|
Has anyone else noticed that Total War battles used to look like this in say, Rome 1, Medieval 2, Napoleon, etc.: One side would start to break as they were outdisciplined or outflanked along a long line that would hold fairly constant until morale gives, then a rout. Now every battle seems to devolve into this:  I feel like it's been getting worse since Shogun 2, which was the last game I remember having fairly coherent battles most of the time. Attila is especially bad about this. What's the deal? Is it my imagination or confirmation bias, or did something fundamentally change? I also suspect that the units became unrealistically fast, which contributes to this.
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
Flavius Aetass posted:Why didn't people like the Britannia one? Seems like a neat setting but I haven't really looked into it. It's sort of a TW game that discourages the war side. Armies take a longer time to build and consume food and all your minor settlements get auto captured without a fight if enemies attack them. The big problem there was that it has the Warhams ai where the AI refuses to ever meet you in battle and now your settlements aren't even speedbumps so you'll never catch them and can't tell which way they'll go since there are no obstacles to them. Also even samier armies than 3K. There was some very light Ck2 style dynasty management to compensate but it mostly seemed to boil down to clicking a button every few turns to prevent civil wars. For me personally by far the biggest issue though was that it ran on the *Attila engine* and was sorta hacked into just about working but with no space for anything to be added. Turn times were much longer than you'd expect and it looked pretty ugly. Some of the ideas were later put to good use in 3k though with some changes, but ThroB remains the only TW I never managed to have a single fun campaign with. Mostly just ending in some random enemy appearing and me not wanting to spend 30 mins ending turns as I chased them around my territory pingponging between unguardable settlements.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 14:45
|
|
|
Seems accurate to the time period, but yeah, not fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 14:47
|
|
|
Some people liked it though, just not for me and I was one of the only 11 people in the world hyped for it on launch cause I'm a true doom TW head
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 14:50
|
|
|
"The truth behind the myth" feels ambiguous to me and I sure hope they don't go "realistic" way the way that movie went. Troy without gods and larger-than-life heroes is a completely different story, the one that ignores contemporary views. It's like that Kingdom of Heaven movie where everyone who's smart is actually an atheist and so the whole story lacks sense. Or to make Lord of the Ring movie where all the magical stuff is gained by drugging observers and it's all really an Elvish plot to put their king in charge of a sovereign republic of Gondor. It's a reinterpretation, reimagining. And TW (and strategy games in general) don't usually go for these, they show you zeitgeist. So it would make sense that if they go for retelling of Illiad then you have people at least believing strongly in gods, following signs and expecting miracles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 15:08
|
|
|
I am going to say you have two modes One with god powers, heroes, and monstesr and one for non fun havers who want more spearmani
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 15:19
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:On the other hand, they probably still have "core" "historical" fans. Not sure how big and vocal this part is but many people don't like historical series going into fantasy land. 3K is weighted heavily towards heroic mythical combat, records mode is basically "turn off all the fun features" mode. And nobody liked Thrones of Britannia. So I imagine people being disapointed if the next "historical" game is not historical. I fell off the Total War games when they went hard in on Warhammer because medieval fantasy was something I got my fill of in other games and the historical settings of these games is what I come to them for. 3K may be fantastical with the heroes but it still was more interesting than orcs and such
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:. Or to make Lord of the Ring movie where all the magical stuff is gained by drugging observers and it's all really an Elvish plot to put their king in charge of a sovereign republic of Gondor. If you haven't you should read The Last Ringbearer That goes for everyone
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
Flavius Aetass posted:Has anyone else noticed that Total War battles used to look like this in say, Rome 1, Medieval 2, Napoleon, etc.: I’ve noticed this in 3k and in Warhammer with some low moral factions (skaven). I actually really prefer it because it spreads the battle out over more of the map. It also gives more life to a variety of units, instead of just heavy infantry line + cab flank.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
The most satisfying thing for me is when you go with a strong flank / centre with some properly tough melee units and roll up the flanks that way; it feels a lot more interesting than “make a long line and hope yours is longer”
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
