Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

What would you like?

JiruriJiruri Senior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 219
edited October 2018 in General Discussion
I’ve played Total War since the first Medieval when I was 13 years old, all the way up to now as a 28-year old. I’ve been a big CA fanboy and over time I’ve convinced my brother, father and three of my friends to buy and play Total War. In that time I have discovered that even though we all love the concept of a TW game, we enjoy very different aspects of it.

Where I like challenging gameplay on higher difficulty levels, defending difficult battles and feeling like my offensives are risky and always threatened, and require pressure from the AI to actually enjoy the game, my brother, instead, enjoys playing on easy, earning a ton of money and blitzkrieging through the AI factions on the campaign. Then there’s my father, who enjoys the occasional battle, but prefers the empire management aspect of the campaign map. Especially Fall of the Samurai which he’s played to death.

Without going further into the different things we like about Total War as different players, I would like to mention the current state of TW. LegendofTotalWar mentions how Thrones of Britannia has become a very passive experience, which requires little interaction from the player. He also mentions how every time a gameplay mechanic doesn’t work well, CA just does away with it instead of trying to improve it. So over time Total War has lost depth, and basically nowadays it’s more like “Total Public Order and Income Manager” then an actual “Total War” game. Which is evident with the way CA handles difficulty levels; they try to create a bigger challenge by changing stats and inducing penalties on higher levels, instead of changing the way the AI handles or which gameplay mechanics are available. Players spend less and less time in battles, and more and more time on the campaign map. For me this means the game has lost a lot of the engagement I would like in a Total War game. I am auto-resolving my way through easily winnable battles, I don’t care about losing settlements I can get back the next turn, and hold no real value other than a bit of extra income, and epic battles and real pressure from the AI are hard to find. As an example I recently played through a campaign of Medieval 2 (with the Vanilla + mod, which adds more regions, but doesn’t change victory conditions.) It took me 2 weeks to complete on hard. Then after that I played a Grand Campaign on vanilla Rome 2 on Legendary as Sparta, which I finished in 2 days.

So in my opinion, what mechanics could contribute to a deeper and more valuable experience?

Campaign Management:

- Population:
This has been addressed ever since it’s removal. Population has always been a big part of a nation’s wealth and power and should be incorporated in a TW game in a meaningful way.
Every settlement should have a population consisting of men, women and children. The amount of women dictates population growth, the amount of men should influence income and children should age and add to the other population numbers over time. Then finally there should be nobles as well.
Military is exclusively drawn from the adult male population. Meaning that besides getting the upkeep of military units, drafting men should also lower the incomes of settlements. In wartime growth should suffer.

There should be events that affect these populations. It could be events that have a nationwide effect, think of a failed harvest, and there could be events that have local effects, like nobles deciding to hand out food. Of course there could be many and very different events that just happen, like how these things happen in real life without much influence from the government. Then there should be invents you can get involved with, choose resolutions like we’ve seen in recent Total Wars.

Losing a settlement should always be a hit to that population pool. A simple occupation should already cause a loss of population due to people fleeing and migrating to other settlements, or dying from violence. Sacking should see a stronger penalty, with people being enslaved and murdered. Then finally an option to exterminate the population should remove a large chunk of the population.
Unrest in a settlement should also lead to a shrinking population. Your population should be a valuable resource and losing them should be a serious loss.

- Peacetime:
In peacetime countries flourish. Population growth, abundance of food, development of art and culture, and a feeling of national security all lead to a moment where your focus should be on empire building. Take an example out of Europa Universalis 4 where armies can be defunded. Make it an army stance where the army will deplete to small unit sizes. Severely reducing the upkeep and at the same time giving bonuses to local economy, building time and population growth. Changing back to the regular stance means the unit will have to replenish, something which should draw from the local population and reduce the local economy.

