Blowing up the enemy's Santissima Trinidad with a lucky shot from a steam ship will forever be in my memories of Naval Multiplayer in Napoleon Total War.
Had a similar experience in Empire. Had a tiny little ship that had like 8 guns going up against a ship of the line. First volley manages to connect with the gunpowder stockpile on the ship of the line. Kaboom.
@@zamirroa It means "Holy Trinity" in Spanish. It's basically about the Christian idea of God being one in 3 persons, the Father, the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit.
Medieval 3 could be a good starting point too if they changed the end date to 1650-ish. It’d also make sense from a gameplay perspective because in M2 ppl don’t start unlocking gunpowder units until you’re almost at the end date, if your campaign’s even lasted that long
@@Romczy sure but I mean M2’s 1550 end date isn’t much different in that respect and changing it to 1650 would allow muskets to actually start to dominate the battlefield which would be a really nice way of bringing M3 to a close
Naval battles are dope. I played them in Empire, Napoleon, Shogun 2 and Rome 2, with Rome 2 being a letdown. The only thing that I didn't like about naval battles was the AI's tendency to spam single ship fleets and blockade everywhere, meaning you would have to go through the tedium of creating several squadrons to clear the waters. Regarding battles I loved seeing ships of the line pound each other and the frantic maneuvering of shogun 2, and the boarding actions in both. Seeing the grappling hooks in shogun and the boarding planks in empire. When I saw that in rome 2 they just parked the ship and jumped when boarding I was disappointed to say the least. Also just looking at the gorgeous ships in empire and the crew milling about was fun. Mods such as the pirate mod for empire would never exist if people didn't think there was potential.
the ships of the line battles i enjoyed watching more than the land battles if the ships were big enough lol just watching the cannon fire esp with some mods for sound and smoke is amazing
Naval battles for much of history where ramming and boarding but even still they where brutal affairs that sometimes resulted in the complete death of both crews (if a 1 on 1). If for example the enemy ship boarded and fought and started a fire than you the boarders and you die. If won you very likely die or become a prisoners/slave. If you won or they won but you lost too many men and can't crew the ship until you reach the shore you likely die in the open ocean.
Honestly one of my favorite moments from total war was a navel battle in fall of the samurai where I’d just gotten an iron clad and it got attacked a a full fleet. If say a total war Crimea or total war Great War ever comes out I’d love to see navel combat get brought back to have a clash of the Baltic squadron and France or a clash of British and German dreadnots. I know it probably won’t happen but I’m keeping my fingers crossed
They were really cool but also pretty scuffed. Siege and Naval battles however were incredible your fleet attacking their defensive fleet/garrison fleet. Then your land units breaching the walls and if you won the Naval battle you could land some troops in their port to outflank the defenders. Incredible
They didn't think Naval battles were important to Troy?! While I understand the Iliad and Odyssey focused on the individuals and overall events, to disregard the overwhelming importance Naval warfare held in Greek, and by extension their rivals the Trojans, dominance of trade routes and control in the Aegean...is mind-boggling. To your ending question, I definitely want to see Naval warfare in future TW games, and hopefully improved upon. Hard to immerse yourself in the setting while ignoring a huge portion of warfare.
Shogun 2 FOTS had the best naval battles IMO and I want more victorian era TW games with ironclads and dreadnoughts slugging it out. Maybe even bring back the costal assaults so we can have our ships as long range support like they did in the world wars.
Why many players do not like Naval Battles in Total War, is because the players are forced to be a Captain or even Helmsmen, babysitting and micromanaging ships because the pathfinding AI is braindead, instead of being an Admiral which commands the entire fleet in general. Compare this to land units. You got a formation of a hundred men which you can order to go somewhere and form ordered formations. Each man, an entity, has a basic pathfinding AI to do so. Because ships are effectively single-entity units made of hundreds of seamen but riding a single "mount" i.e. the ship, there is no reliable mid-level AI to help you. Imagine having to order your ships around to form a coherent battle line. The Groupformation theoretically is made for this purpose, but just admit it, who uses Groupformation in TW? Not flexible enough and clunky to use. What I think TW needed is mid-level AI for both the player and the AI, acting as limited sub-commanders. This will help both for not only Naval Battles, but for battles with more than 20 units per army. The mid-level AI would control customizable groupformations, can be ordered to "stand ground" "guard" or "aggressive pursuit". Their job is simply to keep that the units under their control are formed in coherent formations and helping the individual unit pathfinding so they do not blob. It doesn't need to think complicated tasks such as the position of the entire army or where are they in relation to other subcommander AI's groupformations - all of it is the job of the Player or the Army-level AI.
"who uses Groupformation" 1.Literally any good totalwar player. Try playing ranked multiplayer without it and see are far you get. 2. Gothic armada is 100% navel battles, yet a lot of warhammer fans/totalwar players including myself enjoy it quite a bit. So no, it's not the fact you have to actually play well and use proper tactics, which cause many people not to enjoy them (quite the opposite!). 3. The actual reason is that navel battles were boring in half the titles they were in (Rome 2, Atilla and depending on who you ask base Shogun 2), not to mention incredibly buggy at times, ultimately making them not worth the effort on CA's part.
You can always autoresolve if you don't like naval battles. Removing them from the franchise isn't the solution. Fuck I'm so pissed that TWW just used generic island battles. The game would've been infinitely better with ships, flyers, magic and sea monsters.
Napoleon: Total War naval battles are by far my favourite out of them all. I've only recently started playing Shogun 2 (campaign with a friend) and the naval action in that game I noticed is a lot more fast paced compared to the others. Absolutely loved the details of those battles, the explosions, masts falling down and the ships sinking. Definitely dissapointed with the newer Total War games (overall).
I think the CA became too greedy and lazy. Their newest games lack a lot of features of their predecessors and DLCs are more and more shoddy with stupidly high prices for what they actually deliver. Shame. Naval battles in Empire, Shogun II and Rome II were really cool.
Atilla and Rome 2 had decent sieges. At least when the A.I is attacking it doesn't derp to hard. Thrones of Britannia had good sieges for being a bad game but warhammers is terrible
@@UnholyWrath3277 Rome 2 sieges were a mess. What was good about them? AI was so bad you kill their entire army with like 5 units...And if you bring artillery the whole siege is a joke, just wasting 10 minutes watching your artillery empty it's ammo. Unless you are complete noob and do a proper siege get half your army killed on the assault Warhammer sieges are the best in the franchise. Quick enough to not force me to auto resolve and with the insane unit diversity give many approach how to do them
@@braedenconti36 warhammer is also not surprising. Unit variety is one of the biggest things in Warhammer, each faction has a ton of unique units that play differently to all the other factions. So if they wanted to implement naval battles, they'd have to create a ton of diffferent ship models for each faction, otherwise naval battles would always be far less interesting than land battles. However, there isn't anywhere near enough demand for naval battles to make the creation of all these navies worthwhile, so they just made island battles instead
3 роки тому+115
My favorite total war ever is the total war that got me to love the franchise. Shogun 2. The mechanics were almost perfect. The arrows seemed genuine like it was really hitting the enemy and not just some white traits in the sky. The animations of fighting and dying characters were amazing. Damn, there was speech from the general at the beginning of a battle and even little video clip for when an agent performed an action ! Watching a video of your ninja poisoning the enemy damyo made it so much better ! This made everything so epic ! Where is all of that now? Why don't we have Karl Franz giving his troops an inspiring speech before fighting zombies or greenskins ? That would make the game amazing ! This was the last masterpiece in my opinion. Next games were good but not as good as this one.
I absolutely hate arrow tails in games. I think it just looks bad, but I get why I total war, that they are there, but I still turn them off. I love shogun 2 so much but I got even more into Thrones of Britannia because of how good the campaign and archery is.
@ I'm not sure but for me it did. I love it but it does favor a play style. If you like the time period, it's very much shield walks and archery with axes to counter. Calvary wasn't very big during that period and the game reflects that. One of the complaints was the game seemed simplistic but it was enough for me, plus, like shogun 2, I can manage my kingdom, allies, generals, and now my family. It was like shogun 2's campaign but better, in my opinion.
truly is a great game. CA could be in a way better place if they had just continued to make masterpieces like Shogun 2. All games post Shogun 2 need overhaul mods to be good, and even then, animations and collision dynamics are lacking.
I would absolutely love naval battles and coastal battles in an empire 2. Just imagine a huge 2nd rate weighing anchor and landing a bunch of marines in small dinghies and then being able to provide direct artillery support for them.
Empire 2 would be awesome!!! Even a remastered and crash proof fix of the original would be good for me. My only problem with the game is the graphics is getting a little bit old and the game crashes alot. Fix that and I would play it all the time.
remaster maybe, CA said they will not repeat past games anymore and focus on doing new stuff. This has been true for over 10 years now ever since ROme 2. Can't call yourself creative assembly and keep repeating the same games over and over like some CoD franchise.
Honestly, I think naval battles would work well in time periods that includes gunpowder. Seeing ships exploding and people flying is cool and funny. Would explain why Empire, Napoleon and Shogun 2’s naval combat is so fun and awesome to watch.
Because that is what Creatively Bankrupt Assembly do. Whenever there is a system that is not working as intended, they did not improve it or fix it instead they remove it completely, never to be mentioned again. There is so much mechanics that have been removed by this shitty developers that are now forgotten not just naval battles.
The absolute worst about the TW games ? They put naval battles on auto-resolve, yet they gave the Dark Elves their Black Arks as one of their specific mecanics ... AND THEY FREAKING SHIPS !!!
