​I don't care if the title sounds clickbaity, I've just been feeling rather frustrated lately and I just wanted to get this off my chest.

Now, I really feel that for all the bells and whistles CA has added to the TW campaigns over the years, I just can't play many, if not any, campaigns on Wh3. And this is coming from someone who was really excited to play a Gorbad campaign when Omens of Destruction was announced, because he's one of my favorite Warhammer Fantasy characters., but I just couldn't bring myself to go through with it. And I feel like a big part of that is because of how overly focused on the campaigns the TW games have become.

And I will say that I don't hate the TW campaigns (in Wh3 or otherwise) by any means, I just feel that this sort of thing needs to be talked about a bit. And while this may seem like a "General Chat" discussion topic, I will be mainly focusing on how CA could and should improve Wh3 to greatly help not only the multiplayer battles but the campaigns too.

And I don't mean to sound confrontational, but I completely dismiss the lie that the campaigns are the heart of the TW games, as anyone with a bit of sense can tell that it's the battles that are the real heart and soul of the TW games, and it's the battles that make the TW games great, and the campaigns are only meaningful because of them.

Campaign Improvements

I really think that all CA just needs to include the following couple of things and things could be good for a while, aside from needed patches and such of course.

1. A "Random LL Start Positions" option that, well, randomize the starting positions for LLs and their factions.

2. Along with a "All Terrain Compatible" or something option that allows at least LL factions to conquer any sort of settlements and all, mainly so the random starting position option is made more viable.

Maybe 3. The possible inclusion of a few extra campaign customization options, such a player replenishment, movement range, and some more minor things like that from Pharaoh, so that maybe players don't always have to use cheat mods for smaller basic buffs and such.

I just really think that the first two things alone would make for some great improvements that would truly add more to Wh3 and keep the game's lifespan going for quite a bit longer.

But I should probably talk about the other side of this topic.

Needed Improvements for Multiplayer Battles

Like I previously said, for all the bells and whistles that CA has added to the TW: Warhammer campaigns over the years, I feel like it's almost criminal for CA to have barely done anything with their multiplayer battles, at least with Wh3's anyway. And what makes it worse is that in Wh3, what little they have done has actually come fairly close to actually making for some great MP experiences possible, but it feels like they just stopped 50 yards from the finish line as it were and didn't go all the way with it.

Honestly, I feel like all that CA needs to do is to expand things like how items and such work within the custom and MP battles and really make such things far more meaningful.

What I'm trying to get at is that CA should improve how the items work by expanding the existing system of items and such so that all LLs have all their items from the campaign in their proper item slots, as well as maybe having a lot of options for generic lords and heroes, so that they can still compete with the LLs and LHs. I'll just give a rather simple example in Grimgor.

Grimgor's improved items could possibly grant him bonuses somewhat like this

Weapon Slot: Gitsnik. It grants a +10 MA and +15% AP Damage.

Armor Slot: Blood-forged Armor. +20 Armor, +10 MD, and its existing ability.

Talisman Slot: Da Immortulz Banna. Gives Grimgor a banner ability that grants +10 MA and MD and maybe Immune to Psychology to all units within 30 meters of him.

That's just one example of what they could do with the LLs' items to make them far more meaningful in an MP setting. And yes, while I know those seem like some big buffs, I am talking about Grimgor Ironhide after all, a melee legendary lord, and I want al the LLs to really feel like legendary characters.

Just loot at Thorgrim and Grombrindal's  items.

Thorgrim's Items and Grombrindal's Items

Just get rid of the campaign effects and slightly change the stat buffs and you'd be pretty much golden for multiplayer battles. 

But aside from improving the LLs, I would say that CA could greatly improve the MP battles by giving them a few nice multiplayer specific maps that are not Domination maps, as I while I think most of the maps I've played on aren't terrible by any means, they do still feel a bit smaller than they should be. 

And look, I completely understand some people not wanting the maps to be too big, but I certainly think they could stand to be at least 25% bigger, as well as having more unique maps as well. Because I'd really like to see some interesting maps, like an old but super unique one from back in the Wh1 days. 

The map was called Assault on the Silver Pinnacle, it was an actually interesting siege map. This map was actually interesting because it had one side being able to deploy across a fairly long and wide land bridge and two prop giant dwarf airships that allowed the attackers to attack into the fortress from the rear.

