|
Gorefluff posted:Started a game of Fall of the Samurai, and I gotta say thanks to the guys that suggested it. I usually avoid DLC but this was definitely worth it. Apparently I'm freaking terrible at gun fights (any quick tips for general rifle tactics?) but I still manage to do alright with shitloads of artillery to demoralise their lines before charging them with suicidal blocks of cavalry. You should move on from using levy infantry in field battles as soon as possible. They're great for fort defence, but you want at least line infantry for your gun line in proper battles. Line them up 2-3 ranks deep (definitely no deeper unless there are specific reasons to do so) and just have them stand and fight and die - it's what they're for. Artillery, as others have noted, will usually prompt the enemy into attacking you even if you're the attacking force; the exception is if the AI has artillery superiority, in which case target their artillery with yours until they decide that you've won the artillery duel and start advancing on you. There's a place for traditionalist troops even in modern armies; yari kachi are good here since they fill in anti-cavalry duties as well as being tough enough to storm forts. A couple units of them in an army can't hurt. Yari ki are also very good, since with their bonus against cavalry they'll give a good account of themselves against sabre cavalry and the like. Technologies you want to get for combat: explosive shells, kneel fire, armour piercing shells, iron plating. Armstrong Guns are good but honestly Parrott Guns are perfectly serviceable for most of the campaign. Wooden cannons are poo poo garbage for babies, don't use them. Matchlock kachi, same. Bow kachi are actually kind of great.
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:07 |
|
|
brocretin posted:IIRC the original statement was just that they weren't gonna make a '3' any time in the immediate future. The actual quote was from a Rock Paper Shotgun interview and was in response to the question "What is the next game you are working on? " to which the reply was "That's a secret but I can tell you it doesn't have a 3 in the title". Three weeks later they announced Alien: Isolation, which doesn't have a 3 in it. Basically, Medieval 3 is the safe money, neck and neck with a warhammer total war. But we will find out soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Another nice thing about Napoleon is it has a sort of soft Realm Divide. Either you're France vs the world, or you're a Coalition nation trying to survive the French onslaught. The AI produces full stacks with an actually decent army composition, and sometimes even uses multiple stacks in conjunction with each other. Also, in my opinion it has the best artillery of any TW game. The arty is enough to kill troops and force the enemy to move towards you (and generally has a more satisfying feel to it than the Empire artillery did), but isn't strong enough to win battles by itself (like the FotS artillery). The diplomatic AI is occasionally moronic (I once gave northern Italy to Britain as a gift, in the hopes it would cause them to go to war with France; instead they declared war on me), but it's no worse than any other game in the series.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Maybe they'll get around the 'No Threequel' rule by making an early medieval total war or a pre-modern europe total war (called something else of course). Seriously, the 11th century - 16th century timeline they had in previous MTW games doesn't work if you want to make a more realistic game with a coherent feel to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
I'd be all for a Total War: Renaissance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
I feel like a year is a bit too fast of a turnover for the core Total War lineup, but I suppose we'll see.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
My dream will-never-happen Total War is one centred on the Wars of the Three Kingdoms - that is the English civil war, English revolution, the Covenanters' revolt, etc. Focused setting, cultural/religious/political conflict, interesting warfare that they haven't really done before. Would also accept a wider 17th century Europe one but I think the focused Total Wars like Shogun 2 and Napoleon are the best ones.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
CA would be better off making a huge fuckoff giant scale campaign over a single era and then build focused minicampaigns around it instead as a way to extend the base game's life (e.g. FOTS, Napoleon if it didn't go expandalone). Especially if everyone insists on it. I mean, Empire and Rome 2 are the more played TWs probably by virtue of their giant theatres. Except those feel unwieldy at times and their endgames are rarely interesting after making it past the initial burst of difficulty from realm divides/civil wars. I mean if they really wanted to they could blow up all of Eurasia and even Sub-Saharan Africa into Rome 2 and play it full antiquity and stop just before early middle ages and then let people have that but also make more focused things like all the Roman campaigns or even non-Roman campaigns like the barbarian invasions or even do things in late antiquity like rise of Islam. Of course it's easier said than done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
brocretin posted:I feel like a year is a bit too fast of a turnover for the core Total War lineup, but I suppose we'll see. Rome 2 tanked the brand with that launch. They did something similar after Empire with a quick rollover into Napolean. Remember, the next game will likely be 2 years or so out, which means 3 years between games, which is about right, really for a major franchise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