Flavius Aetass posted:Has anyone else noticed that Total War battles used to look like this in say, Rome 1, Medieval 2, Napoleon, etc.: I mean yeah but I don't necessarily mind. Every battle being two lines of heavy infantry mushing into each other for 10 minutes until one side breaks gets stale. When things spread out I find it becomes more interesting overall. Usually there's still a "main" battle where the majority of your forces are tangled up and then a few side skirmishes going on. It spreads the fighting across the field and adds interesting variables. Maybe I'm winning the side battles but my main force is struggling. Am I going to be able to wrap up these side fights fast enough to arrive as reinforcements? Will they even make it in time? Can I pull one or two units out to reinforce my main army now and still win these side battles? stuff like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:The most satisfying thing for me is when you go with a strong flank / centre with some properly tough melee units and roll up the flanks that way; it feels a lot more interesting than “make a long line and hope yours is longer” Sure, either way. Which one you're trying to do is the whole game of pre-modern battles. But there used to be a recognizable line and now it's mostly just willy-nilly chaos. The problem for me is that it's almost as if the units behave now more like individuals in a street fight than formations of an army.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 15:48
|
|
|
I don't know enough about the military history of the Three Kingdoms era to say but I did notice that cohort warfare tends to fall into disorganization. I'm about to fire it back up, I had read somewhere that the game uses Five Element Theory and I saw it in the colors and general types but I hadn't realized it extends down to units. Naturally I understood the basic rock-paper-scissors stuff but framing it in five elements rather than 3 way (archers gently caress melee gently caress horses gently caress archers...) should be interesting. Most of my battles have been about baiting off cavalry and fuckin' them up with archers and my cavalry, then cycle charging into the back of the enemy lines over and over. It seems to me the cohorts break down at a certain point because melee inf gently caress up spearmen and so spearmen lines collapse fast while sword lines can hold out for an extremely long time if you don't spread them too thin. Also the hero generals turn battles for free when they use like 100% melee evasion buffs. Also having a campaign basically ended by an AI army with a permanently invincible commander/sentinel combo sucked a lot but I think they patched that out. The other thing that has sucked has been the AI attacking a city and for some reason "hey just don't reinforce this thing, just don't do it, stay away" is not an option so your lovely retreating armies double back to reinforce a city you could give a gently caress about and get hosed up by a hellstack.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
Flavius Aetass posted:Has anyone else noticed that Total War battles used to look like this in say, Rome 1, Medieval 2, Napoleon, etc.: It was the same way throughout- Total War lets you maneuver troops in a ridiculously flexible manner(heavy infantry turning away from enemies in front of them, cavalry wheeling on a dime just after routing enemies). There are, in fact games that do not let you do this. If you're looking for realism in your pre-modern battles, field of glory 2 has you covered.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 16:10
|
|
|
I want to play as Diomedes and kill everyone because I'm the most OP Achaean hero and a massive jackass to boot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
looking forward to the twc meltdown at the inclusion of memnon
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
Flavius Aetass posted:Has anyone else noticed that Total War battles used to look like this in say, Rome 1, Medieval 2, Napoleon, etc.: It depends on the faction, dwarf battles probably in general do look like the first. But overall it comes down to a bunch of factors. For example, with Shogun 2 you've got the plentiful availability of Yari Ashigaru, which are slow and cost effective and have a formation that makes them even slower and stronger when not flanked. In warhammer 2 you have the presence of magic spells that cast in straight lines, making long straight fronts like that a recipe for magical death. In the end there's factions that want to create that chaos, and factions that want to maintain a sense of order in how things work. Fangz fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Sep 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:They should just do it Records vs Romance style where one version lets you play a campaign that's more historical and in the other version Achilles can solo armies by himself and you can recruit minotaurs and stuff. This is what I'm hoping for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
If you are not playing the minotaur faction I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
Man I remember when Crete conquered the whole of Greece thanks to minotaur spam
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
The old games have proper line battles because they don't have dinosaurs and dragon ogres.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:Man I remember when Crete conquered the whole of Greece thanks to minotaur spam It also has to do with changes they made with how models used to sync up for matched combat vs the more free flowing attacks they do now. I think that changeover happened after Shogun 2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:The old games have proper line battles because they don't have dinosaurs and dragon ogres. Battles in Attila, and even Rome 2 often, are just as all over the place as Warhammer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
I haven't played vanilla Rome 2 in years but DeI is extremely line-battley
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
DeI battles make for good screensavers, i'll give em that
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:"The truth behind the myth" feels ambiguous to me and I sure hope they don't go "realistic" way the way that movie went. It’s not really ambiguous unless you believe gorgons where real but Medusa herself wasn’t,
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
