It's not a hidden fact that CA's communication was heavily criticized for ages by now, CA's lack of honest and forthcoming messages often created much unnecessary frustrations that aren't as common with other game devs (such the one CA bothered to congratulate : Manor Lords, which has an incredible communication with the fanbase).

Recently CA's adopted new strategy that on the surface looks to be better than the previous way of handling things. Giving devs the ability to chat about the future of the project and even actively asking for feedback while acknowledging feedback that was already taken is a great step forward, that being said I used the term on the surface cause beyond shedding a bit light on the future of the project (mostly translates to marketing at the end of the day), the change doesn't address the core issue of being honest about what is out of the scope of development.

Receiving feedback is a privilege, having a fanbase that doesn't leave so easily when getting frustrated and even providing ideas on how to improve is a great thing, but it shouldn't be taken for granted, the effort put by fans should be addressed and CA hasn't done so which is part of the reason frustration often grew within it's fanbase. CA is known to act like an ostrich every time issues arise and this is still the case to a degree with the Horsham team completely ignoring in their new format the most heavily addressed subjects (such as Sieges).

If CA truly wants to improve and this new format is truly something more than just another marketing tool to manipulate then CA needs to actively addressed what is out of scope of their development, what criticism and feedback (especially top topics) are just not in the line of what they want to achieve/can achieve/or to what degree will they be able to achieve.

In fact CA Sofia already proved that CA can do better (Horsham team should take notes) in their recent video (Pharaoh Behind the scenes). This was due to the devs showing overall far greater degree of honesty (acknowledging the even the name 'ass ladders') , humility (accepting the battle maps were to small and learn through feedback that they needed to be bigger), and forthcoming approach (sharing about the development process while detailing what is certainly Out of scope and what might be in Within Scope of development). If Sofia can do that good, I believe Horsham team can do as well.

With a limited time of development redoing things again and again is far from ideal especially when there is such a huge workload as is, the lack of transparency led CA to often make mistakes that could have been avoided(something that only increases frustration among fans). I understand factors such as the hype for the unknown, the frustration of promising and not delivering, and the pragmatism behind starting on a path only to figure out it's not the right one, but there is a middle road of communicating a No that can be done as other companies had already proven!

At the end of the day most of the fanbase are adults which will be reasonable and even if frustrated when receiving a No they will at least understand why and be able to make their own decisions on how to move forward (as an example people like me who will be glad to purchase DLC to support the product will know what they support, so if I know sieges and autoresolve won't be going through major reworks I can just move on). It's time for a shift, it's time for CA to be transparent about what is not gonna be coming.

P.s. Just be careful with the echo chambers effect, the lack of communication left many who got frustrated but care for TW out of the forums which shifted mostly towards a fanbase that desires more specific things and careless for others. 

Please comment or upvote to keep the conversation up, I think this is a point of important to most of us big fans (who want big things for this game). 

In fact CA Sofia already proved that CA can do better (Horsham team should take notes) in their recent video (Pharaoh Behind the scenes). This was due to the devs showing overall far greater degree of honesty (acknowledging the even the name 'ass ladders') , humility (accepting the battle maps were to small and learn through feedback that they needed to be bigger), and forthcoming approach (sharing about the development process while detailing what is certainly Out of scope and what might be in Within Scope of development).

CA Sofia has a lot of siege expertise to offer to the Warhammer team, utilizing that would be a real boon to the game.

​

RuOne#4844 wrote:

Didn't CA Sofia make Total War: Troy? 

The gate bug is in that game too...

Yet I never once encounterd it because Troy's gates are too strong to be destroyed without rams in any meaningful time, something that took CA_Horsesham until very recently to implement in TWWH. Troy also had the butt ladders and yet they didn't render the walls obsolete, why? Because you couldn't access all sections of the wall and you still had to leave the walls via specific exits on the other side.

Troy's sieges >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Warhammer sieges despite being based on the same version of the engine.

That goes for wall-less sieges too BTW. Simply because the maps don't suck and don't give a the attacker a dozen lanes into the settlement from all sides on long, snaking paths.