That's all they'd really have to do to make siege battles in MP far more fun and varied. Make a few maps that aren't just the same old things. And heck, maybe they could make a siege map or two for each race that is kind of meant to play into what each race or major sub faction is meant to do. 

But above all else, I want to see the battle maps be made a bit more interesting and so that it's not just X race's map or such things, and there should absolutely be a reasonable challenge in any new siege maps.

But we can discuss these things at greater length in the comments.

But I really just feel like Wh3's MP battles are in such a potentially great position to be a truly great MP experience, but it's just so damn annoying that the devs don't just take it that little bit further because so many people are blinded by all the bells and whistles of the campaigns that they forget what's truly the heart and soul of these games.

The campaign is all I play, I don’t play battles I’m the abstract, as they are part of the campaign. This is what makes TW games a TW game. Work on the map appears in the battles and vice versa. MP is of no interest for me and according to CA that is the norm.

The campaign is the prime way the game is played and will be CA’s main focus.

​

davedave1124#4773 wrote:

The campaign is all I play, I don’t play battles I’m the abstract, as they are part of the campaign. This is what makes TW games a TW game. Work on the map appears in the battles and vice versa. MP is of no interest for me and according to CA that is the norm.

The campaign is the prime way the game is played and will be CA’s main focus.

I'm a little confused with how you started this comment.

Do you mean that you don't even play the battles in the campaigns or just that you have never experienced the greatness that TW MP battles can be?

And while I don't mind people enjoying the campaigns, like I said in the OP, I will completely dismiss the idea that the campaigns are what make the TW game great, when we all know that it's the battles as a whole that make them worth playing.

And it shouldn't be, as that just leaves the campaigns to just be more of the same when you really boil it down. Sure, you can give X LL's faction this or that mechanic, but it's all just the same conquer the world type of stuff at the end of the day.

​

VikingHuscarl1066#3718 wrote:

​

davedave1124#4773 wrote:

The campaign is all I play, I don’t play battles I’m the abstract, as they are part of the campaign. This is what makes TW games a TW game. Work on the map appears in the battles and vice versa. MP is of no interest for me and according to CA that is the norm.

The campaign is the prime way the game is played and will be CA’s main focus.

I'm a little confused with how you started this comment.

Do you mean that you don't even play the battles in the campaigns or just that you have never experienced the greatness that TW MP battles can be?

And while I don't mind people enjoying the campaigns, like I said in the OP, I will completely dismiss the idea that the campaigns are what make the TW game great, when we all know that it's the battles as a whole that make them worth playing.

And it shouldn't be, as that just leaves the campaigns to just be more of the same when you really boil it down. Sure, you can give X LL's faction this or that mechanic, but it's all just the same conquer the world type of stuff at the end of the day.

The battles are part of the campaign, I do not play battles in abstract, as is the player’s option, I battle via the campaigns only.

The campaign includes the battles, the mix of strategic map and battles is what makes the games popular. That is the identity of a total war game.

Campaigns are what you want them to be and you can easily boil down a battle into its most basic parts.

It is not a good idea to focus on one, the battles are an aspect of the campaigns. They are not an abstract concept within a TW game.

Even more bonuses for Grimgor, who maybe has the best items in the whole game? (further buffed in last patch) ekhem, compare him to poor Greasus...

careful with making powerful items even more powerful, honestly I'd like more balance.

good point about random starts, imo some LLs should have several start locations, like Golgfag or Changeling. Toggle in menu if you don't want any randomness, and voila

OP... can't bring theirself to start a campaign because campaigns have had too much attention from the dev team?  That doesn't really make sense to me.  Want to try again at explaining that bit?  A feature being updated does not generally make people want to avoid playing it - it does if the updates made it worse, but that's not what you seem to be saying.

As for the claim that battles alone are the heart of the game, I strongly believe you to be mistaken.  I find neither campaigns nor battles especially fun without the other; it's only the way the decisions made in the two intertwine to meaningfully affect one another which elevates TW:WH above other games which have better RTS or better campaign gameplay.

Random start positions and full terrain compatibility are available via modding.  I disagree with the notion that they improve the game, so I would prefer to see them remain in mod territory.

I don't care about multiplayer battles, do not wish to see the devs prioritize them, and personally have no desire to discuss the matter further.

