>>36294
>When the first one came out, there was a general opinion that it's a great Warhammer game and a great Total War game and in the case of the 2nd game I can only agree.

It's actually one of my least favourites. You sound like a fan of Warhammer so you may see it differently(most seem too) but to me it's a step back in quite a few ways. It's an interesting concept but even though you have teams of orcs and the like I actually find the rooster lacking and not that diverse for what it is, and that really should have been the selling point. As for the battles, they are awful in so many ways, the AI is awful and will just run straight at you from the start, no tactics or sense at all, the maps are really cramped and bad, making it impossible to deploy effectively and meaning that in siege battles you actually cannot siege as your infantry is in range of their towers and cannot be moved out of range, the animations for units are really, really bad, even in Medieval 2, cannons had actually loading animations, in this a fellow just squats next to it for a bit and musketeers just shoot and stand still for a bit and then shoot again(plus they all shoot through each other). The battles are far simpler and lack the nuance of older titles, there really isn't much difference between units even of different races, they handle essentially the same, really the only thing that adds anything is the magic but it doesn't make up for all that was lost.