Warhammer: Mark of Chaos

[Ben Sones]

Gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/warhammer/preview_6134458.html) has a developer Q&A (and screenshots) up for Black Hole's upcoming Warhammer Fantasy RTS. Read the Q&A for the details, but suffice it to say that I really like the sound of what they are doing. The campaign sounds a bit Fantasy General-ish; some limited branching, and you do all of your research and strategic development between missions. Building on the battlefield is limited to stuff that real armies (er... real ork armies) might reasonably be expected to do--repairing structures such as bridges, building simple fortifications or improving existing ones, and so on. There's no resource gathering or peasant units--resources are strategic objective that you have to seize with your army, and then spend between missions in the tactical metagame. Neat sounding stuff.

Plus, the screens are drop-dead gorgeous. Not just from an engine standpoint (though the engine is impressive-looking--check out the shadows), but great art direction as well. The battlefields have a grim, moody atmosphere that really clicks with the subject matter.


http://www.odditorium.net/Warhammer01.jpg

[selfnoise]

Uh, yes please?

The only thing is that it sounded like Dwarves weren't going to be available as a "main" army. I gotta have my dwarves.

[JD]

2-3 weeks ago a co-worker of mine brought some UK gaming mag, which had an exclusive preview and featured some more information. I know next to nothing about the Warhammer universe, but I'm really looking forward to this one based on what I've seen and read so far.

-Julian

[playingwithknives]

It looks like GW are on a run here with PC games. Ill definetly follow this one. Epic scale 40k next please and I'll be a happy chap.

[Jasper Phillips]

Wow. That looks fantastic, and I'm very glad to hear they're seperating the strategic elements out of the tactical module. Sounds like an updated Dark Omen.

[Edit] Damn, that's not even the best screenshot either.

[Nick Walter]

At first glance, this looks like a Warhammer Fantasy mod of Rome Total War. Which isn't a bad thing if well done.

[Chris Nahr]

Sounds great, looks great. But it's not like I need a special reason to buy a Warhammer game anyway...

[Daydreamer]

Will they have skinks? I can't live without my lil skinks.

[NatCox]

I like the fact that you won't have peons to do resource collection, etc.

That was one of the things I liked about Dark Omen, you just get onto the battlefield and fight. If this turns out to be a modernized version of that, I'm on board!

[OrfBC]

So is it really a Rome Clone? With a strategic map, etc? If it is, that's totally cool with me. Or is it a linear campaign like Warcraft? That's cool too.

[Ben Sones]

It's not a Rome clone--the Q&A indicates that the campaign will have some limited branching (i.e. you might get to choose between missions at certain points), and you do some research and building and the like between missions, but it sounds more like Fantasy General's Campaign than Rome's.

[Incendiary Lemon]

So is it really a Rome Clone? With a strategic map, etc? If it is, that's totally cool with me. Or is it a linear campaign like Warcraft? That's cool too.

Sounds like a mix of the two, strategic map with provinces and cities but they've also tied a narrative into it.


The battle map is where you do your fighting and local resource management. You may just show up to fight or you might stick around to fix up the place, put in a few defensive structures, burn a bridge, and leave a garrison behind... The enemy is always moving, so if you stick around on the battle map long enough, the enemy will likely show up, since there are events occurring throughout the campaign while you are in battle. It's probably best to do what you need to do and get back to the war at large. Putting all of your focus into one region means that you are probably ignoring another problem somewhere else.

From the third page of the Gamespot interview. It appears that building improvements and what not in the provinces will occur in realtime on the battlemap?


It's not a Rome clone--the Q&A indicates that the campaign will have some limited branching (i.e. you might get to choose between missions at certain points), and you do some research and building and the like between missions, but it sounds more like Fantasy General's Campaign than Rome's.

I think the choice that the Namco producer brought up was an attention issue, if you take the following mission you won't be able to command the defense of province x as you'll be otherwise engaged. Perhaps comparable to taking control of a strike mission in Falcon 4 instead of the scramble intercept? Not clear though :?

[Jack Black]

Hot damn.

Seems they can't go wrong with the art on any of these Warhammer (40k) projects and the streategy direction seems decent enough.

Edit: And look at the skaven.

[John Reynolds]

Reminds me somewhat of Myth from Bungie.

[Rollory]

Oh awesome yeah badass wow cool yeah wow.

I have been wanting something like this ever since Dark Omen. I still replay Dark Omen on occasion, nothing else has ever come close to it for medieval fantasy tactics.

[Dave Long]

It's just wacky that this kind of game is coming from Namco. It's also awesome, though. I hope they stick with PC games.

--Dave

[selfnoise]

So, is this from the same guys that did Armies of Exigo? They have the same name.

[Mark L]

All four of the soldiers at right are in different poses. I quite like that, adds to the immersion.

[Dave Long]

Yes. The Armies of Exigo guys.

--Dave

[Chris Nahr]

It's just wacky that this kind of game is coming from Namco. It's also awesome, though. I hope they stick with PC games.

Mabye they'll put in a Ridge Racer minigame with Ork karts!

[Mattc0m]

That screenshot gave me the sudden urge to reinstall and play one of my Total War games.