- City management:

Now city management has been a bit of a sore spot for me ever since Empire came around. It’s been reduced to just a few options, and nowadays they are color coded to easily understand what you’re building, and by matching those up you get bonuses to anything you can think of. I’ve noticed how I have little concern for my settlements. I don’t care too much about them, since it took zero seconds to think about what I want to build and why.
Settlements should have more building slots and what you build should change the battlemap, like it did in older Total Wars. Customizable defenses should be options as well. Some regions should have access to unique buildings, like what we currently have with the resources, which should give meaningful bonuses to generals located there, or to your troops stationed there, or the population living there. Or the ability to upgrade equipment in the same way Medieval 2 did; where simple militia could become very well equipped if the player invested in the necessary infrastructure.
Give cities a certain prestige, like financial, military, educational or even political. The more prestige they gather, the more famous they become. Think about how Oxford has been known for hundreds of years for its universities.
Adding such prestige to certain cities is something that I will come back to at the next point.

- AI campaign ambitions:
I am not sure what ambitions the AI currently has on the campaign map, but most of the time it seems their ambition is fight each other forever and wait for the player to conquer them. I feel like faction leaders should have certain ambitions. Historically most leaders had certain ambitions. The lesser kings and men of high status only desired enjoying their wealthy lifestyles while leading their country into ruin; at best causing an economic depression and at worst triggering revolts and revolutions. The greater men (and women) had ambitions. They desired a unified state, they desired control of wealthy cities, or they desired a military empire to rival the greatest of nations. Sometimes they desired everything. Give ambitions to faction leaders and let them pursue these.

Is there a ruler with only money on his mind? Let him declare war, let his generals raid and sack you, and let his armies march in an organized invasion towards the cities known for their wealth and splendor.
Is there a cunning leader with his sight on scientific development, let him backstab you as he suddenly invades to capture your famous educational cities.
Is there a ruthless military leader? Let him exterminate and destroy your military cities.

Make rivalries. After having been on a few wars between the same factions in a short amount of time, create a rivalry. The leaders can’t stand the other faction, giving ambitions for each other capital cities in an effort to wipe out the other faction or deal a strong blow. When war erupts again the armies should get organized to invade in force in the direction of the capital. If peace lasts for a longer time period between both factions the rivalry should disappear as well.

In the end you could even give the leaders desires for certain regions, where they feel like they should own a specific reason for arbitrary reasons. They might claim heritage, or have a personal liking for that region.

Once ambitions are met, let factions sue for peace. As much as the game is Total War, neither faction should go for complete destruction unless that’s their ambition. At the same time, make the player give an ambition when declaring war. Let the AI sue for peace once this ambition is fulfilled, or give penalties once the player doesn’t sue for peace after fulfilling the ambition. (Unless the ambition is complete destruction of a faction, this should have a big influence on war weariness though. With the exception of the enemy being a rival.)

- Supply management:
At the moment, supply management is a passive thing, it’s an arbitrary number that goes down over time in enemy territory. Make the player more involved with this. Give the opportunity to build infrastructure focused on supplies. Have supplies in 2 different categories: Food and equipment.
Food is a nationwide resource, while equipment should be solely for your armies. Both should be given to an army separately by a player when in own soil. In foreign territory this should deplete. Equipment should deplete slower than food of course, and there should be a stance that makes food deplete slower. Once equipment reaches low levels, the units should have penalties to their abilities, lower weapon damage and less armor and a small morale penalty. While a lack of food should cause attrition and a bigger morale penalty. When coming back in friendly territory, the player should actively restock both of these supplies. Equipment should only be a local thing, which means that after conquering a new territory, the player isn’t able to immediately replenish the equipment.

Battles:

- Retreats

Now as I said, battles aren’t fought as often with auto-resolving being overpowered in general. There should be more reasons to fight the battles, especially on higher difficulties. So I opt for a retreat battle. When the AI or the player opts for retreating, start a battle, where one army has to retreat of the map, and the other one gets an opportunity to harass the army. If you have an army with light units, or a lot of cavalry, you are able to outrun the opponent. While if the opponent has a lot of cavalry, he might be able to outrun you. The maps should be large though. Depending on general skills and qualities the armies start closer or further away. Terrain should also be more varied. I believe the last time I enjoyed battlefield terrain was back in Napoleon, where there were strategic cliffs and chokepoints. Depending on campaign terrain, the battlemap should have features that give opportunities of delaying the enemy, and challenges of trying to cross a river or something like that.

