waleidd nadynah daronicka
Rachelle Kun
This topic is not meant to be "Warhammer 3 bad!", this topic is meant to highlight where I personally believe Warhammer 2 still does better than Warhammer 3 even though it's the predecessor, it's a personal opinion and the devs can use this information how they see fit. Maybe the playerbase agrees or disagrees with me, I don't know, I'm not the authority in Total War, this is just my personal taste. For some Warhammer 3 questions & suggestions I made this topic:
I got to start by being fair with Warhammer 3. The tutorial is just purely amazing. The tutorial is nothing short of amazing. I wish I could forget The Lost God so I would play it all over again. Heck, I wish they added "supplies" in the base game for Kiselv as a currenty just for the sake of it.
And while Realm of Chaos is not that great, or as great as Eye of the Vortex, is still decent in my opinion. A lot of people hate Realm of Chaos because they were stuck with Realm of Chaos for 1 year. As opposed to Eye of the Vortex where Mortal Empires came out after 1 month. I imagine if Immortal Empires came out after 1 month people wouldn't have Realm of Chaos that much. Realm of Chaos is that little cousin you hate because your parents always made you watch out for your little cousin. Buy by itself, certainly not Eye of the Vortex level, map was much bigger and the objectives much more diverse (although some repeated too, wish the devs would mention each LL's campaign objective in the selection screen), but Realm of Chaos was still decent.
But Warhammer 3 has Something Rotten in Kiselv and Darkness & Disharmony. In total 5 maps. Which I think is great. If you want to play Total War with friends you're much better of playing Warhammer 3 simply because of the multiple online options. You could play co-op, you could play versus on a small map, you could play versus on the Campaign map or you could play Immortal Empires and just do stuff there.
A better balance -> When playing Mortal Empires, unless the player interferes you already know what's going to happen: Dark Elves, Lizardmen, High Elves, Empire and Tomb Kings make these huge Empires and eventually you fight a huge battle on a global scale. It's amazing.
Warhammer 1's thing was Chaos invasion, which given Warhammer 1's scale was amazing for the time. It was one of my favorite things about the game. Warhammer 2's chaos invasion is decent, definetly love it in game but it's mass selling point is the giant factions vs giant factions war.
Warhammer 3 on the other hand, is all chaos and unbalanced. In both Realm of Chaos & Immortal Empires if left alone: the Empire dies terribly, Kiselv dies, Grand Cathay dies. All the interesting factions that would make an amazing late world map duel dies. It's simply not fun to play Warhammer 3 in the late game. And the "spawn armies" late game they implemented, sure, it was good for Warhammer 1 given the scale, and decent for Warhammer 2, it's way too old for Warhammer 3. I simply don't care about the end game in Warhammer 3, it's terrible.
How about this: unless the player intervenes: Dark Elves win in North America, Lizardmen win in South America, High Elves win in Altantis, Nosrca wins in Scandinavia, Karl Franz wins in Europe, Tsarina Katarin wins in Ukraine, Archaon the everchosen wins in Russia and confederates or subjugates everyone, Chaos Dwarves win in Darklands, China wins in China and confederates as one big empire. Tomb Kings win in Africa, Vampire Counts win somewhere maybe in East Africa over the mountains, and then you have these huge FFA battles between major empires.
But no, Immortal Empires is just Chaos. This is why I'd rather play Mortal Empires even if I like the number of factions from Immortal Empires. I know that once I get over the starting phase, Immortal Empire is just boring, and I'm playing on Legendary difficulty.
Sure, the cheating used to be way worse in Warhammer 3 than in Warhammer 2, factions from the edge of the map declaring war on you the player, for the simple reason you are the player. Way you make you feel stand out. But in the recent updates they improved this a lot. Now AI really gets more skilled with higher difficult, as it should in a normal game.
I know lots of people are going to disagree and they prefer the Warhammer 3 menu, but I just hate the Warhammer 3 menu when compared to the much simpler & efficient Warhammer 2 menu. Everything was better in Warhammer 2: the main menu, the options & the selection screen. You can see all lords without having to do *clicks*, you can see the map, the lore and the faction/lord benefits without having to do *clicks*.