@@sympunny8636 Depends on where you are on the map : if you're in the middle of the ocean, it's auto-resolve only. If you're close to a piece of land, it turns into a land battle instead And it still doesn't excuse that aberration of giving the dark elves their special NAVAL unit, in a game without naval battles
@@RoulicisThe No, it's literally always island battles regardless of where you are. You can be in the middle of the ocean as far from land as possible, and it's still an island not forced autoresolve. And it's hardly that surprising given the crazy amount of unit variety in wh2, imagine trying to build that but for navies for each faction, plus creating a new type of battle there just aren't enough people that care about it, to make that worthwhile. Don't get me wrong, in a perfect world, of course naval battles would be nice, but it's hardly surprising that they didn't go for it.
@@RoulicisThe 1. It always gives you the option for island battles even in the middle of the ocean that's been a thing since island battles were added. I'm generally curious have you not played since that update or are you using some king of overhaul mod which makes island battles absent from the middle of the ocean without realizing it??? 2. Even if navel battles were a thing Implementing black arcs to be used in them would not be feasible for a multitude of reasons. The first of which being the size, have you not seen the black arc maps!? They're so large they'd break all balance, causing navel battles to be an automatic or else cause them to turn into the already present black arc battle where you just board the thing with your army.
@@drafezard7315 In the ocean, I never got the option of getting land battles. Whenever my fleets went too far from land, all the battles were always auto-resolve
Yea, a new engines worked out so great for all the recent AAA games. Cause devs love nothing more than get an entirely new unproven engine to work with
"Tries to rush out a new game every year or every few years and it's just not the masterpiece we want to see". You just summed up the major problem with the entire gaming industry.
You actually hit the nail on the head before the rushed games accusation. They knew naval battles before collision mechanics were better and they haven't focused on a time period where that wouldn't be the case. Therefore they're not in the game. Imagine red cliffs and what a shot show that would have been. The southern strategy was literally to lock up Wei's ships so that they could be hit with fire ships and devastate the whole fleet in one shot. Imagine that with Rome 2s naval battles. And Warhammer? The naval battles would have been half of if not more of the budget because of the variety. When we go back to ships strictly shooting and boarding from the sides we'll get naval battles back. Till then no go
Yeah tbh what actual fighting there was at Red Cliff was basically a land battle that happened to take place on ships with little to no manoeuvring going on. Loreful naval battles in WH games would be insanely imbalanced
@@MFShro0m exactly yeah imagine an orc barge slamming into a dwarf ironclad. Or that same ironclad Vs a black ark with dragon nests. It would be cool but not fun in the long run. That said if they wanted to at least bring back ship on ship autoresolves that would be fine so that maybe it mattered that you had black arks patrolling when the high elves launch an uncontested land invasion of Naggaroth.
in the 5 years after empire, 4 games are released (including Fots). 5 years after total war warhammer? 5. i dont think the rushed games is a fair argument.
I always asked myself why there were no naval battles in total war. When they first were a thing in empire, i was totally stoked for this. The age-of-sail legends, they were all there. I loved it to bits and even more so in napoleon. I disliked the ancient naval battles, because they were mainly like land battles but on ships and tactically less demanding imo. As i see things now, a franchise that calls itself "Total War", that delivers great battles but then ultimately fails and consequentially expunges naval warfare due to "lazy coding" doesn't deserve the name to begin with.
I started my total war experience with medieval 2 then went to Rome 1 and stayed around ever since, the major draw card for me was always the ability to recreate some the most awesome stories of the ancient/medieval world. Unfortunately over the last 5-6 years i have not really gotten that feeling from the newer releases, (i have always strayed towards the historical side more so than warhammer however have put a few 100 hours into warhammer 1/2 each because i honestly don't see them as the same "total war" games i grew up with, they genuinely feel like a separate franchise with borrowed features and themes from past historical total war games (not a bad thing at times there have been some massive upgrades from the newer games most notably the far far FAR superior diplomacy system in 3k and the introduction of resources as a currency in troy past just the static gold number. It could just be me getting old and not liking massive change or maybe im looking back with rose tinted glasses, either way i feel the same, all the talk about features that are missing from the latest major titles (Attila onward) or what could be added to improve games going forward is definitely a good discussion to have within the community, however personally my biggest wish/hope for the franchise is to get back to its "grounded reality" approach to historical games, 3k was a cool little diversion into an era i really didn't know much at all about and while it was fun for a time it quickly dawned on me that it seems year after year CA's idea of "historical" is mixing and matching warhammer "flare" with historical settings, it just doesn't fit IMO, historical warfare was often very dull and gritty where even the most famous general/leader or renowned warrior could fall off a horse be trampled and thats the end of them, but the more games CA pump out it seems to me that they are losing the essence of what made historical total war games so fantastic and why they accrued such a massive and loyal (for the most part) fan base off the backs of them. I know this is probably a hell of a lot for someone to even bother reading but maybe some people feel the same way or just read this as an alt POV, either way i genuinely think the biggest thing missing from new total war games isn't the features of the past or new settings/new anything its the very core essence of what made historical total wars incredible, nothing pulls me out of the immersion faster than seeing a 15ft giant swinging and cleaving multiple 100s of men away solo while being untouched in a setting that if that were to ever happen they would be struck down almost instantly from about 500 different angles. Sorry for the long rant/opinion peace for anyone thats actually read this far lol but its something i don't often see or hear brought up about the newer games, sure people complain about the silly physics and such in the newer "historical" total wars but in my mind a far more depressing issue is the loss of soul of these games, they just don't immerse you like they used to, which is my biggest issue with the total war games these days.
agree with all you have said.I still follow CA but and have all the games but have not purchased since TK as feel the fantasy aspect has taken over.Will buy again when a true historical game comes out without heroes with superpowers.Also it may be me but likes of Troy to me looks more cartoony!!
@@graemebell8884 yeah i agree, i did admittedly have some fun with troy the first week or so but it quickly got dull for sure, one thing i will always praise troy for however was the total war arena style battle maps, i think that particular change alongside the resource management were good features to add in and would like to see them in future historical as-well as for everything else though? pass.
Naval combat in Rome 2 might not be perfect, but it's a lot better than Warhammer 2's "it sure is lucky there just happened to be an island nearby when we ran into enemies on the sea" mechanic.
Unfortunately the budget required do it justice giving every race a decent size navel roster of even 6-10 per race with the current number of confirmed races for all three games already would equal 138-230 navel units would easily require the budget of a full title. For which I would gladly pay if it's was like a fantasy version of Gothic armada which also works as a standalone expansion for WH3 (unfortunately I fear there'd not be enough demand for the navel aspect to justify such an undertaking.
@@drafezard7315 Yeah, for Warhammer naval battles to be worth the inclusion, it'd probably need to be as a £40 dlc. Most people would complain and/or not buy it.
I don't care about naval battles as much as the fact that the fucking formations are so streamlined and basic. Employing of the historical strategies like Hannibal's Cannae, or really attempting anything out of the box is impossible if all you have a handful of inflexible formations that can't disengage quickly without immediately losing moral and routing or losing half the unit.
It is really impossible to replicate Hannibal's formation and strategy at Cannae, the units when instructed to start going behind they just do a 180° and start running/walking like if the enemies didn't exist, instead of walking behind facing foward
Personally I’d love to see naval battles return, but I also think some of the effort that could have been used in the more modern games has been used to improve other areas. Unit and faction diversity is massive, the diplomacy system in 3K was brilliant, visually the games do look a lot better, Troy has a great, more engaging resource system and others. Perhaps by working on these other bits and fleshing them out more we may see some of the older mechanics and game modes like naval battles return in a bigger way. Here’s hoping!
I mean, Naval battles in Attila were pretty good IMO, playing as the saxons and having navies raiding the mediterranean, sacking coast cities and taking islands and strong points works pretty well! The main AI issue seems to be how land units respond
Here it is. My biggest wet dream ever. Total War Warhammer Naval Battles. It would takes a potent team and some design 4 sure to develop with a decent and upgraded AI but lets agree on a fact they DO have enough funding to do so. Make it as DLC for twice as much money i don't care, but make it. It can be done.
I only care about naval battles when - and only when - they have a valid reason to be there. If they do a TW game about 16th-18th century Europe, then definitely yes. If they do a TW about the Mongol conquest during the 13th century, then no. Setting is important; just because they make another TW game, doesn't mean they have to import every features from their old games to create a chimera...
So the Mongol invasions of Japan and Indonesia are "invalid reasons" to have naval battles? Would a game centered around Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines need a "valid reason" to include land battles?
6:47 - Yeah, naval battles added that TOTAL to the Total War franchise and I still feel my last true and favourite Total War game is Total War Attila. One of my favourite memories was playing as the Anglo Saxons, taking over all of Britain, dismissing all of my land armies and just building up a huge Navy. Was priceless to see all those Hunnic hordes trying to cross the ocean and the Saxons just sinking them left right and centre. Sadly I feel they're taking away all of our tools in this sandbox meets grand strategy meets RTS. Lets hope we see naval again in the future, especially if they do a total war Victoria.
Every total war game can feel like a chore when you have several armies and need to fight unimportant battles because the authores would screw you out of an easy victory. But I have to admit that nothing felt more like a slow, dragging chore than repeated naval spam...
Everything is a chore in war. The more realistic the more of a chore. Some sieges took years in real history, total war fans can't even be bothered to siege FOR 1 TURN to build siege equip and instead just bring artillery that makes the whole siege a joke.
@@mcmarkmarkson7115 That's obvious. My comment is more directed towards game mechanics, ie "is actually it fun"? Total War is an arcade game, and shouldn't be in any way considered a simulator.
