Total War: Warhammer 40K

SckizoBoy

Ineptly Chaotic
Legacy
Jan 6, 2011
8,681
199
68
A Hermit's Cave
See where this goes, as I understand that the GW/CA fanbase on the escapist isn't the largest, but no matter.

So, I'm having a lively discussion on a discord server regarding the practicality (or lack thereof) of adapting 40K into a TW game. Primarily basing the gameplay mechanics off of Total War: Warhammer I & II, issues with solutions of varying levels of clunkiness/elegance/lore friendliness/player expectation etc. etc. include, but are not limited to (though this does not necessarily reflect my position on things):

Confederation
Space battles
Unit balance (what with Titans/Lords of War being a thing)
Roster composition in elite factions (read: Space Marines)
Creative oversight required by CA
1000 MARINES ONLY!
Campaign map scale (one planet? One star system? One sub-sector? etc. etc.)
Battle map re-work and mechanics

Most people would like to see a TW:WH40K game happen, but generally have a lot of concerns about it owing to what they see as lore-based or TT-mechanics-based aspects that cannot be adapted to a TW game. But hey, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Would you like to see such a game? If not why not? If so, what sort of mechanics would you like to see?
Further, would another developer (such as Paradox) be better suited to adapting the WH40K setting to a grand strategy game?

Or screw the whole thing and be happy with Dawn of War: Dark Crusade/Soulstorm?
Horde faction gameplay mechanics
 

Chupathingy

CONTROL Agent
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
212
140
48
I don't think TW's 'battle style' would really fit 40K, or any period of history after line battles started to decline, though it could work. In regards to the strategy/political phase the usual TW style could be made to fit, but when it comes to battles, if large scale is what you're after, something more akin to Wargame/Steel Division (with melee) would probably be better. And then throw in some Battlefleet Gothic style space battles I guess, but by this point such a game feels like it's entering "Hire this man!" territory.

Then again, personally, I preferred the more focused, smaller scale combat in DoW II.
 

09philj

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 31, 2015
2,154
947
118
Total War's mechanics are based around line infantry, cavalry formations, and simple war machines. It's not set up to simulate combined arms warfare. The latest war I think it could reliably emulate is the American Civil War. At a push it could probably do WW1 style combat, but anything similar to WW2 or newer wouldn't really function well as a Total War game.
 

meiam

Elite Member
Dec 9, 2010
3,359
1,662
118
I think it could work if you think of planet as continent and space in between as ocean. You'd just go from one planet to another in ships (with some boarding action possible) and when you'd get there you'd land in pre selected area.

I wouldn't be surprised fi it happened, I'm under the impression the war hammer total war did very well (for both CA and game workshop) so I imagine once warhammer 3 is done they'll want to keep going with more of it.
 

SckizoBoy

Ineptly Chaotic
Legacy
Jan 6, 2011
8,681
199
68
A Hermit's Cave
I don't think TW's 'battle style' would really fit 40K, or any period of history after line battles started to decline, though it could work. In regards to the strategy/political phase the usual TW style could be made to fit, but when it comes to battles, if large scale is what you're after, something more akin to Wargame/Steel Division (with melee) would probably be better. And then throw in some Battlefleet Gothic style space battles I guess, but by this point such a game feels like it's entering "Hire this man!" territory.
Funny you mention Steel Division, ideally, I'd like an SD2 style of game that has a better sense of scale in with squad based tactics and the concept of rolling battles. AFAIK, though it wasn't received especially well for one reason or another, but the core gameplay loop ideas are definitely more suited to the WH40K setting though, IMO. You may find me a bit too much of a TW fanboy, even if I realise the game series and its engines have their flaws and limitations. Still, regarding the suitability of the archetypal battle gameplay in TW games:

With less units doing line formations you'd just adapt the skirmish formations from R:TW, TW:WH etc. for most factions and what you'd get would functionally be the same as how units form up on the TT. All you'd need after that are more kinds of terrain and maybe some sort of deformable terrain mechanic (for craters, large units smashing obstacles etc.).
This was my initial thought on it (still is, in fairness, though with a bit of expansion). R:TW was pretty much the only game with irregular formations (Skavenslaves in TW:WH2 have it, too, but it's still obviously meant to be, broadly speaking, a 'line formation'). This can be adapted to a more modern warfare feel (with varying levels of acceptable breaks from reality what with non-transport based Fast Attack infantry) with slightly decreased unit entity elasticity (AFAIK, unit cohesion in multi-entity units is based on rubber-banding around the unit's centre of mass) and increased spacing.

