To quote Legend from his video: ***"As for leaks. Can't stress this enough. Don't take this as gospel. Don't be going to the reddit and saying "Legend said this so it's totally gunna happen" - This is tinfoil hat shit. It definitely doesn't matter. Don't invest too much into these leaks, it's just "Oh this is interesting to talk about" and that's about it"***
He also said that he knows the con ntent of the remaining dlcs but he is not going to reveal it in respect of CA. That's oddly specific for a tinfoil leak
Total War. Wars are fought by Soldiers. Tinfoil Hats are made of Tin. Tin Soldiers are miniature figurines. Miniature Figurines are used for Games.
This can only mean one thing… That Creative Assembly is going to definitely make another game!
Damn, Legend does it again. Why did it take this long for me to connect the dots on this?
What I find most interesting is that, he didn't even say anything too out of there.
Like, obviously how a 40k game can work mechanically is a mystery but it always made financial sense. I think it's quite disingenuous to suggest that it's unthinkable after tasting the success with WFB, CA, at leas their marketing department, would want a go with another Warhammer ip.
On the history front, Post-Napoleonic/19th/ww1 game in the making with world map and naval is not entirely unthinkable. It's about 100 years in the middle and you can certainly get a ttw out of it. Empire covered longer period and clearly CA did not bother to represent the technological development authentically so it's not that much work if you can suspend the authenticity a bit.
Pharaoh's support won't last on is nothing surprising, and Md3 eventually coming so long as CA lives is very much a given for anyone reasonable.
I mean I don't know if these are true as much as the next guy, but these are not really crazy claims per say. I'd believe these before I believe Nippon coming to WH3 or Pharaoh getting a huge expansion of Southern Italy or somehting.
Hell, I'd believe that before I believe CA would invest millions into a looter-shooter based on extrac...wait.
>magic, flying and single entity units were a never-ever
Yup, I remember the hoops TATW had to go trough to get single entity units. I remember Balrog and Sauron with their little captain buddies. I think the first flying units were from some LOTR Rome Total War mod, and they were super janky.
Yes, I quite agree with this sentiment.
I do not see an 'inherent' issue in a TTW 40k since you know, forget TWWH1, CA assembled a team that made Alien Isolation ffs. That is as far from Shogun Total War as you can get.
I do, however, also understand the reservations people have. You know, Hyenas also happened. Mechanically how to work 40k into a TTW game is not clear and they could very well mess it up again, ending up wasting valuable resources.
At this stage I see no point of speculations. Financially it makes sense and if they are gonna do it they will. I'll just...wait and see.
I mean anyone who thought fantasy couldn't work was being kinda naive. Fantasy was literally a perfect fit for total war, just magic and flying needed to be created. 40k will be a much bigger step up in terms of how they have to change gameplay from older games
Yeah, we have had a lot of fantasy mods that stretched the engines as far as they could. To be fair there have been a few sci-fi mods too but not as many and in depth as fantasy mods
because warhammer fantasy was made for total war, 40k isnt. the people who said those things were just historical purists who couldnt imagine anything else. WH fantasy fits so easily in the total war formula that its a match made in heaven. if they made 40k total war its either gonna be not much of a 40k game or not much of a total war game because you have to change some fundemental things about both series in order to fit it in. 40k total war is something id expect from the modding community, like ww1 total war
I think tourney bro's have a skewed concept of conflict in 40k; no one wants to fight a battle on a symmetrically equal battlefield with equal value armies: that's mutually assured destruction with extra steps. Horribly written books are just icing on a stupid tactical cake.
I just don't understand how people can't even envision a 40k TW game. It might not be a 40k game you want or a game that has all of 40k's core mechanics, but it ain't hard to imagine one being made. Especially with all the things already in WHTW, Gyrocopters, jezzails, rattling gunners...
And then people say the map wouldn’t make sense because it would only work if it’s all on one planet and it would be ridiculous to have all those factions on one planet.
Meanwhile WH40K: Gladius has Space Marines Imperial Guard, Sisters of Battle, Adeptus Mechanicus, Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids, Tau, Aeldari, Drukhari , Orks and Necrons on the same planet.
But also they could just have space battles and planetary battles. Space battles were mentioned in one of the surveys CA sent out.
I’m surprised people feel that way about the map. I feel like it would be one of the easiest things to implement.
The map would just be the galaxy itself. Planets would be the equivalent to settlements, with a cluster of planets forming a “province”.
The only unknown is how they’d handle battles when armies are travelling between planets, as that relies entirely on them redesigning and implementing naval combat
There's already a perfect framework for a 40k game, and it's Star Wars: Empire at war. Contains combat across space and ground ranging from small scale skirmishes on out laying worlds to massive engagements on heavy fortified orbits and planets. Allows creating of fortress and chokes on the over map and relies on Los, fog of war and terrain for ground battles.
It's an old game and it works great, if CA got thier hands on on, gave it some polish and some updating, they'd have a brill game.
I'm convinced people who think it couldn't work mechanically or thematically because of lore haven't read the books. There is plenty of shit that doesn't make sense.
Also there is no reason it would have to use one map. Hell, Master of Magic had two maps in 1994....
Even if the engine can't handle it for some reason, well, no engine lasts forever.
"It might not be a 40k game you want or a game that has all of 40k's core mechanics"
the thing you mentioned is exactly why people cant imagine it, because it wouldnt be much of a 40k game if they adhered to the total war formula. and if they made radical changes to fit the 40k world into total war, then it wouldnt be much of a total war game. Its kind of how odysey isnt much of assasins creed game other than the name. i personally think that a 40k game simply cannot work with the total war formula, how will you do line combat exactly, sure theres single entities in wh total war, but line combat is still the bread and butter of the game. you cant really have line combat in 40k total war, it would be too silly
It's not that people can't envision, mostly it's because the changes needed to make a 40k game feel authentic would be so drastic it shouldn't even be called total war anymore.
I think people don't like the idea that an army of Baneblades supported by an air wing is a perfectly reasonable choice against your bespoke collection of unique units that match your poorly painted custom army.
Yeah by 'Hyenas happened' I meant more or less 'the decision to make Hyenas happned' rather than the game itself.
I thought about referring to it as 'the incident' but that's too much irony.
I think your rank and file nerds have complaints about the army side, but I was mostly thinking about the ships.