Overall: While Warhammer 3 definetly has more content, a better diplomacy and is way better if you want to play multiplayer; Warhammer 2 still beats Warhammer 3 in map quality & end game which are amazing things for me, game balance which makes sure you have a fun campaign from start to finish, which isn't the thing in Warhammer 3 and have a way better performance and a way nicer menu.
The only noticeable thing Warhammer 3 has over Warhammer 2 is more content and better (non-cheating) AI, other than that, Warhammer 2 still reigns supreme in my books with overall a much more balanced and fun campaign experience. Yes, it's still more balanced and fun with all the BS stacks the AI throws at you. Overall, it has a much better feel and atmosphere. Warhammer 3 feels unbalanced. Like, and I'm sorry to say this, like a beta game.
I remember when I asked a question on Steam forums: Should I buy this game? for Warhammer 3, someone said "no, it's a beta game, you're much better off playing Warhammer 2". This was in February 2023 so shortly before the worst DLCs to come yet: Chaos Dwarves and Shadow of Change, and of course lots of people started arguing with that guy that Warhammer 3 is better, that guy said "okay, play Warhammer 3, be my beta testers please, I'll play Warhammer 3 after the game is complete".
That guy was an early prophet for what was to come. Of course I didn't believe him at the time, but turns out, he was right. Warhammer 2 is a complete and improved game. Warhammer 3 is still a beta game in many ways. I'd rather play the full experience of something lesser than play Warhammer 3 and wait patch after patch "maybe this changes for the better" month and month, only for it to not change for the better.
Yes, the settlement battles were bad, compared to what they could have been, but removing them (or making them less often) was even worse. A settlement where you fight in an empty field doesn't feel like a settlement at all.
I'm sorry, but I've been informed by the resident forum experts that if you're not 100% hyped on the latest TW release that you are blinded by nostalgia. It is impossible to enjoy an older TW game more than a newer one.
I would much prefer a system where different races can rise to hegemony, not the same 5 of 23 available races. It would also be much better if enemy alliances would collaborate or more smartly share/pool resources so that disparate smaller nations could pose a threat to larger empires.
Warhammer 2 had a much better pacing for a lot of races, both in levels gained for characters and growth. Everything is way too fast in WH3, with characters leveling way too fast and getting end game units as mounts by turn 20, and tier 5 happening way too soon in a campaign.
I don't mind people playing whatever game they like. I just find it extremely weird when people feel the need to make it a big drama... as if the mere fact of playing an older title is brave and rebellious or something.
I play WH3, it has nice improvements and new lords I like, but the corruption should be reverted to WH2 style... Not only in WH2 there is no silly checkerboard effect caused by corruption on the province border, but it overall looked better. In WH3 it's just plain and boring
The main issue I have with the game right now is the god awful "siege rework" and that includes the lame tower defense mechanics. Nobody asked for that stuff. All people wanted was for artillery not to be completely useless in a defensive siege and for them to finally address butt ladders in a meaningful way so walls aren't completely useless.
On top of that there's a big problem with doing away with the easy confederation of enemy AI. That was the only way for a few races to really expand quickly and remain a relevant threat by end game. As is, once you reach sufficient power you just go picking off every faction 1 at a time. And the End Game scenarios are a cheap way to artificially create challenge. I think they need to revert it. The community was wrong on this one. It's much better to let the AI confederate. It also made campaigns like High Elves funner for the player too.
In Warhammer 2 it was so much fun when you reached the end game and you had like 7 factions who covered the entire map. It felt like the most Total War total war experience, you actually had to fight an empire the size of a continent, while being an empire the size of a continent. It was just so much fun.
For me TWW3 destroyed sieged with the arcade tower mechanic. No longer is a siege about trying to break through the defenders defense before time runs out- now it's grab points before they spawn too many arcade towers. I love the new siege maps, but the arcade system needs to go.
c01484d022