Total War's mechanics are based around line infantry, cavalry formations, and simple war machines. It's not set up to simulate combined arms warfare. The latest war I think it could reliably emulate is the American Civil War. At a push it could probably do WW1 style combat, but anything similar to WW2 or newer wouldn't really function well as a Total War game.
While we can agree to disagree, I'd point out that because of the nature of trench warfare, the sheer scale of the majority of battles and the benefit of hindsight makes even TW:WWI an impractical concept to pull off without a massive overhaul of the engine and gameplay mechanics (again, SD2 gameplay seems more suited to it). If you've seen The Great War mod for Napoleon, you'd see how difficult it is to have an authentic portrayal of WWI warfare in the TW mould of games. WH40K, on the other hand, is an over the top grimdark setting where 'tactics' and 'strategy' and informed aspects of in-universe warfare. Line combat essentially still exists (Dropsite Massacre & anything the Mordians do, indeed a fair few of the IG/AM doctrines are based on linear tactics), specialist melee units (aforementioned Fast Attack units are invariably melee focussed, as are a large proportion/small majority of HQ choices) feature heavily, psykers and copious special abilities can render any sort of hard cover useless, hit n run bike squadrons are essentially mounted carabiniers and charging with them into melee will happen, and some races just aren't known for good gunnery. I mean, Space Marines are the archetypal jack of all trades and marketed as such for the tabletop hobby, so while I concede that any TW game adaptation will be ranged focussed, expect melee to nonetheless feature heavily.

Last thing, I'll betray my biases by pointedly stating (apologies for being facetious) that the Wars of German Unification would, owing to comparable technological level, be the latest war a TW game could emulate.

You'd probably also have to deal with transport vehicles, since you can't cram a hundred guys into 1 APC
With the new WAAAAAAGH! mechanics introduced with the last update, this is solvable, I think, by a tweak to the secondary army panel. Purchase unit, then purchase its transport upgrade which appears in the secondary panel (needs more thought, obviously, because of multiple transport options a lot of the time). Whatever damage/replenishment the parent unit takes translates to more or fewer transports and done (a bit inelegant, but hey, how do you rationalise replenishment in the first place?(!)).

2. Scale. Do you go for 1 planet, a sub system or something else? One planet is likely to feel confined, but doing a large sub-system or sub-sector can easily get too big and become confusing to navigate around.
A single star system is what some agree is a suitable setting as it allows for space battles without being too overwhelming in scale it basically becomes the realm of Paradox/Stellaris. If, however, as was pointed out to me earlier that development resources may not allow for including space battle gameplay (possible and rather reasonable, if disappointing), a large planetary conflict a la Dawn of War: Dark Crusade or a handwaved transportation mechanic a la Soulstorm could be done instead and that would resolve (most) things handily.

The really hard part would probably be making a lot of unique faction mechanics, as the races are far less distinct than their fantasy counter-parts and the total war aspect of 40k is up-played far more.
I think that only really applies to the Imperium factions and mostly because GEEDUBS just won't stop milking it. The xenos races alongside the core Imperial factions have the same diversity as in WHFB, so I don't think that's going to be much of a problem.

I think it could work if you think of planet as continent and space in between as ocean. You'd just go from one planet to another in ships (with some boarding action possible) and when you'd get there you'd land in pre selected area.
Or the local port (if they segregate regional main settlements from resource buildings)/port-settlement (or not) if you control it, obviously (unit transfer like in Empire/Napoleon). Not sure what you mean by 'pre-selected area', but are you thinking of clearly marked (if not necessarily labelled) 'suitable landing zones' analogous to those stretches of beaches in TW:WH2?
 

SupahEwok

Malapropic Homophone
Legacy
Jun 24, 2010
4,028
1,401
118
Country
Texas
A single star system is what some agree is a suitable setting as it allows for space battles without being too overwhelming in scale it basically becomes the realm of Paradox/Stellaris. If, however, as was pointed out to me earlier that development resources may not allow for including space battle gameplay (possible and rather reasonable, if disappointing), a large planetary conflict a la Dawn of War: Dark Crusade or a handwaved transportation mechanic a la Soulstorm could be done instead and that would resolve (most) things handily.
I think the problem is less with money and time, and more that the TW devs would probably just re-use their naval combat gameplay for space battles, which sucks.
 

SckizoBoy

Ineptly Chaotic
Legacy
Jan 6, 2011
8,681
199
68
A Hermit's Cave
I think the problem is less with money and time, and more that the TW devs would probably just re-use their naval combat gameplay for space battles, which sucks.
If you mean what they did for TW:WH2, then that's the ultimate cop-out (and given the nature of what's being adapted, the same reasons for not doing it don't/can't apply). If you mean doing the battles in 2D as in Empire/Napoleon (I cite them because of the focus on long ranged gunnery duels rarely found in the other titles that involved naval combat, and those two games' naval combat was good IMO) with battlefield debris, then I don't really see a problem with that given that WH40K space combat focused games (read: BattleFleet Gothic: Armada) are in 2D and without direct ship OTS or FPP control, combat in 3D is not practical to apply without being frustrating. BFG and Aeronautica are 2D battlespace games as well, so I can't foresee much by way of complaint about that aspect in particular.
 

SckizoBoy

Ineptly Chaotic
Legacy
Jan 6, 2011
8,681
199
68
A Hermit's Cave
It sounds like what you want is the Dawn of War ultimate apocalypse mod
For some people, that would be a desired solution, and as a fan of the DoW1 series, I'm not averse to it in the least. A lot of work went into that mod and I quite enjoy it, but it is still an RTS at its heart and in-game battles are still a 'from zero' concept with low risk encounters (i.e. the only thing you lose if you bungle a step in your conquest is said step in your conquest, you can defend with no loss in effectiveness) which is what some prefer in the TW mould of gameplay loop where you've got to put more consideration into the goings on of a vastly more involved campaign map, and battles are RTT as opposed to RTS.