I wonder if CA is partially funded by the colour yellow, because using that colour for things like movement destination markers, arrows and everything against terrain is a terrible idea and sometimes gets lost in certain regions, especially in Rome 2, depending on where you are. It's like a bad habit they can't seem to shake or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Sober posted:I wonder if CA is partially funded by the colour yellow, because using that colour for things like movement destination markers, arrows and everything against terrain is a terrible idea and sometimes gets lost in certain regions, especially in Rome 2, depending on where you are. It's like a bad habit they can't seem to shake or something. Today's game was brought to you by the color Yellow  .Seriously though, for most of their games it wasn't that bad. Japan and most of Medieval Europe were extremely green so yellow sticks out like a sore thumb there, but yeah once you start getting to deserts/paved roads then it gets really hard to keep track of things. Personally I think they need to figure out a way to make units pop up more in woods. I can barely tell which units are which when they're marching into woods.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Total War: American Civil War needs to happen someday.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
I'd kinda like to see a Total War: 1914 myself. Like, just 1914, not the rest of the Great War. Play the Battle of the Frontiers and grab as much as you can before the lines solidify. Come on now, chaps! We've got to have neatly-ordered files as we assault that machine-gun!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Gimnbo posted:I'd be all for a Total War: Renaissance. SERPUS posted:Total War: American Civil War needs to happen someday.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:The only downside to an American Civil War is that it'd be what, just two factions? You could include British Canada, Republican Mexico and Imperial Mexico for some potential fun times, maybe, but ehhh edit: maybe this was a bit harsh. What I was trying to say is that if a TW game set in China won't happen because it's "too niche", one set in the US Civil War seems even less likely. peer fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Sep 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
It better be ACW. Make each state a faction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Space is popular at present. Beyond Earth, Paradox has some 'Ancient Galaxy' coming out. Wouldn't it be funny if they just went total fiction and did Space:Total War?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
Well, I guess space total war would sort of work in the abstract, fight ground battles or space battles. Actually, I would kinda like to see a space battle game using TW naval battles as a basis, would be pretty interesting, though I have a suspicion we'd end up flying space first rates and doing space broadsides at each other.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
Peloponnesian Total War Athens, Sparta, Macedon and the Odrysian Kingdom throwing lines of hoplites at each other and building series of competing walls. Sacrifice in the temples! Hide in the temples! Demolish the temples!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
The only interesting idea on this page is the Wars of the Three Kingdoms guys. Also China.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:The only interesting idea on this page is the Wars of the Three Kingdoms guys. Also China. The Total War gameplay, as it is, wouldn't do a very good job of replicating any of the stuff that people remember from the Three Kingdoms era.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 10:48
|
|
|
My dream Total War game would be Mongol Apocalypse set in medieval Asia. It would have a randomised breakout time for the Mongols and a mechanic to prevent you preparing for it too much. Maybe massive unrest penalties for building up a huge army for no real reason or perhaps other factions ally against you if your army gets too big. That or just start the game with Genghis Khan beginning his expansion in turn 1. The Mongol invasions are the most terrifying period of history for me: Millions of people over thousands of miles were living settled average lives when suddenly something utterly unexpected came along and violently swept all that away.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 11:02
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:The Total War gameplay, as it is, wouldn't do a very good job of replicating any of the stuff that people remember from the Three Kingdoms era. Fall of the Samurai is at best a very loose interpretation of the Boshin War but it's still an excellent Total War game. You could make a really interesting and dynamic Total War game set in the 1640s British Isles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 11:06
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:The Total War gameplay, as it is, wouldn't do a very good job of replicating any of the stuff that people remember from the Three Kingdoms era. You've confused this with this. edit: Or sorry if you haven't
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:You've confused this with this. I did! Fuckers need to sort out their civil war names.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 11:14
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:I did! Historians are bad at naming things. It are a fact.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 11:26
|
|
|
Played some more EB2 to about 50 turns and I'm starting to get bored with the grind fights. As Carthage, my method has been to hire some phalanxes and send them to clear the streets in the cities (siege battles are still the majority). Then I just speed up time and wait or do something else. It takes a silly amount of casualties before a unit will even start considering running away: even archers will fight to the death in melee against a phalanx. So even though the battles are decided early, they take a long time to play out and require little input from the player. I'll have to make a gif the next time I see that last surviving defender being continuously stunlocked for a solid minute before giving up the ghost. My favourite moment so far was watching a single Cretan archer wrassle endlessly against 500 or 600 men in the town square. I had earlier tried to break the defenders by running over them with elephants to no avail. All of a sudden the elephants, despite having been pulled away from the fight, went berserk and rampaged through my army while the last Cretan kept being slapped around. From less than 20 mercenary casualties to 60, all because of one man! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