@@Emanon... I don't think that arcade games strife for historical accuracy. Not sure many tw fans would agree with you that tw is an arcade game. arcades often use very simple mechanics and fast-paced action to hook you on them, nothing that fits TW well, even warhammer tw is far removed from being an arcade game. If anything it's more complicated than any tw and is respecting it's own source of "history"
@@mcmarkmarkson7115 I deem it arcade because it's very simplistic. Perhaps that's a better term. Attrition, supply, logistics, disease, weather/climate etc. these are all very lightly represented in classic TW titles.
Naval battles were some of my favorite parts about Shogun 2, Empire/Napoleon. Something about seeing all the complexities of the ship details and tactics
Nothing is more fun... than have 10 first rate ships and 4 2nd rate ships lined in parallel rushing the enemy fleet and placing them in the middle of the lines... no enemy ships survived... half of them exploded and it was simply MARVELOUS.... as the advisor would say in shogun.. A GLORIOUS VICTORY WILL SOON BE YOURS!!!
I think UA: Age of Sail is overall a better strategy game than modern TWs, as well as older one tbh. Yes, it is missing the sandbox style campaign and you basically have just two factions to play (UK and US), but the battles are much more realistic and immersive. In TW most battles feel the same, just the two armies clashing on random maps over and over again. In UA every battle is unique, it is put into context and presents many different tactical situations to deal with. Also, units are more affected by morale and exhaustion and often need to be resupplied during battle, placing emphasis on logistics by the use of supply trains on the battlefield. All of these aspects, combined with an AI that can actually pose a threat to the player (setting up ambushes, launching coordinated attacks and generally fighting back in a more coherent way), contribute to create the feeling of moving on real battlefield instead of just another arena to showcase cool units like in TW. Only downside of UA are the graphics that are not even close to the detail and smoothness of TW, but, considering that GameLabs is a small independent studio, I guess we can cut them some slack.
I loved the Naval battles in both Empire and Rome2. both were key to expanding my empire. not really been impressed with TW since Rome 2. I'm sorry to say it, but none of the newer ones have really captured my imagination like Rome 2 and earlier. I still go back to Medieval 2 every now and then.
i feel there are some issues which i think give CA some leeway here firstly, you point the blame at annual releases. since total war warhammer 1 was released in 2016, including warhammer 3 in 2021, 5 games have been released, in 5 years. in the 5 years after empire was released, 4 games were released (including FotS, as it is standalone). so saying that by increasing the number of games made in 5 years by 1, naval became impossible. this is a company that in the last year, grew by a 1/5th and bought a new studio. it is rapidly growing, so its not suprising they are able to make more games. secondly, a minor point. As you said, each faction has its own technology. this might create problems, as VC and WoC, for example, would have needed to play rome 2's naval combat, whilst the empire and dwarves play empire. this would likely have greatly screwed the AI, more than even romes. thirdly, it would have been wasted on total war 1, as there was no incentive for naval combat, especially on release. there were no islands, and the larges body of water seperation, was norsca and nordland. then with TWW2, naval became more common, and a fight was added, to make it more interesting. but if they implemented naval there, then mortal empires would require it. that leads onto a 4th point, and one CA is likely struggling with the most, which is effort. you say CA is not putting enough effort into its games, but you then compare empire and shogun to warhammer. there's about 4 skeletons in empire. a french soldier is a reskin of a brit, whose a reskin of an austrian, etc. so added onto that, there would be no shared ships in warhammer either. and theres also the question, do dwarves like to swim? CA has 2 real options: give dwarves their fleet from warhammer fantasy, modeling multiple transports, ironclads, etc. they are then putting effort into something almost useless in the 1st game, and would see very limited use in the second game. or not do anything with them, and have them be the barbarians of TWW. this would mean a lot less wasted effort, but inevitably some backlash when someone decided they wanted to attack the elves or something. 3 kingdoms has the same as 3rd point, plus its commander focus, may not gel well with the naval combat. troy i think was a bit of a missed opportunity, being an island area. but i think maybe CA has decided to draw the line in the sand when it comes to naval battles. myabe we'll see a return in historical games, but right now, i understand CA's decision to stop naval battles.
100% agree with you mate, many of the things you pointed out plus a number of inaccuracies in the video (such as saying Warhammer took over the franchise after 3k came out, despite 3k coming out several years after WH2) made me give it a dislike.
I agree. While I think the historical titles have been pretty meh since shogun 2, I can totally understand why they are not going for naval atm. This video isn't considered the technical aspect at all. It is clearly made by someone that has no clue about game developing.
Naval in Empire was some of the most fun I've ever had. I've been a fan since Rome and IMO naval pretty much sucked in every game except Empire/Napoleon. I'd LOVE Empire 2, but they'd rather make Warhammer and fantasy stuff. Taking on the Royal Navy as the USA was such a good time. Being the Royal Navy was always a joy for me.
I want an EMPIRE II Total War hardware has improved so much since Empire came out in 2009. In 2021 we have RTX 30 series Graphics cards, Intel core I9 CPUs and low cost, high performance gaming PCs have become more accessible. The #1 argument I get whenever I bring up Empire II TW is "That it's too big for the TW engine because you need a world map." And while this argument might have been true 10+ years ago, I thing Warhammer has proven that It is possible to do a world setting. CA could even develop and release an Empire II in the same way they made Shogun 2 ( the most polished and my personal favorite TW ) with 3 or more time periods as DLC along with factions. Everybody wins, fans get a Great world spanning TW and CA gets lots of money. Time Periods: EMPIRE II: 1700-1800 Napoleon / Victorian Era: 1800-1900 Industrial Era: 1900-1920 Pike and Shot: 1600-1700 As well as several mini-campaigns in each of the Time periods Empire II would have the most possibilities out of any Total War and YES, NAVAL battles would be a huge part of it.
Warhammer may have a HUGE map but it is sorely laking in Battle Veriety and BASIC FEATURES. they really need a new engine really its been 10 years, then by all means make new games.
I personaly will not buy anymore a total war until they make a Empire II game, i give up on them with the few last games, got Troy for free or would not get it and i have Empire, Shogun II & Fots and Roma II all of them good games especialy Empire that is my favorit era with sail ships.
One of the most brutally realistic parts of Empire's naval battles was when your admiral survives multiple broadsides but is picked off by some random sailor or marine at the last minute from the last enemy ship.
Eh, if we take Warhammer series only, I can't imagine putting naval battles inside this game, considering how many different races there are, TOO much work and resources would be needed
Yeah, I can kinda see the argument for why naval battles should be a standard feature in historical games, especially ones with so much water like Troy, but for Warhammer HELL NO. The amount of work and resources required to give each faction even three different types of ships to use would probably enough to make an entire race pack at this point. There's just way too many races for the system to not be a massive resource drain, especially if they want the naval battles to reflect the racial/unit diversity that Total War Warhammer has used as its core appeal.
The naval battles are awesome. When Empire first came out, I even went out and upgraded my gaming PC just so it could handle the (back then) steep requirements... and it was worth it.
They could have made a pirate game based just on that and it would be a smashing hit. Naval battles are the best thing out of these games . The big ships era of course
I personally don’t think naval battles would work amazingly in warhammer as there are so many different factors that it would be impossible to get it to work well, for example dark elf black arks, they are meant to be floating cities the most powerful ships in warhammer how would they work in naval battles surely they would cover the entire map and beat almost every navy. the dark elves also have access to a kharibdyss a sea monster surely a sea monster would be able to fight in naval battles if so how on earth are they going to do that. What about flying monsters could they work and how would a dragon interact with a ship would we still have the transport style ships from Rome 2 if so how on earth does a dread Saurion work. What about magic. These are just a few examples as to why a naval battles system in warhammer simply wouldn’t work. Yes they could remove all of that and have simple ship on ship naval battles but then what is the point it would be no different to any other total war. I also wanted to say what he is saying about games being rushed out doesn’t really make much sense to me while yes the rate at which games are being released has increased you have also got to take into account that total war is a much bigger franchise with at least 3 teams possibly 4 all working on new games simultaneously. There is the fantasy team, the historical team and the saga team the 4th team would be the three kingdoms team as in the resent announcement to me it sounded like it is now a separate team to historical but I’m not sure. But all this adds up to the fact that games are going to come out more regularly. The gap between warhammer 2 and 3 is 4 going on 5 years I thinks that is a big enough gap you will notice this with almost every large game developer.
I love Naval Battles! I will never forget turning broadside with my Spanish ship "Nuestra Señora Santisima de la Trinidad" and unleash a full salvo on enemy ship to watch them blow up
I'm gonna be gonest, I think the big reason we don't see naval battles in stuff like Total Warhammer is simply due to how the new assets in question act and are compared to say previous (and none fantasy based titles). Sure most of the Warhammer units are bipedal, but all have different stances, builds, and animations. Sure, you could prolly have Elves and Men share animations...but for say the Dwarves, Greenskins, Lizardmen, Skaven, etc.? That's an entirely new problem....and that's not even including all the various, distinct monster and machinery units. I don't this so much an issue of laziness, but give and take. These games are no longer just primarily human units that can share and utilize the same animations to lighten the technical load if needs be. EDIT: Basically what I am trying to say is there is a lot more moving parts regarding the various units of the Total Warhammer games. Stuff that would that much more difficult and time-consuming to implement well.
It was amazing to think of an ancient dday when I invaded a port cities and towns in Rome 2 and Attila using only my navy. Its very satisfying to bypass their walls. I miss that, hope navy will return in medieval 3.
But the unit collision worked fine in shogun 2 (that was largely focused on melee combat) and they also used the warscape engine. Rome 2 was rushed through production which was what caused the unit collision to be a bit weird not the engine itself. Which you can see now! With a lot of patching Rome 2s melee combats is much better.