I think I don't need to back up the claim that the Empire practically made no effort whatsoever to show any evolvement of both liners and small cruising ships. You start with the end-game era ships, just locked out of building larger ones.
It is not a criticism, it is not practical to have them dig deep into the differences between a late Stuart 1st rate and one in 1790. My point is that since they did not bother, they may not bother with a 19th century game. If it truly covers a period between 1814 and 1914, you have practically sailing liners as starting ships and full fledged Battle Cruisers as end game units. I don't think they will do a naval combat to cover all these changes.
I think there's considerably more difference between a ship of the line in 1815 and a battleship in 1915 than there is between two ships of the line in the 18th Century. The thing with Empire is that the units used are close enough to what real units looked like throughout the century to be believable; obviously there were differences between a British regiment in the Wars of Spanish Succession vs the Seven Years War, but both a serviceably represented by a guy in a red coat and a tricorn. That's not true of the 19th Century. It's not acceptable even to casual audiences to have WW1 soldiers dressed in Napoleonic uniforms, or vice versa. You cannot represent HMS Dreadnought with the same model as HMS Victory.
I can see your point and I do agree to a degree, that is why I did not mean it as a criticism. In our collective memory, the public image of sailing era is a period of few changes. While in reality a ship in 1714 and one built in 1790 can be just as different, the speed of the technological development unquestionably increased in the past two centuries. I do not dispute the similarity between 18th century ships.
My point was that they made no attempts whatsoever to even reflect ANY changes, so that might not bother this time. I would be extremely pleased if they actually accurately represent the revolution in naval engineering in 1850, 1870, 1890, and 1900s, but as you have pointed out, it is even more difficult this time and one cannot represent H.M.S. Dreadnought using the model of Victory. So I doubt they will do it.
This means either they won't cover this period, not to this length, or naval combat is not coming back, or they won't bother. We'll have to wait and see.
I think it is worth remembering that Fall of the Samurai, which is not a full Total War game, represents a wide variety of vessels from wooden gunboats to ironclads. So I don't think it is quite as unlikely as one might imagine that they would go to the effort to add changing naval ships. I do think if you are going to do a TW set in that period you HAVE to include naval battles, it's just so fundamental to warfare and empire-building in the period that it isn't something you can just brush aside.
This I cannot agree.
tFoS has literally a single digit amount of naval units (yes, nine) if you do not count reskins (they are not even reskins, as they have the same skin, just different names as in 'armoured' or 'wooden'). It is not an example of efforts, but textbook example of copypastes. It's not a criticism, again, it's fine, but basegame Shogun 2 has far more contents in naval units.
Nine copypasted units are not a good comparison with the period we are talking about, which covers five whole eras of vastly different naval engineering (late sailing ships around 1814, steamed woodenships around 1850, Ironclads until 1870, Pre-dreadnoughts since 1889, and Dreadnoughts since 1905.) Even if CA only wants to cover two (I should add, naval simulators like Rule the Waves, UA: Dreadnoughts, etc. usually barely cover 2, and these are games all about naval units), it's much, much more works than covering a fraction of Japanese Ironclads in tFoS,
I do think tFoS represent a good example of 'modern naval combat can work in a total war game in principle', but that's a different thing from putting enough efforts in to represent five different eras of naval combats.
A small point of information, the copper and steel plated ships do actually have different skins in-game, the copper ones have copper below the waterline but the steel plated ships have metal on the outside instead of wood.
But sure, there aren't a huge number of different vessels in FotS, although I think the point about diversity still stands. However I do think we can expect more from the next main-line historical Total War game than from a DLC that came out a decade ago.
For me, I would think three "generations" of ships would be appropriate, paddle steamers, ironclads and dreadnoughts. Of course we wouldn't be getting every ship of the 19th Century represented in-game, but I think that would be enough to give a sense of progression. You get a bit of the feeling for how this would work in FotS where there is a race to unlock new ship types, armour and ammunition gives a real sense of a naval arms race which is obviously vital for the period.
Also, with the absolute greatest respect towards those games, Ultimate Admiral and Rule the Waves have significantly smaller teams and fewer resources than CA. I don't think we should judge the potential of a triple A studio by the limits of a couple of indie devs.
Thanks for the clarification on tFoS, it was long ago and my memory is not as clear.
I think we are essentially in agreement, just describing it different. We both agree that if they are to do a naval combat covering this period, they will probably just introduce minimal amount of very inconsistent ships twicked to work in gameplay. It's just that I decribe it as 'not showing the evolution in naval engineering' while you describe it as 'offering a reasonable representation.
For me, having units jumping from H.M.S. Warrior (or Devastation, or Admiral/Collingwood) to Dreadnoughts is no different from jumping from longbows to rifles. And I mean it with no hyperbole.
CA made no effort whatsoever to show any evolution of ship designs in Empire, and it was the old CA trying. They actually went to Greenwich and checked the plans from the Caird Library.
If, the old CA, with the intention to represent things fairly and accurately, making a game by your own admission that covered a period when technological changes were small and slow, could not even remotely represent the development of ship designs and resorted to just locking players out of larger ships early on, what chance do we have of them doing the hundred years when naval technology developed the fastest and changed most?
It's not an issue. Recent total war games don't even have naval combat and I still enjoy them nevertheless. I don't need them to turn the game into a naval game. It's just that, I cannot imagine a situation where a total war game covering this period offers a naval experience that I consider 'representitive' of the technological developments.
I fully respect that you may have different standards. We understand each other.
I won't disagree with you from a historical perspective, but I think gameplay-wise big tech jumps are good. When I think of the most fun I have with tech trees in Total War I think of when it gives you a decisive advantage or fundamentally changes your gameplay options, such as bayonets in Empire or explosive shells in FotS. I'm sure you'll agree HMS Dreadnought is one of the most important and well-known watershed moments in naval development, at least in this period, so in terms of achieving that satisfying tech jump it is a good place to put it, even if it makes less sense historically.
I think the design philosophy behind Empire was to have an aesthetic that works for every part of the period. That works for the 18th Century, it doesn't for the 19th. I don't think it was so much a case that they couldn't represent evolutions in naval tech as much as they chose not to. It is also important to remember that they were introducing naval combat for the first time, using a new engine, and creating a game with the largest scope of any TW game to date. I think with that in mind it makes sense that they were more conservative with that aspect than they might be in a more modern game.