There should be a penalty for the pursuing army, and that is that they will actually also end up in a different location on the map. The withdrawal point should be towards own territory of the retreating army. So once the battle finishes, the pursuing army should’ve moved into enemy territory, leaving them vulnerable to attack. Thus giving a chance of drawing an enemy in with a light army, to attack them later with heavy armies on own soil. Of course the option of letting them retreat without a battle should still be there.

The AI should also make use of this, which should depend on general traits. With the more aggressive ones pursuing while the more defensive ones let the player go. The AI should also try to set traps like this if they have cunning faction leaders.

Ambushes should also have a retreat location, which I do believe CA is adding in Three Kingdoms.

- Sieges
Finally, sieges should be more in depth. The AI should commit to sieges with multiple stacks. Sieges with low numbers were a big risk and shouldn’t be attempted as often as now. Spending time on a siege also means losing food and equipment, so the AI should be motivated to attack as well. Some generals should op for longer sieges, and others should be aggressive and attack earlier. The defender should have time during the siege to build defenses. Think about barricades and other defensives. The player should have the option to decide himself what kind of defenses he wants to construct.

Last words
Now, before I finish writing this, I would like to mention that I love total war. I have supported the franchise for years and I will probably keep doing so. However, the last few years I have enjoyed the newer total war games less and less and I see myself going back to older Total Wars more often.
Everybody is different and we all want different things out of the games we play. These are things I would love to see, and would make it a more enjoyable experience for me. I know there are mods for many of those things, but as great as some mods are, I feel it should be the responsibility of CA to create something marvelous.
What would you like to see? Do you agree with some of the mechanics stated above? Do you feel skeptic about some of the mentioned mechanics? Or do you think Total War is perfect as it is? Please, show CA the things you’d like to see. Use constructive criticism in your posts and try not to fight each other over personal preferences. In the end, we all love Total War and want to enjoy these games for years to come.
It was there that he decided to stand and hold his ground against many. And it was there that he fell.
Post edited by Jiruri on

Comments

  • ArgonArgon Senior Member ItalyRegistered Users Posts: 1,501
    many cool suggestions, very well done
    My favorite factions in TW titles:
    Rome 1 - House of Julii
    Medieval 2 - Milan
    Empire - UK
    Napoleon - France
    Shogun 2 - Tokugawa
    Rome 2 - Macedon
    Attila - Western Roman Empire
    Warhammer - Empire (Karl Franz)
    Three kingdoms - Sun Jian
  • JiruriJiruri Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 219
    Argon said:

    many cool suggestions, very well done

    Thanks Argon, I'm glad you like them :)
    It was there that he decided to stand and hold his ground against many. And it was there that he fell.
  • Total_War_VeteranTotal_War_Veteran Registered Users Posts: 446
    Good idea as well, I would like to see them implemented in the future as well.
    Full support for CA and CA_Ella
  • ozzylaosozzylaos Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 33
    i'd like to see all of this 'options / suggestions' improved in a next total war title. I've played all the total war games since the beginning. But there is something missing in the new titles. Some depth, i don't know... In this days i'm playing Medieval 2 (Crusade). It's a very old game now, but there is something about 'caring' the characters, the army, the cities... i don't know how to describe... At the same time i'm playing Total War Britannia: beautifull graphics of course... but i dont' care if my general or king die... or to conquer a particular army... There was a video made by Darren about that...https://youtube.com/watch?v=bDFTI2bUSFQ&t=11s
  • Total_War_VeteranTotal_War_Veteran Registered Users Posts: 446
    ozzylaos said:

    i'd like to see all of this 'options / suggestions' improved in a next total war title. I've played all the total war games since the beginning. But there is something missing in the new titles. Some depth, i don't know... In this days i'm playing Medieval 2 (Crusade). It's a very old game now, but there is something about 'caring' the characters, the army, the cities... i don't know how to describe... At the same time i'm playing Total War Britannia: beautifull graphics of course... but i dont' care if my general or king die... or to conquer a particular army... There was a video made by Darren about that...https://youtube.com/watch?v=bDFTI2bUSFQ&t=11s