Anno posted:I’ll be very pleasantly surprised if it means actual monsters/mythology in battle rather than as just setting/backdrop. I assume these still don’t have the budget to get a bunch of big TWW-style stompy monsters and magic. A bunch of new stompy monsters and magic, probably not. But we already have the animations for the hydra, for dragons, for giants, for a giant boar, for harpies, for centaurs, for cyclopes, etc. So I'm expecting mostly reskins if we get them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:A bunch of new stompy monsters and magic, probably not. But we already have the animations for the hydra, for dragons, for giants, for a giant boar, for harpies, for centaurs, for cyclopes, etc. So I'm expecting mostly reskins if we get them. Hey if that’s what it takes then I’m all for it! Maybe they could develop a few new things and back port them, too. Still going in to the announcement not really expecting that but hoping to be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 01:32
|
|
|
I have no interest in a by-the-books Troy Total War but hell yeah if they go with Age of Mythology Total War.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 01:42
|
|
|
Did Rome 2 ever become good? On release it was... not great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
ACValiant posted:Did Rome 2 ever become good? On release it was... not great. DeI is an experience. I'm not sure if it's truly "good" but I've sunk a lot of time into it. A big 20-stack battle in it is worth playing at least once, the models are beautiful and "historically accurate" enough compared to regular TW that the spectacle is cool if you like the period. A big 20-stack battle is also one of the problems with playing a campaign of it- the slow rear end infantry battle lines poking each other for 30 minutes as you attack a babby garrison in a minor town gets old quick, and autoresolve is so borked that say, if you're Pyrrhus playing a battle where you'd lose a few dozen phalanx men, you can instead kiss goodbye to your war elephants.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
DeI is a lot faster than it used to be, battle wise. Most of my complaints from prior versions have been fixed, and I feel like it's quite playable at normal battle speeds. You can install a faster battle submod if you feel the need to - Faster Battles feels like standard Total War.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 02:12
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:I want to play as Diomedes and kill everyone because I'm the most OP Achaean hero and a massive jackass to boot. I hope that you can smash the Aeantes together into a single unit to have them go absolutely apeshit. Like BACK TO BACK in Army of Two but all Bronze Age
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
ACValiant posted:Did Rome 2 ever become good? On release it was... not great. Yeah, and even without DeI (Divide et Imperia, one of the most popular mods). There's still things here and there that people don't like but it's a pretty great game at this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 02:26
|
|
|
ACValiant posted:Did Rome 2 ever become good? On release it was... not great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 02:27
|
|
|
The problem with Rome 2 remains that the Naval Combat is terrible. I thought (although I was in a minority apparently) that naval battles in Empire/Napoleon worked well and were fun, and really you didn't need ships to move armies much so it was an isolated system. They aren't fun though in the non-gunpowder age and definitely aren't fun in the Med where you need fleets to move armies everywhere, and they were super unfun in Fall of the Samurai where it was 'highest shell tech wins in the first salvo'. It was a good thing when Total Warhammer was able to break the expectation that naval battles should be in the game, and they should not come back (except for Napoleon 2).
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 08:20
|
|
|
I hope they stick to full bronze age armour and equipment for the Troy game. I'll be pissed if I see any Corinthian helmets and hoplites. edit: Total War: Ramayana when? NoNotTheMindProbe fucked around with this message at 08:41 on Sep 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 08:39
|
|
|
Frankly, either mythological or not could be interesting for me, but it's just not worth playing if they don't put in the Hittites.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 08:54
|
|
|
I still miss naval landing battles. Those were fun in Attila.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 14:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
Fuligin posted:DeI battles make for good screensavers, i'll give em that Cmon the fps isn't THAT bad! There's a decent mod for DeI called alternative phalanx that I like a lot that gets rid of the cement block phalanxes. I liked those but they were too hard to counter without phalanxes of your own and have some stupid behaviour when an ai phalanx line meets yours. I grab that and extra run speed and the softcore mod to make the campaign quicker. The turn times used to be unbearable but Mortal Empires are even worse so it feels okay in comparison now DeI just has such gorgeous models, it's like a museum. Especially the new pergamon update they just did! Really kinda ruins any of the historical TWs for me visually, and even warhammer though the models are very high quality it bugs me how everyone in a unit just looks like copy pastes of the same guy. Whereas in DeI outside of the most elite and uniform units everyone looks like an individual warrior who brought his best stuff along or a press ganged militia mob. The nomads even have.... Women!! The factions are all pretty different, with a fair few major groups. A roman army fights different from a successor state or a nomad army or a barbarian army or a persian army or an Indian army etc It's as varied an experience as you can get with spearmanii I've basically played all the factions now over the years and there's just a lot of neat minor factions that are really well fleshed out that wouldn't get much effort normally like Romania, Armenia and Sudan (the African meroe faction looks loving incredible!)
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 14:19
|
|