Total Warhammer: Fantasy Combat

FE83F65B5841C6C99CFB4F9C63FE25ABE5314877 (1920×1080)
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.
24508C678CC8D359AC2B771EAF16C012F347D2DD (1920×1080)
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.
A9B00D9A68799AECEFF81773CBDE4144E829E5E5 (1920×1080)
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.
FD7D21422B0C88391B5BC9A83634881FFD7DC507 (1920×1080)
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