Honestly, THIS is why you miss old Total War
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 вер 2023
- It might be hard to even remember what you're missing when the thing you're longing for is hard to pinpoint, but in the case of Total War, I think I've figured it out, and it's something people very rarely talk about. You see, Total War used to be about commanding empires no matter their size, and no matter what turn you found yourself on. Total War didn't care that the Seleucid Empire was a massive empire on turn 1, but handed you a handful of cities anyway. In the same vein, Total War Attila has you begin with dozens of cities from the very beginning. But where did this go?
Contrast this philosophy of old Total War with the new one, the one you've been playing for almost 10 years now. The entire Warhammer series has revolved around factions starting with 1 - that's right - ONE city, or in some cases a city and a small village. Even the mighty empires of Reikland and Cathay begin with just ONE city - less than a few upstart dukes - even though they are supposed to be powerful and wealthy. Why is this? And why was this change made? Was it better before, or does Warhammer, Troy, and future Total War games have it made?
In my opinion, the way it was in Rome Total War, Medieval 2 Total War, Empire Total War, Napoleon Total War, Total War Rome 2, Total War Attila and even sometimes in Three Kingdoms, is by far the best, seeing as we're actually getting a realistic historical asymmetrical experience, where empires feel like empires, and where the starting position of everyone, is not equal.
But what do you think? Let me know your thoughts on this topic and this video down below, and make sure to leave a like and subscribe to the channel :)
BECOME A CHANNEL MEMBER: / @andystake
Consider supporting me with a Super Thanks! :D
OR please consider supporting me on Patreon: / andystake .
Don't forget to like, comment, and subscribe to help me befriend the algorithm ;)
JOIN THE DISCORD: / discord
#rometotalwar #rome2 #medieval2totalwar #empiretotalwar #napoleontotalwar #warhammertotalwar #warhammer3 #totalwar #totalwarwarhammer3 #totalwartroy #totalwarpharaoh #totalwarbestfeature #totalwargamer #besttotalwar #besttotalwargame - Ігри
Want more? Check out the definitive 2 HOUR Rome 2 Critique here, 10 years after release: ua-cam.com/video/XvgJBu1XvTo/v-deo.html
I dont miss them, I play them, Total war tree kingdom is last but not great total war game
one other major mechanic is regeneration.
in warhammer EVERY army can regenerate from 1 model per unit to full health in 5 turns or less ANYWHERE on the map.
at least in medieval 2 you had to manage logistics to constantly reinforce your army and a pyrric victory actually hurts.
in warhammer if you don't fully kill a unit it doesn't really matter how much damage you do. but in medieval you can cripple the enemy or try and slowly drain the enemy with sudden small attacks.
it increases your tactical options and makes you decide if an engagement or auto resolve is worth the damage rather than just if you will win or not
@@theeviloverlord7320 I ALWAYS say : bring back recruitment card! xD
For me, I miss feature where you could move units without being lead by general.. In OG Rome 1 if I remember correctly.. I hated when I have huge empire, and I need to visit every corner with my general in order to collect reinforcements.. In Rome 1 you didn't even need to have a general. Ofc your army would be weaker without it, but when in need, it was cool
@@startledhamster As on old TW designer, I couldn't agree more. This was a VERY lazy move from the TW team to limit the number of forces you can have on the map - Which may have merits, but created an extremely artificial limitation that makes no actual sense for a game about running a war campaign.
IMO, the team should have just made a penalty to having units not led by a general that made it something you only did when necessary, and just scale those penalties based on testing. There are SO many things you could do here.
I liked how in Rome generals gained traits organically. Stick a guy in the middle of nowhere and forget about him? He will literally go insane and become a drunkard. And then if you get into a battle with him he gives a speech in which he sounds insane and drunk.
@@epicness128 thats how it works in hoi4 too (not any "insanity" stuff but yea), if you fight with a general in jungles he will get jungle rat trait, same for desert, forest, hills, mountains, etc and they will get buffs for infantry if they command infantry in battles, tanks if they command tanks etc aswell as some other buffs like for flanking, crossing rivers, attacking forts. Something like that in total war would be really cool, but the only way to gain traits is from killing legendary lords, which is a bit of a shame.
@@epicness128 yea it takes a long time to learn, super fun imo though
I really miss that, I suppose its a annoying thing to micro but I always really liked it.
I always disliked how I could choose what upgrades my generals would get unrelated what they actuelly did in-battle.
A general who is fighting in battles should get skills related to that while a general who does should not.
I have not played other Total War game aside from Rome II and Shogun 2. Does other game have the client state/ satraps mechanics like Rome II? I love those mechanics because I can make my rainbow army in campaign.
Every single one of my generals getting the "Dishonoured" (playin another language, don know how named) trait when I put em in a city:
It is a small addition, but I really miss it in the new Total Wars, especially Warhammer. Which are visible trade lines. I loved to see with my own eyes, a busy trade line, because it had tons of those tiny ship models sailing from port to port. The same on lands, you could see those tiny trade wagons. And the fact, you could just block it, and cripple the economy. I do miss that we have zero focus on the naval aspect in Total War...
Same, I miss the ambience of this stuff
I sometimes like to just listen to the ambient music and watch my trade lines go. Its just so peaceful. Oriental Empires and Hegemony 3 do this too, but also allow you to zoom in and just watch your everyday citizens going about their days.
@@qzamap3870 yup that’s what got me into this series in the first place
@@qzamap3870seriously ? I believe i am gonna wishlist oriental empires and hemegony 3
Visible trade lines is in 3K. 2 factions with trade agreement will have rows of transport carts moving between their border settlements.
It's really the lack of population control, squalor, actual building variety, and all the little things that has killed modern TW for me.
Yes. In Total War Warhammer, it is very easy to get money. The money generating building is also the cheapest and easiest to build. So, just having more territories means that you will have far stronger armies. Meanwhile, in Rome or Medieval total war 2, we have to build SEVERAL buildings over a long period of time to generate decent revenue with a single city.
@@rumplstiltztinkerstein Yeah, and you cant just take a city and instantly build up a brand new fresh army- you need to build it up and pacify the population, you will always be leaving behind troops to keep the population under control...
This keeps players from just steamrolling the entire map because they'll eventually need to be on the defensive and stop after their army runs out of troops.
Honestly, there's just so many things the old games just do better and will always do so until CA finally gets their shit together and fully recreates these systems in a new game- and there's so many of them I doubt they'll ever do it, maybe 1 or 2 things but never all of them...
And quite honestly after the reveal of Hyenas and seeing Troy copy n pasted into Pharoah... I've lost pretty much all hope for them recently. (what little I had left after the milking of Warhammer that is)
@@WelcomeToDERPLAND the money milking on WH1+2 drained Me of any respect I had left for CA after the shyt Rome 2 intro and the skippy Attila, runs like shiite. I have more money sunk into WH than all the other Total War games combined and WH is by far the most frustrating and lack luster TW game, the game just ends up a lame duck after turn 100, once you have a doom stack, the game is over. The Chaos Invasion just comes up dreadfully wanting, every play through Chaos gets owned and destroyed within 20-25 turns. The only thing that saves WH is the modding community 100%, WH would be uninstalled and shelved like Troy(free), Brittania(paid), without the modding comm. CA should have a sit down and chat with the top modders of TW games, hire them, make TW great again.
you mean its now focus is on battles and not the empire building aspect?
I love how people conveniently forget TW3K also have population control, squalor, as well as actual building variety and think WH are the only new TW games.
