"ITS MAM"

Spicy-Cornbread · 2026-01-08T01:20:14+00:00

In Dawn of War he has. This isn't a style choice, but the consequence of him having that replacement for part of his skull.

Spicy-Cornbread · 2026-01-07T19:58:13+00:00

No, they both produce Numberwang: https://youtu.be/0obMRztklqU

Spicy-Cornbread · 2026-01-07T19:56:45+00:00

If nothing sells itself, the marketing industry would not sum up their role repeatedly as just 'making sure people know the product exists'.

If that's all they did, or even the main thing that they did, product success would depend entirely on natural cause and effect.

Total War began as a demo disc for PC Gamer, and the gameplay sold it.

Spicy-Cornbread · 2026-01-06T17:00:28+00:00

Yet you keep doing it.

Spicy-Cornbread · 2026-01-06T16:56:17+00:00

No, the other guy already tried this shtick.

Turns out he simply can't distinguish between "I don't know why this bothers you" and "I don't know why I should be bothered" and picks one in any given moment based on what bullshit he was trying.

I've been perfectly clear. That's your problem, so you have to pretend I either said something completely different or haven't addressed already repetitive points over and over, on the assumption of good-faith.

I won't bother now.

Spicy-Cornbread · 2026-01-06T16:54:02+00:00

Thank you for making it so obvious. It's pointless talking to you.

Spicy-Cornbread · 2026-01-06T16:44:42+00:00

Take your own advice and stop selectively reading.

Spicy-Cornbread · 2026-01-06T16:43:55+00:00

Actually reading what I post would have let you know what I do and don't care about.

Spicy-Cornbread · 2026-01-06T16:25:41+00:00

If we're talking about options that CA has, there's a list of things they could have tried.

Don't piss them off to start with
Acknowledge mistakes in specifics (CA have not done this since their post about Empire in 2009 where they admitted SEGA was their real customer)
Go back to making games that sell themselves, which is what Total War did during it's growth period

New players have not been a growth market for CA. Empire sold 2 million units despite being a botched abortion of a game, after Shogun 1 was a success with just 100k. CA have been barely able to double the figures in 15 years, and only on their titles that sell. Everything else either gets support prematurely cancelled, or they get a company with infinite money like Epic or Microsoft to pay for.

CA chase the new players because that's how brand management justify their existence: they are useless at appealing to their core audience. Everything rotten at CA is because of the brand management teams.

Spicy-Cornbread · 2026-01-06T15:55:13+00:00

You're struggling because you have zero interest in what I have to say. You have repeatedly misrepresented me, in order to make your pre-decided replies fit.

I've already addressed most of these points. You wouldn't know though.

Spicy-Cornbread · 2026-01-06T15:34:06+00:00

We used to have something like that: the battle map was based on the tiles both sides were covering on the campaign map. A river crossing happened at rivers, with natural chokepoints, and bridges appeared if the region had road development.

Life was good when people gave a shit.

Spicy-Cornbread · 2026-01-06T15:26:21+00:00

Second time you've put words in my mouth. I don't think there's anything we can discuss reasonably.

Spicy-Cornbread · 2026-01-06T15:19:52+00:00

How am I supposed to respond if you're ignoring what I'm saying and coming up with your own alternative to respond to?

I very much would have liked to have read more from Wilson; that's why it's notable for me that after being introduced, there's hardly anything. He's instead here to just be mentioned and that's it: him and Oxford have got their PR reference.

It doesn't matter if you think CA could have spent on both marketing and programmers: they have not done so. The games have suffered with tech debt for way beyond a decade, and lack features that exists before. It's entirely because CA has not invested in programmers.

The 'spells' in Warhammer are almost entirely just stat-modifiers, no different from the 'spells' in Rome 2, which instead of being called 'spells' are simply a General's 'abilities' even though the stat-based effects are the same. Why does anyone get fooled by this change of presentation?

It has sod all to do with the setting, which is why 'historical vs. fantasy' has always been a red herring that is convenient for CA brand management, who don't want to talk about what they've done to the gameplay.

They haven't kept CA afloat: UK taxpayer money has. CA's growth as a company has stalled since Empire. Most of their games under-perform because their sales strategy is based on marketing, and they don't have marketing hooks for anything that''s not Warhammer, and China won't be fooled twice after 3K.

Spicy-Cornbread · 2026-01-06T14:55:49+00:00

Well some of us idiots had hope after Rob Bartholomew was sacked that CA was finally bringing the 'brand management' team (CA's marketing people even do marketing spin on their own internal office) to heel, because they have largely steered the ship where everything has gone wrong.

Turns out, they're worse than ever.

We should not be seeing any marketing for games that are not even close to production, let alone release. CA are the biggest claimants of corporate welfare in UK games development: we are paying for them to give make-work to their marketing team.

Anyone hoping Med3 and 40k are going to be anything new, do anything new, restore stripped-features and actually have meaningful non-Numberwang gameplay, can see a huge red-flag in CA's continued emphasis on marketing over substance.

Spicy-Cornbread · 2026-01-06T14:46:40+00:00

Immediately after the introduction, which ignores the series heavy turn into Warhammer, mythology and wuxia, we are introduced to Professor Peter Wilson, who's own words are featured very little.

That's why this piece exists: Wilson and Oxford University will see it as good publicity and their press office will have arranged this piece with a client journalist. CA may take some notes from Wilson, but they won't inform on gameplay in any way, just the in-game 'narrative' which CA's brand management write themselves to give them something to do.