It's a shame Warhammer doesn't have naval battles, having factions like Vampire Coast, who are basically Davy Jones' undead pirates, Norsca, who are the vikings, or even high elves and dark elves, one being a naval superpower in the lore and the other one having Black Arks, which are giant floating fortresses used to traverse the seas.
My Rome 2 naval battle experience= Orders ship to ram the side of an enemy ship. Enemy ship somehow spins around to face my ship. Ships collide "So I still rammed you then, right?" Enemy ship "Actually, I rammed you!" My ship "Oh, okay then" proceeds to turn into matchwood.
I think Naval Battles are Worthy to Come out as Their Own Games. Maybe Total War Caribbean? Total War Colonization of New World? Total War Discovery: Anno Domino? I just want Total War: Medieval 3.
I still hear people complain that there aren't navel battles in warhammer2\3, and I always ask them "so, if you were a developer how would you go about doing a dinosaur doom stack vs ships?".
I did like having the option to build navies in Medieval 2 even if they were auto-resolve, different strengths/considerations for some factions and fun. I mean clicking on enemy ships to hear them talk smack was also great
Siege and Naval battles however were incredible your fleet attacking their defensive fleet/garrison fleet. Then your land units breaching the walls and if you won the Naval battle you could land some troops in their port to outflank the defenders. Incredible
I can understand leaving it out of some of the historical games where it wouldn’t have been so interesting but leaving it out of warhammer is a crime, we could have seen ships of the line from the empire, heavy steam ships from the dwarfs, all kinds of creepy undead things from the vampire coast, it wouldn’t even be limited to ships you could have sea monsters and all the flying entities
Played every major total war release starting with the original shogun and yeh I miss naval and they need to bring it back. I love warhammer and get why it may be too much work to put naval combat in it, but the infantry combat without the monsterous infantry/monsters/magic isn’t quite enough to be compelling. Esp with the fairly basic campaign map gameplay (can’t compare to crusader kings for example) they really need to fill out every aspect of war. Maybe they will, or maybe they will just do warhammer but for various mythologies and leave the historical settings behind for a time.
I love the sea battles, but with the rapid production of TW, the last two I bought were Rome II and the first Warhammer one. I now am getting my naval aspect from Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail.
Empire was the first TW game that I lost myself in. The realism in gorilla tactics to win a battle where you where clearly outnumbered was amazing. The defensive systems in the game, the navel warfare. It was increadable.
imagine like a pre-dreadnought naval battles not ironclads or monitors naval battles like in FoS DLC. But pre-dreadnought naval battles like Tsushima or Santiago de Cuba.
Innocent question as I haven't really followed the media behind Total War though have played almost every game: why do people not like Troy? For me it is my favourite of the Total War games, with the Warhammers a close second. It feels so different, and so much more strategic, than its predecessors. The idea to start with a ridiculously powerful enemy that you have fend off until you're powerful enough to overcome worked great imo, and I thought the mythology behind it was far more compelling than just conquering for the sake of conquest. Barely noticed that naval battles weren't included as the ones from Rome 2 were really dull and it would likely have been stylistically similar. That said, they could have revamped the diplomacy system since allies are so important in Troy but diplomacy has always been weak in TW games. but this can't be the reason, surely?
the thing is, naval battles were dope in empire and napoleon for the reasons you stated, so if they go back to that time period, or even better, a more recent period like ww1 or ww2, they have ZERO excuses to not put naval battles, as it would work good. the biggest issue i think would be carriers but thats another story, since it involves air combat
I think a lot of people were put off by the naval battles in Shogun 2, which was the first TW game for many. Not only were the early game naval battles boring to the absolute extreme but you also had to fight a lot of them to keep your trade routes secure. The AI in Shogun 2 naval battles was also all but turned off, all it could do was to either sit completely still or bum rush straight ahead. They really need to work on a new engine because at this point it's obvious that Warscape is at the end of its rope. It's really apparent from all the problems they're having with fixing cavalry in Warhammer. Whenever they find a solution it breaks something else.
In Warhammer it may be hard to do due to balance issues. For example, Bretonnia is a faction whose technology is based around cavalry which would be useless. Whereas the Dwarf factions use gunpowder.
I honestly miss naval battles even though I was always pretty crappy at them and AI always got unfair infuriating advantage (range buff in Shogun 2 pissess me off till today) but it is still a sorely missed feature that I hope will make a comeback
One of the things I've read were that they didn't have the license to do navel battles because another developer had it and there was something prevent CA doing their own.
I’d love to see CA take a break, and release “total war” as a reboot New engine Larger focus on modding Have two modes, historic and romantic. Cover the whole world in grande campaign. Age span from Neolithic/Bronze age- late Bronze Age, Roman era and migration era all the way to the cusp or ww1 or even do ww1. Romantic mode allows for romanticization like the in Troy and 3K (stronger generals/hero’s. Semi historical/plausible troop types and factions/weapons) They can re-use assets as long as they are updated. Option to play as your dynasty/family line ck2 style instead of as a faction. A change throughout the ages of what the currencies are (resources to money - to both etc) More events and random occurrences Developing and evolving of your nations/cultures in both a locked historical way and a free development way where you can create your own cultures.
While this sounds amazing I think you may be asking for a bit to much to have a game cover the whole world it would have to be pretty bare bones to include everything. Let alone go from Bronze Age too ww1. Most campaigns also only only last around 200 turns so unless you are speeding through the ages you aren’t going to make it very far through the ages meaning a large percentage of the stuff developed wouldn’t even be seen
No mixing of historical and fantasy. They require their own mechanics, art and UI style. If I play historical mode on three kingdoms i still have the stupid cartoon map and ninja warrior interface. Don't fool yourself that making two modes of the same game makes it okay. They need to stay separate.
I love playing as the Dreadfleet in Total War Warhammer II and III (haven’t really played the historical games, so I can’t really say anything about them or the naval battles you could fight in them), but I would absolutely love to fight naval battles in that regard. It’s a shame they’re absent…
Blowing up the enemy's Santissima Trinidad with a lucky shot from a steam ship will forever be in my memories of Naval Multiplayer in Napoleon Total War.
I love that name " Santísima Trinidad", it feels strong
The torpedoes in shogun 2 were epic also!
This literally happened to me last night but reversed, same ships and everything
Had a similar experience in Empire. Had a tiny little ship that had like 8 guns going up against a ship of the line.
First volley manages to connect with the gunpowder stockpile on the ship of the line. Kaboom.
@@zamirroa It means "Holy Trinity" in Spanish. It's basically about the Christian idea of God being one in 3 persons, the Father, the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit.
Total war empire 2 would be a good time to bring back naval battles…
Medieval 3 could be a good starting point too if they changed the end date to 1650-ish. It’d also make sense from a gameplay perspective because in M2 ppl don’t start unlocking gunpowder units until you’re almost at the end date, if your campaign’s even lasted that long
Ending in 1650-ish would be past renescaince and baroque so hardly medieval xD
@@Romczy sure but I mean M2’s 1550 end date isn’t much different in that respect and changing it to 1650 would allow muskets to actually start to dominate the battlefield which would be a really nice way of bringing M3 to a close
@@MFShro0m That would be Renaissance total war instead of MTW3 ,which i had no problem at all.
@@MFShro0m 1650'ish isnt medieval..Its barely even renascaince, its pretty much musket age
Naval battles are dope. I played them in Empire, Napoleon, Shogun 2 and Rome 2, with Rome 2 being a letdown. The only thing that I didn't like about naval battles was the AI's tendency to spam single ship fleets and blockade everywhere, meaning you would have to go through the tedium of creating several squadrons to clear the waters. Regarding battles I loved seeing ships of the line pound each other and the frantic maneuvering of shogun 2, and the boarding actions in both. Seeing the grappling hooks in shogun and the boarding planks in empire. When I saw that in rome 2 they just parked the ship and jumped when boarding I was disappointed to say the least. Also just looking at the gorgeous ships in empire and the crew milling about was fun. Mods such as the pirate mod for empire would never exist if people didn't think there was potential.
the ships of the line battles i enjoyed watching more than the land battles if the ships were big enough lol just watching the cannon fire esp with some mods for sound and smoke is amazing
Naval battles for much of history where ramming and boarding but even still they where brutal affairs that sometimes resulted in the complete death of both crews (if a 1 on 1). If for example the enemy ship boarded and fought and started a fire than you the boarders and you die. If won you very likely die or become a prisoners/slave. If you won or they won but you lost too many men and can't crew the ship until you reach the shore you likely die in the open ocean.
I love the duels between frigates.
Honestly one of my favorite moments from total war was a navel battle in fall of the samurai where I’d just gotten an iron clad and it got attacked a a full fleet. If say a total war Crimea or total war Great War ever comes out I’d love to see navel combat get brought back to have a clash of the Baltic squadron and France or a clash of British and German dreadnots. I know it probably won’t happen but I’m keeping my fingers crossed
@@1tankdestroyer778 ever led the black ship into a fleet of bow kobayas? That's fun!
Naval and amphibious battles have so much potential. I hope they bring it back
They were really cool but also pretty scuffed. Siege and Naval battles however were incredible your fleet attacking their defensive fleet/garrison fleet. Then your land units breaching the walls and if you won the Naval battle you could land some troops in their port to outflank the defenders. Incredible
Yeah, or the ability to make bombardement like in Shogun 2 : fall of samurai
@@pablopablo3834 Which game was that ?
@@zzirSnipzz1In Rome 2 you can atack a city with an army and a fleet.
@@crepcho8888 or even only With a fleet if it is a coast city
They didn't think Naval battles were important to Troy?! While I understand the Iliad and Odyssey focused on the individuals and overall events, to disregard the overwhelming importance Naval warfare held in Greek, and by extension their rivals the Trojans, dominance of trade routes and control in the Aegean...is mind-boggling.