One of my biggest gripes is that you can't make armies without a "hero" unit to command them since Shogun 2
In M2 one of my strategies to deal with the Mongol Invasion was to run a stack of spearmen around the regions plopping forts and leaving like 4 spear militia in each. Since healing lost troops over the end turn wasnt a thing, every kill you could get mattered. Even chap spears, holding a fort could cause real damage. Today, with the way stats work now, 4 t1 units even doing something like holding a bridge would be pointless, as the 4 or 5 kills they got would replenish instantly. But in M2 I have stopped invasions cold with 4 spears and a couple cheap crossbows on a bridge. I do miss being able to do that.
one of the only things i dislike about rome 2 is going to the very edge of my border, spamming out a 20 stack in 2 turns, and then stepping over and sacking a city
That's because, in tabletop warhammer, you need a lord to be the general of your army.
Yes, I hate this so much.
@@LordKalte It's not just Warhammer, (which I can excuse) it's Rome 2, it's the two existing "Saga" titles, it's Third Age Total War and it'll be any future Total War games. Splitting your armies used to be doable and an easy way to quickly top up garrisons, swap out injured units and deal with incursions without having to either recruit another general or waste your armies movement dragging the entire force off to swap units between armies or to heal units in a city. Not to mention you could detach cavalry and use their superior movement to run down a defeated enemy army, so long as they hadn't already been in a battle.
They've even started to show a pattern of having overpowered leader units that remove the need for the rest of the army. It's not a problem in Warhammer where the army can still wipe heroes but Troy and 3 Kingdoms? You can play both games without buying a single unit and still win any battle you fight.
Medieval 2 is the only TW to have this feature, but upgrading a unit's armor and weapons will visually change their appearance on the battlefield. From unarmored to gambesons to chainmail to even full plate for some units. It was purely cosmetic, but it was such a neat feature that unit upgrades were reflected on the field and not only raw stats.
i dont know how many hundreds of hours i put in this game, but i never noticed this. xD
It should go even beyond that: we should have a unit design feature, where you can customize your troops, their skills, habilities and entire loadout. The customization should affect cost, time to recruit, availability and so on.
Wait what? How did I never notice that?
I’m pretty sure thrones of Britannia did that. I remember upgrading a unit and wondering why they got better armor otherwise but were still barefoot
It actually was not purely cosmetic. Improving their armor improved their stats on the backend. It's pretty cool.
What I'm missing is family tree and marriage and an in-depth political system.
Also CUTSCENES. They were so important in the older total wars including Shogun 2 and seeing them decline in quality sucks.
3K said hi
Yes!!! I played rome2 for the first time in like 8 years and completely forgetting the importance of family and marrying I lost because my 2 starting family guys died
Screw the politics. These are the TOTAL WAR games, not those boring as hell Paradox games.
@@chubbyninja89 Look it's someone who failed the Paradox tutorial! How cute, total war was similar early on kiddo
This!
It's not just the campaign map, even in the battle maps they always avoid asymmetry like the plague. Almost every land battle you and your opponent always starts in a similar-ish situation with no one having the "high ground". Even in sieges they try to push down the asymmetry as much as possible.
I can only think of one reason: they wanted to push the multiplayer E-sports thing, so they just make all the maps like Starcraft even though it doesn't fit the Total War formula, instead of leaning into its own identity.
Yeah, it fully seems like one of the reasons for this is the “balanced” multiplayer aspect, but it’s just not fun and it takes so much away from the deep total war experience
Yeah, maneuvering was one of the best parts of the battles.
They should just make a few multiplayer balanced maps and the rest make them fun and assymetrical
Warhammer 3 really does suffer greatly from this, every map can be put down to (large semi flat area with a couple of decorations and trees) or (large area thats on a hill to one side of the map) and of course (choke-point), that's 90 percent of all total war warhammer 3 maps, witch gets very boring, especially as large areas share only 1-2 battle maps that your gonna fight on.
@@TheRogueJediimore work...
Why work more if players are still paying for less?
1. The family trees of mortal generals and leaders and feel of dynastic progression through time.
2. The ability to have armies without leaders.
3. The ability to build forts or castles anywhere on the map, creating defensive chokepoints with walled protection.
4. The battle maps terrain generation based on the terrain of campaign map.
These are the features I miss the most in modern Total Wars. The family trees and mortal leaders and generals especially.
Honestly, I think I'd like a compromise system on recruitment (as a historical fan). I'd love to be able to recruit without a general for basic militia units, but require a general character for any of the professional units. It makes sense that a town without leadership couldn't put together a band of knights or retinue longbowmen, without a leader being responsible for the payment and organization, but the ability to throw together a panic militia to respond to local threats seems perfectly appropriate.
Here is how I would balance it,
1. Militia units only for non general armies.
2. Limit the stack size of non general armies to about 5ish. Need some leadership for large groups of men to remain organized.
3. Armies without generals are unable to reinforce other armies without generals. This helps fix the balance issue of just swarms of rabble mobs being overpowered, while still allowing reinforcement columns of troops to travel from the heartland to the combat front. Additionally it makes sense from a narrative and simulation perspective as without good leadership militia mobs aren't able to respond fast enough or in communication to intercept battles in process. It also means that a large well led professional army could chew through many small disorganized militia armies wasting that factions resources (especially if they integrate population mechanics again) if the militia is used irresponsibly.
4. Militia groups would be extra vulnerable to agent actions or overall faction morale penalties, making them a liability to have large groups running around without proper leadership of supervision. Send out a militia group to put down a minor rebellion, perhaps they end up joining it because your public order choices made the public order of the common man terrible (a revision of the empire total war mechanic for public order where decisions affected different levels of the social order differently.)
play 3 kingdoms on normal mode then?
and the trait system! Rome and Medieval Generals were so much more memorable, you could have a drunk madman crossdresser that was a +5 star general on the defense and all this other crazy shit.
@@RaylanGivens123 True. And the way, they got their traits and ancillaries felt so natural. If the general stayed in some rich city long enough, they might got Accountant ancillary, when they went on crusades, they got crusader style companions, like priests and pious veterans. It was much more natural then the talent trees we have now, taken and brought from Warhammer.
I miss generals who weren't larger then life and had a chance to die like any other soldier
It really changed how you would play because it hurt so bad to lose a high level general.
@@RambleOn07 or to lose him to old age.
I really don't.
It made having your general die feel like a luck of the draw, particularly in Medieval 2/Rome 1.
Vulnerable generals were good, normally a powerful unit, easy to keep safe gave a real risk reward dynamic. Also it helped make games memorable when a good general died heroically.
So you miss the generals just being run of the mill and super boring, being only one kind of unit?
Because that's stupid.
I think the biggest problem between older Total War games and newer ones is the shifting from Nation based factions to Character based ones. CA needs to find a good balance between them, but the more it invests in the RPG nature of hero characters, the less care the nations themselves receive
Yup, there’s definitely something there
The best RP experience I had in a total war was in medieval 2. His holiness the Pope asked my crown prince to lead a crusade against Egypt.
On the vouge down his father died leaving him king. After a short but relatively successful campaign (we took the crusade target) he was defeated in battle - captured - then executed. Thus was the end of King William the just. I was so angry that they did not ransom him, I practically bankrupt myself, stopped invading France and wiped out the Fatamid Caphiliate. If my king had just respawned... well I had no real plans to invade Egypt or the holy lands prior
I think it works for Warhammer specifically, but it isn't something that they should have ported over to their historical games.
The characters were part of the story in traditional TW, not the story.
Even in Napoleon TW, the titular character had the best collection of traits and command but he could be taken out like any other troop on the tactical map.
It's not even that. What you did with your family members in Medieval 2 mattered for their stats. build enough churches, get piety, kill too many prisoners, become seen as cruel, go on a crusade, get traits, relics and topical followers, stay too long in a town without doing anything, become a drunkard.
This is why Medieval II is still going strong after 14+ years
For me, it peaked at Medieval One. I miss the set Risk like borders.