    That's because in M2, we need to "work" to attain all those and those troops and general we do have ain't come for free nor unlimited(population point). While recent Total War titles tend to make all those more "automatically" available. In older titles, if you have casualties, you must return to the region you recruit your troops from, this alone makes the troops feels so precious and feels more irreplacable should your troops destroyed or sustaining heavy casualties. In recent titles, you can just wait some turns to make it back to full strength again.
    Full support for CA and CA_Ella
  • JiruriJiruri Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 219
    edited August 2018
    ozzylaos said:

    i'd like to see all of this 'options / suggestions' improved in a next total war title. I've played all the total war games since the beginning. But there is something missing in the new titles. Some depth, i don't know... In this days i'm playing Medieval 2 (Crusade). It's a very old game now, but there is something about 'caring' the characters, the army, the cities... i don't know how to describe... At the same time i'm playing Total War Britannia: beautifull graphics of course... but i dont' care if my general or king die... or to conquer a particular army... There was a video made by Darren about that...https://youtube.com/watch?v=bDFTI2bUSFQ&t=11s

    I can relate to that, when I played Medieval 2 last month, I thoroughly enjoyed the traits there. Giving all my family members some much needed personality. Also, great generals were amazing, improving the cities and castles they governed a lot and on the side they really improved their armies too. Losing one either in battle, of old age or worse still, because of assassination, felt like a big loss.

    It wasn't a perfect system at all, but it did help relate to generals. Also, the defensive battles of multi-tiered castles was a joy. Being forced to retreat to a higher level and regroup, as the enemy prepared to attack the next level was exciting. And even though the AI was buggy and had difficulty going all the way up a citadel, it was occasionally able to brute force through. Especially if it were the mongols with all their rockets. Or the Jihads/Crusades with multi stack armies surrounding your castles and cities. Very exciting moments in the game when you know you have to defend against an onslaught of enemies :D

    And yeah Darren made some interesting points in his video, but I can imagine for CA it's difficult to revamp the game even more then they already have done. After enjoying Total War, and other fine games, I got interested in Game Design. So I studied it and got my degree in it, and if I learned one thing, it's that going through programming to change something, sucks a lot :#


    That's because in M2, we need to "work" to attain all those and those troops and general we do have ain't come for free nor unlimited(population point). While recent Total War titles tend to make all those more "automatically" available. In older titles, if you have casualties, you must return to the region you recruit your troops from, this alone makes the troops feels so precious and feels more irreplacable should your troops destroyed or sustaining heavy casualties. In recent titles, you can just wait some turns to make it back to full strength again.

    Exactly that! Elite infrantry was difficult to come by, and losing them on the battlefield would take away the momentum of your invasion. Having to send them back to retrain them yourself. I have a friend who dislikes it, since he has to actively send units back, merge them, and I can understand it becomes a bit of a bothersome thing once you have a bunch of armies running around. But it does make them worth more. Now losing units means either hiring mercenaries to fill the empty spots, waiting a few turns to replenish, or just recruit new ones in the blink of an eye.

    Though in Thrones they did make a step in the right direction with the unit pool. Only to take two steps back by making them available nationwide. Meaning you can get a bunch of elite soldiers deep in recently conquered terrain. And with the replenishment system, you only have to make sure your units aren't destroyed completely to get them back fully without added cost or difficulty.
    The having to wait a little while for your units to become full strength is an interesting way to negate the nationwide recruitment a little bit though, but still, it's definitely not the same as Medieval 2 were an enemy army is entering your region, while you have no units available for recruitment in the city and you have to scramble as you hastily bring units over from other cities nearby.
    Jiruri said:


    - Population:
    This has been addressed ever since it’s removal. Population has always been a big part of a nation’s wealth and power and should be incorporated in a TW game in a meaningful way.
    Every settlement should have a population consisting of men, women and children. The amount of women dictates population growth, the amount of men should influence income and children should age and add to the other population numbers over time. Then finally there should be nobles as well.

