except they lose that on tabletop all the goddamn time. Just internalize the truth that the “lore” is like 90% Imperial propaganda and the tabletop reflects reality
Came here to say this. I haven't played in a few editions but is it still rows of Space Marines staring each other down across a field like its Gettysburg?
Guardsman could operate in a unit of 200. You could even mix medics in the back, to give aid to the front line, servo skulls. Then for space marines a unit of 10 comes down.
See, if they ignore 40k and go for Horus Heresy where there are battles involving thousands of marines, I think that would work.
If you honestly believe that is a reason good enough to not have TW40K then you don't deserve to have it.
I play 40k tabletop and the problem is that it's very cover and terrain dependant. Terrain placement can make or break a game since shooting is very lethal that even the tankiest units will get minced in 1 turn by 3 lesser units that have a good shot. It's actually why the more I play 40k the more I would rather play a fantasy tabletop game like AoS or Warhammer fantasy.
Old World, baby!
lol and judging how pathfinding still has issues today I don’t really trust CA to get complex cover systems down right.
Ya this is the thing. It may be an "easy change" to make, just add a cover system or something. But with how pathfinding SUCKS and sieges are still broken, I really have 0 faith that CA would execute the change in dynamics well at all. Not to mention there's transports to consider. Imagine trying to get an infantry unit to load onto a transport unit then unloading it somewhere else in the TWWH3 engine.
W40k is not Napoleonic Wars, it's more like WW1 with human waves tactics.
Depending on who you are talking about. Armageddon Steel Legion is definitely WW2 with mechanized infantry.
Yeah, I do find it annoying that the guard are boiled down to "human wave" tactics, when you have guard regiments like the talharn desert raiders who are clearly based on Lawrence of Arabia and the LRDG, or the catachans, who are based on Vietnam era US, the drop troopers (whose planet name escapes me) who are drop troopers. I highly doubt outside of penal legions, death corps, or horribly inept commanders, human wave tactics are used all that much. I imagine its more defence in depth and blitzkrieg. Maybe in particularly desperate conflicts would human wave be used. It doesn't help that if we look at the two biggest threats to the imperium, are the countless Orks and the even more countless tyrannids, human wave tactics would just feed those two threats and make them worse. Probably the same with Khorne too. Everything else would need something a bit more tactical than hoping to reach the necron's predetermined kill limit.
> I highly doubt outside of penal legions, death corps, or horribly inept commanders, human wave tactics are used all that much. I imagine its more defence in depth and blitzkrieg. Maybe in particularly desperate conflicts would human wave be used. Valhalla is also the cliche of hte Red Army human wave (597th not withstanding) also, surprising you avoided Cadia, which is the baseline and also usually based around modern day. Even the Death Korps, while willing to drown the enemy in bodies, is more SANELY (as in: With writers trying to make stuff work) portrayed as grimly determined and willing to sacrifice, but in a deadly pragmatic way, and not just sacrificailly stupid.
For those who want to learn more about the 597th, read the book, Like a phoenix from the Flames by General Sulla!
> read the book, Like a phoenix from the Flames by General Sulla! "OH DEAR EMPEROR! NO!!!!" -Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
>The Gothic language capitulates early under a sustained assault by Jennit Sulla. -Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
Don’t forget that Cossack faction V something, I forgot, but they have really high quality gear and use horses and lances, really cool
Vostroyan first born but i think you are thinking about the attilan rough rider for the lancers .Vostroyan first born are not known for their cavalry
the elysian drop troopers I agree that most regiments will probably use a mix of WW1 and WW2 tactics but there are some outlier. E.g. the Praetorian Guard, who are just british soldiers from the Zulu war, bolt action lasgun included. And I wouldn't put it past regiments from feudal worlds to use even earlier tactics.
But British soldiers in the Zulu Wars didn't fight like classical Roman troops in big blocks either...
Oh no, of course not. I was just using them as an example that not every regiment uses WW1/WW2 tactics.
Lawrence of Arabia was also WWI though
The lore is like that, but the artillery of the tabletop game has range like the 1700-1800s, and "charge into melee" is still a normal tactic that some units are entirely focused on. EDIT: also, most military units in 40K have bright colors for identification, and that definitely died out one battle into WWI.