To your ending question, I definitely want to see Naval warfare in future TW games, and hopefully improved upon. Hard to immerse yourself in the setting while ignoring a huge portion of warfare.
Shogun 2 FOTS had the best naval battles IMO and I want more victorian era TW games with ironclads and dreadnoughts slugging it out. Maybe even bring back the costal assaults so we can have our ships as long range support like they did in the world wars.
A Total War: Civil War would be dope. Seeing those Ironclads and naval artillery put to use 🤤
Shogun navla battles were just spam fireboats=win or get the european ship and then WIN
@@christianbender6877 I never played the base shogun 2, I was talking about the Fall of the Samurai (FOTS) standalone expansion set in the 1860s.
@@Manda-LORE ah okay :)
Oh yeah, when every ship can goes kaboom!
Why many players do not like Naval Battles in Total War, is because the players are forced to be a Captain or even Helmsmen, babysitting and micromanaging ships because the pathfinding AI is braindead, instead of being an Admiral which commands the entire fleet in general.
Compare this to land units. You got a formation of a hundred men which you can order to go somewhere and form ordered formations. Each man, an entity, has a basic pathfinding AI to do so. Because ships are effectively single-entity units made of hundreds of seamen but riding a single "mount" i.e. the ship, there is no reliable mid-level AI to help you. Imagine having to order your ships around to form a coherent battle line. The Groupformation theoretically is made for this purpose, but just admit it, who uses Groupformation in TW? Not flexible enough and clunky to use.
What I think TW needed is mid-level AI for both the player and the AI, acting as limited sub-commanders. This will help both for not only Naval Battles, but for battles with more than 20 units per army. The mid-level AI would control customizable groupformations, can be ordered to "stand ground" "guard" or "aggressive pursuit". Their job is simply to keep that the units under their control are formed in coherent formations and helping the individual unit pathfinding so they do not blob. It doesn't need to think complicated tasks such as the position of the entire army or where are they in relation to other subcommander AI's groupformations - all of it is the job of the Player or the Army-level AI.
"who uses Groupformation"
1.Literally any good totalwar player. Try playing ranked multiplayer without it and see are far you get.
2. Gothic armada is 100% navel battles, yet a lot of warhammer fans/totalwar players including myself enjoy it quite a bit. So no, it's not the fact you have to actually play well and use proper tactics, which cause many people not to enjoy them (quite the opposite!).
3. The actual reason is that navel battles were boring in half the titles they were in (Rome 2, Atilla and depending on who you ask base Shogun 2), not to mention incredibly buggy at times, ultimately making them not worth the effort on CA's part.
@Preacher Only if you don't know how it works.
You can always autoresolve if you don't like naval battles. Removing them from the franchise isn't the solution. Fuck I'm so pissed that TWW just used generic island battles. The game would've been infinitely better with ships, flyers, magic and sea monsters.
@@AlacrityTW Vampire Coast would play quite differently.........and just think of the Black Arks!
@@AlacrityTW A lot of factions dont have ships at all, so creating detailed fleets would be problematic.
Napoleon: Total War naval battles are by far my favourite out of them all.
I've only recently started playing Shogun 2 (campaign with a friend) and the naval action in that game I noticed is a lot more fast paced compared to the others.
Absolutely loved the details of those battles, the explosions, masts falling down and the ships sinking.
Definitely dissapointed with the newer Total War games (overall).
Yep, I have legit just been playing them for the past 3 days.
Try fall of the samurai the naval battles its amazing
@@squgieman I don’t like em tbh
Personally
I dont like their fantasy titles so I agree that they need a big historical release ASAP.
I think the CA became too greedy and lazy. Their newest games lack a lot of features of their predecessors and DLCs are more and more shoddy with stupidly high prices for what they actually deliver. Shame. Naval battles in Empire, Shogun II and Rome II were really cool.
out of curiosity, what sort of features are you talking about?
Every game since Warhammer has been trying to be diet Warhammer. Total war as we knew it is dead.
@@saintjames1995 Total War started going down hill when Rome 2 released
@@Bruh-mg3jk at least Rome 2 felt like total war
@@saintjames1995 True but not at launch but even today Rome 2 is also very underwhelming without mods
I would say the same about sieges which are a far more important aspect of the game.
Yeah I agree especially in Warhammer considering they don't have Naval units
Atilla and Rome 2 had decent sieges. At least when the A.I is attacking it doesn't derp to hard. Thrones of Britannia had good sieges for being a bad game but warhammers is terrible
@@UnholyWrath3277 Rome 2 sieges were a mess. What was good about them? AI was so bad you kill their entire army with like 5 units...And if you bring artillery the whole siege is a joke, just wasting 10 minutes watching your artillery empty it's ammo.
Unless you are complete noob and do a proper siege get half your army killed on the assault
Warhammer sieges are the best in the franchise. Quick enough to not force me to auto resolve and with the insane unit diversity give many approach how to do them
@@mcmarkmarkson7115 >"Warhammer sieges are the best in the franchise"
Lol nice bait
@@LordVader1094 Explain
Yeah honestly was disappointed three kingdoms didn't have some type of naval warfare it really does feel lack luster that it's not implemented.
I was disappointed with Warhammer Three Kingdoms as well
With warhammer most of the factions have navies with ships so it really wouldn’t be that hard to implement
3 kingdoms is hardly surprising, given that's there's barely any sea anyways since it's just based in china.
@@sympunny8636 well that and the fact it's just Warhammer Three kingdoms
@@braedenconti36 warhammer is also not surprising. Unit variety is one of the biggest things in Warhammer, each faction has a ton of unique units that play differently to all the other factions. So if they wanted to implement naval battles, they'd have to create a ton of diffferent ship models for each faction, otherwise naval battles would always be far less interesting than land battles. However, there isn't anywhere near enough demand for naval battles to make the creation of all these navies worthwhile, so they just made island battles instead
My favorite total war ever is the total war that got me to love the franchise. Shogun 2. The mechanics were almost perfect. The arrows seemed genuine like it was really hitting the enemy and not just some white traits in the sky. The animations of fighting and dying characters were amazing. Damn, there was speech from the general at the beginning of a battle and even little video clip for when an agent performed an action ! Watching a video of your ninja poisoning the enemy damyo made it so much better ! This made everything so epic ! Where is all of that now? Why don't we have Karl Franz giving his troops an inspiring speech before fighting zombies or greenskins ? That would make the game amazing ! This was the last masterpiece in my opinion. Next games were good but not as good as this one.
I absolutely hate arrow tails in games. I think it just looks bad, but I get why I total war, that they are there, but I still turn them off. I love shogun 2 so much but I got even more into Thrones of Britannia because of how good the campaign and archery is.
@ I'm not sure but for me it did. I love it but it does favor a play style. If you like the time period, it's very much shield walks and archery with axes to counter. Calvary wasn't very big during that period and the game reflects that. One of the complaints was the game seemed simplistic but it was enough for me, plus, like shogun 2, I can manage my kingdom, allies, generals, and now my family. It was like shogun 2's campaign but better, in my opinion.
truly is a great game. CA could be in a way better place if they had just continued to make masterpieces like Shogun 2. All games post Shogun 2 need overhaul mods to be good, and even then, animations and collision dynamics are lacking.
Agreed.
Karl Franz does do several speeches during his quest battles. Not every battle though.
I would absolutely love naval battles and coastal battles in an empire 2. Just imagine a huge 2nd rate weighing anchor and landing a bunch of marines in small dinghies and then being able to provide direct artillery support for them.
Great idea
Empire 2 would be awesome!!! Even a remastered and crash proof fix of the original would be good for me. My only problem with the game is the graphics is getting a little bit old and the game crashes alot. Fix that and I would play it all the time.
remaster maybe, CA said they will not repeat past games anymore and focus on doing new stuff. This has been true for over 10 years now ever since ROme 2.
Can't call yourself creative assembly and keep repeating the same games over and over like some CoD franchise.
@@mcmarkmarkson7115 excluding of course the 3 warhammer games and the announced 3 kingdoms 2... they are still doing repeats of games.
@@mcmarkmarkson7115 The recipe works. People keep coming back to it. I am clocking onto a game of COD right now.
Honestly, I think naval battles would work well in time periods that includes gunpowder. Seeing ships exploding and people flying is cool and funny. Would explain why Empire, Napoleon and Shogun 2’s naval combat is so fun and awesome to watch.
Because that is what Creatively Bankrupt Assembly do. Whenever there is a system that is not working as intended, they did not improve it or fix it instead they remove it completely, never to be mentioned again. There is so much mechanics that have been removed by this shitty developers that are now forgotten not just naval battles.
The absolute worst about the TW games ? They put naval battles on auto-resolve, yet they gave the Dark Elves their Black Arks as one of their specific mecanics ... AND THEY FREAKING SHIPS !!!
The naval battles haven't been autoresolve in warhammer for years...
@@sympunny8636 Depends on where you are on the map : if you're in the middle of the ocean, it's auto-resolve only. If you're close to a piece of land, it turns into a land battle instead
And it still doesn't excuse that aberration of giving the dark elves their special NAVAL unit, in a game without naval battles
@@RoulicisThe No, it's literally always island battles regardless of where you are. You can be in the middle of the ocean as far from land as possible, and it's still an island not forced autoresolve. And it's hardly that surprising given the crazy amount of unit variety in wh2, imagine trying to build that but for navies for each faction, plus creating a new type of battle there just aren't enough people that care about it, to make that worthwhile. Don't get me wrong, in a perfect world, of course naval battles would be nice, but it's hardly surprising that they didn't go for it.