[Kunikos]

Saw the PC Gamer article on this one. Looks awesome. I can't wait to see it in motion and play with it, but I'm sure I will be terrible at the game.

[Igor Muravyev]

It'll be a Rome clone once you can get 1000-2000 units per army and 9 armies in one battle. Heh.

With that being said, I'm definitely looking forward to this game, :).

[Kalle]

It'll be a Rome clone once you can get 1000-2000 units per army and 9 armies in one battle. Heh.

With that being said, I'm definitely looking forward to this game, :).

Seriously, when do you ever play out battles this big in Rome? In the new expansion it's possible if you attack a horde, or attack with a horde, but just because it is possible doesn't mean that it is a good idea.

[Ben Sones]

There's a short interview (http://www.gamecloud.com/article.php?article_id=1803) with a Namco guy on Gamecloud. Not a lot of new info, but they do talk a bit more about the campaign system.


The objective-based regions are fairly unique to the genre. The idea here is that you enter a region and there are several objectives. One might be to sack an Empire foresting operation and destroy the mill they are using. Another might be as simple as destroying all of the enemy units in a region. We have some smaller scale missions to retrieve artifacts within regions as well, this might involve taking a tight squad into a forest and fighting more guerrilla style warfare. Taking, holding, reinforcing and sabotaging existing objectives on maps is something we think will keep the frenetic pace of RTS going without forcing the player to mine gold or harvest wheat. We are not requiring that the player complete all of the objectives to control a region, but the more you complete, the more resources your army will have for the war ahead.

[Mark Asher]

There's a short interview (http://www.gamecloud.com/article.php?article_id=1803) with a Namco guy on Gamecloud. Not a lot of new info, but they do talk a bit more about the campaign system.


The objective-based regions are fairly unique to the genre. The idea here is that you enter a region and there are several objectives. One might be to sack an Empire foresting operation and destroy the mill they are using. Another might be as simple as destroying all of the enemy units in a region. We have some smaller scale missions to retrieve artifacts within regions as well, this might involve taking a tight squad into a forest and fighting more guerrilla style warfare. Taking, holding, reinforcing and sabotaging existing objectives on maps is something we think will keep the frenetic pace of RTS going without forcing the player to mine gold or harvest wheat. We are not requiring that the player complete all of the objectives to control a region, but the more you complete, the more resources your army will have for the war ahead.

That's interesting. Does that mean that during the course of completing objectives you don't have a way of creating new troops? There's RTS like the Total War series and then RTS like Warcraft. Which one is this game closer to?

[JM]

The previous Warhammer games were more Total War than Warcraft, so I hope it carries on in that vein.

[Incendiary Lemon]

Asher try the first interview that Sones linked to. It doesn't appear they'll follow many of the Warcraft conventions.

[Ben Sones]

Indeed. I don't know if you build units during battles or not--they haven't specifically said (and none of the interviewers have asked them in any of these Q&As), but it sounds sort of contrary to what they have said about their design philosophy for the game. It may work like Dark Omen (but that's just a wild guess).

[Moore]

wow! this is much more interesting to me than DoW.
looks freaking sweet.

[William Abner]

I still can't believe this is Namco.

Finally, the Skaven get some 'love' -- Plaguebearers--attack! :)

[Incendiary Lemon]

Latest set of Previews

Gamespy (http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/warhammer-mark-of-chaos/658321p1.html)

Gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/warhammer/news.html?sid=6135652)

IGN (http://pc.ign.com/articles/658/658322p1.html)



The focus of the game will apparently be on fighting and winning battles, so real-time strategy fans who are sick of sending peon units to chop wood and mine gold in the faint hope of building a barracks someday will be relieved to hear that there will be no mining and no wood chopping. You'll instead gain resources by capturing strategic locations, like farms and gold mines, and rather than always starting from scratch with a new base in each mission, you'll instead develop a static capital city in one of the four corners of the world map. The capital city can be outfitted with improvements and technologies to strengthen your armies, but your primary activity in the single-player game will be marshaling your forces to whichever territory you feel like conquering next. Unless, of course, some rival general has designs on your capital city, which will also lie in a contestable area. In this case, you'll be able to garrison your units inside your buildings for a defensive bonus, as well as to conceal them, possibly for an ambush against a careless marauder.

[Ben Sones]

It would be cool if I could access the screenshots and/or the videos page for the Gamespy article, but I can't. When I click on the links for those pages, I just get an ever-refreshing interstitial ad that just pops back up again when I try to click through it.

[Chris Woods]

I'm so paying my gamer tax on this one. It just looks and sounds too cool.

Chris Woods

[olaf]

There are not enough RTS games, this will help.

olaf

[Ben Sones]

Yeah, I love everything I've heard about the concept. I'm really looking forward to this game.

And now I can't get to Gamespy at all. I just get that damn Comedy Central interstitial, and can't get past it.

[Incendiary Lemon]

Namco released just a few screenshots, if you've seen the IGN Gallery then thats all of them.


There are not enough RTS games, this will help.

olaf

Tactical RTS are less common. Myth was released in 1997 and I can't think of a title that has surpassed it.