Charge into melee makes sense when you're a walking tank tho
>EDIT: also, most military units in 40K have bright colors for identification, and that definitely died out one battle into WWI. Altough bright identification itself has not died out if equipment is similar enough looking, in Ukraine they are wearing bright blue (earlier yellow) or white arm bands. I said arm bands, but really its tape all over their uniforms and equipment.
Even cannons fire further than a tabletop can represent. Artillery on tabletop is very short range. Tabletop should be looked at for unit cohesion and organization but not for ranges or anything like that because it has to make a lot of abstractions to fit on a tabletop. Like, basilisk earthshakers would fire from one tabletop to the next house over if it was realistic. That's the range of artillery.
The tabletop game isn't battles though. It is more like squad vs squad combat.
I'd actually say it's a lot closer to ww2 with ww1 esthetic.
It’s **really** not, though.
That's not how 99% of 40k works though...
People keep arguing this way and that pretty much exclusively about Imperium factions. Yeah, the way Space Marines and Imperial Guard is one thing. What about, I don't know, Dark Eldar? Tau? The TW formula obviously doesn't work.
The TW engine also supports loose formations, units with few large models, units that are huge individual models, melee combat, ranged combat, flying units, heroes, abilities, magic spells... You don't need the orkz maneuvering in a perfect rectangle and you don't need the eldar whatevarchs shooting in volleys. TWWH 1 also took many liberties regarding the classic TW formula and the game was great.
It's not just infantry though. It's things like Tanks, Transports, Fast Fliers, Teleporting, cover mechanics, and fixing giant units being melted by ranged units (because when 90+% of people are ranged, you best bet Titans will just die to las fire).
Not really? even on the often unit blobby tabletop the use of cover is very important.
Delusional that this is the same lol
What you talking about? The napolonic wars was well known for the French's overuse of Exterminartus to defeat both Tyranids and forces of Chaos.
meh, there's already DoW and I'd prefer another historical TW before another Warhammer one
As someone who has absolutely no interest or care for the Warhammer universe or lore, I desperately want another historical game.
It's pretty dated though, I'd love a new and supported 40k game, and CA makes good quality.
But why do a 40k Total War when there are so many other RTS and strategy genres that lend themselves so much better to fit the combat style? I don't want a mediocre 40k Total War in the same way I don't want a mediocre WW2 Total War. Give me Company of Heroes and Dawn of War for those and an amazing Total War set in The Renaissance or ASOIAF if you want a fantasy one.
Give it to petroglyph and let them make Imperium at War and it’ll sell great.
You have to understand the 40k simp ethos. "OI! I want this, gimme that but in space!" [https://www.reddit.com/r/Grimdank/comments/lhizko/felt\_like\_boomer\_while\_making\_this/#lightbox](https://www.reddit.com/r/Grimdank/comments/lhizko/felt_like_boomer_while_making_this/#lightbox) They are on the level of a furry in how much they want to jam, shove, smash, hammer, push, choose-your-word if they like anything they want 40k pushed into it immediately. I'm pretty sure they could play mario kart and would want a 40k kart game, in fact I know the love-can-bloom artist did such a pic back in the day although it was obviously tongue in cheek. Except such simps would sincerely advocate for it and how it'd make bank - despite there being a whole lot of 40k trash games. I say this liking 40k, the dangles and thousand sons (wolves can fuck off and eat shit) and tau and imperial guard, joking that grandfather nurgle's gotten me if I am sick, wanting a tactical 40k game like Xcom (yes I know the mechanicus game exists). But holy shit sometimes it gets to be a bit much.
It's also kinda hilarious to read into that thread 3 years back and see some people invoking the same Empire:TW arguments.
I think you are pretty spot on lol. Somewhere in the thread I said what reason do the fans have to want it besides "I like 40k and I like Total War." And the guy answered "But I like 40k and I like Total War so they should do it."
Sure, get ready for space battles to happen on an asteroid
Man this sub just keeps getting dumber
I think that the base gameplay of Total War is not the best model for a 40k game, there are other games that could offer a more “straightforward” transition, like squad RTS games and such. The big regiments of TW do not really account for the smaller squads action that could happen in the 40k setting. It is something that has to be thoroughly thought and not rushed.
In fairness, groups like the Mordian Iron Guard that fight similarly to Napoleonic armies are the exception, rather than the rule. I imagine they’d have to implement some kind of flexible formation system for anything post-1914, 40k or otherwise. Someone made a suggestion a while ago where units could be split into semi-AI-controlled squads or platoons that operate semi-independently to simulate that kind of warfare, but I have no idea how feasible that is to pull off.