WH3 has some of the thinnest campaign features of any TW game, and yet you’re complaining there’s too much focus on them… what?

The campaign map is what give battles meaning. It’s when the campaign becomes a face roll that people start auto-resolving. If you want to focus on battles, play custom battles and cut out the middle man. 

Campaign serves to give Battles meaning. Without the campaign, battles are just in a vacuum. Fun for a while, maybe to have a tourney with friends. But Campaign is the heart of the game, it is what Total War is, Turn based campaign map with real time battles.

​

davedave1124#4773 wrote:

​The battles are part of the campaign, I do not play battles in abstract, as is the player’s option, I battle via the campaigns only.

The campaign includes the battles, the mix of strategic map and battles is what makes the games popular. That is the identity of a total war game.

Campaigns are what you want them to be and you can easily boil down a battle into its most basic parts.

It is not a good idea to focus on one, the battles are an aspect of the campaigns. They are not an abstract concept within a TW game.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying.

And I don't mean to sound argumentative or anything, but I'm afraid that it's the other way around with the TW games. Because it is the battles that make the TW games (including the campaigns) special. Because there are plenty of other strategy games out there that have you managing campaigns and such, so that part isn't all that special.

Because like it or not, none of us long time fans were drawn to the TW games because anyone said anything about managing campaigns and such, we were drawn to these games because of how they showed off the battles in the trailers.

I'm just saying, people can be ignorant of parts of some games that they don't know can be far better than they blindly assume they are. And the worst part of that is that Wh3 is so freaking close to having all it needs to make it's MP scene far better.

​

VikingHuscarl1066#3718 wrote:

​

davedave1124#4773 wrote:

​The battles are part of the campaign, I do not play battles in abstract, as is the player’s option, I battle via the campaigns only.

The campaign includes the battles, the mix of strategic map and battles is what makes the games popular. That is the identity of a total war game.

Campaigns are what you want them to be and you can easily boil down a battle into its most basic parts.

It is not a good idea to focus on one, the battles are an aspect of the campaigns. They are not an abstract concept within a TW game.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying.

And I don't mean to sound argumentative or anything, but I'm afraid that it's the other way around with the TW games. Because it is the battles that make the TW games (including the campaigns) special. Because there are plenty of other strategy games out there that have you managing campaigns and such, so that part isn't all that special.

Because like it or not, none of us long time fans were drawn to the TW games because anyone said anything about managing campaigns and such, we were drawn to these games because of how they showed off the battles in the trailers.

I'm just saying, people can be ignorant of parts of some games that they don't know can be far better than they blindly assume they are. And the worst part of that is that Wh3 is so freaking close to having all it needs to make it's MP scene far better.

It's not one or the other, what makes the TW games is the fact that battles and the campaign are combined, that is what defines this game, not the battles or just the campaign. 

This is a 4X game, that's just a fact and if this game was just battles I would not have stuck with it, real time battles on their own is not a representation of what TW players like, they don't come for the battles, they don't come for the campaign.. they come for the TW experience as both combined. That is why you will find the huge figures in terms of campaign starts rather than just battle options. It's fitting that the battle only MP option is far less popular than campaign play, that's why most of the work does go into campaigns.

People who prefer to play the campaign are not ignorant, they just like playing TW games as they were designed, that's why they are drawn to the campaign and battles. 

​

Steelclaw#6359 wrote:

OP... can't bring theirself to start a campaign because campaigns have had too much attention from the dev team?  That doesn't really make sense to me.  Want to try again at explaining that bit?  A feature being updated does not generally make people want to avoid playing it - it does if the updates made it worse, but that's not what you seem to be saying.

As for the claim that battles alone are the heart of the game, I strongly believe you to be mistaken.  I find neither campaigns nor battles especially fun without the other; it's only the way the decisions made in the two intertwine to meaningfully affect one another which elevates TW:WH above other games which have better RTS or better campaign gameplay.

Random start positions and full terrain compatibility are available via modding.  I disagree with the notion that they improve the game, so I would prefer to see them remain in mod territory.

I don't care about multiplayer battles, do not wish to see the devs prioritize them, and personally have no desire to discuss the matter further.

Well, I just feel kind of campaigned out, as if even if they add in this or that LL with this or that possible mechanics, it all just feels so freaking samey and I just feel like Wh3's MP battles are so freaking close to offering a great MP experience that it feels quite unfair that the campaigns get endless attention while the MP battles get barely anything beyond just the basic stuff, if that.