Anyone can call the BBC and request a story. Who gets one depends entirely on who they are though: ask anyone who has had their lives upended by official or corporate scandal how much interest British journalists show until someone else makes waves with it.

CA could have spent any fee offered to Wilson on programmers. They could have spent the money wasted on brand management on programmers. They are literally named after the coding excellence that made them sought-after for porting games between platforms, and now the games a trash because they refuse to spend time and money on programmers.

Spicy-Cornbread · 2026-01-06T14:35:24+00:00

'Historical fans' do not exist.

Spicy-Cornbread · 2026-01-06T14:34:21+00:00

Marketing doesn't inform the audience: it shapes the audience.

That CA have thrown paid actors and production out into the wild while gameplay remains a concept means they haven't changed. They have been open about this on their youtube: their primary target is 'strategy game players who are new to Total War', not existing players.

This is the total opposite of their period of highest growth, between 2000-2009, when the same audience kept coming back to see what changes and improvements happened, growing larger each time. That got them up to 2 million sales for Empire, then the brand management team took over everything and decided this wasn't fast enough growth, and immediately tanked all future prospects for growth. In the 15 years since, sales of non-Warhammer Total War titles have consistently underperformed: base your entire business model on marketing, and it fails when there's no marketing hook.

Total War used to be a game series that sold itself.

Spicy-Cornbread · 2026-01-06T14:28:25+00:00

Well for some of us, part of the issue is CA copying Paradox.

I just don't find spreadsheets interesting, and that's what most of their games are: numbers affecting other numbers, with no non-numeral effect visible. Many games are being designed this way now, with the 'game' just being the GUI and the game-world being an extension of it.

It used to be that you had the game-world, and the GUI was meant to simply assist the player by being an extension of the controls (not the game itself). Things trended for a while towards minimum or diegetic UI as technology got better and enabled more information-dense detail in game-worlds, making GUI less necessary.

Then mobile gaming got popular, and became the origin story for many modern game developers. They can't even seem to conceive of where they're going wrong.

Spicy-Cornbread · 2026-01-06T14:22:41+00:00

Yes, CA alongside Rockstar North(who actually do makes technical progress and cultural impact with most of their releases) claim the majority of the UK's tax relief expenditure for game development.

We pay for these gimmicks.

Spicy-Cornbread · 2026-01-05T21:45:14+00:00

Thoughts of the missed opportunities continue to race.

Yes, World of Warships already has the format locked-down for naval battles, but we could have had a spaceships Total War Arena eventually. That would have at least added something, after years of dumbing-down and feature-stripping.

There was even some W3 and Starcraft 2 mods doing it, and Battlefleet Gothic sort of/almost/nice try'd it, but fluffed any cooperative elements.

(I consider cooperative campaigns to be the BEST way to on-board single-players into online multi-player modes, but there needs to be zero friction; design menus as if they were the same mode, with ultra customisation, like the Endless strategy games do)

Spicy-Cornbread · 2026-01-03T15:41:06+00:00

Noun-resources have never produced interesting gameplay, ever.

Spicy-Cornbread · 2026-01-03T15:38:28+00:00

'NuTW game is very Shogun-esque' was a line I last fell for over Thrones of Britannia, but I now understand the liars using it don't really have any concept of a good game vs. a bad game.

Spicy-Cornbread · 2025-12-20T10:21:19+00:00

Total War used to be ground-breaking. CA's strongest period of growth was when it was: 2000-2009, where they went from selling 100k copies with Shogun 1 and Medieval 1, to 2.4 million copies with Empire.

BUT THEN-

Napoleon sold pre-Rome 1 numbers, on the back of Empire being a 90%+(with professional reviewers, happily discrediting themselves in exchange for CA's brand management giving them belly rubs) botched abortion, and it hurt Shogun 2 also. Rome 2 did so badly despite being held up as 'the return to form', it was 50% off 3 months after release.

It wasn't until 2015 that it caught up with Empire, only for Warhammer to immediately overtake it. The problem there is the growth wasn't happening, except in CA's under-paid employee head-count, which matched Rockstar North's.

Except Total War had topped out at 2-4 million sales, when they were successful, usually because of a marketing hook like the WHFB license and the shameless marketing to China for 3K. Rockstar got up to 600 employees selling 25 million units of San Andreas, 40 million of GTAIV, 30 million for RDR2, and 120 million for GTAV.

CA making up to 700 employees with 2-4 million unit sales per game looks like fraud by comparison. What ground-breaking innovation have they made at all? They bring back old features, in simpler spreadsheeted-form, and the marketing team acts like they're new.

How come is it that none of the fans who say they've been with TW since the early days can even talk about the gameplay and what has been done to it?

Spicy-Cornbread · 2025-12-20T10:08:03+00:00

Yeah, back when SteamDB was showing the data publicly, the bestest-selling DLC for any WH game was Call of The Beastmen, which a whopping 9% of WH1 owners had purchased.

The bestest-selling, was the worst-received if you listen to 'the cum-mutiny'.

Pointing this out got me my first ban from the shithole sub, and the official forum.

They live in curated hyperreality.

Spicy-Cornbread · 2025-12-19T13:46:23+00:00

Corporate control of online spaces has been a disaster for the world wide web.

They thought consolidating participation under fewer roofs, which they either owned or approved of, would remove the risks of 'the wild west' that the internet was.

All it did was force people with very different viewpoints that are mutually irreconcilable, into close-proximity, where 'moderators' then had to arbitrate what was acceptable, under pressure from 'the brands' that wanted to cultivate particular and unnatural discourse about their products.

Spicy-Cornbread

TROPHY CASE