@@RoulicisThe 1. It always gives you the option for island battles even in the middle of the ocean that's been a thing since island battles were added. I'm generally curious have you not played since that update or are you using some king of overhaul mod which makes island battles absent from the middle of the ocean without realizing it???
2. Even if navel battles were a thing Implementing black arcs to be used in them would not be feasible for a multitude of reasons. The first of which being the size, have you not seen the black arc maps!? They're so large they'd break all balance, causing navel battles to be an automatic or else cause them to turn into the already present black arc battle where you just board the thing with your army.
@@drafezard7315 In the ocean, I never got the option of getting land battles.
Whenever my fleets went too far from land, all the battles were always auto-resolve
Funnily enough, it was the Naval Battles of Empire Total War that pulled me into the Total War franchise.
I care about naval
Same dude I loved doing naval in Empire and Rome id love a better more upgraded naval warfare.
@@Darth_Melvis +1 they are super immersive
I like naval battles I dont thi k warhammer needs them but if the make an empire 2 without them I will be very disappointed
was a big fan of Naval battel
Like your gay mom
The franchise needs a new engine they have rinsed this one too much and it fails to deliver.
Yea, a new engines worked out so great for all the recent AAA games. Cause devs love nothing more than get an entirely new unproven engine to work with
"Tries to rush out a new game every year or every few years and it's just not the masterpiece we want to see". You just summed up the major problem with the entire gaming industry.
Loved the naval battles it's such a shame to not have them in Warhammer
You actually hit the nail on the head before the rushed games accusation. They knew naval battles before collision mechanics were better and they haven't focused on a time period where that wouldn't be the case. Therefore they're not in the game. Imagine red cliffs and what a shot show that would have been. The southern strategy was literally to lock up Wei's ships so that they could be hit with fire ships and devastate the whole fleet in one shot. Imagine that with Rome 2s naval battles. And Warhammer? The naval battles would have been half of if not more of the budget because of the variety. When we go back to ships strictly shooting and boarding from the sides we'll get naval battles back. Till then no go
Yeah tbh what actual fighting there was at Red Cliff was basically a land battle that happened to take place on ships with little to no manoeuvring going on. Loreful naval battles in WH games would be insanely imbalanced
I mean Attila has fire ships and what not.
@@MFShro0m exactly yeah imagine an orc barge slamming into a dwarf ironclad. Or that same ironclad Vs a black ark with dragon nests. It would be cool but not fun in the long run. That said if they wanted to at least bring back ship on ship autoresolves that would be fine so that maybe it mattered that you had black arks patrolling when the high elves launch an uncontested land invasion of Naggaroth.
in the 5 years after empire, 4 games are released (including Fots). 5 years after total war warhammer? 5. i dont think the rushed games is a fair argument.
I always asked myself why there were no naval battles in total war.
When they first were a thing in empire, i was totally stoked for this. The age-of-sail legends, they were all there. I loved it to bits and even more so in napoleon. I disliked the ancient naval battles, because they were mainly like land battles but on ships and tactically less demanding imo.
As i see things now, a franchise that calls itself "Total War", that delivers great battles but then ultimately fails and consequentially expunges naval warfare due to "lazy coding" doesn't deserve the name to begin with.
I started my total war experience with medieval 2 then went to Rome 1 and stayed around ever since, the major draw card for me was always the ability to recreate some the most awesome stories of the ancient/medieval world.
Unfortunately over the last 5-6 years i have not really gotten that feeling from the newer releases, (i have always strayed towards the historical side more so than warhammer however have put a few 100 hours into warhammer 1/2 each because i honestly don't see them as the same "total war" games i grew up with, they genuinely feel like a separate franchise with borrowed features and themes from past historical total war games (not a bad thing at times there have been some massive upgrades from the newer games most notably the far far FAR superior diplomacy system in 3k and the introduction of resources as a currency in troy past just the static gold number.
It could just be me getting old and not liking massive change or maybe im looking back with rose tinted glasses, either way i feel the same, all the talk about features that are missing from the latest major titles (Attila onward) or what could be added to improve games going forward is definitely a good discussion to have within the community, however personally my biggest wish/hope for the franchise is to get back to its "grounded reality" approach to historical games, 3k was a cool little diversion into an era i really didn't know much at all about and while it was fun for a time it quickly dawned on me that it seems year after year CA's idea of "historical" is mixing and matching warhammer "flare" with historical settings, it just doesn't fit IMO, historical warfare was often very dull and gritty where even the most famous general/leader or renowned warrior could fall off a horse be trampled and thats the end of them, but the more games CA pump out it seems to me that they are losing the essence of what made historical total war games so fantastic and why they accrued such a massive and loyal (for the most part) fan base off the backs of them.
I know this is probably a hell of a lot for someone to even bother reading but maybe some people feel the same way or just read this as an alt POV, either way i genuinely think the biggest thing missing from new total war games isn't the features of the past or new settings/new anything its the very core essence of what made historical total wars incredible, nothing pulls me out of the immersion faster than seeing a 15ft giant swinging and cleaving multiple 100s of men away solo while being untouched in a setting that if that were to ever happen they would be struck down almost instantly from about 500 different angles.
Sorry for the long rant/opinion peace for anyone thats actually read this far lol but its something i don't often see or hear brought up about the newer games, sure people complain about the silly physics and such in the newer "historical" total wars but in my mind a far more depressing issue is the loss of soul of these games, they just don't immerse you like they used to, which is my biggest issue with the total war games these days.
agree with all you have said.I still follow CA but and have all the games but have not purchased since TK as feel the fantasy aspect has taken over.Will buy again when a true historical game comes out without heroes with superpowers.Also it may be me but likes of Troy to me looks more cartoony!!
@@graemebell8884 yeah i agree, i did admittedly have some fun with troy the first week or so but it quickly got dull for sure, one thing i will always praise troy for however was the total war arena style battle maps, i think that particular change alongside the resource management were good features to add in and would like to see them in future historical as-well as for everything else though? pass.
can you imagine empire 2 and medieval 3 whitout naval battles?
Empire 2 deff not but medieval 3 yes cause in 2 they were all autoresolve and transport
These games will never come
Naval combat in Rome 2 might not be perfect, but it's a lot better than Warhammer 2's "it sure is lucky there just happened to be an island nearby when we ran into enemies on the sea" mechanic.
As a Warhammer player, I’ll be happy if they make sieges dynamic and actually fun to fight.
Navel battles would have been hilarious in Warhammer. Such a lost opportunity.
Will cost many Charles Magnes to do the variaety Warhammer needs in Naval Battles.
Unfortunately the budget required do it justice giving every race a decent size navel roster of even 6-10 per race with the current number of confirmed races for all three games already would equal 138-230 navel units would easily require the budget of a full title. For which I would gladly pay if it's was like a fantasy version of Gothic armada which also works as a standalone expansion for WH3 (unfortunately I fear there'd not be enough demand for the navel aspect to justify such an undertaking.
@@drafezard7315 Too much Charles Magnes.
@@drafezard7315 Yeah, for Warhammer naval battles to be worth the inclusion, it'd probably need to be as a £40 dlc. Most people would complain and/or not buy it.
They don’t own the ip, and can’t implement it.
I love naval battles! They are a good way to shake things up. For me, they’re needed for historical titles.
I don't care about naval battles as much as the fact that the fucking formations are so streamlined and basic. Employing of the historical strategies like Hannibal's Cannae, or really attempting anything out of the box is impossible if all you have a handful of inflexible formations that can't disengage quickly without immediately losing moral and routing or losing half the unit.
It is really impossible to replicate Hannibal's formation and strategy at Cannae, the units when instructed to start going behind they just do a 180° and start running/walking like if the enemies didn't exist, instead of walking behind facing foward
@@naisusunai1841 that's the problem
Personally I’d love to see naval battles return, but I also think some of the effort that could have been used in the more modern games has been used to improve other areas. Unit and faction diversity is massive, the diplomacy system in 3K was brilliant, visually the games do look a lot better, Troy has a great, more engaging resource system and others. Perhaps by working on these other bits and fleshing them out more we may see some of the older mechanics and game modes like naval battles return in a bigger way. Here’s hoping!
please bring back navy battles. amphibious battles are so cool
I mean, Naval battles in Attila were pretty good IMO, playing as the saxons and having navies raiding the mediterranean, sacking coast cities and taking islands and strong points works pretty well! The main AI issue seems to be how land units respond
Here it is. My biggest wet dream ever. Total War Warhammer Naval Battles. It would takes a potent team and some design 4 sure to develop with a decent and upgraded AI but lets agree on a fact they DO have enough funding to do so. Make it as DLC for twice as much money i don't care, but make it. It can be done.
I only care about naval battles when - and only when - they have a valid reason to be there. If they do a TW game about 16th-18th century Europe, then definitely yes. If they do a TW about the Mongol conquest during the 13th century, then no. Setting is important; just because they make another TW game, doesn't mean they have to import every features from their old games to create a chimera...
So the Mongol invasions of Japan and Indonesia are "invalid reasons" to have naval battles? Would a game centered around Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines need a "valid reason" to include land battles?
I really hate the jank of the warscape engine I think its insane to not have real collision
fleet battles were my favorite part of empire and napoleon. Capturing and reselling ships was so satisfying.
6:47 - Yeah, naval battles added that TOTAL to the Total War franchise and I still feel my last true and favourite Total War game is Total War Attila.
One of my favourite memories was playing as the Anglo Saxons, taking over all of Britain, dismissing all of my land armies and just building up a huge Navy.
Was priceless to see all those Hunnic hordes trying to cross the ocean and the Saxons just sinking them left right and centre.