And while I'll give you the climate mods, I have yet to see a random start position mod for Wh3. And I'm more so just pointing out how some of these things were added in TW Pharaoh and that some of them should be transferred over to Wh3.

And no offense Steelclaw, but you and many others come off as very disingenuous about your distain for Wh3's and the TW games as a whole MP battles.

I say that because many of you clearly speak from a place of mostly ignorance or pride, in that you talk badly about a part of a game you most likely know little to nothing about and choose to just dislike it and put it down rather than just giving it a fair shot with a few friends.

But I will say that one thing I always find rather hilarious when talking about this sort of topic is that people who talk bad about the TW MP battles ALWAYS act like it's one or the other. That they just can't play campaigns and multiplayer battles. That if they even play a single MP battles, they'll somehow never be able to go back to playing campaigns.

That is so silly that it does make me chuckle a bit.

Because all I ever ask of people is to just give the MP battles a fair try without going into it with their minds already made up and all that silliness.

​

VikingHuscarl1066#3718 wrote:
Well, I just feel kind of campaigned out, as if even if they add in this or that LL with this or that possible mechanics, it all just feels so freaking samey and I just feel like Wh3's MP battles are so freaking close to offering a great MP experience that it feels quite unfair that the campaigns get endless attention while the MP battles get barely anything beyond just the basic stuff, if that.

Fair enough.  I can understand being bored of campaign and frustrated that something you don't want to play receives dev attention, I was just confused because I thought you were saying you didn't want to play it *because* it was updated a lot.

VikingHuscarl1066#3718 wrote:
And while I'll give you the climate mods, I have yet to see a random start position mod for Wh3. And I'm more so just pointing out how some of these things were added in TW Pharaoh and that some of them should be transferred over to Wh3.

Wait, is there not a random start position mod?  My bad, I thought I'd seen someone mention one on Steam forums, but I might just be thinking of a mod which allows manual start position modification.  I'm not against it as a vanilla option, especially if the code already exists so it's not taxing on dev time.

VikingHuscarl1066#3718 wrote:

And no offense Steelclaw, but you and many others come off as very disingenuous about your distain for Wh3's and the TW games as a whole MP battles.

I say that because many of you clearly speak from a place of mostly ignorance or pride, in that you talk badly about a part of a game you most likely know little to nothing about and choose to just dislike it and put it down rather than just giving it a fair shot with a few friends.

But I will say that one thing I always find rather hilarious when talking about this sort of topic is that people who talk bad about the TW MP battles ALWAYS act like it's one or the other. That they just can't play campaigns and multiplayer battles. That if they even play a single MP battles, they'll somehow never be able to go back to playing campaigns.

That is so silly that it does make me chuckle a bit.

Because all I ever ask of people is to just give the MP battles a fair try without going into it with their minds already made up and all that silliness.

I'm simply not interested in discussing multiplayer battles beyond expressing my disinterest.  I gather from my skimming of what I've quoted here for tone that this upsets you, and I'm sorry you feel that way.  I'm sure you can find plenty of other people who have more to say about multiplayer battles than I do at this time.

​

Passthechips#4366 wrote:

WH3 has some of the thinnest campaign features of any TW game, and yet you’re complaining there’s too much focus on them… what?

The campaign map is what give battles meaning. It’s when the campaign becomes a face roll that people start auto-resolving. If you want to focus on battles, play custom battles and cut out the middle man. 

Well, if that's the case, then the TW MP has been barely surviving off of the smallest of scraps from the campaigns' table.

And in all honestly, that's only partly true.

Sure, building up your faction and all in a TW campaign can be plenty of fun, but to try to say that TW MP battles just can't be meaningful is a outright falsehood. Which I can attest to from personal experience.

I would almost want to challenge as many TW fans as possible to play like 10 battles in a campaign and play 10 MP battles with some friends and then come back and try to say with a straight face which ones were actually more meaningful to them.

I won't lie and say that playing with some random people can be annoying and that you'd never ever run into a spammer or such things, but I will say that TW battles where you actually have to try can be so much more meaningful and memorable than playing against yet another Greenskin, Skaven, or whatever AI army in the campaign all by yourself.