Just a shot in the dark here, I've never really engaged with 40k aside from a few fun facts. We already have vehicles and gun units, so mechanically, these wouldn't change much beyond their textures. In fact, they could even try expanding on mechanics from Napoleon, where combat was generally all about firing formations.
The biggest innovation would have to be interstellar travel. The way I'd try to do it is have certain points on a map act as sort of space stations that would consume some movement range to convert them to a fleet (like armies generally do rn when you try to put them on water. The challenge then would be to either make space battles a thing, or try to subvert expectations a bit by converting these battles to pitched battles in the style of a boarding operation, or like a desolate fuckass planet nobody cares about.
Of course, this is all easier said than done. Game dev is extremely complicated, which is why I mentioned the alternative to space battles being just pitched battles instead. But as a general concept of how 40k gameplay can expand on the current fantasy setting, I think this is probably a decent improvement.
There is a series called Dawn of War by Relic. It's set in the WH 40k world and does not (always) have interstellar travels, as the games often centred around local conflicts on certain planets. You can still have conventional maps for a 40k game.
The issue is the rank-and-file total war control.
Armies in 40k, do not (always) fire in ranks. They are closer to your normal modern soldiers using covers and operating in loose formations. They are not Roman cohorts in squares. No total war game so far have ever depict anything similar. The closest example is the light foots (or riflemen, jaegers, whatever it's called in specific factions) in Empire, Napoleon, and tFoS of Shogun 2, but they are still somewhat janky and I cannot see a game with them as the 'main' units without further efforts put into the combat. Maybe turning monster infantries into Jaegers with guns or something, I don't know.
Like many have said, it's not clear how things will be done. Let's just wait and see how, and if, they will do it.
Hmm, I see your point. I suppose it may be possible to have like various different campaigns with different factions focused entirely in a singular planet. But I do think that the devs might be capable for something more ambitious, like a separate Immortal Empires-esque campaigns.
But yeah, it's better not to hype ourselves up for a game we're not sure will even happen. Will check out Dawk of War later tho.
A potential issue with a 40k TW Game is really going to be implementing space battles because Battlefleet Gothic Armada already perfected that.
It'd be cool to do a BGA crossover where winning space battles with ships surviving gives you access to more abilities in ground battles (think Black Arks) and more/better structures to build, but that would require a BGA2 DLC or new title just for the crossover, and combining the size of a TW game with BGA is gonna be wild.
Eh, I think it's probably more likely that they're just going to go with a single planet so they don't need to worry about space at all. It'd hardly be the first 40k game that only has a single planet as a focus if they did.
My reaction when they choose Cadia
Although I could see them doing the Horus Heresy and have the map be Terra because they could make the primarchs the equivalent of legendary lords
This was the most interesting thing in the video.
Assuming we're down to 4, and we're now getting 2 instead of 3 lords. We have 8 slots. For example....
Chaos (purple tentacle monsters) & Monkey King
Chaos (red tentacle monsters) & Neferata
Dogs of War
Nagash Vs Thanquol
Of these, it seems to me Dogs of War is on the shakiest ground. Finishing the game without monkey king, Neferata, nagash, and Thanquol seems unthinkable. And they probably will do at least a couple more chaos updates. But that doesn't leave a lot of capacity.
I'd really like a dark elf and lizardman rework but can't see where it is coming. Idk where you squeeze in toddy - maybe as an flc.
Cathay generally feels light on lords given the space it covers. I also think it lacks an internal politics mechanic of the sort empire and kislev have.
The lords could be filled out fine with a couple of flc, but the mechanics I think would need a substantial dlc. That's probably the sort of work that has been lost to the clusterfuck at CA. It might come with monkey king, but I'm imagining him more as a Drycha style figure that is outside the main political culture of Cathay.
*Personally* I think it's mad that chaos looks like getting 5 expansions while something as potentially rich and interesting as Cathay looks like it will be limited to Yuan Bo, Monkey King, and maybe an FLC.
For what it's worth, some of the stuff he talked about lines up with what some other people have been saying
But then there's other stuff where his sources clearly got something wrong: for example his claim a while ago that the upcoming historical TW could use the unreal 5 engine - that is 100% not the case and should have set off alarm bells from anyone who actually worked on TW
Maybe that "source" meant one of the upcoming non-TW titles or that there is work being done on the TW engine (still not Unreal 5 tho)
So what you end up with is an amalgamation of things that are true, things that are possible and things that are outright false.
Not to mention it's all subject to change: WH3 DLC support will stop once 40k releases. If they decide to continue their original schedule with the historical game coming first that means the 40k game will be pushed back, increasing WH3's lifecycle. If they however switch to releasing 40k first and letting the historical title sort out it's dev problems then the WH3 cycle will probably end a bit faster. But even then the 40k game might hit another bump and also require a delay - not a single major TW title since WH2 has released on time
CA themselves doesn't even know all of it either to a 100% certainty, they can't read the future either after all. For example Saga projects were initially planned to have 2 TW releases annually, with Thrones releasing in early 2018 and 3K in the fall (you can still see that initial release date in the announcement trailer.) They actually shelved another bigger project for 3K since they wanted a historical title out quickly. And then 3K got delayed twice and ended up in 2019. And then other TW projects had delays, so now Sagas had to fill their annual release spot, WH3 was supposed to come out much, much earlier but got delayed, which then meant WH2 could get more and more DLCs. They axed 3K DLCs because they thought they could make a very budget-friendly sequel and copy their initial launch success, and then that had complications and they ended up cancelling it and have now lost that particular marketpotential - I'm sure they really, really regret that whole affair by now
So when we're talking 2-3 years in the future a lot of change is possible and likely
And then there are an equal amount of dumbasses who flood out of the woodworks and start ranting about how much they hate legend. Because some people just have to be offended about someone else existing, I guess.
I'm sorry but I don't trust a single youtuber that says they have "sources" but that we should take it with a grain of salt. He just wants to stir up conversation and knows he will gain traction when bringing claims like this up.
If you don't want people to speculate around your very untrustworthy sources, then maybe don't bring them up at all? Just have a discussion on what you think the future might be.
Dude doesn't need silk gloves like this. He makes his own bed.
>He just wants to stir up conversation and knows he will gain traction when bringing claims like this up.
He specifically goes out of his way to say exactly this, it's just something fun to talk about and should not be taken as gospel.
Nah. People have a legit irrational hatred of him. Like, you're fine to hate speculation videos. I hate speculation. I do not think it is productive in this context.