Promontory posted:Played some more EB2 to about 50 turns and I'm starting to get bored with the grind fights. As Carthage, my method has been to hire some phalanxes and send them to clear the streets in the cities (siege battles are still the majority). Then I just speed up time and wait or do something else. It takes a silly amount of casualties before a unit will even start considering running away: even archers will fight to the death in melee against a phalanx. So even though the battles are decided early, they take a long time to play out and require little input from the player. Sounds like Incan soldier Cahuide I can't find a good link in English, but the guy spent all day wrecking invading Spaniards and their native allies. With a captured Spanish helmet, buckler, and sword he beat a fighting retreat all the way up a tower. Rather than be taken alive, he took a running dive off the top of the tower to his death 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:My dream will-never-happen Total War is one centred on the Wars of the Three Kingdoms - that is the English civil war, English revolution, the Covenanters' revolt, etc. Focused setting, cultural/religious/political conflict, interesting warfare that they haven't really done before. Would also accept a wider 17th century Europe one but I think the focused Total Wars like Shogun 2 and Napoleon are the best ones. If it was going to be a focused 17th century game the 30 Years War would be a lot more interesting than the English Civil War imo. Plenty of cultural/religious/political conflict there as well, but more players and more diversity of units and landscapes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
And yet fewer silly accents. Also England actually has quite a lot of terrain variety, the vale of York is flat as a pancake, the pennines are blasted heathland with constant 60mph winds. The lakes are full of mountains and what's basically a series of Scottish Lochs, the dales are a network of rolling hills and valleys, there's sheer canyons dotted around the place, usually full of forest. Quite a lot of choice, really. Dunno much about further south but the north is full of interesting bits. Actually it'd be kind of nice if there was a total war set on a much smaller scale in general, where rivers and other terrain features could be shown a bit bigger on the strategic map, and the map was a bit less patchwork/glossed over. I would imagine you could set it anywhere and have a lot of neat terrain. Maybe something like feudal Germany or something? Lots of little city-states all fighting each other. Lots of awesome castles built on top of hills in the middle of forests.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:If it was going to be a focused 17th century game the 30 Years War would be a lot more interesting than the English Civil War imo. Plenty of cultural/religious/political conflict there as well, but more players and more diversity of units and landscapes. I would absolutely take a 30 Years War game as well, I just think the specific geographically-bounded focus of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms makes for an ideal setting (much like Sengoku Jidai Japan).
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Maybe something like feudal Germany or something? Lots of little city-states all fighting each other. Lots of awesome castles built on top of hills in the middle of forests. Well most of the 30 Years War was fought in (what is now) Germany and involved almost all those little German states as well as several other powers. Lots of religious and cultural warfare which would fit in well with the overall strategic campaign, but also very appealing on the level of battles as this period involved by far the most ridiculous uniforms/outfits of any era of European warfare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Wait I might be confusing thirty years war with hundred years war. Edit: Ok yeah those aren't the same thing, thirty years war sounds more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 17:03
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:Fall of the Samurai is at best a very loose interpretation of the Boshin War but it's still an excellent Total War game. You could make a really interesting and dynamic Total War game set in the 1640s British Isles. Monmouth Rebellion Total War.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Going back to Napoleon and I dunno if it's because of later titles but holy crap the UI and fonts in that game are tiny as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Guys, It's going to be some dumb mobile/facebook game with pay to win elements that has the name total war on it. gently caress I want Medieval 3
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
They'll finally announce Humanity total war, an ambitious game where you start off in 5,000 BC and play all the way to 2240 (the fall of Great Future Bulgaria).
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
Mans posted:They'll finally announce Humanity total war, an ambitious game where you start off in 5,000 BC and play all the way to 2240 (the fall of Great Future Bulgaria). I believe you mean Great Future
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
Mans posted:They'll finally announce Humanity total war, an ambitious game where you start off in 5,000 BC and play all the way to 2240 (the fall of Great Future Bulgaria).
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:07 |
|
|
Sober posted:Okay but how many turns per year? 8760
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 09:01
|
|