​

Phenex77#4577 wrote:

Campaign serves to give Battles meaning. Without the campaign, battles are just in a vacuum. Fun for a while, maybe to have a tourney with friends. But Campaign is the heart of the game, it is what Total War is, Turn based campaign map with real time battles.

As someone who's actually played a LOT of MP battles in past TW games, I can say that the whole vacuum argument doesn't actually hold up, at least not as much as you might think.

And that's actually where you're wrong.

While the campaigns do play a big part in the TW games, if they didn't have the battles, they wouldn't be able to be anywhere nearly as successful as they have been. But on the flipside, CA could probably sell the TW games as just SP and or MP real time battles and they'd still be pretty successful, but they'd have to really focus on making the battles as great as possible in such as situation, but I'm sure you know what I mean.

Because it's really the battles that make the campaigns worth anything in the first place, as you need to build up your armies and faction through success in battle as much as managing your you settlements and such, especially in a game like Wh3.

Not to mention how there are plenty of strategy games out there that also have campaigns where you manage various things, so it's the real time battles that make the TW games stand out as much as they do.

​

davedave1124#4773 wrote:

​It's not one or the other, what makes the TW games is the fact that battles and the campaign are combined, that is what defines this game, not the battles or just the campaign. 

This is a 4X game, that's just a fact and if this game was just battles I would not have stuck with it, real time battles on their own is not a representation of what TW players like, they don't come for the battles, they don't come for the campaign.. they come for the TW experience as both combined. That is why you will find the huge figures in terms of campaign starts rather than just battle options. It's fitting that the battle only MP option is far less popular than campaign play, that's why most of the work does go into campaigns.

People who prefer to play the campaign are not ignorant, they just like playing TW games as they were designed, that's why they are drawn to the campaign and battles. 

I know full well that the campaigns are helped by the battles davedave, but don't try to pretend that CA couldn't sell the TW games off the battles alone, because we both know that they could. And that's because no one else does real time tactical battles quite like CA with their TW games.

And I rightfully call out people for being ignorant because most of them are ignorant of what they're truly missing out on. Like it or not, that is lacking knowledge/appreciation of something they don't understand.

And while I don't have anything against such people, I know that I don't have to tell them what they want to hear, in that they can just keep looking down at the TW MP as if they have the right to talk bad about something they don't understand.

And again davedave. I'm not the one trying to treat giving the MP section in these strategy video games a fair chance as if it's some life or death situation.

​

Steelclaw#6359 wrote:

​Fair enough.  I can understand being bored of campaign and frustrated that something you don't want to play receives dev attention, I was just confused because I thought you were saying you didn't want to play it *because* it was updated a lot.

Wait, is there not a random start position mod?  My bad, I thought I'd seen someone mention one on Steam forums, but I might just be thinking of a mod which allows manual start position modification.  I'm not against it as a vanilla option, especially if the code already exists so it's not taxing on dev time.

I'm simply not interested in discussing multiplayer battles beyond expressing my disinterest.  I gather from my skimming of what I've quoted here for tone that this upsets you, and I'm sorry you feel that way.  I'm sure you can find plenty of other people who have more to say about multiplayer battles than I do at this time.

It's not that I don't want the campaigns to get proper attention, it's more that I understand that the MP battles in Wh3 need just a little bit of attention and they'd be great. And what make the whole thing really hilariously dumb is that it wouldn't take even a 10th of the dev time to do that, compared to all of what they'd done with the campaigns of course.

And yeah, I checked just a bit ago, as I wanted to make sure I didn't miss a mod or anything.  But you're probably thinking of a great mod that was in Wh2, because I do remember that one.

Well, that's kind of part of this discussion.

All I ask of people is to either walk away after the whole "I don't like MP" stuff or be willing to give the MP battles in at least Wh3 a fair chance with a few friends.

As someone who's actually played a lot of TW MP battles over the years, I can actually attest to battles that actually make you have to try being so much more meaningful than many times the battles against the dumb AI in a campaign, which will usually always do the same things over and over again. And I can still remember a few MP battles rather vividly, where as I can only remember the bare basics of one or two battles from campaigns I played, and one of which was from Napoleon.

I have never played multiplayer in TW:WH. It won't change. In my opinion, CA should exclusively focus on the single-player campaign.

TW is all about the campaign. The battles are just an extra on top to spice things up.