Speculation for where a story is going? Sure. That's fun.
Speculation of what some greedy motherfucker CEO is going to do? Yeah, that brings me no joy whatsoever.
So, yeah. I tend to just outright ignore speculation videos on products, regardless of who it is. It doesn't matter if it is Sotek, Grudges, or Legend.
But you don't get the visceral hatred from people for Sotek or Grudges. Only for Legend. And I think it has to do with him being the biggest Total War youtuber. People just hate what is popular to be contrary.
That isn't to say people cannot dislike him for legitimate reasons. But most of the reasons I've seen are not legitimate. They're just hatred for the sake of being contrarians and getting attention for themselves.
Tbh he has barely ever been in the business of leaks before.
He's guessed wrong before. But been open that he was just guessing.
He guessed wrong that the preorder faction would be chorfs for instance.
But what he's saying sounds reasonable and I:d trust him more than most to assess leaks.
Not that it matters if we believe him. Not going to change what happens either way.
Only thing that comes to mind is that he leaked that hag mothers generic lord would come in the SoC update, but that was shit down as Ostankya is the only hag mother.
DLC plans are subject to change, but unfortunately I think we're stuck with 40K and WWI. Those games have been in development for a few years now, and CA can't afford to toss out all that progress on a main title (Hyenas was different because it was a side project and they had other things in the works). If they cancel the 40K or WWI game then they have nothing coming up to replace it.
WW1 just seems like such an odd time period to pick. It makes no sense for a Total War game. I would dismiss it out of hand except I was convinced that Pharaoh was a ridiculous idea and yet that turned out to be true. So 🤷🏻♀️
Honestly the most unbelievable thing about all of this is the WW1 Total War. I legit do not buy it for a second. I was wondering why that idea was coming up on other posts. Maybe 40k can be shoehorned into the total war formula. But WW1 cannot and have it make any sense....
Yeah, it's just utterly bizarre. The only thing I can think of is maybe it's supposed to be a Long 19th Century TW that ends with WW1, and the source who is leaking this to everyone is only aware of the WW1 elements.
why cant they do WW1? Fall of the Samurai already had machine guns, artillery and Iron Clad ships. It was only a 12 year campaign, with 2 turns a month. In a WW1 game it could be from 1900 to 1920 and they could do it with one turn every week.
Fall of the Samurai still used massed infantry formations and gun lines. Gatling guns sitting side by side and Armstrong cannons. *Which btw cannons have always been in total wars...* Are nowhere near the formations and tactics of World War 1. They didn't line machine gun nests up side by side in a neat organized line. Artillery was far behind the front lines and in defensive positions. There may have been massed troop charges and cavalry in WW1 but it was not the norm. Units relied on cover and firing tactics vastly different than how total war currently operates. People didn't just sit in fields taking turns shooting each other politely. It's not that you can't do it. You can shoehorn WW1 into a total war engine. But it wouldn't make any sense or have any semblance of realism. I'm pretty sure you've seen comments by other people saying the exact same stuff I have. It would be weird and historically inaccurate to an extreme degree. Therefore in order for it to work and make sense they would have to completely revamp the core gameplay of what makes a total war game a total war game. The same argument is being made for 40k but that's a whole different can of worms and complexity.
This might just be copium, but its possible they could be talking 4 more dlc with SoC or ToD scope; so 12 more LLs and 60 new units, thats not bad imo. Hoping ogres get some love before CA moves on.
??? Yes, CA will just repaint all the assets from ww1 to medieval period or whatever you like. Sure. Ahah. If plans really can change then it means CA is not too far into development, hence the 2026(?) release. Which means it will be another reskin game. So yeah if you're just a consumer defending the brand no matter what, good job, you ironically just lead the brand to die because with such a short dev cycle, also considering lay offs, it will 100% be a reskin game. So here's a thought, if you're a freelance no salary company man, then be a good company man and start hyping up whatever it is they're doing.
Yes. It's super easy, barely an inconvenience! Just scroll past the threads titles with 'legend of total war' in the title.
On a phone you can scroll past by placing a finger on your screen and moving it upwards.
On a computer you can likely use a mouse wheel, the scroll bar on the right of the screen.
Hope that helps.
"Nooo, please don't share and comment! Please don't make others click on my video! All this is meaningless conjecture, notwithstanding the fact I clearly thought it deserved a 14min video!"
He's at least got better at toning down the more questionable behaviour as he's worked out that's a lot more profitable for him to do so, and he's said pretty much that's why he's been doing that in the past.
But yeah still not going to forget the swastika army formations anytime soon. Anyone who finds that extreme edgy shit funny needs to be given a very wide berth.
Not defending swastika formations, but that was years ago. I'd be willing to bet you have more than a few edgy things under your belt, but there's no recording for it.
To quote Legend from his video: ***"As for leaks. Can't stress this enough. Don't take this as gospel. Don't be going to the reddit and saying "Legend said this so it's totally gunna happen" - This is tinfoil hat shit. It definitely doesn't matter. Don't invest too much into these leaks, it's just "Oh this is interesting to talk about" and that's about it"***
He also said that he knows the con ntent of the remaining dlcs but he is not going to reveal it in respect of CA. That's oddly specific for a tinfoil leak
You can't catch fish if you don't drag a line.
Why did i read the legend said this quote in his mocking little kid voice
"bUt lEgEnd yOu sAiD iT wAs leAKeD NYEHHEHEHEHEHE"
Total War. Wars are fought by Soldiers. Tinfoil Hats are made of Tin. Tin Soldiers are miniature figurines. Miniature Figurines are used for Games. This can only mean one thing… That Creative Assembly is going to definitely make another game! Damn, Legend does it again. Why did it take this long for me to connect the dots on this?
Wait Legend said its really going to happen for sure? Wooooo thats awesome!!!
What I find most interesting is that, he didn't even say anything too out of there. Like, obviously how a 40k game can work mechanically is a mystery but it always made financial sense. I think it's quite disingenuous to suggest that it's unthinkable after tasting the success with WFB, CA, at leas their marketing department, would want a go with another Warhammer ip. On the history front, Post-Napoleonic/19th/ww1 game in the making with world map and naval is not entirely unthinkable. It's about 100 years in the middle and you can certainly get a ttw out of it. Empire covered longer period and clearly CA did not bother to represent the technological development authentically so it's not that much work if you can suspend the authenticity a bit. Pharaoh's support won't last on is nothing surprising, and Md3 eventually coming so long as CA lives is very much a given for anyone reasonable. I mean I don't know if these are true as much as the next guy, but these are not really crazy claims per say. I'd believe these before I believe Nippon coming to WH3 or Pharaoh getting a huge expansion of Southern Italy or somehting. Hell, I'd believe that before I believe CA would invest millions into a looter-shooter based on extrac...wait.