@@Reggie2000 Medieval One had the best vibes. the old paper map on a dark hardwood table. the screeching wind in the background. the only splashes of colour were the borders and banners themselves, and the battlefields of course. dark and brooding character portraits under which you could read up on their 'virtues and vices'. monks chanting on the main menu. and the intro video - absolutely gritty.
@RandomGuy4964 Exactly.
You could jump into a game with ease.
It had real difficulty of countries. Playing the Danes was brutal.
Constant threats of rebellion
Re-emergence of countries
Golden Hoard!
Nice mods
Small pc footprint.
I even loved the viking expansion.
It's a top 20ish game all time on my book.
Med 2 is going strong because it's the last game that you could edit the campaign map completely so it's what everyone mods.
I think the empire would be a lot cooler if it started as one super faction under siege. Where members of the empire can un-confederate themselves if you lose too much reputation. Would make it feel a lot more like an "empire" at risk of being destroyed.
Exactly. Give me some actual challenge and despair from the start! Make me SWEAT!
Yes that would be great, same with Grand Cathy, Make it equal by giving them tons of fractured empire issues and a horrible economy
@@joshuaerickson2458 I tend to agree with you but, I also think they should be putting way more effort into the human factions.
Empire and Cathay should get a lot of love and favoritism in my opinion. The reason why is for new players the game spoils for choice. By offering two clearly focused on and robust human factions. You can give new players a really good focus for getting into the game. That's my two cents any way as someone who only started playing about 6 months ago.
And the sad thing is, they know how to do that. Western Rome in Attila is an amazing campaign, in my opinions one of the best they ever developed, and would have been perfect to have used as a starting point for building an empire campaign. The mechanics of the turn by turn game tells a narrative that you get to experience, rather than getting spoon fed what you're supposed to feel by clumsy text blocks about the world narrative.
There's a mod for that
I just realized, even like thrones, or pharoah you all start off with like 2 regions never more than 1 full region.
I do miss a few things here or there, but the loss of naval combat being important really bums me out. I remember in Attila that with a few powerful doom fleets of artillery ships, I almost completely wiped out the Huns as they tried to cross the Black Sea to attack me and my doom fleets erased them with barely any losses. I think I also killed Attila when I did this but man, imagine playing a game in Europe where you’re Britain but there’s little to no naval stuff. You know, the thing that helped Britain become the empire it did and keep their shores safe?
Can you imagine how crazy it would be to start with a massive dark elf empire, only to have to deal with all of the rebellions happening regularly? I think that it would be a great campaign.
This is what I’m saying! Like imagine
CA really underrates how fun it was to try to right a sinking ship, like the Seleuchid empire.
@@AndysTake Starting as a One Province Minor when you are a Leader of an Empire and your "Members" treating you like a stranger is immersion breaking.
@@asatru1986 Malekith having to do diplomacy as if other dreadlords are heads of state of equal standing just makes me chuckle.
You've triggered my sick enjoyment of constant Jacobin rebellions in Vic2.
From a Game Development perspective I can tell why the modern structure is what the went with... Every faction is the "tutorial" (think the sons of mars campaign from Rome 1) where the game hand holds your first few turns slowly teaching you the core of battles, city management and then province management... however the simple thing is... they could of just done a tutorial...
Which they kinda did in TW3, right?
Honestly I really miss "Unit Formation". Really like seeing my unit move sparse themselves to negate archer damage, or horse archer run in circle while firing.
I think the newer titles have stripped away a lot of smaller aspects that built up to a good amount of inmersion that made me fall in love with this series. The topic here being one of many.
I think one of the biggest one for me is the shift of faction focused to character focused nations. I used think it was i just didnt like fantasy. But i couldnt get very into either 3 kingdoms or troy. And Pharoah is going to be continuing this trend.
I miss lots of other little things as well. Like the general speeches, the limited build slots, the agent videos, the trade routes being filled with carts or ships, the city viewer, naval combat, ability to change faction capital and faction heir, the family trees, etc.
The new traits in Warhammer also feel less "real" than the old ones. Dunno how to describe it. But I believed the traits my characters would get and would go "yep, guy is a drunkard."
Now it just feels like a debuff I got for playing wrong and need to remove by doing a specific action.
Same with public order...
Not the main issues I have but defo a part that is taking away my immersion.
The fact that every factions you plays are 'fractured' from their 'empire' might be the reason I felt burned out for every new total release. Even Pharoh, the upcoming one is about fractured Empire fending a foreign threat sounds the same as Warhammer 1 empire scenario.
Bro don’t blame Total war, blame God for reusing storylines. Egypt was fending of the Bronze Age collapse
@@forzaacmilan36 Pretty sure Egypt was united from the get go except facing huge internal and external threats.
I just really miss Naval battles. It wasn't as good as land battles, but I held out hope that each new game was gonna work on it, but then they removed it altogether :/ Really hoping Empire 2 comes out soon with a revamped naval battle system!
Using proper naval ships to destroy massive Hunnic transport fleets was one of my favorite parts of my Attila campaign.
Empire really blew me away.... I waited years to buy it because of the bad reviews, but saw Empire and Napoleon box set for like 20 bucks one day, so nabbed it.
Started my first game as... well you'll never guess. I built just a few cheap galleys, didnt think to hard about it... but coming from Europa Universalis's version of this era, I figured 4 galleys should beat a heavy ship here too... so when Sweden blockaded my port with a single fourth rate... I played my first naval battle.
My 4 galleys, vs 1 ship of the line... I fanned out to come at it from both flanks (bad idea) hoping to simply overwhelm him. Then I saw that thing fire. My jaw hit the floor. I had no idea what to expect and from the moment of that broadside setting my first galley into a massive explosion I was in love. That blew my mind, and played the hell out of Empire just because of how incredible the ships of the line were.
@@hohenzollern6025Empire was my first Total War game and it blew me away at the time.
I think Empire was the first I owned as well. A friend in highschool first introduced me to Sabaton's 'Carolus Rex' album... then told me we could play it 😂
He probably clued me into Medieval 2 as well... can't remember when I got it, but I've loved them both for years.
Think about a city battle with the naval ships in play like in Rome 2. Giant naval bombardment while dealing with city naval defenses such as naval batteries.
Once automated regeneration occurred, i just stopped caring about battles. I remember in Rome: Europa Barbarorum i would fight every battle just to avoid losing unnecessary troops. Because, I'd have to bring my army back to Italy in order to bring them back to full strength. So, it completely changed how i played the game and gave everything so much more weight. On top of being more historically accurate, strategically interesting, and tactically interesting.
THIS
Uh huh. I guess having to get your army back to friendly territory and waiting for multiple turns is just "nothing". Well I guess I never cared about battles back in Rome or Medieval 2. After all, all it takes to have a continous stream of reinforcements rolling in so you can just merge or disband wrecked units and keep going is a lot of busywork moving single-unit stacks and hitting recruit buttons every turn.
I also enjoyed the mercenary system, where an army on long campaign would (through losses) evolve from a highly specialized fighting force to being a disorganized mishmash of cobbled together mobs filling the gaps where dear friends had been lost along the way. Those mercenaries having lower morale and standing out glaringly in the battle line making you remember that horrible mistake you made 6 turns ago and your pikes got attacked on the flank, and now you just have these mercenary spearmen awkwardly filling the gap.
@@magni5648 Or you can just encamp and call it a day. No need to build forts, structures, keep supply of troops flowing. Just go in and in a recently conquered city in which probably everyone hates you or in the case of Warhammer, it is not even the same race as you, you just get new units from thin air. Yeah, it is nothing!
@@raresilc7856 So now you're massively slowed down while trickling in replenishment at a glacial pace. And you think that ISN'T a serious strategic issue?
