I do worry that some of the systems might be a little opaque to people who are 100% new to the series though – you can figure it out given enough staring at the tooltips, but the in-game wiki is dreadful. That’s not so much an issue with Total Warhammer as it is Total War in general though – thanks to the somewhat-simplified province management this is probably the most accessible title the series has had in a long time.

Still, I got on much better with the province management than in Rome 2, largely because all the improvements are actual improvements with effects that are much easier to parse once you understand the economy. I can’t remember which Total War it was (might have been Shogun 2) that had buildings that increased a province’s “Wealth”, which may or may not have been completely different from income – I never figured it out and the game wasn’t interested in telling me. Here it’s just “These buildings will increase your income/growth/public order by X” which makes it much easier to make a value judgement on how useful they are.

I did find myself autoresolving a little too much towards the end of my Empire game, but that’s just because I find multi-stack battles too much to really handle, and I also don’t like the way reinforcements trickle in from offscreen. (Something not mentioned in the review that I should have: the reinforcement points are all messed up and can often spawn an enemy army directly behind you.) The autoresolve code isn’t actually too bad this time around – it doesn’t seem to take into account unit quality and so tends to overestimate losses taken by elite units, but since it just takes a couple of turns to replenish those losses it’s not a massive deal.

But no, I wouldn’t say it’s all that much like Age of Wonders 3. It’s still very recognisably Total War, just with a lot of the frustrating points from the past smoothed away and set in a world that seems much more full of life.

But I will say that the game does a very poor job of explaining province management. It took me awhile–and a round of googling–to understand how to approach building upgrades and Public Order, and I’m still not 100% clear on it. Luckily, the economy does seem simplified, and I’m having an easier time than in the past fielding multiple armies.

This weekend I felt the need for some historical escapism. Building empires is more interesting to me than walking the streets, so instead of buying Assassins Creed and suffering through UPlay I’ve reinstalled Rome 2. I’ve started as Iceni, British guys. I quickly mismanaged my empire into hunger, started again. 3 hours later I conquered Britain. It felt basically the same as Rome, just fewer provinces from the beginning and therefore less micromanagement and less possibilities for big armies. Still I had full stack from turn 5; I only had medium infantry and some slingers and skirmishers; I also bought light cavalry mercinaries. At this moment playing Iceni turned into playing Rome. I got some special events (still don’t know or care what do they affect), I had no idea what buildings do (wiki is terrible at telling you what buildings you actually need to get decent units), my generals could rode chariots. But it was all the same as my memory of playing Rome. After British Isles were united I’ve looked at the goals tab. Turns out the easiest victory – military one – would require me to conquer Rome. To get there I’d have to conquer a dozen provinces. I had 6 provinces, most of people around me had just 1 or 2. I imagined all the slog. All the time I’d spend on this settlement management. I’ll have to expand into open territory and fight in all the directions. Fights themselves are not that bad even; but playing the game I’ve already felt I won just to see the same boring micromanagement ahead was an unbearable thought. I promised myself not to try TW game ever. Your review reminds me I haven’t touched Shogun or Fall of Samurai even though I own them. Mostly cause I don’t care about Sengoku. Warhammer intrigues me too now.

Anyway, Warhammer. I feel the best thing about it not being historical is not that Creative Assembly can do whatever they want now, it’s that they don’t have to lie they’re doing history. Because I know how the real Roman armies looked. I know how big they were. You don’t have to be a historian to know that battle of Borodino had more than 4000 people in it (more than 250000, actually). The way they abstracted their game was almost insulting. Paradox told me there are 50000 people there showing just one, it abstracted economy. TW shows you the face of each soldier sneaking through high grass and wants you to believe it’s real. It gives you regional centers with two dozen houses to fight for. It’s very hard to devour.

Does this game give similar vibe to Age of Wonders 3? I feel AoW3 had a good balance between strategy and tactics. TW is no fun the minute you start autoresolve battles cause you know how they’ll go and don’t want to spend 5 minutes on loading screens. AoW3 has quick battles without lengthy downtime. And TW economy feels simultaneously full of micromanagement and primitive. AoW3 is generic but customizable, it became great after couple of expansions. I have a strong feeling launching TWW would make me want to play AoW3 instead.

Sorry for wall of text, that was interesting and thought-provoking review! As always.