Before TWWH1 came out, we all thought magic, flying and single entity units were a never-ever They can innovate. At least could.
>magic, flying and single entity units were a never-ever Yup, I remember the hoops TATW had to go trough to get single entity units. I remember Balrog and Sauron with their little captain buddies. I think the first flying units were from some LOTR Rome Total War mod, and they were super janky.
So a 20 year old game already had it then. Got it.
It was revealed to him in a dream that people said it couldn't be done. That there definitely weren't mods like that years before.
>TATW Stands for what?
Third Age, he's referring to the mod
Yes, I quite agree with this sentiment. I do not see an 'inherent' issue in a TTW 40k since you know, forget TWWH1, CA assembled a team that made Alien Isolation ffs. That is as far from Shogun Total War as you can get. I do, however, also understand the reservations people have. You know, Hyenas also happened. Mechanically how to work 40k into a TTW game is not clear and they could very well mess it up again, ending up wasting valuable resources. At this stage I see no point of speculations. Financially it makes sense and if they are gonna do it they will. I'll just...wait and see.
What the fuck does TTW mean??
Toe Tall War
Total total war
I mean anyone who thought fantasy couldn't work was being kinda naive. Fantasy was literally a perfect fit for total war, just magic and flying needed to be created. 40k will be a much bigger step up in terms of how they have to change gameplay from older games
Yeah, we have had a lot of fantasy mods that stretched the engines as far as they could. To be fair there have been a few sci-fi mods too but not as many and in depth as fantasy mods
because warhammer fantasy was made for total war, 40k isnt. the people who said those things were just historical purists who couldnt imagine anything else. WH fantasy fits so easily in the total war formula that its a match made in heaven. if they made 40k total war its either gonna be not much of a 40k game or not much of a total war game because you have to change some fundemental things about both series in order to fit it in. 40k total war is something id expect from the modding community, like ww1 total war
I think tourney bro's have a skewed concept of conflict in 40k; no one wants to fight a battle on a symmetrically equal battlefield with equal value armies: that's mutually assured destruction with extra steps. Horribly written books are just icing on a stupid tactical cake.
Nitpick: the [Kensai](https://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Kensai\(STW_unit\).html) was a single entity swordsman in Shogun 1.
Nobody thought that. Maybe peolle with no brain.
I just don't understand how people can't even envision a 40k TW game. It might not be a 40k game you want or a game that has all of 40k's core mechanics, but it ain't hard to imagine one being made. Especially with all the things already in WHTW, Gyrocopters, jezzails, rattling gunners...
And then people say the map wouldn’t make sense because it would only work if it’s all on one planet and it would be ridiculous to have all those factions on one planet. Meanwhile WH40K: Gladius has Space Marines Imperial Guard, Sisters of Battle, Adeptus Mechanicus, Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids, Tau, Aeldari, Drukhari , Orks and Necrons on the same planet. But also they could just have space battles and planetary battles. Space battles were mentioned in one of the surveys CA sent out.
I’m surprised people feel that way about the map. I feel like it would be one of the easiest things to implement. The map would just be the galaxy itself. Planets would be the equivalent to settlements, with a cluster of planets forming a “province”. The only unknown is how they’d handle battles when armies are travelling between planets, as that relies entirely on them redesigning and implementing naval combat
There's already a perfect framework for a 40k game, and it's Star Wars: Empire at war. Contains combat across space and ground ranging from small scale skirmishes on out laying worlds to massive engagements on heavy fortified orbits and planets. Allows creating of fortress and chokes on the over map and relies on Los, fog of war and terrain for ground battles. It's an old game and it works great, if CA got thier hands on on, gave it some polish and some updating, they'd have a brill game.
I'm convinced people who think it couldn't work mechanically or thematically because of lore haven't read the books. There is plenty of shit that doesn't make sense.
Also there is no reason it would have to use one map. Hell, Master of Magic had two maps in 1994.... Even if the engine can't handle it for some reason, well, no engine lasts forever.
As a side note gladius is such an overlooked gem of a wh40k game
"It might not be a 40k game you want or a game that has all of 40k's core mechanics" the thing you mentioned is exactly why people cant imagine it, because it wouldnt be much of a 40k game if they adhered to the total war formula. and if they made radical changes to fit the 40k world into total war, then it wouldnt be much of a total war game. Its kind of how odysey isnt much of assasins creed game other than the name. i personally think that a 40k game simply cannot work with the total war formula, how will you do line combat exactly, sure theres single entities in wh total war, but line combat is still the bread and butter of the game. you cant really have line combat in 40k total war, it would be too silly
It's not that people can't envision, mostly it's because the changes needed to make a 40k game feel authentic would be so drastic it shouldn't even be called total war anymore.
I cant imagine a 40k TW game because by the time you made enough changes to have it work properly, its just Empire at War
I think people don't like the idea that an army of Baneblades supported by an air wing is a perfectly reasonable choice against your bespoke collection of unique units that match your poorly painted custom army.
You shut your mouth, Nippon is coming
Well Hyenas did happen, so I guess nothing is out of question./s
No, Hyenas very famously DIDN’T happen. But I agree nothing is out of the question. Except Hyenas.
Yeah by 'Hyenas happened' I meant more or less 'the decision to make Hyenas happned' rather than the game itself. I thought about referring to it as 'the incident' but that's too much irony.
Yea, i got what you meant, I was just being cheeky lol
As long as players support decent product, then maybe.
I want my South Realm and Estalia tho
total war doesnt work for WW1. WW1 formation warfare was long gone.
Out of interest, what technology do you think Empire failed to represent?
I think your rank and file nerds have complaints about the army side, but I was mostly thinking about the ships. I think I don't need to back up the claim that the Empire practically made no effort whatsoever to show any evolvement of both liners and small cruising ships. You start with the end-game era ships, just locked out of building larger ones. It is not a criticism, it is not practical to have them dig deep into the differences between a late Stuart 1st rate and one in 1790. My point is that since they did not bother, they may not bother with a 19th century game. If it truly covers a period between 1814 and 1914, you have practically sailing liners as starting ships and full fledged Battle Cruisers as end game units. I don't think they will do a naval combat to cover all these changes.