As opposed to those oh so great unlimited mini-stacks of the past where you could just beeline them after your army and never have to worry about not having said army in top shape as long as you were willing to spend half an hour a turn on mind-numbing busywork.
LMAO.
I think the big issue is, in a lot of games there is nothing to give a shit about besides battles and a campaign needs ways for you to make a story because after your 30th+ battle you just kind of want to get through them bc there’s no way of creating an actual story with your campaign
I think they've fallen into the trap of designing outcomes, not mechanics. In other words - especially with Warhammer, instead of having smartly interlocking systems that create an emergent narrative, they've just applied a REALLY thick coat of paint to relatively samey factions and mechanics, which means that you get a lot of superficial flashiness, but no real investment into the world that emerged from your particular playthrough.
A feature i miss is upgrading units. You recruit a unit then build a blacksmith and upgrade that unit and next time you fight they visually look different! Seeing units go from padded to plate in m2tw is something thats been missing for a loooong time
Yeah love it. Or the plate armour upgrades the broken lances would get.
I never thought about this but it makes a lot of sense. I really enjoyed the Warhammer titles but I’m ready for a new historical game in the style of the older games.
Same, I truly hope the revert to the better, old style way of doing things
I miss the art style commander cards for each of the factions in Rome I. It was really cool to see different general faces and helmets for all the factions. In Rome II this changed to 3D renders which did not look as cool. I also miss the assassination cinematics from the Shogun and Medieval games
For the case fo Three Kingdoms, I would like to highlight that the game proposes multiple dates to start. Some of which feature big factions with difficulties.
In the 190 start, sure, apart from Dong Zhuo everybody starts small, and that's historically accurate, as the warlords seek to build their own realms following the downfall of the imperial power.
In the 200 start, things are quite the opposite, warlords have waged war, many did not survive, and those who did now find themselves at the helm of large empires, with dozen of cities.
Cao Cao starts with every card in his hand, the emperor, a vast army, control of the central plains, plenty of amazing characters, but many ennemies who want him removed.
Liu Zhang starts in an western valley, away from the conflict, but also powerless to the grand struggle happening in the north. He must gain momentum as whoever wins hegemony there will eventually knock on his door with the full power of the heavens.
Sun ce starts to the south, he is at peace with everyone, but will die if he doesnt wage war, he also boasts some of the strongest bonuses in the game (x2 cavalry charge for shock cav).
There are also Liu Bei and He yi, who both are small neighbors of Cao Cao and don't have immediate allies to support them. Your early military situation is hard, but you will also be in the best position to pick up the scraps should Cao Cao crumble.
In the 182 start, you have warlords who possess an entire chinese region, about 2 or 3 provinces, you can even play as the emperor himself, who tries to maintain cohesion and wields the sword of the imperial army, all endgame, overpowered units, while everyone can barely field a full stack of peasants. Though, it also comes with the downside that the imperial army is hard to replenish. So use your big stick wisely, otherwise the Yellow rebels will wage a war of attrition you cannot win.
The setups in TK were pretty good imho, though one has to say in all fairness that this also shows the advantages of a historical setup. And not just that, they could somewhat copy their homework from the Koei games. But that doesn't really matter that much, since the outcome was decent - I liked it.
I'd like to add that even though you have many warlords with single provinces in the 190 start. They all also play out quite differently. The bandit, Nanman, and Yellow Turban factions all have considerably mechanics with how they play out compared to the Han. On top of that, some of the Han factions have some great assymetry in that you can't play them all the same. This is especially highlighted in some of the other start dates, playing as Vassal Sun Ce and trying to gain independence was a wildly different experience ro say Kong Rong in the 190 start. As whole i felt like Three Kingdoms handled starting positions very well
I think it's the lack of campaign gameplay, that really matters. When there is no care about wether to have or not special ressouces, about tradelines (harbours or trading posts), attrition for your armies in harsh terrain, costs by resettling ruins, sieging other cities (Legendry lords don't even need to build siege works), a valuable diplomatic system (as it was in TW 3K), etc, etc, it doesn't matter, if you have one or more starting settlements. Building your cities is unsinspirational now. There is no family to your heroes. In fact I could remember the unfamiliar names of 3K more than these "iconic" warhammer-characters, because they are so indifferent to me. I disagree with the statement, that this is why i miss the mechanics from older TW games. It's the simplified campaign gameplay.
Thats it. The campaigns of past games where more engaging and I had plenty of stories to tell friends. Nowthere no stories no more.
@@MarkoHAKI kept a log of my Rome: Europa Barbarorum campaign's legion commanders. I don't remember how long that campaign was but it was by far the longest and most fun campaign I ever played.
What's TW 3K?
@@jonny-b4954 the Three Kingdoms era of China one
I couldn't more harshly disagree.
Campaign gameplay in older total wars was either quite meaningless, depending on the game, or EXTREMELY confusing as to what buildings actually do. People act like Med2 was great on buildings, but the buildings don't even tell you their projected income or anything. Special resources was even more meaningless in those older games than any others as well.
Is there even terrain attrition in the older total wars? Maybe from Marshlands? I honestly don't even remember it. It's definitely around in Warhammer, but especially on this newer combined game 3 map, cities are too close together for most attrition to matter.
Legendary lords do have to build siege works, certain units and LL's have siege attacker as a trait, that let's you bypass this.
Diplomacy was best in 3k no doubt there, but to act like diplomacy in even Warhammer is worse than it was in games like Medieval 2 is absolutely laughable. Especially with factions like Milan that were programmed to specifically backstab anyone they ally with just for fun.
I mean, it's fine if you don't care for a fantasy setting, I get that it's a big departure from a historical setting. But, you're really going to act like you can tell apart the 5 different administrator starting characters in 3Kingdoms better than a dragon ogre vs an orc vs an elf and vs a person who transforms into a dragon?
Cmon.
Start as Reikland with the entire empire under your control but all the elector counts as in the field but with little or no armies.
You need them in the field with armies to protect against all the threats coming at your outstretches borders, but the more troops you put under their command and more you develop their provinces the less loyal they become and get the itch to rebel from you.
Hell, even copy/pasting the R2 Selucid mechanics would be better than the Empire is right now.
Exactly…
Additionally, retiring an elector count from the post of field commander (aka stripping them of their army) is a dishonor that massively reduces sub-faction loyalty, so you need to find ways to:
- Support them all with your economy
- Make your overabundance of generals useful
- Balance forces between them (yes, even the incompetent generals) so that no sub-faction is too strong instead of just creating one death stack under your best general and a garrison stack or two to defend.
If you're gonna play an emperor at war and start off with such a strong faction, you need to manage both millitary and political concerns if you want to prevent infighting.
Additionally, investing in the count's region increases their loyalty by a large amount but slightly decreases the loyalty of surrounding regions (envy) as well as increasing their sub-faction's influence relative to others - which can combine with the influence an elector count or their subordinate generals get from commanding large armies. Should any single elector count's influence become higher than the emperor's, they can cause instability and might rebel unless said elector count is very loyal. As such you need to manage how and where you spend your money on top of managing your millitary. Also, if your own sub-faction influence goes above 60% then loyalty drops for all elector counts as they feel their powerbases being erroded.
If you want to make it more spicy, you could even allow neighbouring human factions such as Bretonnia or the Border Princes to create envy in your provinces should they invest in provinces which border ones you neglect - too much disloyalty and your provinces/counts might defect to a faction they believe will invest in them.
To be clear, the economic side should be a minor aspect which will only be impactful should a player decide to invest everything in one region - which is a bad strategy anyway - or if its effects are felt in concert with another factor.
Honestly, I think I'd like a compromise system on recruitment (as a historical fan). I'd love to be able to recruit without a general for basic militia units, but require a general character for any of the professional units. It makes sense that a town without leadership couldn't put together a band of knights or retinue longbowmen, without a leader being responsible for the payment and organization, but the ability to throw together a panic militia to respond to local threats seems perfectly appropriate.
