Bay 12 Games Forum

Just running a standard vanilla hard drive. Will that cause issues?


And yeah, waiting for a sale, 60 bucks is quite a bit. Not too concerned about the DLC policy, seems to have a lot of free stuff, and the costy bits aren't huge changers.


What kind of mechanics are you talking about? Because while I play a fair few games about managing empires(MoO2 and SMAC are still high up on my playtimes), I'm not an expert by any means.

Well for me it was nigh-unplayable when I had it on my normal HD. It's fine if you're auto-resolving everything and not having to reload much, but if you're new to the series you'll probably be in and out of battles/reloading a lot and so it can be a bit of a pain. Turn end times also take ages in TW compared to most TBS games, and it went from a good minute for the AI turn to about 10 seconds on my SSD.

I may have a slower end HD and a higher end SSD so your results may vary. I'd just be wary and think about investing in one (seriously, they're amazing and not that much for 128gb one).

Definitely don't need to worry about the DLC - there's 100% enough game without it.

In terms of mechanics, you should be fine it's just that it'll take a few tries to get used to how battles and turns work (see point one). Turns are more meaningful (less turn mashing like in something like GalCiv) and battles more easily swayed by what you do - it's part of the fun, but can take a while to get used to.

So, as I was unaware this thread existed(yes I am derp), I asked if Total Warhammer is worth it in the 40k thread. Because I are a derp.


So far, I've been told that there's little political stuffs, lots of stabbing, and that it's chunked up.


Which means to me nothing really bad going on. Is it a fun game to play, for someone who hasn't poked around Total War but rather likes Warhammer?

Definitely. I'd suggest waiting till it goes on sale - I imagine there will be a big one when the expansion pack second in the series comes out. It's great fun, but the pricing structure as constantly mentioned is terrible. You definitely don't need more than the base game to enjoy it though.

Also, don't worry about not having played TW before; it's a lot more straightforward and easy to get to grips with than the previous ones in the series. That being said, I'd suggest you put it on Easy (or Normal if you're otherwise a strategy vet) as there's a lot of mechanics in TW that aren't always 100% straight forward which can lead you to not realise where you've messed up until 10-15 turns later.

Also make sure you're running it on a SSD!

Most of the problem for spellcasters in abyss is that the time when they're chucked in there they usually don't have a really reliable one/two shot kill spell and get most of their kills through a mana eating combo. Also it's amazing how many spellcasters I've seen who don't quickly get something they can channel for more mana.

I really like the idea of unique soldiers that come along, however I'd say that doesn't preclude having configuring your troops.

One way of tackling unique units is that Arnie Stalone could come along with 'Arnies minigun' which only he can use as well as being very strong and not setting off heat detectors. You can swap out his gun/extra kit if you want, but no one else would be able to use his minigun. This allows his gear to be unique, but allows you to configure your squad.

I don't really think it matters how you do it - just as long as you allow the player to have control over their units. From the sounds of how you're doing things, I'd just give them full control of the load out and allow them to upgrade weapons and kit with their mission gains. Just make it so that any upgrades stay for that item type - so if you upgrade a machine gun to +5 accuracy, all machine guns that you give to your troops will have +5 accuracy.

There actually wasn't any meta at all in the original game, which this is a fairly close remake of, so far. The original was basically the ancestor of the ancestor of X-Com (same game designer made them a decade apart), but Rebelstar was only some standalone missions.

I have to admit I never played Rebelstar, although I do know of it and have watched some videos.

I wasn't aware there wasn't any metagame with it, and I'd thoroughly implore you to change this - to me, the very best bit of a TBS game is being able to carefully set up my squad with my salvaged loot (or stuff I've traded), and use that to accomplish harder missions.

I don't think it needs to be fancy or anything that wrecks it as a remake (you can have lots of stand alone missions obviously) but I think longevity would increase dramatically with just a little bit of this. It could be something as simple as 'get credits for mission completion -> use credits to buy stuff for next mission', but the more the better.

up next, I am going to continue trying to improve as a spellcaster or stealth character. I like the +5 in stealth of the spriggan, though last time I played one, I had 5 skill and a ring of stealth and still was getting spotted instantly by orcs and stuff.

That's part of the problem with stealth - it's never a sure thing, and even really high up it doesn't stop some stuff just happening to see you. Basically, it's not something you can base a character round, but it can be that particular characters 'edge'.

Hexes did get an overhaul a while back IIRC, where more monsters became vulnerable to them and nearly all became possible to get with them sometimes. This goes great with stealth - confusion (or EH) + stabbing just obliterates stuff.

Conjecture then; maybe they'll do a re-release of DLC for Warhammer 2. Beastmen with extra units that are added for free for people who already own it but released for Warhammer 2 for new customers buying the sequel.

This would actually be a nice touch - the DLC were/are pretty highly priced so making them relevant to the expansion/sequel would make them feel more worthwhile.

I'd agree to keep it all in one thread, there's no point in deviating when its the same base game. It's also not like this thread is so flooded with conversation that it's difficult to keep track of.

Quote from: Vorbicon on April 15, 2017, 04:25:32 pm

Sure, but a gone primitive post-apocalyptic society probably isn't too interested in empirical evidence. They probably care more about the cathartic sense of revenge and the spectacle of the execution.

They aren't disputing this, they are saying capital punishment shouldn't reduce the rate at which crime occurs (why would it? if it doesn't work this way in a functional society, it wouldn't be a deterrent in a kill and steal or be killed environment)

I like Majestic's suggestion that capital punishment be cheaper (no need to feed prisoners) but have more negative consequences (revenge raids, etc)

It's difficult to know how capital punishment really effects crime rates, especially in specific cases. The studies done on it are pretty poor, because there are extremely few recent examples of a crime which wasn't a capital crime, and then capital punishment was introduced, and then taken away again.

So you're basically in a situation where all you can say is 'there was no increase in this kinda crime after capital punishment was taken away' but you've got a whole host of other factors to take into account, and most of those crimes had a lot of slackening in sentencing before capital punishment was officially gotten rid of. 

More than that, recidivism rates are about 60-70% (UK/US stats), and more for serious criminals - and it's kinda obvious that you're not going to get re-offending if they're dead. This is more of an issue in a post-apocalypse, where if someone's justified crime to themselves, they won't have many controlling factors to stop them re-offending.

All that to say, I think it's fare to say it'd have a reduction in crime (even just due to falling re-offending rates) so I think it's fine to keep it in, but as has been said - more negative consequences would be interesting and realistic.