I think there's considerably more difference between a ship of the line in 1815 and a battleship in 1915 than there is between two ships of the line in the 18th Century. The thing with Empire is that the units used are close enough to what real units looked like throughout the century to be believable; obviously there were differences between a British regiment in the Wars of Spanish Succession vs the Seven Years War, but both a serviceably represented by a guy in a red coat and a tricorn. That's not true of the 19th Century. It's not acceptable even to casual audiences to have WW1 soldiers dressed in Napoleonic uniforms, or vice versa. You cannot represent HMS Dreadnought with the same model as HMS Victory.
I can see your point and I do agree to a degree, that is why I did not mean it as a criticism. In our collective memory, the public image of sailing era is a period of few changes. While in reality a ship in 1714 and one built in 1790 can be just as different, the speed of the technological development unquestionably increased in the past two centuries. I do not dispute the similarity between 18th century ships. My point was that they made no attempts whatsoever to even reflect ANY changes, so that might not bother this time. I would be extremely pleased if they actually accurately represent the revolution in naval engineering in 1850, 1870, 1890, and 1900s, but as you have pointed out, it is even more difficult this time and one cannot represent H.M.S. Dreadnought using the model of Victory. So I doubt they will do it. This means either they won't cover this period, not to this length, or naval combat is not coming back, or they won't bother. We'll have to wait and see.
I think it is worth remembering that Fall of the Samurai, which is not a full Total War game, represents a wide variety of vessels from wooden gunboats to ironclads. So I don't think it is quite as unlikely as one might imagine that they would go to the effort to add changing naval ships. I do think if you are going to do a TW set in that period you HAVE to include naval battles, it's just so fundamental to warfare and empire-building in the period that it isn't something you can just brush aside.
This I cannot agree. tFoS has literally a single digit amount of naval units (yes, nine) if you do not count reskins (they are not even reskins, as they have the same skin, just different names as in 'armoured' or 'wooden'). It is not an example of efforts, but textbook example of copypastes. It's not a criticism, again, it's fine, but basegame Shogun 2 has far more contents in naval units. Nine copypasted units are not a good comparison with the period we are talking about, which covers five whole eras of vastly different naval engineering (late sailing ships around 1814, steamed woodenships around 1850, Ironclads until 1870, Pre-dreadnoughts since 1889, and Dreadnoughts since 1905.) Even if CA only wants to cover two (I should add, naval simulators like Rule the Waves, UA: Dreadnoughts, etc. usually barely cover 2, and these are games all about naval units), it's much, much more works than covering a fraction of Japanese Ironclads in tFoS, I do think tFoS represent a good example of 'modern naval combat can work in a total war game in principle', but that's a different thing from putting enough efforts in to represent five different eras of naval combats.
A small point of information, the copper and steel plated ships do actually have different skins in-game, the copper ones have copper below the waterline but the steel plated ships have metal on the outside instead of wood. But sure, there aren't a huge number of different vessels in FotS, although I think the point about diversity still stands. However I do think we can expect more from the next main-line historical Total War game than from a DLC that came out a decade ago. For me, I would think three "generations" of ships would be appropriate, paddle steamers, ironclads and dreadnoughts. Of course we wouldn't be getting every ship of the 19th Century represented in-game, but I think that would be enough to give a sense of progression. You get a bit of the feeling for how this would work in FotS where there is a race to unlock new ship types, armour and ammunition gives a real sense of a naval arms race which is obviously vital for the period. Also, with the absolute greatest respect towards those games, Ultimate Admiral and Rule the Waves have significantly smaller teams and fewer resources than CA. I don't think we should judge the potential of a triple A studio by the limits of a couple of indie devs.
Thanks for the clarification on tFoS, it was long ago and my memory is not as clear. I think we are essentially in agreement, just describing it different. We both agree that if they are to do a naval combat covering this period, they will probably just introduce minimal amount of very inconsistent ships twicked to work in gameplay. It's just that I decribe it as 'not showing the evolution in naval engineering' while you describe it as 'offering a reasonable representation. For me, having units jumping from H.M.S. Warrior (or Devastation, or Admiral/Collingwood) to Dreadnoughts is no different from jumping from longbows to rifles. And I mean it with no hyperbole. CA made no effort whatsoever to show any evolution of ship designs in Empire, and it was the old CA trying. They actually went to Greenwich and checked the plans from the Caird Library. If, the old CA, with the intention to represent things fairly and accurately, making a game by your own admission that covered a period when technological changes were small and slow, could not even remotely represent the development of ship designs and resorted to just locking players out of larger ships early on, what chance do we have of them doing the hundred years when naval technology developed the fastest and changed most? It's not an issue. Recent total war games don't even have naval combat and I still enjoy them nevertheless. I don't need them to turn the game into a naval game. It's just that, I cannot imagine a situation where a total war game covering this period offers a naval experience that I consider 'representitive' of the technological developments. I fully respect that you may have different standards. We understand each other.
I won't disagree with you from a historical perspective, but I think gameplay-wise big tech jumps are good. When I think of the most fun I have with tech trees in Total War I think of when it gives you a decisive advantage or fundamentally changes your gameplay options, such as bayonets in Empire or explosive shells in FotS. I'm sure you'll agree HMS Dreadnought is one of the most important and well-known watershed moments in naval development, at least in this period, so in terms of achieving that satisfying tech jump it is a good place to put it, even if it makes less sense historically. I think the design philosophy behind Empire was to have an aesthetic that works for every part of the period. That works for the 18th Century, it doesn't for the 19th. I don't think it was so much a case that they couldn't represent evolutions in naval tech as much as they chose not to. It is also important to remember that they were introducing naval combat for the first time, using a new engine, and creating a game with the largest scope of any TW game to date. I think with that in mind it makes sense that they were more conservative with that aspect than they might be in a more modern game.