Here is how I would balance it,
1. Militia units only for non general armies.
2. Limit the stack size of non general armies to about 5ish. Need some leadership for large groups of men to remain organized.
3. Armies without generals are unable to reinforce other armies without generals. This helps fix the balance issue of just swarms of rabble mobs being overpowered, while still allowing reinforcement columns of troops to travel from the heartland to the combat front. Additionally it makes sense from a narrative and simulation perspective as without good leadership militia mobs aren't able to respond fast enough or in communication to intercept battles in process. It also means that a large well led professional army could chew through many small disorganized militia armies wasting that factions resources (especially if they integrate population mechanics again) if the militia is used irresponsibly.
4. Militia groups would be extra vulnerable to agent actions or overall faction morale penalties, making them a liability to have large groups running around without proper leadership of supervision. Send out a militia group to put down a minor rebellion, perhaps they end up joining it because your public order choices made the public order of the common man terrible (a revision of the empire total war mechanic for public order where decisions affected different levels of the social order differently.)
I also miss the Unit Captains and Banner Carriers.
The ability to turn hamlets into true cities with all upgrades.
I am really enjoying playing Medieval 2 Total War mods using the reshade settings you generously provided! I am especially loving the challenges of the Tsardoms Mods. If you want a real challenge, if not downright impossible, try playing as the Byzantines in the 1448 Fall of Constantinople mod. Unbelievably tough. Thanks much Andy.
Thank YOU, basileus!
I never heard of the 1448 mod. But I haven't played medieval 2 in a long time, the last time I played it was for a Zelda mod.
Stainless Steel was the classic and I liked to use CBUR with it.
I still can't digest the way they changed many management aspects.
You can't choose what you build in a city because of the limited slots, only one city in a province has walls the others are always ripe for total destruction so you keep running around armies like a fool, food only lastst one turn, and buildings lower food caps and sanitation instead of improving them, ...takes away the pleasure. I can play hours with Rome, Empire, Napoleon, Medieval 2 and lose track of time, but after one hour of Thrones or Atilla, I'm totally bored.
Sounds like a skill issue
@@hafidzin yeah CA skill issue
@@supolik2 Nope. Just old total war fans whining and couldn't adjust to total war games with different mechanics.
If I cook you dinner every night, and one day I serve up a coiled turd, I don't complain that you're just whining that you can't handle change.
It's a shit change. It reduces immersion, innovation, and replayability.
@@rageagainstmyhatchet ti defend hafidzin, some ppl just like to eat shit :) but I dont understand obsession with forcing orthers to do the same.
You make a good point about the multiple city start position. It gave you more options anout what you want to do at the start. I actually miss the neutral rebels too.
My biggest problem the province system. I want i divifual cities back with unlimited build slots and lots of options build.
If you want a better empire management system late game then create larger provinces, i.e. 10+ settlements to manage taxes, public order, squalor etc.
I still love Rome 1 so much because it provides so much depth. Other people have mentioned population, trade routes, all sorts of things and that is so true. Everything really felt like an empire would, especially since the bigger it gets, the worse public order is because of the capital factor.
Also, does anyone else remember having a complete blast with the rebels? Copy and pasting them into playable in the code led to the most unique and challenging Total War campaign in the entire series. It was glorious.
EUIV (or Paradox Games in general) are less restrictive when it comes to vastly different starting locations/situations. Yes you can start as a great empire, or you begin as a vassal of someone else and you need to fight your way to liberty first before you can start expanding on your own behalf. Also starting as an empire usually does not guarantee easy victory. Yes your forces usually outmatch smaller factions, but usually it's internal politics and mechanics that keep you from snowballing too fast. Also in EUIV there is this coalition system that triggers whenever you become too strong and expand too fast. Your surrounding neighbors become wary and form a coalition with the aim of stopping you. Even if you are the strongest in your region, when all the small countries band together they very often outmatch you. That's why I prefer Paradox games on a strategic level much more than Total War games. I think the only TW game that somewhat comes close to this kind of depth is actually Three kingdoms. You usually end up having to fight two larger opponents in the bit to become emperor. But that becomes stale after one or two playthroughs because it is always the same. EUIV (or Crusader Kings) manage to give you completely different experiences each time you play. Even with the same faction. And don't get me started with how many factions there usually are in these games. The first time I launched CK2 I was blown away at the sheer amount of playable characters/factions. I still hope that someday Paradox manages to implement tactical battles where you can take command of your forces directly like in TW.
Good news then... there's a mod for that now. Play CK3, and whenever you have a battle you transfer the save file to Attila TW, and whalla, there is your army and the enemies... fight the battle, save the end result, reload it up in CK3.
If they could do the switch between games automatically with no clicking from me, I might even play it.
The moment Paradox decides to make a TW like game is the moment that either CA shapes up or dies.
Paradox games actually some cool tactical elements for armies, like splitting your army up to bait your enemy to attack across a river or uphill, and then reinforcing when they fall into your trap. Or quickly seizing mountains or crossing points. Also, splitting up armies for sieges, but also making sure you can manuver them if they get attacked. T
At first it seems like just "bigger army diplomacy", but there's a lot of tactical nuances in the game, despite seeming like it lacks options. Part of the tactics in Paradox games involving baiting your enemy, which makes it so tricky. There's also amphibious options where you try to raid a city, then run away if a bigger army comes.
Stellaris being the exception.
Personally I think they took the wrong turn after Napoleon, since total war was the only experience that could make you feel like a real commander of men where you battles mattered. Everything since have been more about the game mechanics and upgrades that get boring and hinder an immersion in the historical period in the long run. They should have gone for historical immersion and went the arcade way like every other big company, even my dad played Napoleon total war and enjoyed it even though he doesnt play videogames. Its so sad that every game company appeal to pure gamers, even the modern total war, since the the old like Napoleon was one of the few games that appealed to history fans and people curious about history, not only gamers.
Napoleon was sooo good. The embodiment of what Total war should have been.
but then again, it's going to be mainly gamers who are playing total war the most, so it would be the most logical path
@@tearstill4685 Releasing games with no depth and poor gameplay isn't appealing to true gamers, it's appealing to dumb players that only care about how big the map is and how shiny the graphics are. This isn't necessarily the logical path. Could have been different is the studio cared more about their game than money...
@@tearstill4685 It does look almost inevitable from a short term business perspective, but at the same time it is killing their original hard loyal fanbase and making it unavalible for non gamers, so I would say going the way of Napoleon would be a better long term, especially in terms of game quality and maintaining a healthy fanbase of normal people.
Uhhhh, what about Shogun II?
I like Medieval : Total War, my late brother who play it, I watched him play, at first I don't understand what he's playing, watching flags moving around on a map. Then I try it myself and fall in love with it. I like the aesthetic, music, sound and the simplicity. The troop image on the cards look authentic, not cartoonish and not just copying others. I mostly play on world map, rarely goes into the battle map, so for me the asthetic of the map is more important. Crusade and Jihad make sense, we only need to declare them and see them grow depending on how pious the society is. We don't have to conquer the whole map because there is campaign for being the most advance faction in the end, it make sense. I actually love building, negotiating and trading more than thinking about conquering nations in the time limit. I like Shogun : Total War too for similar reason.
One of my favorite total war experiences ever was playing Medieval 2 with the LOTR and Divide and Conquer overhaul mods. My two favorite factions to play were Lindon and the Kingdom of Gondor, which offered 2 completely different gameplay experiences. So I very much understand what you're talking about and agree with your big picture point.
3.00 It feels so good that someone else notices this and says it.
Taking a page from Paradox games really helps balancing small vs big factions. For example, large aggressive ones can face coalitions to make their expansion harder as many of their neighbours will team up to stop them.