Sadly I feel they're taking away all of our tools in this sandbox meets grand strategy meets RTS. Lets hope we see naval again in the future, especially if they do a total war Victoria.
Every total war game can feel like a chore when you have several armies and need to fight unimportant battles because the authores would screw you out of an easy victory.
But I have to admit that nothing felt more like a slow, dragging chore than repeated naval spam...
Everything is a chore in war. The more realistic the more of a chore. Some sieges took years in real history, total war fans can't even be bothered to siege FOR 1 TURN to build siege equip and instead just bring artillery that makes the whole siege a joke.
@@mcmarkmarkson7115 That's obvious. My comment is more directed towards game mechanics, ie "is actually it fun"?
Total War is an arcade game, and shouldn't be in any way considered a simulator.
@@Emanon... I don't think that arcade games strife for historical accuracy. Not sure many tw fans would agree with you that tw is an arcade game.
arcades often use very simple mechanics and fast-paced action to hook you on them, nothing that fits TW well, even warhammer tw is far removed from being an arcade game. If anything it's more complicated than any tw and is respecting it's own source of "history"
@@mcmarkmarkson7115 I deem it arcade because it's very simplistic. Perhaps that's a better term.
Attrition, supply, logistics, disease, weather/climate etc. these are all very lightly represented in classic TW titles.
@@Emanon... if TW is arcade then Diablo 2 is an fps
it's sad, naval battles are what drew me as a young teen to try empire and made me REALLY fall in love with the TW games.
Naval battles were some of my favorite parts about Shogun 2, Empire/Napoleon. Something about seeing all the complexities of the ship details and tactics
3:32 ehm... not true. Shogun 2 already did what Rome 2 should have done.
Nothing is more fun... than have 10 first rate ships and 4 2nd rate ships lined in parallel rushing the enemy fleet and placing them in the middle of the lines... no enemy ships survived... half of them exploded and it was simply MARVELOUS.... as the advisor would say in shogun.. A GLORIOUS VICTORY WILL SOON BE YOURS!!!
If you miss naval battles, go get Ultimate Admiral age of sail :)
I think UA: Age of Sail is overall a better strategy game than modern TWs, as well as older one tbh. Yes, it is missing the sandbox style campaign and you basically have just two factions to play (UK and US), but the battles are much more realistic and immersive. In TW most battles feel the same, just the two armies clashing on random maps over and over again. In UA every battle is unique, it is put into context and presents many different tactical situations to deal with. Also, units are more affected by morale and exhaustion and often need to be resupplied during battle, placing emphasis on logistics by the use of supply trains on the battlefield. All of these aspects, combined with an AI that can actually pose a threat to the player (setting up ambushes, launching coordinated attacks and generally fighting back in a more coherent way), contribute to create the feeling of moving on real battlefield instead of just another arena to showcase cool units like in TW. Only downside of UA are the graphics that are not even close to the detail and smoothness of TW, but, considering that GameLabs is a small independent studio, I guess we can cut them some slack.
I loved the Naval battles in both Empire and Rome2. both were key to expanding my empire. not really been impressed with TW since Rome 2. I'm sorry to say it, but none of the newer ones have really captured my imagination like Rome 2 and earlier. I still go back to Medieval 2 every now and then.
i feel there are some issues which i think give CA some leeway here
firstly, you point the blame at annual releases. since total war warhammer 1 was released in 2016, including warhammer 3 in 2021, 5 games have been released, in 5 years.
in the 5 years after empire was released, 4 games were released (including FotS, as it is standalone). so saying that by increasing the number of games made in 5 years by 1, naval became impossible. this is a company that in the last year, grew by a 1/5th and bought a new studio. it is rapidly growing, so its not suprising they are able to make more games.
secondly, a minor point. As you said, each faction has its own technology. this might create problems, as VC and WoC, for example, would have needed to play rome 2's naval combat, whilst the empire and dwarves play empire. this would likely have greatly screwed the AI, more than even romes.
thirdly, it would have been wasted on total war 1, as there was no incentive for naval combat, especially on release. there were no islands, and the larges body of water seperation, was norsca and nordland. then with TWW2, naval became more common, and a fight was added, to make it more interesting. but if they implemented naval there, then mortal empires would require it.
that leads onto a 4th point, and one CA is likely struggling with the most, which is effort. you say CA is not putting enough effort into its games, but you then compare empire and shogun to warhammer. there's about 4 skeletons in empire. a french soldier is a reskin of a brit, whose a reskin of an austrian, etc. so added onto that, there would be no shared ships in warhammer either.
and theres also the question, do dwarves like to swim?
CA has 2 real options: give dwarves their fleet from warhammer fantasy, modeling multiple transports, ironclads, etc. they are then putting effort into something almost useless in the 1st game, and would see very limited use in the second game.
or not do anything with them, and have them be the barbarians of TWW. this would mean a lot less wasted effort, but inevitably some backlash when someone decided they wanted to attack the elves or something.
3 kingdoms has the same as 3rd point, plus its commander focus, may not gel well with the naval combat.
troy i think was a bit of a missed opportunity, being an island area. but i think maybe CA has decided to draw the line in the sand when it comes to naval battles.
myabe we'll see a return in historical games, but right now, i understand CA's decision to stop naval battles.
100% agree with you mate, many of the things you pointed out plus a number of inaccuracies in the video (such as saying Warhammer took over the franchise after 3k came out, despite 3k coming out several years after WH2) made me give it a dislike.
I agree. While I think the historical titles have been pretty meh since shogun 2, I can totally understand why they are not going for naval atm. This video isn't considered the technical aspect at all. It is clearly made by someone that has no clue about game developing.
Naval in Empire was some of the most fun I've ever had. I've been a fan since Rome and IMO naval pretty much sucked in every game except Empire/Napoleon. I'd LOVE Empire 2, but they'd rather make Warhammer and fantasy stuff. Taking on the Royal Navy as the USA was such a good time. Being the Royal Navy was always a joy for me.
I want an EMPIRE II Total War
hardware has improved so much since Empire came out in 2009. In 2021 we have RTX 30 series Graphics cards, Intel core I9 CPUs and low cost, high performance gaming PCs have become more accessible.
The #1 argument I get whenever I bring up Empire II TW is "That it's too big for the TW engine because you need a world map."
And while this argument might have been true 10+ years ago, I thing Warhammer has proven that It is possible to do a world setting.
CA could even develop and release an Empire II in the same way they made Shogun 2 ( the most polished and my personal favorite TW ) with 3 or more time periods as DLC along with factions. Everybody wins, fans get a Great world spanning TW and CA gets lots of money.
Time Periods:
EMPIRE II: 1700-1800
Napoleon / Victorian Era: 1800-1900
Industrial Era: 1900-1920
Pike and Shot: 1600-1700
As well as several mini-campaigns in each of the Time periods
Empire II would have the most possibilities out of any Total War and YES, NAVAL battles would be a huge part of it.
Warhammer may have a HUGE map but it is sorely laking in Battle Veriety and BASIC FEATURES. they really need a new engine really its been 10 years, then by all means make new games.
I personaly will not buy anymore a total war until they make a Empire II game, i give up on them with the few last games, got Troy for free or would not get it and i have Empire, Shogun II & Fots and Roma II all of them good games especialy Empire that is my favorit era with sail ships.
"low cost, high performance gaming PCs have become more accessible." Have you not seen the current graphics card prices!?
I am still rocking my 970gtx because of the insane graphic card prices.
@@TheBarser Yeah, literally same.
One of the most brutally realistic parts of Empire's naval battles was when your admiral survives multiple broadsides but is picked off by some random sailor or marine at the last minute from the last enemy ship.
Eh, if we take Warhammer series only, I can't imagine putting naval battles inside this game, considering how many different races there are, TOO much work and resources would be needed
Yeah, I can kinda see the argument for why naval battles should be a standard feature in historical games, especially ones with so much water like Troy, but for Warhammer HELL NO. The amount of work and resources required to give each faction even three different types of ships to use would probably enough to make an entire race pack at this point. There's just way too many races for the system to not be a massive resource drain, especially if they want the naval battles to reflect the racial/unit diversity that Total War Warhammer has used as its core appeal.
People dont understand that. And if they would have released it the game would have been delayed a lot, and naval would be terrible.
I want to see Victorian-era battleships clashing!
If they go back to a proper gunpowder era game, like a Victorian or Empire 2 etc, there absolutely needs to be naval battles.
The naval battles are awesome. When Empire first came out, I even went out and upgraded my gaming PC just so it could handle the (back then) steep requirements... and it was worth it.
Was shogun 2 not in this engine? That had good collision
Can you imagine naval battles if they came out with a Victoria Total War!??? Steam ships and ironsides!?? That'd be awesome!
All the tears of Themistocles cannot describe how I feel right now.
Defeating 4 cannon ships with just one bowship and a trade ship in Shogun 2 is one of my best memories of all the Total War games
They could have made a pirate game based just on that and it would be a smashing hit.
Naval battles are the best thing out of these games . The big ships era of course
In the case of Warhammer, warhammer naval battles is a different license.
Personally, I'm forever hopeful for an Empire remastered.
Same here, if they made that to the scale of Warhammer 2 mortal empires especially.
Iirc they didn't fix any combat ai with RTW remastered. Why would they with a cash grab of Empire.
I personally don’t think naval battles would work amazingly in warhammer as there are so many different factors that it would be impossible to get it to work well, for example dark elf black arks, they are meant to be floating cities the most powerful ships in warhammer how would they work in naval battles surely they would cover the entire map and beat almost every navy. the dark elves also have access to a kharibdyss a sea monster surely a sea monster would be able to fight in naval battles if so how on earth are they going to do that. What about flying monsters could they work and how would a dragon interact with a ship would we still have the transport style ships from Rome 2 if so how on earth does a dread Saurion work. What about magic. These are just a few examples as to why a naval battles system in warhammer simply wouldn’t work. Yes they could remove all of that and have simple ship on ship naval battles but then what is the point it would be no different to any other total war.