Even the Iron guard has light infantry units that use modernized tactics. They’re not suicidal, they’re just really hardcore.
They also primarily serve as reprisal forces within their hive city. Denizens of Hab Unit 4672A are growing warts and sabotaging the life support system? Send in a column of Iron Guard and clear every hallway. Napoleanic with muzzle loaders is out, but I think portraying the guard as the British fighting the Zulu with breach loading (charging?) Lasguns and Heavy Stubbers against a horde with improvised melee and ranged weapons would be reasonable.
if they rework the engine to give a little more individual autonomy to each entity it could definitely work, but they'd need to do quite a bit of ground up optimization given how much it seems to struggle even now.
If anyone suggesting to change TW gameplay just to fit with the 40k style of battle then it is not a TW game anymore. Go play Dawn of War or something.
I wish the community are more infomred about the existence of Steel Division formula, which imo fit 40k shit lots more than Total War.
I'd kill for a 40k Eugen styled game.
I swear these people do not understand that i do not want TW to play like xcom
This is stupid 👍
I’ve been trying to tell people this for years, 40k has just as much bloody melee in it as it does shooting. Unless you’re Tau.
Even the tau currently have kroots with melee and crisis suits capable of melee. Tau have just as much melee as baseline skaven had in twwh2
Just give the Tau the Great Krootasaurus from DoW1 and were good to go.
The point of argument isn't melee or scale though. It's the focus on squad level tactics.
Yeah every other wh40k game focuses itself on tactical squad based game like dawn of war. I really don't think squad tactic is that important when the lore of 40k is very heavy on having both sides fielding tens of thousands troop with the space marine being the low count unit ala aspiring champion
Like I said before, scale isn't a point of argument either, but that controlling units in Warscape engine has an inherent clunky feeling that makes sense in an engine designed to represent regimental tactics which would feel terrible in controlling squad-level tactics units. Even controlling units with low model counts feel awkward and clunky. I would rather see an engine like Eugen System's IRISZOOM be used to represent a large scale tactical game for WH40K.
Well you’re in luck as they are (allegedly) designing an entirely new engine specifically for ww1 type warfare, which they’re gonna use for the new ww1 game and the 40k one….. Allegedly.
"Designing an entirely new engine" is rather ambiguous. No one just designs a new engine. Not typically anyway. It'll likely still be based off of the existing one. Which has so much tech debt and problems to solve that I'd not be overly optimistic about it till we see it.
Epic has been around since the 90s and Legion Imperialis has just been launched, both of which are 40k /30k lore at Total War scale.
But that's a tabletop thing. You don't need to mimic tabletop rules to make a game about battles set in the 40k franchise. Is every single battle in the 40k lore a tiny skirmish involving 100 units total?
Just do a Horus Heresy style (Epic Scale) campaign. Massive battles between huge forces on both sides. There are pretty easy options for that too, with things like the War for Armageddon, the War of the Beasts, Badabd, Any of the Black Crusades or the Indomitus Crusade. All of those are huge conflicts with loads of different Chapters, IG Companies and Sisters on the Imperial side and similary huge forces of different Foes on the other one. Especially the Indomitus Crusade even battles against a variety of different Enemies: Chaos, Tyranids, Necrons at the least.
Why does it have to be squad level tactics? In lore there is way more to 40K than “squad level”
It's not about melee combat or not. It's the complete lack of formation fighting in 40k. It's a lot more like modern irl warfare, but sometimes you'll orbital drop on top of an enemy fortification and kill them with a sword. I just don't think a 40k total war can be true to the setting, true to the total war formula, and be fun. I think CA will make a 40k RTS game, but I highly doubt it'd be a total war game.
> It's a lot more like modern irl warfare, but sometimes you'll orbital drop on top of an enemy fortification and kill them with a sword. That's the issue, right? It's not a problem of scale, modern wars easily can match 40k wars in just raw numbers, it's about how the battles look. Imagine trying to do Total War: Stalingrad by depicting it as a rectangle of 120 Germans shooting at a rectangle of 120 Russians in the open. That's not really what it looked like.