In R1 and M2, the way agents were limited were : 1 per building. And they were much less powerful at the time with 1 or 2 actions at most.
Man, coalitions was one of the worst ideas from PDX and CA already did it with realm divided and, while RD was better, it is the sort of thing that has to be very carefully implemented otherwise it kills the game dead for a player, specially a newer one.
@@khankhomrad8855 I guess higher difficulties could include mechanisms like coalitions and whatnot, instead of just being giving the AI some cheats.
Easy difficulty, sure don't include that and don't make it too punishing in normal, but it makes for an interesting mechanism to make a campaign harder, that makes sense (smaller countries will keep an eye on you if you keep expanding, and will unite against a common threat if need be). There actually was something similar in M2 with the Pope, attack too many catholic countries as a catholic and you'll end up getting a crusade against you.
Realm Divide is far too extreme. Taking EU4 as an example, so long that the coalition isn't much stronger than you it will remain defensive, and over time your aggressive expansion drops. Getting some allies also helps preventing a coalition from turning offensive (as you'll be seen as stronger). Also, coalitions are local as your agressive expansion depends on how far the nation is, if you get a coalition it's only neighbouring countries and not the entire world against you.
A bit off topic, but the Total War: Troy soundtrack playing in the background from around 3:30-7:00 is just so beautiful!
Things I miss
1) progress graphs
2 city view
3) opening speech before battle
4) soft coded maps so modders can make new mods
Comander bound armies and garisons thats why I miss em
most empire management games USED to have it where the BIG space filling empire was in decline or facing a million revolts or economic problems, hell mods for games like "Thrawn's revenge" in Empire at War does this perfectly.
It's fine to have a for fun sandbox map where everyone has a single city start, but the main campaign map doesn't need to be that way.
Man all these things compounded really makes a big difference..
Was a little doubtful at first, but you explained your point logically and articulately.
This lore wise + the collision hit boxes really drained the magic out of TW
liked, great work!
I never realised this, wow. I always thought that every campaign (exceptions like Wood Elves or Horde factions aside) feels 100% the same. You basically only choose the flavour of units you will have and what enemies you fight in the early game.
Yeah, very good point. I still fondly remember my first Ottoman playthrough of Empire. It was a hectic experience trying to hold onto things with enemies everywhere, rebellions popping up every other turn, tax revenue just not cutting it, and a tech-race already lost. But it was a lot of fun.
Exactly….
This reminds me of Euopa Universalis IV, where you can start out as the insanely large Ming Chinese Empire or any tiny one-province isolated tribe in the world and have an interesting game regardless.
I just miss being able to assemble armies of infinitely respawning dogs that cost a third of the upkeep that a normal military would cost.
I’d say three kingdoms is especially good at this in the alternate start dates added with the DLCs. For example, in the Mandate of Heaven DLC, the Yellow turbans may start with only one city, but they will very quickly find themselves at war with the entire map, making a challenging experience early on. (the other DLC start dates are also good at making differently sized factions, which, again, goes back to the variety of start conditions)
Agreed. I play almost exclusively High Elves and it always feels more fun, and accurate to the lore when Ulthuan is besieged. Having Morathi and her chaos corruption spilling through Tirannoc while the blood voyage is making its way towards Nagrythe is actually tense and exciting.
What is most baffling about the entire series is the inability to Rename Generals and establish a proper succession of heredity. What turns out to be hundreds of useless nameless Generals who don't really earn their traits is just an immersion killer.
Also supply lines to your armies, along with trade caravans on the map (and cargo ships) to your cities is a must.
These are not impossible features and are more important than some Cartoon Arcade type Graphic improvement that we always get.
Ive only played one game that tried to do supply lines. Was some no name wwii game, and it was very poorly done. But that remains the only time in my 50 years some game actually considered the concept.
The single most important factor in a real war, and no games dare tackle it.
Yes, in it's simplest form you have the graphic of the little wagons caravan going from a city to wherever the Army is, and if this path is blocked, then the Army increases attrition or sickness.... it's really that simple.
As for the naming of Generals, this is to assist in tracking the unit and their accomplishments along with making the campaign more personal, or immersive. Especially later in the game when you have 20 armies or more....
Again, another easy but vital addition to the core engine of the game.
I don't need arcade graphics.
You sound liek you want to turn it into Crusader Kings, instead of just playing Crusader Kings.
@@hohenzollern6025 Rome 2 Divide et Impera (mod) has supply lines. It's an easy to understand system but the Ai cutting your supply line or some unforseen event doing so can ruin an army.
@@hohenzollern6025 Sounds like you should try the 'Hegemony' trilogy by Longbow Games (Gold: wars of ancient Greece .. Rome: rise of Caesar .. 3: clash of the ancients). They're real-time strategy games where supply lines and seasons, formations and unit experience all make a difference. Hegemony 3 has an active modding community as well.
Very well thought out. Appreciate the content :) 👍
Thank you. You put it so well in a way that i struggled to put to words myself. This is so true. Thank you. A large starting Bretonnia set up just the way you said would be so much fun!
The Reikland campaign could've had you start like Wessex in ToB. Tons of vassals with varying levels of loyalty. The challenge would be keeping it together and solidifying it before expanding
As much as everyone hates on Thrones, it was my first TW and was good enough for me to explore the series further
Look a new kid.... Get Him!
Thrones is a good total war but deservedly got hate because people back then think it's a Attila clone
Thrones was the last TW I bought and I clocked hundreds of hours on it.
It's good, but sufferers from just the one main problem - restricted settlements, with no standing garrisons (the AI is bent towards having five two-unit stacks which swarm around like flies, and there's nothing to do but chase them from town to town), plus obviously the restrictions on buildings which ruins the concept of leading a kingdom. "I want to build a trade post here" - "well you can't, because it wasn't historically known for having one", - "great, thanks".
Outside of that and the acceptably inferior battle mechanics, it is a good game, for a historical title.
Why they didn't just use the Attila engine/UI with a 100-town Britain, I will never know.
Change for the sake of change.
I'm playing Warhammer II, right now.
I agree that the vastly different starting points of earlier TW games was a big factor in replayability.
Way back in 1989, Koei had an 8bit NES game called Genghis Khan.
In it, there were two versions you could play: Mongol Conquest, where you were Temujin, Uniting the tribes, or World Conquest where you were Genghis Khan Uniting Eurasia. (In world, you could play as Japan, Byzantium, or England as well)
If you beat the Mongol Conquest, you could take your game into WC, where things were averaged out to match the scale of WC.
Imagine if, in Warhammer, you had a (basically) tutorial where you, as Karl Franz the general, crushed the rebellion which elevated you to the Electorate and Emperor. Then, you get to chose a hero and 3 units that you take with you to Mortal Empires.
I think that would rock.
Great video, Andy. Attila has long been my favorite Total War title. Now I wonder if this asymmetry factor is why.
It reminds me of the current game i am playing, Medieval 2 with third age divide and conquer mod, where you can chose to play as men, elf, dwarf, orc or dunedain. You can play as a 2 underveloped territory of northern dunedain or massive gondor for example, and despite the disparity in power between factions it was always fun to play as either, diferent playstiles, diferent enemies and positions. It means massive replayability.
It's amazing how many intelligent people have been drawn to the Total War series. Great video Andy, hopefully somebody at Creative Assembly is watching this, especially if they are truly working on Medieval 3 as many of us suspect.
Appreciate it mate, thank you :)
There are multiple warhammer 3 factions that start you with a city on one side of the map and your army far away, eltharion, malus darkblade, and thr new yuan no come to mind. You can play in a Greek-cities style situation with them
I think you make great points! There are other ways to fix balance like you pointed out with Public order problem etc. I think this is something that mods could help. But I would love to see them turn back to this too.