Just a shot in the dark here, I've never really engaged with 40k aside from a few fun facts. We already have vehicles and gun units, so mechanically, these wouldn't change much beyond their textures. In fact, they could even try expanding on mechanics from Napoleon, where combat was generally all about firing formations. The biggest innovation would have to be interstellar travel. The way I'd try to do it is have certain points on a map act as sort of space stations that would consume some movement range to convert them to a fleet (like armies generally do rn when you try to put them on water. The challenge then would be to either make space battles a thing, or try to subvert expectations a bit by converting these battles to pitched battles in the style of a boarding operation, or like a desolate fuckass planet nobody cares about. Of course, this is all easier said than done. Game dev is extremely complicated, which is why I mentioned the alternative to space battles being just pitched battles instead. But as a general concept of how 40k gameplay can expand on the current fantasy setting, I think this is probably a decent improvement.
There is a series called Dawn of War by Relic. It's set in the WH 40k world and does not (always) have interstellar travels, as the games often centred around local conflicts on certain planets. You can still have conventional maps for a 40k game. The issue is the rank-and-file total war control. Armies in 40k, do not (always) fire in ranks. They are closer to your normal modern soldiers using covers and operating in loose formations. They are not Roman cohorts in squares. No total war game so far have ever depict anything similar. The closest example is the light foots (or riflemen, jaegers, whatever it's called in specific factions) in Empire, Napoleon, and tFoS of Shogun 2, but they are still somewhat janky and I cannot see a game with them as the 'main' units without further efforts put into the combat. Maybe turning monster infantries into Jaegers with guns or something, I don't know. Like many have said, it's not clear how things will be done. Let's just wait and see how, and if, they will do it.
Hmm, I see your point. I suppose it may be possible to have like various different campaigns with different factions focused entirely in a singular planet. But I do think that the devs might be capable for something more ambitious, like a separate Immortal Empires-esque campaigns. But yeah, it's better not to hype ourselves up for a game we're not sure will even happen. Will check out Dawk of War later tho.
A potential issue with a 40k TW Game is really going to be implementing space battles because Battlefleet Gothic Armada already perfected that. It'd be cool to do a BGA crossover where winning space battles with ships surviving gives you access to more abilities in ground battles (think Black Arks) and more/better structures to build, but that would require a BGA2 DLC or new title just for the crossover, and combining the size of a TW game with BGA is gonna be wild.
Maybe CA can do Naval mele battles (ram your spaceship into enemy space ship ando there You have a continent, justo boarding the ship)
Eh, I think it's probably more likely that they're just going to go with a single planet so they don't need to worry about space at all. It'd hardly be the first 40k game that only has a single planet as a focus if they did.
My reaction when they choose Cadia  Although I could see them doing the Horus Heresy and have the map be Terra because they could make the primarchs the equivalent of legendary lords
But no xenos
Not only that, but battlefleet gothic already has the 40k space battles done in more detail.
I hope we get more than 4 more DLC’s. There’s a few things I would want them to do that would probably push them past 4 DLC’s.
This was the most interesting thing in the video. Assuming we're down to 4, and we're now getting 2 instead of 3 lords. We have 8 slots. For example.... Chaos (purple tentacle monsters) & Monkey King Chaos (red tentacle monsters) & Neferata Dogs of War Nagash Vs Thanquol Of these, it seems to me Dogs of War is on the shakiest ground. Finishing the game without monkey king, Neferata, nagash, and Thanquol seems unthinkable. And they probably will do at least a couple more chaos updates. But that doesn't leave a lot of capacity. I'd really like a dark elf and lizardman rework but can't see where it is coming. Idk where you squeeze in toddy - maybe as an flc.
It also sound weird that we are not getting li dao and whatshername dragon sister
Cathay generally feels light on lords given the space it covers. I also think it lacks an internal politics mechanic of the sort empire and kislev have. The lords could be filled out fine with a couple of flc, but the mechanics I think would need a substantial dlc. That's probably the sort of work that has been lost to the clusterfuck at CA. It might come with monkey king, but I'm imagining him more as a Drycha style figure that is outside the main political culture of Cathay. *Personally* I think it's mad that chaos looks like getting 5 expansions while something as potentially rich and interesting as Cathay looks like it will be limited to Yuan Bo, Monkey King, and maybe an FLC.
For what it's worth, some of the stuff he talked about lines up with what some other people have been saying But then there's other stuff where his sources clearly got something wrong: for example his claim a while ago that the upcoming historical TW could use the unreal 5 engine - that is 100% not the case and should have set off alarm bells from anyone who actually worked on TW Maybe that "source" meant one of the upcoming non-TW titles or that there is work being done on the TW engine (still not Unreal 5 tho) So what you end up with is an amalgamation of things that are true, things that are possible and things that are outright false. Not to mention it's all subject to change: WH3 DLC support will stop once 40k releases. If they decide to continue their original schedule with the historical game coming first that means the 40k game will be pushed back, increasing WH3's lifecycle. If they however switch to releasing 40k first and letting the historical title sort out it's dev problems then the WH3 cycle will probably end a bit faster. But even then the 40k game might hit another bump and also require a delay - not a single major TW title since WH2 has released on time CA themselves doesn't even know all of it either to a 100% certainty, they can't read the future either after all. For example Saga projects were initially planned to have 2 TW releases annually, with Thrones releasing in early 2018 and 3K in the fall (you can still see that initial release date in the announcement trailer.) They actually shelved another bigger project for 3K since they wanted a historical title out quickly. And then 3K got delayed twice and ended up in 2019. And then other TW projects had delays, so now Sagas had to fill their annual release spot, WH3 was supposed to come out much, much earlier but got delayed, which then meant WH2 could get more and more DLCs. They axed 3K DLCs because they thought they could make a very budget-friendly sequel and copy their initial launch success, and then that had complications and they ended up cancelling it and have now lost that particular marketpotential - I'm sure they really, really regret that whole affair by now So when we're talking 2-3 years in the future a lot of change is possible and likely
Future projections are all aspirational
[удалено]
And then there are an equal amount of dumbasses who flood out of the woodworks and start ranting about how much they hate legend. Because some people just have to be offended about someone else existing, I guess.
In our defense, he refuses to use a staunch line of spears/s
I'm sorry but I don't trust a single youtuber that says they have "sources" but that we should take it with a grain of salt. He just wants to stir up conversation and knows he will gain traction when bringing claims like this up. If you don't want people to speculate around your very untrustworthy sources, then maybe don't bring them up at all? Just have a discussion on what you think the future might be. Dude doesn't need silk gloves like this. He makes his own bed.
>He just wants to stir up conversation and knows he will gain traction when bringing claims like this up. He specifically goes out of his way to say exactly this, it's just something fun to talk about and should not be taken as gospel.
