Time Played to Beat Two Campaigns: 66 Hours
For most games, the articles
on Awkward Mixture appear in the order they were
played. Total War: Warhammer was the extended exception. I
beat the Empire campaign in March of 2019, and the Dwarf campaign by
June of the same year, but I delayed writing this article. I planned
to complete more of Warhammer's seventeen factions, but the
moment has arrived to admit that further victories are unlikely.
I've played six of the
thirteen games in the Total War series, and would rank them;
1)Medieval II, 2)Rome, 3)Empire, 4)Shogun, 5)Warhammer, 6)Shogun 2.
An entirely useless fact I discovered while writing this article: the
series started with the location preceding the series title, like
Shogun: Total War, but flipped in 2011 to Total War: Shogun
2, and has retained the latter format ever since.
For the sake of brevity,
this article unfairly assumes the reader has played another game from
the Total War Series. This may be a disservice to newer
gamers, yet most of the criticisms leveled in this article are
comparison complaints related to the other Total War games, with only
a few relating the series as a whole.
And yet the most critical
assessment of Warhammer is that which applies to the entire
series: the computer is abysmally unable to formulate any tactical
plan except a frontal assault, and vaguely incapable of implementing
any strategy in the campaign. Despite these failures, the Total
War series has always offered an experience other games
haven't been able to replicate.
The most obvious errors
appear on the battlefield. While the AI demonstrates a basic
proficiency on some maneuvers, like harassing the flanks with
cavalry, it fails at tactical thinking. It never considers the
impact of terrain, and will fight wherever the player takes their
position. It can't outmaneuver the player on the battlefield,
allowing the player to claim an advantageous location. The enemy
only has two tactical plans, a straightforward charge at the player,
and a stationary defensive position. For the latter, the enemy waits
to receive the player's attack, only moving to reorder its formation
to face the player. It will not seek for a superior defensive
position if the player outmaneuvers it. For the former, the AI
brings its strength against the player's strongest position, a
tactical blunder. It's assault includes all of its melee units,
including the most valuable, the leader. Total War has
always incorporated a morale mechanic on the battlefield, and every
division, including enemies, displays a morale bar above its head.
When a unit's bar empties, it flees. Many factors contribute to a
unit's bar, including, but not limited to, how many soldiers have
died, how tired it is, who it is fighting, whether it is flanked, how
its other allied divisions are doing, and whether the army's leader
is dead or alive.
The last is critically
important, especially for the Vampire faction, but the AI runs their
leader directly into battle in their massive assault. Initially it
doesn't seem like a terrible idea, as Hero Units are incredibly
powerful and impact the sway of battle more than a hundred men. On
the other hand, its the worst mistake the computer can execute. Even
a novice player will eventually recognize the AI's blunder and
congregate their best units, including their own collection of Hero
Units, upon the enemy's leader. This alone can secure victory, but
with the computer's many liabilities, players may find it possible to
win when outnumbered two to one.
Total War:
Warhammer includes other tactical failings. The tactical map,
which zooms the player overhead and allows the player to view the
battlefield from a bird like vantage, with divisions displayed with
symbols, looks cools, but since it can't be rotated, is
disappointingly useless. Another weakness of Warhammer is
it's inability to assign the correct label to the conclusion of each
battle. For one battle I deployed 905 soldiers against 1209
monsters, and the final result left me with 459, to the enemy's zero.
The game labeled this a Pyrrhic Victory, and I don't think the
developers know what this word means. For another battle I started
with 1444 men, and the enemy had 2470 warriors, but the final result
left me with 1041, and the enemy with 651. Warhammer called
this a Close Victory. I don't believe the game adds a bonus or
penalty depending on the label the game assigns the battle, but if it
does I am retroactively upset.
The biggest flaw of Total
War: Warhammer is different than the others I was able
to catalog and name. This defect isn't one mechanic, but a
collection of different interlocking interactions. It's how this
collection generates the flow of battle. It's where the enemy
charges at your lines with the majority of his forces, but the battle
swirls rapidly as units break, and retreat, reinforcements are used
to fill the gaps, and then the fleeing units are rallied and return
to the lines. At least that's how it should be, but Warhammer
feels frustratingly solid. A single charge devolves into long drawn
out melees which eventually result in one side winning or losing.
There is very little back and forth, and it seems like Warhammer
hinders the player's ability to maneuver successfully. Battles are
won more on the overall strength of the armies, with a single clash,
than intelligence and creativity.
One of the biggest selling
points of Warhammer, compared to the previous Total War
games, was the variety of Factions, each of which includes its own
units, technology, goals, and unique mechanics. They raise resources
differently and even own cities differently. Warhammer debuts
a unique city mechanic which impacts the strategic landscape. Cities
are one of four types: mountain, plains, arctic, and forest. Each
faction can only own cities in one type. While this creates a unique
experience, because one will always have neighbors (unless the player
razes cities they can't occupy), it's odd because it often seems as
if there are multiple games occurring side by side. The Dwarves and
Orcs have their war, and neither race interacts much with the many
Human-like factions or Elves. This may be “historically”
accurate for the Warhammer universe, but detracted from the
overall experience.
While there are seventeen
playable factions, they are composed of ten different races. Using
these two components Warhammer creates a unique system to
absorb weaker factions of the same race. It's a strong and wonderful
mechanic because it allows the player to expand peacefully. The
interactions between these factions and races allows for interesting
simulations which don't appear in other Total War
games. Unfortunately the game suffers from an inferior interface,
and a diplomatic screen which is cluttered and ineffective.
In Conclusion, Total
War: Warhammer expands
the formula by including a variety of factions and races which allows
for greater variety and versatility. The number of units, mechanics,
and goals is vast, which offers great replayability. But the way
they are implemented allows for only certain interactions, specific
fights between specific factions that happen every time. And
Warhammer suffers from the same problems which have plagued the Total
War series since the beginning: an incompetent AI which loses battles
it should win easily. Even the battles seem like they are missing
some of the excitement of earlier games, with a stodgy, rigid
feeling. At the end of two campaigns and a few unfinished attempts,
Total War: Warhammer is fine example of the genre, if not as good as
some of its predecessors.
Recent:
Relevant:
Comments
Post a Comment