germanicus
Junior Strategist
No jokes round ear...
Posts: 358 
|
Post by germanicus on Dec 21, 2018 7:49:56 GMT
Could this work?!
Sure, Warhammer Fantasy Battle is a bit of a different beast, but the transition would be just as easy/difficult, I think, and TW:WH2 is rated very highly, so CA would have the know how to adapt WMH, IMO.
I've got my own thoughts on how the TT mechanics could translate in battle mode, but I'm curious as to what you folks think of it...
|
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Dec 21, 2018 8:11:31 GMT
It's definitely something I would be interested to try. And it can't be worse than Tactics, so there's that... PS: you got my hopes up that this was a thing and I just missed it. Now I'm sad  |
|
germanicus
Junior Strategist
No jokes round ear...
Posts: 358
|
Post by germanicus on Dec 21, 2018 8:36:21 GMT
PS: you got my hopes up that this was a thing and I just missed it. Now I'm sad Sorry, mate... just had lots of WMH and TW on my mind (recently subscribed to LegendOTW on YT and listening to my gaming group gush over the Skorne update and being jealous of those with Dawnmowers etc.) so the idea had to gnaw itself into my skull at some point. -_- In all honesty, I don't think it'll happen any time soon, though... :/ |
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Dec 21, 2018 13:57:36 GMT
Actually, this sort of makes me wonder: for a game about all it war between many large nations, there's surprisingly little available to play this "setting" on a grand scale. I'm very surprised there isn't a boardgame or computer game that lets you do strategy in the Iron Kingdoms on a grand scale.
Unique aspects: Jacks, beasts, dragons, trains, warcasters...
It's sad to me that therec isn't something like this. Even if it was just a simple hex based game like Slitherine often makes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Dec 21, 2018 14:07:12 GMT
It's because the mechanics are too thorough to manage at higher model numbers. As soon as you reach average Warhammer Fantasy Battles numbers on the tabletop, one is usually running Unbound, the WMH equivalent of Apocalypse.
Total War COULD manage it (the biggest slog is the emphasis on model interaction as opposed to Warhammer's unit interactions), but it would be emphasizing more on units and solo interactions far more than the tabletop does. That would actually more match the reality of Immoren's fluff where you have whole brigades being supported by one or two Warcasters with Jack Marshals controlling the majority of the Jacks assigned to the unit (at least, for Cygnar, any way). The Warcasters would be the ones acting like the Lords/Generals of Total War, but the Focus/Fury management would be one of the real challenges to manage the balance of in a real time atmosphere.
|
|
|
|
Post by michael on Dec 21, 2018 16:32:17 GMT
Tactics really should have been that action RPG they first teased in 2009.
There was already a stellar tactical version of this game; it’s called Warmachine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Dec 21, 2018 17:27:28 GMT
But Warmachine not did exist in video game format before Tactics (aside from Vassal). It is actually easier sticking to a turn-based system when converting a tabletop game to video. You get to keep most of the mechanics in play. It becomes a challenge when you have to alter aspects to suit a real-time atmosphere, such as the Focus mechanic.
When Warhammer: Total War and Dawn of War were created, they had to make alterations. One consideration was attack rate versus power. In a turn-based atmosphere, the attack rate is set to the turn, but in real-time, is it going to be an attack every 5 seconds, or every 2?
With Focus, does it replenish at a steady rate, or does it just refuel after a specific time? How do you deal with micro-managing attributing Focus to your Jacks in block amounts? Do you restrict on a case-by-case basis, or do you limit Focus attributing to a timer?
It gets a little easier with Fury, but not by much, as you can actively leach the Fury off of the Beasts, but you'd have to micro-manage transfers.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Dec 21, 2018 18:38:35 GMT
Not tactics type game, but grand strategy. The table top already handles tactics really well. I meant like a game simulating troop movements and battles along the Khadoran border, for example. Combat at an epic scale, like Warhammer Armageddon. All the stuff the table top is bad at or doesn't even touch.
|
|
boozy
Junior Strategist
Posts: 429
|
Post by boozy on Dec 21, 2018 21:49:59 GMT
You guys apparently like the completely opposite stuff in TW games than I.
Immoren is rich in lore, and fairly detailed maps. I always loved the aspect involving clerics and inquisitors, merchants, assassins, diplomats, and non-combat maneuverings. The Iron Kingdoms and Immoren at large are primed for that, and much easier to develop.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Dec 22, 2018 3:21:32 GMT
You guys apparently like the completely opposite stuff in TW games than I. Immoren is rich in lore, and fairly detailed maps. I always loved the aspect involving clerics and inquisitors, merchants, assassins, diplomats, and non-combat maneuverings. The Iron Kingdoms and Immoren at large are primed for that, and much easier to develop. Which is why I'm not focusing on it as a difficulty. The strategic situation is fairly easy to setup in comparison, and the only real questions on it are how to organize locations and their development.