One thing that HAS improved massively over the years is diplomacy.
From being literally broken in the code in M2, to every faction being totally unreasonable in Rome2, to realm devide making all in exes pointless in Shogun, the newer Britannia, TK, and Troy have so many more deplomacy tricks and options that actually make sense and work.
It boggles my mind that WH1 came right after Attila but the starting situations were a complete 180° difference. Also, yeah it's weird that Pharaoh's trying to be sort of a sequel to Attila with many mechanics returning like fire and natural disasters, etc., but everyone starts with one settlement. Egypt and Hatti were in civil wars, true, but you'd think they'd at least start out with a bit more than one city. Plus, if you take the Charlemagne route and very carefully follow a set of quests, you could potentially unify your realm, creating more internal chaos you need to focus on, along with external.
One thing I feel is lost is that newer games have excessive unit variation but the units all feel the same.
Medieval had less variation but each unit felt unique and was memorized as it mattered.
Troy and Three kingdoms being the biggest case of this for me.
Navy. That's it. I have adapted to and learned to not mind literally every other change and annoyance, but I miss navy so badly that it constantly ends up making me return to the older games
I'm enjoying your frequent upload schedule. Keep it up man. I recently dived back into the total war franchise beating shogun 2, Rome 2 and now attila. Might I ask for something attila related? I'd love that. Thanks again.
Thanks man! It’s interesting that you’re saying “frequent” because I’ve actually dialled it back a little in order to bring out longer form content. I am to make something Attila related with a new project I’m working on, but that might be in a while. We’ll see though :) what specifically Attila related are you looking for? Also welcome back to the series!
@@AndysTake no your upload schedule is better than mine, trust me 😂 Well if I had to ask for attila content I'd love to see your take on the most fun factions to play or perhaps most difficult (except western Rome because I don't have that kind of courage yet). Infact, why not make a video on what mods might improve or add to the game to make it more fun or challenging perhaps. Thanks for the quick reply, I hope you have a great day!
As one of the old TW designers (I was the campaign designer for Medieval 2), I personally miss the old building system more than anything else, and can't say I miss the multi-region starting setup at all. Our entire discussion on faction balance on starting positions was simply "History wasn't balanced, and the factions don't need to be - Except in multiplayer battle mode." We would use AI-only campaigns to check economic growth in the game and use that as our main tuning tool. Giving factions more regions was often mostly about ensuring we didn't have major players in history stagnating or floundering economically.
On the Warhammer games, I find I must disagree that factions feel the same in how they start, mostly because there are huge variances in the effectiveness of early-game units for the different factions. I think you were on the money when you touched on a the devs having a desire to support the experience of getting a feeling of expansion. However, I do feel CA should probably look into adding a 'full faction' starting setup option, but I'll explain why I suspect they haven't done this...
The biggest issue the modern TW team needs to solve that I don't think ANY of us ever did was making a satisfying endgame challenge in single player. Once you're good, and you have a moderately large empire, you will almost certainly win... Broadly, AI control over a large faction seems universally poor in all TW games. Unless the current TW team can address that, a 'full factions' starting setup would probably just highlight how bad this issue really is. You'll have lots of big powers on your borders, all failing to throw their weight around properly.
Finally, the big problem with a 'start large but face revolt' setup is that the TW mechanics as they are have no real depth to how unrest is handled. This is something I learned driving the VnV systems... You can have deep ideas about how they work, but unless you give the player genuine agency to engage with these things in a more nuanced way, it's not satisfying. Where everyone's take on how much civil management should be in TW is extremely subjective, and it's always going to be impossible to make everyone happy.
Hi, Dan! Thank you so much for leaving your comment! Is there a way to contact you and maybe have a chat?
This never occurred to me before, but you're totally right. This was a huge loss for the franchise.
Yeah it’s actually crazy how much of a difference it makes!
Such a huge loss it took the franchise to heights that outperformed it's earlier titles by orders of magnitude. In b4 the obligatory "Warhammer fans are just all dumb gamers and don't count" elitism.
@@magni5648 This is a useless response
@@PitterPatter20Yes, your response is quite useless, it's self-awareness nonwithstnading.
I really miss the agent action cutscenes there was always a bit of suspense cause they started similarly and you had to wait to see if they messed up. Made it a lot more immersive than just getting the result immediately.
My most missed feature was the general's speech before battles, that was tied to the general's traits. Was always fun to listen to, before the battle.
Good video. I agree with your opinion.
Historical fans try to make a point without unnecessarily shitting on Warhammer challenge [impossible]
Lol true
It's one reason, not the only one. We lost many litle things. They were not important alone, so we didn't feel it at first. But a lot of litle things are missing now and we feel it.
I tried playing Troy again in anticipation for Pharaoh to see if I really still didn't like the game, and you helped me realize why I started to drift away after Attila. Its the oversaturation of map and battle flag UI that just overwhelms me and feels redundant.
When I go back to Rome 2, I look at the map and its nice and clean and all I see are the settlement names. "Ah this is Sparta. There's Jerusalem. Over there is Axum." And if I want more information, I can click on the settlement.
In Troy, there's a whole ass info bar slapped over every city that can't be toggled off in settings or toned down whatsoever.
Likewise in the battles, everything I need to know about my units is already at the bottom of the screen on the bar with them all in a row. Why does every single unit now need a circular unit type icon, then a health bar, then a morale bar, then an ammo bar, then a pink bar that represents idk what, then a bar with the fatigue icon, then then the unit flag? Multiply that by 20 and your screen is a cluster fuck when your whole army is in view.
The unit flag and tatteredness was fine. When I see it flashing, I know its going to route, and I switch my attention there. Attila was the first game that did this, but each game has gotten worse since, and I don't get why.
I'm grateful though that Pharaoh is adding stylized 2D unit cards. That was one of my favorite things, and most missed features from Rome 2.
the one city starting makes A LOT of sense in total war Warhammer, it also alows for MUCH MORE legendary lords and factions possible. And having a legendary lord makes your faction actually way more powerfull than minor factions anyway even if they start with a few more city. gameplay wise it's a realy good choise for warhammer, it's terrible for historical total war tho. And it would be cool to have a special mod with united factions (like bretonnia, empire, lizardmens factions, cathay etc...) something that would be kinda accurate to the lores factions but would be unbalanced and it could also have reduce buildings income etc to not make them op and stop spam
There's more cities in Reikland than just Altdorf
For me its the "e-sportification" of TW. The pacing is lightning fast compared to Medieval 2. Battles are won on how fast the player is instead of using tactics.
Your video sparked my curiosity, apparently there's a mod that unites all factions of specific race into one bigger kingdom (the ones you're usually able to confederate with so e.g different dwarven kingdoms like reikland, marienburng, ostermark for empire or like karaz a karak + karak kadrin + all other dwarven kingdoms united under one banner from the start, etc); name of the mod : All Factions Become Confederated at start. Tho' it seems it has not been updated with the latest dlc patch so be aware it may crash a lot/not load at all/etc.
Nice video, as always
Actually disagree.
From my experience people have the most fun with initial expansion because thats where the hardest bit is, and thats where the most interesting gameplay is.
When u blob up its where people drop of, an issue all the older games had as well.
I think u can see this across strategy games where like EU, HoI etc player dropoff increases as you just become way to powerful, something exacerbated with large initial starting sizes
agree
thats the reason why i usually play minors in games with big empires
I think your reasoning works in reverse: you need to have big empires at the start so that in mid game you have opponents that seriously challenge you. Thats why Europa Universalis is always fun to play, you'll always have France, Castille, Commonwealth or Ottomans to be a challenge, even if you unified your home region (which are pretty big). In TTW3 it's pretty easy once you reach turn 40/50 (then again because the AI is mostly very very bad).
