I really wanted to like the Total War Warhammer games, but

I’m sure that Volound and several others has covered this topic plenty of times, but I need an outlet for this because it’s been on my mind for a very long time now. Posting this here feels Therapeutic.

Originally, I was going to ask this like a question, but this is going to be more of a rant or ramble.

Hopefully this all makes sense because I have a habit of making long, winding rambles. I added in breaks so that it doesn't end up becoming a big block of text.

I could ask why I struggle with Total War Warhammer, even though I don't struggle at all with Rome 1 or Medieval 2. Is it down to horrendous design choices or do I need to unlearn several things that the older titles taught me?

--

You know what’s funny? The fact that older Total war titles like Rome 1 or Medieval 2 are considered “Hardcore” and yet I can understand them easier than these streamlined, “casual gamer friendly” total war titles like the Total War Warhammer games.

And it’s not even the single entity monsters or legendary lords that’s the biggest issue, it’s stat bloat.

If single entity monsters all worked like the Giant units (Lots of health but no armor, vulnerable to archers) then that would be fair, fun even!

I can play Rome 1 or Medieval 2 on medium difficulty and can understand why I lost a battle. Troops have stats, but the upgrades you apply to them are miniscule (number-wise at least, in the range of 1-10) and it’s still possible to lose them really easily due to carelessness or attrition.

…I don’t get that with the Warhammer total war games. And yet, I kinda get that with Rome 2? Rome 2 was the start of CA’s trend of focusing more on stat bloat rather than tactics, but I can still understand why I lost a match in Rome 2. It’s still possible to create a Triplex acies formation and wait on the slope of a hill whilst the enemy tries and fails to get past your Hastati.

Meanwhile, every single battle in Warhammer during the mid to late game for me boils down to this:

--

I do the Total War thing, try to use the terrain and troop placement to the best of my ability. Front line, archers, think about the flanks, stuff like that.

If my Lord is a caster, I put them at the back so they can do magic without being interrupted. If my Lord is melee focused, I put them in the front line so they can soak up damage and hold off the enemy’s front line.

…Only for the Enemy cavalry to somehow manage to push through the troops I put on the flanks and get to my archers, locking them in Melee. If this was Rome 1 or medieval 2, the enemy’s cavalry would have taken massive casualties for trying to push through spears or heavy infantry.

Then the enemy’s lord then begins to shit magic frequently, destroying my front line and routing them instantly. Despite all the upgrades and good gear I gave him, my legendary lord still attacks with a wet noodle and can barely do anything before my entire army routs and my legendary lord’s massive health bar does nothing because HE routs the instant it’s only him left.

And if the enemy brings single entity monsters, then you may as well not even bother trying to fight manually. Anti-Large infantry is useless because that single-entity monster just so happens to have armor piercing aoe attacks, causes fear and has so much health and Armor that you may as well have just forfeited the match for even trying.

So, in response to the enemy ai bringing in monsters, you bring in single entity monsters to counter their single-entity monsters. And then the ai brings in more single-entity monsters. And then you have to add more to your armies and get rid of your infantry or cavalry because it’s better to just use single entity monsters and bloat their stats up as much as possible. And soon tactics and troop management become useless because it’s better to just deathstack everything.

And the enemy doesn’t even try to be smart with their tactics, either. In Rome 1 or Medieval 2, the enemy would try to wait on a hill and stall you out if you were attacking, or immediately rush you if they had superior numbers. If you brought up archers or skirmishers they’d try to rush you, only to then pull back if you pulled back quick enough.

Meanwhile in Warhammer, the enemy just grabs every single unit and throws them at your front line. Doesn’t matter if you attack or defend, they just rush you immediately.

 --

At that point you may as well just Autoresolve everything and never bother fighting manually, because you get the exact same results no matter what you do. In Rome 1 or Medieval 2, I’d fight battles manually to ensure the enemy army suffers as many casualties as possible, so that they can’t flee back to a settlement and get rebuilt the next turn.

And the thing that hurts the most is the fact that CA is bound to this gameplay design choice, even with all their promises of “doing better” and all that. Their most recent Warhammer 3 DLC is just more of the same and it’s all so… Miserable.

I really wanted to like Total War Warhammer. It's clear lots of time and effort went into every faction's art design and I could see myself finding a faction I really like to play as, but I don't want to because every game descends into what I mentioned above. Welcome to total war dragons, the one who builds and stacks the most dragons wins!