I've played Shogun: Total War (the original) and I've played Warhammer: Total War. I've also played Warlords, every edition of Civilization (even the first old school on a 5 1/4" floppy), every edition of Master of Orion, Sword of the Stars, all 3 Warcraft games, Sword of the Stars, all but a couple Command & Conquer games, Emperor: Battle for Dune, Total Annihilation, Supreme Commander, 3 of the 4 Homeworld games, and few dozen other strategy games with both turn-based and real-time aspects whose names have been lost to time. I say that just so you're aware of the backgrounds of considerations I am coming from.
What makes the Total War series rather unique is the blend of a turn-based strategic aspect with a real-time tactical aspect. Most of the strategic aspects I could probably recreate in Civilization if I took the time to learn how to do such an extensive modification. Heck, the same could be said on the strategic side of Warhammer: Total War (people have created their own armies and units for them). However, it would be absolutely terrible at recreating the tactical aspects of Warmachine on the tactical level.
The first main question for real-time tactical is, "How do you address the Focus question on the tactical level, both in use and regeneration?" This is important because the next one that will follow it up will be, "How should the Warjacks be organized?" From there, we go to, "How will the units be organized?"
Focus determines how both your "general" will be acting on the battlefield, just like the Tabletop. Focus Regeneration will determine how quickly they can do things. Warhammer goes by giving you a base starting point at random, and it increases at random speeds due to the Winds of Magic. Warcasters' are not powered by something so fickle, so a standard regeneration rate is needed. From there, how do you manage the Power Field when the Warcaster comes under attack?
All this lays the groundwork for the next question on Warjacks, and how they will be organized. I'm not talking about Battlegroups and Marshalling here (that is a relatively minor concern and usually handled at deployment). How do you handle a Warcaster allocating Focus to them? Do you do it via commands on the Warjack? If you do you are almost treating them like Warbeasts (which is what makes Fury easier to work). Also consider how often Power Up will come in to play during the tactical part of the match. This can lead to a lot of micro-management if handled improperly (which may work well in the Korean market, actually).
From there, those considerations will be used to determine how to manage units. With most Total War games, the units are HUGE, with only a small few of WMH units' maximum size reaching the average Total War unit's base size. Do you continue that trend? Then durability of solos, Warcasters, and Warjacks will be increased. Do you keep them tabletop sized? That limits the amount of spectacle available on the map or vastly increases the demands on AI or micro-management if you want to create large armies on the field.
All of these would be in consideration if you were doing a Warcraft/C&C/Dawn of War base building game or a Total War-style limited map force because the real-time aspect asks a lot of questions a turn-based aspect does not even need to deal with.
|
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Dec 22, 2018 20:52:56 GMT
I would have Focus replenish every so often and have a control panel where you can allocate focus to your jacks. It would be such that if you didn’t change it it would just refresh how much focus you gave previously. Leftover focus would improve your casters armor or be used to cast spells like in Total War Warhammer.
Then each Jack would have a menu for what to do with its focus. Make more attacks, move faster, do more damage, activists abilities, etc... The menu would be a set thing so that if you just left it alone it would be whatever you left it the previous tick.
Warlocks and beasts would be the opposite naturally. Beasts would have a menu like jacks, but it would generate fury. If fury built up too much the beast would become hostile to everything around it till it depleted all the fury. Warlocks would manage how much fury they siphoned from each beast per tick. They could spend fury to transfer damage to a beast, cast spells, etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by frumiousbandersnatch on Dec 23, 2018 7:25:42 GMT
A total war or large strategy game set in the Iron Kingdoms would be very cool, but what I've been saying for years is that someone needs to take some of the ideas and mechanics in Mount & Blade and work them into other genres and settings, specifically the WarmaHordes IP. Would love some of the action elements of M&B tuned up with the more fantastical nature of warlocks and warcasters and spell casting abilities. The huge variety of kingdoms and troops would add a lot of depth to the tactics involved in battles and the skeleton of grand strategy and campaign diplomacy, resource management, and morale are all in the game already. IK is such a cool setting, I wish was utilized to a fuller extent.
|
|
|
|
Post by crimsonguard on Dec 23, 2018 22:44:00 GMT
I think an Advance Wars type of turn based combat system works almost perfect for Warmachine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Dec 24, 2018 0:10:52 GMT
I would have Focus replenish every so often and have a control panel where you can allocate focus to your jacks. It would be such that if you didn’t change it it would just refresh how much focus you gave previously. Leftover focus would improve your casters armor or be used to cast spells like in Total War Warhammer. Then each Jack would have a menu for what to do with its focus. Make more attacks, move faster, do more damage, activists abilities, etc... The menu would be a set thing so that if you just left it alone it would be whatever you left it the previous tick. One would need to be very careful on the UI, because it can become a micromanaging nightmare which would encourage people to leave the Warjacks at home in favor of being able to react quickly with units who will generally only have a single "special action" button. That's one of the nightmares regarding the Focus system in a real-time environment. Think how many Warjacks the average Warcaster currently takes and how to allocate that energy on the fly.
There may be a way to do it, but I think it would be easier and more efficient to drop the Focus mechanic as it is on the tabletop and make it a reverse Fury system, which would actually better match the fluff on how Focus works (i.e. the Warcaster concentrating power when the action is taken rather than pre-loading the Warjack's 'battery'). This would allow for the easier use of actions and minimize the load on the player.
|
|