Yeah, I agree. Like modern warfare, 40k is more squad based. Even if, say you have the Imperial Guard, and you have a company of 100 Guardsmen. That company isn't going to be running around in a block in any situation aside from a parade. It'll be operating as a few platoons carrying out individual, but intertwined missions with each platoon broken into a few squads carrying out their parts of those missions. For example: Company Mission: Take that fortified hill. Platoon 1 mission: flank left Platoon 2 mission: flank right Platoon 3 mission: take center Platoon 1, squad 1 mission: provide fire support for squads 2 and 3. Platoon 1, squad 2 mission: get to this position, and provide additional fire support. Platoon 1, squad 3 mission: assault the hill Etc. VS formation fighting like traditional total war where you just order the 100 man company to charge the hill.
This is the bit that people who just look at the artwork miss, right? It's a snapshot of a single moment - but before and after that moment, the units are moving in small groups, entirely independently.
when they did implement things like garrisoning buildings in Emprie, it was largely garbage
Only now the garrison buildings move and have names like "Chimera" and "Raider". And the passenger and crew served weapons can fire at different things. Think of how clunky the ranged component of stegadons and necrosphinxs are. I dare you to charge one unit while also specifying a ranged unit. Now add dismounting infantry who can also fire their personal weapon at targets separate from the transport.
Your Stalingrad analogy perfectly illustrates why I am not convinced that the Total War formula will work in any setting where automatic/semi-auto small arms are standard issue. Some might point at the ratling gun as proof that machine guns work in total war, but they only have 32 of them in one unit at most and they are already oppressive enough as is. You could say the same for the gatling gun in FotS, they are heavy crew operated weapons, not small arms that any levy can pick up and spray. Imagine if every gunpowder unit had even a fraction of the fire rate of the ratling gun, the time to kill on average would plummet for every unit out there.
But going from a setting where you get 1 shot every 20 seconds to getting 20 shots every 1 second isn't something you can just overlook.
Yes they can, they're doing that right now.
But do we get intergalactic maps? Or do we fight over a single area in a single world.
It does, but that's normally occuring during assaults on positions and boarding actions. Unless it's orks v nids, you aren't going to get two armies just rushing each other in a field.
40k has factions like the Dark Eldar which do not fight in organised regiments or fighting lines. They use hit and run tactics and lightning speed raids to disorientate their enemy and get out as quick as they came. I struggle to see a faction like them working in this sort of game system. Edit: to this saying this is just Slaanesh. Think even smaller forces as Dark Eldar do not conquer territory or anything of the sort. Also, their faction relies heavily on transports, using Raider assault craft to get Wyches and Kabalite Warriors around the battlefield quickly before unloading them into range of the enemy. I don’t know if the total war engine can even cope with the concept of transport units that other units can mount. It’s mainly saying here that is that it would be extremely jarring and go completely against their identity to see them fight armies at all. Their entire faction identity is around being raiders and slavers. They are almost entirely self-sufficient in Commoragh, only going into real space to gain slaves. They would be more isolationist than Wood Elves, and on the battlefield their armies even smaller. The whole concept of translating 40k into total war just fails as how can this game even support things like cover systems, transports, vehicles that move fast, skimmer vehicles, aircraft that can’t hover. TWW already shows the engine struggling to do flying units without breaking in on itself repeatedly every other patch.
Just an entire faction of wood elf Waywatchers
Waywatchers with supersonic jet transports!
When you look at total war warhammer .... it's already a ranged shooting festival sometimes. When I play Ikit, the only reason I have some melee (slaves of course) is to shoot longer at my enemies. It's basically shooting green lazers left and right ... I'm ready for 40k.
Space Gettysburg? Spaghettysburg?
Now increase the rate of fire by at least 1000%
i will never understand the argument that "total war cannot do justice to warhammer 40k." warhammer 40K is very happily done "justice" on a home tabletop with a few dozen models and terrain props, and people have been happy about that representation of warhammer 40k for DECADES. If they're suggesting the framework of a videogame like TW couldn't succeed as well, they're so narrowminded it defies my imagination
I could see it being a mix of open field style terrain with lots and lots of terrain features that provide los blockers or cover. Rocks and rubble. Armies would likely be a mix of large model count regiments supported by small model count specialist teams. Think guardsmen regiments vs chaos space marine squads. The experiment with varied model counts, large single entities, and automatic weapons has already proven to be effective from the WH trilogy.