I also wanted to say what he is saying about games being rushed out doesn’t really make much sense to me while yes the rate at which games are being released has increased you have also got to take into account that total war is a much bigger franchise with at least 3 teams possibly 4 all working on new games simultaneously. There is the fantasy team, the historical team and the saga team the 4th team would be the three kingdoms team as in the resent announcement to me it sounded like it is now a separate team to historical but I’m not sure. But all this adds up to the fact that games are going to come out more regularly. The gap between warhammer 2 and 3 is 4 going on 5 years I thinks that is a big enough gap you will notice this with almost every large game developer.
why do people always forget to mention shogun 2 when it comes to the warscape engine?
I love Naval Battles! I will never forget turning broadside with my Spanish ship "Nuestra Señora Santisima de la Trinidad" and unleash a full salvo on enemy ship to watch them blow up
6:45 "Well no."
7:35 "Well yes."
Make up your mind then. It does come down to annually releasing unfinished games with limited resources.
I'm gonna be gonest, I think the big reason we don't see naval battles in stuff like Total Warhammer is simply due to how the new assets in question act and are compared to say previous (and none fantasy based titles).
Sure most of the Warhammer units are bipedal, but all have different stances, builds, and animations. Sure, you could prolly have Elves and Men share animations...but for say the Dwarves, Greenskins, Lizardmen, Skaven, etc.? That's an entirely new problem....and that's not even including all the various, distinct monster and machinery units. I don't this so much an issue of laziness, but give and take. These games are no longer just primarily human units that can share and utilize the same animations to lighten the technical load if needs be.
EDIT: Basically what I am trying to say is there is a lot more moving parts regarding the various units of the Total Warhammer games. Stuff that would that much more difficult and time-consuming to implement well.
It was amazing to think of an ancient dday when I invaded a port cities and towns in Rome 2 and Attila using only my navy. Its very satisfying to bypass their walls. I miss that, hope navy will return in medieval 3.
But the unit collision worked fine in shogun 2 (that was largely focused on melee combat) and they also used the warscape engine. Rome 2 was rushed through production which was what caused the unit collision to be a bit weird not the engine itself. Which you can see now! With a lot of patching Rome 2s melee combats is much better.
It's a shame Warhammer doesn't have naval battles, having factions like Vampire Coast, who are basically Davy Jones' undead pirates, Norsca, who are the vikings, or even high elves and dark elves, one being a naval superpower in the lore and the other one having Black Arks, which are giant floating fortresses used to traverse the seas.
My Rome 2 naval battle experience=
Orders ship to ram the side of an enemy ship.
Enemy ship somehow spins around to face my ship.
Ships collide "So I still rammed you then, right?"
Enemy ship "Actually, I rammed you!"
My ship "Oh, okay then" proceeds to turn into matchwood.
I think Naval Battles are Worthy to Come out as Their Own Games.
Maybe Total War Caribbean? Total War Colonization of New World? Total War Discovery: Anno Domino?
I just want Total War: Medieval 3.
I still hear people complain that there aren't navel battles in warhammer2\3, and I always ask them "so, if you were a developer how would you go about doing a dinosaur doom stack vs ships?".
I did like having the option to build navies in Medieval 2 even if they were auto-resolve, different strengths/considerations for some factions and fun.
I mean clicking on enemy ships to hear them talk smack was also great
heeeey haha recognized some of the Napoleonic Total War 3 footage lol. Good video mate
Siege and Naval battles however were incredible your fleet attacking their defensive fleet/garrison fleet. Then your land units breaching the walls and if you won the Naval battle you could land some troops in their port to outflank the defenders. Incredible
I can understand leaving it out of some of the historical games where it wouldn’t have been so interesting but leaving it out of warhammer is a crime, we could have seen ships of the line from the empire, heavy steam ships from the dwarfs, all kinds of creepy undead things from the vampire coast, it wouldn’t even be limited to ships you could have sea monsters and all the flying entities
Played every major total war release starting with the original shogun and yeh I miss naval and they need to bring it back. I love warhammer and get why it may be too much work to put naval combat in it, but the infantry combat without the monsterous infantry/monsters/magic isn’t quite enough to be compelling. Esp with the fairly basic campaign map gameplay (can’t compare to crusader kings for example) they really need to fill out every aspect of war. Maybe they will, or maybe they will just do warhammer but for various mythologies and leave the historical settings behind for a time.
Out of all of them, my favorite naval combat was shogun 2, the only thing was I wished the ships started closer to each other
I love the sea battles, but with the rapid production of TW, the last two I bought were Rome II and the first Warhammer one. I now am getting my naval aspect from Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail.
Empire was the first TW game that I lost myself in. The realism in gorilla tactics to win a battle where you where clearly outnumbered was amazing. The defensive systems in the game, the navel warfare. It was increadable.
Me waiting for Black Arks and Ironclads in Warhammer III: 🥲🥲🥲
No mention of Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail is pretty sadge
imagine like a pre-dreadnought naval battles not ironclads or monitors naval battles like in FoS DLC. But pre-dreadnought naval battles like Tsushima or Santiago de Cuba.
Innocent question as I haven't really followed the media behind Total War though have played almost every game: why do people not like Troy? For me it is my favourite of the Total War games, with the Warhammers a close second. It feels so different, and so much more strategic, than its predecessors. The idea to start with a ridiculously powerful enemy that you have fend off until you're powerful enough to overcome worked great imo, and I thought the mythology behind it was far more compelling than just conquering for the sake of conquest. Barely noticed that naval battles weren't included as the ones from Rome 2 were really dull and it would likely have been stylistically similar. That said, they could have revamped the diplomacy system since allies are so important in Troy but diplomacy has always been weak in TW games. but this can't be the reason, surely?
Go play a custom battle in shogun 2 and then play one in Troy. Should immediately see why people bash Troy and new total wars in general.
@@whodis3489 People play custom battles?
the thing is, naval battles were dope in empire and napoleon for the reasons you stated, so if they go back to that time period, or even better, a more recent period like ww1 or ww2, they have ZERO excuses to not put naval battles, as it would work good. the biggest issue i think would be carriers but thats another story, since it involves air combat
Honestly I auto every naval battle. I just suck at them.
I always assumed total war couldn't use "Man o War" models because the ip was elsewhere owned and used by someone else
I think a lot of people were put off by the naval battles in Shogun 2, which was the first TW game for many. Not only were the early game naval battles boring to the absolute extreme but you also had to fight a lot of them to keep your trade routes secure. The AI in Shogun 2 naval battles was also all but turned off, all it could do was to either sit completely still or bum rush straight ahead.
They really need to work on a new engine because at this point it's obvious that Warscape is at the end of its rope. It's really apparent from all the problems they're having with fixing cavalry in Warhammer. Whenever they find a solution it breaks something else.
Problem is CA turned into a money grabber. Maybe they can work on the formula what makes BFGA 2 great and use it to improve their naval battles.
Thank you for making !!
In Warhammer it may be hard to do due to balance issues. For example, Bretonnia is a faction whose technology is based around cavalry which would be useless. Whereas the Dwarf factions use gunpowder.
I honestly miss naval battles even though I was always pretty crappy at them and AI always got unfair infuriating advantage (range buff in Shogun 2 pissess me off till today) but it is still a sorely missed feature that I hope will make a comeback
One of the things I've read were that they didn't have the license to do navel battles because another developer had it and there was something prevent CA doing their own.
I’d love to see CA take a break, and release “total war” as a reboot
New engine
Larger focus on modding
Have two modes, historic and romantic.
Cover the whole world in grande campaign.
Age span from Neolithic/Bronze age- late Bronze Age, Roman era and migration era all the way to the cusp or ww1 or even do ww1. Romantic mode allows for romanticization like the in Troy and 3K (stronger generals/hero’s. Semi historical/plausible troop types and factions/weapons)
They can re-use assets as long as they are updated.
Option to play as your dynasty/family line ck2 style instead of as a faction.
A change throughout the ages of what the currencies are (resources to money - to both etc)
More events and random occurrences
Developing and evolving of your nations/cultures in both a locked historical way and a free development way where you can create your own cultures.
While this sounds amazing I think you may be asking for a bit to much to have a game cover the whole world it would have to be pretty bare bones to include everything. Let alone go from Bronze Age too ww1. Most campaigns also only only last around 200 turns so unless you are speeding through the ages you aren’t going to make it very far through the ages meaning a large percentage of the stuff developed wouldn’t even be seen
No mixing of historical and fantasy. They require their own mechanics, art and UI style. If I play historical mode on three kingdoms i still have the stupid cartoon map and ninja warrior interface. Don't fool yourself that making two modes of the same game makes it okay. They need to stay separate.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
And in Warhammer naval battles would be a hell to make, every race has a different ship building.
It's always good to have some variation of combat. I am getting bored from the field battles and castle sieges...
You have no idea. Same. Wheres the Encampment battles? Wheres the unwalled settlement battles? Hell wheres are GOD DAME BRIDGE?RIVER BATTLES?!
Total War Troy without an amphibious battle really shock me...
0:54 perfect transition
I love playing as the Dreadfleet in Total War Warhammer II and III (haven’t really played the historical games, so I can’t really say anything about them or the naval battles you could fight in them), but I would absolutely love to fight naval battles in that regard. It’s a shame they’re absent…
Because cutting mechanics it's easier than fixing and working on them, just ask what happened with the Captains