Europa has it owns flaws, IE the late game is boring as fuck because well, no challenge, you eliminated most of the big dogs. But in TTW3 there's only the initial expansion that's challenging, like you said. The rest feels like a chore.
@@ranulf1295
No?
You have the same type of blobs in TTW3 as you do in EU, but once you reach a certain threshold in both games you go on a positive feedback loop that the AI can't keep up with it.
Once you reach a certain threshold your strategy is the same because there's no incentive to change, there's no upgrades.
If you have big blobs at the start that players can play, you usually get into situations where one bad play by the AI and they can never catch up, so while the initial conflict might be cool, subsequent ones just become easier
That feedback loop isn't as big at the start,
Yeah but in EU4 the blobs are here from the begining, so even if theyre bad theyre still a force to deal with whereas in TTW3no one is better than you from the start and they are slower than you to progress, so youre always kind of stronger than anyone. Whereas in EU4 the tension can still be here around 1550-1600 (not much after 1650/1700). But imo the interest stays much longer in a EU4 game than in a TTW3 game
They tried to fix this with the end games scenario giving an incentive for the player to keep playing, but it just doesnt work
Its really the limited amount of armys now, amongst other things but thats what does it for me. You now need a lord or lord's in the case of three kingdoms. And are limited to just a few armies you can have, this limits your mobility when fighting multiple opponents and prevents you moving units between when needed, as well as stopping you from choosing the defensive strategies you want.
Sometimes there is lore to why the faction is starting small, like korag from the lizardmen chasing down the skaven in the old world. Or from rebellions etc. Would be cool to see a dynamic like the Empire starting with a few provinces but lots of unrest and looming rebellions to deal with, or another large faction threatening for control over your land. The game could warn you you are about to play a empire faction with increased starting compelxety.
They are only lost features if you buy the new games.
These soulless cash grabs that CA is now producing.
warhammer is good, the bad thing is doing it to historical games. Modding is incredible in warhammer III and the game is great too, the bad thing is the new dlcs prices. Having TWW doesn't force historical total wars to be good.
@@warthoggoulags1679Average warhammer fan willing to put up with the bullshit DLCs and cosmetic packs after paying full price for unfinished buggy messes.
@@jessiemeisenheimer8675 I don't buy dlcs I just play mods, I have some dlcs but not the new overpriced ones. Right now i'm playing a Nagash campaing it's great and I didn't buy anything that I didn't already have
I can't agree with you less honestly. Personally, starting with a large strong faction is boring to me. I would be fine if they gave us the option though (like Attila western empire as it is, or start with one capital city or one region, etc). I think more starting scenario options would be way better for replayability
So you do agree?
One idea that would have been interested to see would be some form of more detailed internal faction management breakdown, where have something like a core territory that you have absolute control over but for other regions beyond that you have to assign them to another governor or sub faction acting kind of like a mixture of a vassal and your own territory. So armies or generals from it would be marked out separately and if their relations with you get to low they will break away and rebel. Meaning that while expanding you still need to put some effort in to keeping them happy and they do have their own agency to some extent.
Great video and commentary. I think there needs to be a line drawn between the desire for authentic historical titles with thoughtful mechanics and gameplay, and the “historical only” crowd that really just wants Med, Empire, Shogun and Rome redone over and over. Thank you for helping draw that line.
thanks for watching mate, always happy to bring whatever nuance I can!
Historical fans blaming Warhammer Episode #4687
cope harder
@@9tz768Ironically, historical fans screaming "cope harder" is their very own way of coping when faced against the uncomfortable truth about them lul
@@elang1702my opinion is truth because I say so
@@elang1702It's historical vs fantasy? Could've fooled me since the most popular and complete mods for the older games are fantasy ones. Almost as if one side is attacking strawman caricature arguments the other side never *made. Mmmm....
@@jessiemeisenheimer8675 You can't deny both side have intense tension between them, even if there's only one side that raised an army to wage war to the other side who were only, truly, minding their own business. Historical fans needed an easy-to-reach scapegoat to blame for what they've lost at the cost of their own dignity. Trust me, I consumed this franchise strictly for the historical ones but seeing how historical fans behave in the community is just pathetic and sad to see.
I’ve been playing medieval 2 again and one big thing for me is the units and the combat just feels so much weightier. Units actually feel like they impact each other when they charge. Also there’s a lot more room for genuine tactics, as opposed to just microing a single unit back and forth to win the whole battle basically single handed. You can build an army in multiple ways, even though cavalry can basically win you the game, it is perfectly feasible to play battles in multiple different ways.
Your point reminded me a game I played and loved, maybe the first game I played in this genre Birthright: The Gorgon's Alliance. It's a game from the 90s but I would highly recommend it. It had all types of factions, large but poor, small but with a strong military, all around good but starting with a very strong hostile neighbor and so on. And it had specialized enemy factions that you couldn't pick.
Of course in TWWH3 you only start with one settlement (sometimes 2) is a war game, where you are supposed to play however you want. If you started with half the map you would do nothing but run around and try to put out fires, which sucks. The Roman Empire in Attila is the worst campaign I have ever played…it’s one reason why I didn’t play Attila. Just wasn’t fun. Let me paint the map how I want to. It’s much better that way.
First comment.
Here’s a 🍪!
this is so true, i noticed in the newest total war you always start at war with your neighbour or rebels. so first step is always a turn 1 battle!
I definitely agree with you about the province system, it sort of works for Warhammer, but it was just plain annoying playing Rome II for the first time and realizing that I would never be able to build my capital to match the city of Rome. It doesn't feel more strategic, it just feel like an artificial barrier. I definitely miss the Med II system of being able to build any city into a world class metropolis.
You make excellent points.
I played the Warhammer table top game for over a decade before the first Total War Warhammer came out. Always been a fan of the TW games since the very first one. Thousands and thousands of hours in them. However, I very rarely play Total War Warhammer games. For me, it's the worst of both worlds. In the tabletop I always enjoyed the slow pace and great focus on tactics, army composition and such. In Total War games I always enjoyed the empire/kingdom management, the David vs. Goliath stories. Starting off as a weak tribe and trying to stem the tide of imperial legions, that sort of thing.
With the TW Warhammer games the battles are very fast paced, while economy and empire management complexity is at a board game level. Most of the time is spent on character skill trees, which gets very tedious later on in the campaign.
Very well said, share the feeling
I... actually do like that they changed it in that way? It makes it much more even between the different playable factions without one steam-rolling from the very start.
Your point about the factions having similarly sized territories resonated with me, I totally forgot about how you could play as a straight nomad, or a huge empire, and lots of variations in between.
Right? Easily forgotten, but makes a massive difference for the variety of a game
@@AndysTake there’s so many little details like that, that the more I think about it, the more I remember. Why doesn’t the Warhammer franchise have the duel effects from Shogun? Why aren’t cav as strong as they were in Medieval 2? Etc…
Single stack armies, garrisons (ones that you can just recruit to any town you can recruit level 1 levies etc) watch towers, ability to pick if you want your town to become a trade city, fort or a large walled citadel, the small cool animations that would play between events and agent actions, and ofcourse the general's speech when a big ass battle took place. That's the stuff I miss in the new Total War games.
I like having a turn 1 battle in a campaign, it quickly introduces you to your early units. But i think different factions should have different type of battle for the first turn. Maybe reikland needs to recapture a city in their home province from rebels, the chaos dwarves have to drive off an ogre camp, snitch might start at war with his neighbour instead of just a single battle, etc. You dont need to demote factions to 1 city to have these turn 1 battles,
When you were talking about Warhammer, I had an idea that it would be cool to do a play through of The Empire with all the provinces (but under threat similar to Attila or Barbarian invasion.