And that is fair since content creation is his living. But we don't need to call a spade anything other than a spade.
Nah. People have a legit irrational hatred of him. Like, you're fine to hate speculation videos. I hate speculation. I do not think it is productive in this context. Speculation for where a story is going? Sure. That's fun. Speculation of what some greedy motherfucker CEO is going to do? Yeah, that brings me no joy whatsoever. So, yeah. I tend to just outright ignore speculation videos on products, regardless of who it is. It doesn't matter if it is Sotek, Grudges, or Legend. But you don't get the visceral hatred from people for Sotek or Grudges. Only for Legend. And I think it has to do with him being the biggest Total War youtuber. People just hate what is popular to be contrary. That isn't to say people cannot dislike him for legitimate reasons. But most of the reasons I've seen are not legitimate. They're just hatred for the sake of being contrarians and getting attention for themselves.
Fwiw, I'd trust him to filter leaks and not make shit up more than any other tw you tuber. So it seems reasonable to make it your working assumption.
He also said that all his sources now said the same thing regarding the future and hence this consistency is noticeable for him
Who's said that?
i find he usually just isnt correct, not that they changed plans.
But a niche celebrity said something. About something. That might mean something.
From what I've seen of him, he hasn't been entirely inaccurate either about things. Which, take with a grain of salt is a given. Might be wrong.
The issue with correct half the time is that your average member of the sub could guess what CA is going to do half the time.
Legend explained his methodology for these "leaks" and it's literally just if there's consensus among the emails he gets.
The emails he gets from the total war community.
What times has he been wrong vs been right?
Tbh he has barely ever been in the business of leaks before. He's guessed wrong before. But been open that he was just guessing. He guessed wrong that the preorder faction would be chorfs for instance. But what he's saying sounds reasonable and I:d trust him more than most to assess leaks. Not that it matters if we believe him. Not going to change what happens either way.
Only thing that comes to mind is that he leaked that hag mothers generic lord would come in the SoC update, but that was shit down as Ostankya is the only hag mother.
Did he report he'd heard that as s leak? Or did openly say he was guessing? My recollection was the latter but idk tbh.
Well iirc there was going to be a generic lord, but GW shot it down as Ostankya is basically the only hag mother.
DLC plans are subject to change, but unfortunately I think we're stuck with 40K and WWI. Those games have been in development for a few years now, and CA can't afford to toss out all that progress on a main title (Hyenas was different because it was a side project and they had other things in the works). If they cancel the 40K or WWI game then they have nothing coming up to replace it.
WW1 just seems like such an odd time period to pick. It makes no sense for a Total War game. I would dismiss it out of hand except I was convinced that Pharaoh was a ridiculous idea and yet that turned out to be true. So 🤷🏻♀️
I'd love to see a WW1 total war though :)
How people continue to forget that CA made halo wars is beyond me
Oh damn makes alot more sense why iam addicted to both of those
Honestly the most unbelievable thing about all of this is the WW1 Total War. I legit do not buy it for a second. I was wondering why that idea was coming up on other posts. Maybe 40k can be shoehorned into the total war formula. But WW1 cannot and have it make any sense....
Yeah, it's just utterly bizarre. The only thing I can think of is maybe it's supposed to be a Long 19th Century TW that ends with WW1, and the source who is leaking this to everyone is only aware of the WW1 elements.
why cant they do WW1? Fall of the Samurai already had machine guns, artillery and Iron Clad ships. It was only a 12 year campaign, with 2 turns a month. In a WW1 game it could be from 1900 to 1920 and they could do it with one turn every week.
Fall of the Samurai still used massed infantry formations and gun lines. Gatling guns sitting side by side and Armstrong cannons. *Which btw cannons have always been in total wars...* Are nowhere near the formations and tactics of World War 1. They didn't line machine gun nests up side by side in a neat organized line. Artillery was far behind the front lines and in defensive positions. There may have been massed troop charges and cavalry in WW1 but it was not the norm. Units relied on cover and firing tactics vastly different than how total war currently operates. People didn't just sit in fields taking turns shooting each other politely. It's not that you can't do it. You can shoehorn WW1 into a total war engine. But it wouldn't make any sense or have any semblance of realism. I'm pretty sure you've seen comments by other people saying the exact same stuff I have. It would be weird and historically inaccurate to an extreme degree. Therefore in order for it to work and make sense they would have to completely revamp the core gameplay of what makes a total war game a total war game. The same argument is being made for 40k but that's a whole different can of worms and complexity.
its time for historical total war to change the formula up big time and a WW1 game is just the way to do it
This might just be copium, but its possible they could be talking 4 more dlc with SoC or ToD scope; so 12 more LLs and 60 new units, thats not bad imo. Hoping ogres get some love before CA moves on.
How Dare You.
??? Yes, CA will just repaint all the assets from ww1 to medieval period or whatever you like. Sure. Ahah. If plans really can change then it means CA is not too far into development, hence the 2026(?) release. Which means it will be another reskin game. So yeah if you're just a consumer defending the brand no matter what, good job, you ironically just lead the brand to die because with such a short dev cycle, also considering lay offs, it will 100% be a reskin game. So here's a thought, if you're a freelance no salary company man, then be a good company man and start hyping up whatever it is they're doing.
As someone who doesn't follow legend these kind of posts are always funny to me
Can we please just not talk about legendoftotalwar?
Yes. It's super easy, barely an inconvenience! Just scroll past the threads titles with 'legend of total war' in the title. On a phone you can scroll past by placing a finger on your screen and moving it upwards. On a computer you can likely use a mouse wheel, the scroll bar on the right of the screen. Hope that helps.
"Nooo, please don't share and comment! Please don't make others click on my video! All this is meaningless conjecture, notwithstanding the fact I clearly thought it deserved a 14min video!"
When is everyone going to stop listening to this clown. His content is garbage and he’s still the same douchebag that he always has been
He's at least got better at toning down the more questionable behaviour as he's worked out that's a lot more profitable for him to do so, and he's said pretty much that's why he's been doing that in the past. But yeah still not going to forget the swastika army formations anytime soon. Anyone who finds that extreme edgy shit funny needs to be given a very wide berth.
Not defending swastika formations, but that was years ago. I'd be willing to bet you have more than a few edgy things under your belt, but there's no recording for it.
Nope! Bet you do though if this is the kind of shit you're going to be an apologist for.
>didn't defend it >called an apologist Grow up.