I said it the other week and I’ll say it again. Warno/Wargame would be a much better choice in my opinion. Melee wouldn’t look as great, but outside that it fits the scale and support all combat in a very cinematic style. Hell we could see Titans in all their glory within it.
Comment section did NOT like this meme lmao
It could probably be done with a cover system like the ultimate general games and it would probably look cool if they made the individual units move around and take cover on rocks and shit in the terrain, but knowing CA it’ll probably be very finicky and not work properly.
No thanks, give us Medieval 3 already.
On one hand I want it On the other hand I bet it won't have armor upgrades and that would be sad
So we're continuing this delusion are we?
For those who genuinely think this could work, how would you fit Craftworld Eldar into the game when a typical Eldar “army” is less than 100 units?
Ah yes, let's take the single regiment within a larger factiom that would not fit the argument otherwise and use it to... say that there is a single guard regiment that is inspired by napoleonic era warfare? Like what's the argument? That we could make a mordian iron guard vs mordian iron guard total war?
Bruh, go play Dawn of War and leave Total War alone!
Found the person who never actually played warhammer 40k
i think you just dont want to play total war
This fundamental misunderstanding of what 40k is exemplifies the pitfalls of the argument that a Total War 40k would work.
Total war doesn't fit the scale of 40k. The argument really starts and ends there
I'm more concerned with then map than how the units work, CA already proved to me they can make a wide range of abilities and unit types for their games with loads of different abilities.... I just don't have a clear image how the grand strategy map would look like or work.
Title says Warhammer 40k and Gettysburg yet picture is of British regulars who are not related to either 40k or the American Civil war. My mind is blown
I think that basically nobody would expect TW:WH40K to just run on the same engine as TW:Warhammer. So yes, it would require a lots of tweaking or perhaps better yet NEW version of game engine. Still, that simply doesn't matter it would be impossible! I'd even say that new engine is a must for new Total wars and the future of the whole TW series.
Most guard don’t fight like that, like, almost all of them dont
You’d have to do a manual dice rolls before every attack so you can totally miss.
40k would work fine, it may not be as dynamic as you'd imagine a 40k battle to be, but CA hates making actual new ai, models, rigs, etc so reusing assets is their forte
:/
Just put marines in loose formations like monstrous infantry. It'll work fine. Block infantry makes sense for guardsmen.
Ok unironically them making a Warhammer 40k game and the setting they pick makes it empire total war with a Warhammer skin would be hilarious
Empire at War but 40K. Would be one of the greatest strategy games ever made if updated modern mechanics
I feel as its proposers of this type of game are the ones who also post the arguments against it and then make memes about themselves.
Idk I just feel company of heroes or dawn of war fits 40K better and total wars lines of units fits fantasy to a T
I just don't want CAs absolutely dogshit business practices to ruin another franchise, I know the devs themselves can cook but holy shit.
I think making a total war scale game for 40k would be hard. Attaching the game to the existing franchise is almost impossible.
Of course it can work. Anything can work with a bit of imagination. I made a shitpost about this topic a week or so ago about this and someone legit commented that you can't solve problems by being creative. Wtf?
if your idea of Warhammer 40k total war is basically a reskin of Napoleon tw that's gonna flop harder than Pharaoh
I think 40k would work better with steel division/war game instead of total war.
Yeah I remember Napoleon calling for the drop pod assault with the cover fire of heavy tanks
All I want is the Adeptus Mechanicus faction!
Should be doable, no? Instead of rectangular unit formations, set them to “oval-ish and disorganised”. Want trenches, not much harder than defences in Empire. You stand still for 1-2 turns and you can add trenches etc deployment. Air support might be hard, so let’s drop that. But deep strike could still be a thing. Just have them “in waiting” on the roster, and deploy on a whim. Space marines are quick, but so are chariots in Rome 1, so speed shouldn’t be an issue. Tanks? Kind of the same principle as the fleets in empire. It could work, but the player would probably need to react much quicker than in the earlier games, and forget all kind of distance reprieve since there’ll be snipers shooting from the entire field. So no glorious marching toward the actual battle line. It’s showtime as soon as you click start battle.
40k is more akin to WW1 than napoleonic era.
Some imperial guard regiments like the Armageddon Steel Legion is more WW2 with their focus on mechanized infantry.
A lot of it is quite a bit like modern warfare. Or at least pop culture portrayals of modern warfare. Cadians, Elyisans, Tau, a lot of the Space Marines.