    Another point I wanted to make with the population, by the way, is that once a settlement is captured, the AI should offer the player the ability to buy back the nobles. Doing so should move the nobles to other settlements. The amount of nobles in a settlement should increase noble-related events, which give the city varied bonuses (or penalties).
    An empire should feel alive, with things out of your control, happening as the people live their lives and try to leave their mark in the world. Sometimes by doing good, and sometimes by doing evil. Events are the perfect way of representing this, if they don't repeat a hundred times and feel original and interesting when they occur.
    It was there that he decided to stand and hold his ground against many. And it was there that he fell.
  • AstraeusAstraeus Member BrittonisRegistered Users Posts: 388
    re OP - well put! I agree with most sentiments as an old git, [cough] "veteran." A few minor disagreements/comments;

    peacetime - I regularly disband army units to save cash, accepting that XP chevrons are lost. I figure great warriors age and retire anyway. There used to be a TW 'cull population to restore public order at the cost of growth' option in one title or have I made that up? I had not noticed it's absence in ToB frankly. TWW spawns factionwide growth buff/debuff dilemmas well.

    city managements - "meaningful bonuses to generals located there" sounds to be the gist with revamped estate management now. I too miss the developing cities being reflected on the battlefields. "I dont care what I build," so try cash-strapped TK's dlc!

    AI rivalries - Perhaps simplistically, I always thought in TWW1/2 "despises High Elves -20 diplomatic penalty" reflected this and the overall AI campaign strategy. Am I wrong? I certainly like the notion that the current ruler may, but his successor may not, thereby creating a dilemma.

    supplies - I do not wish for your unecessary complexity of food/equip. A supply wagon is a supply wagon is a supply wagon. However, I do not like today's namby-pamby softer sounding patch notes. It should be damn hard to go off raiding and sacking. I had a welsh sapper army unable to mount planned seiges down South due to severely depleted resources; I relished my mistake and is why I adore TW franchise attention to details.

    retreats - TW3K has the first iteration of this now, you will be pleased to hear. I look fwd to more videos for the fun factor though as frankly it seemed a foregone conclusion?

    As you say, we are all different in our ideals of the ultimate TW. :D
  • JiruriJiruri Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 219
    Astraeus said:


    well put! I agree with most sentiments as an old git, [cough] "veteran." A few minor disagreements/comments;

    Thanks Astaeus, and thanks for sharing your two cents!
    Astraeus said:


    peacetime - I regularly disband army units to save cash, accepting that XP chevrons are lost. I figure great warriors age and retire anyway. There used to be a TW 'cull population to restore public order at the cost of growth' option in one title or have I made that up? I had not noticed it's absence in ToB frankly. TWW spawns factionwide growth buff/debuff dilemmas well.

    Yeah, of course, disbanding of all your units and their xp is always an option. Though of course the current system for xp is something we can also debate about. Like you said, experienced warriors die, so units should also lose xp over time if they don't fight :smile:
    And in older total wars you had the option to exterminate populations of conquered towns, if that's what you mean :wink:
    Astraeus said:


    city managements - "meaningful bonuses to generals located there" sounds to be the gist with revamped estate management now. I too miss the developing cities being reflected on the battlefields. "I dont care what I build," so try cash-strapped TK's dlc!

    I just read about it, seems like an interesting way to expand the current trait system. Gotta play Thrones in order to see how that works out!
    And right, it was pretty neat seeing your buildings appear on the battle map, and also having those buildings damaged on the campaign map if they were damaged in the battle. :smiley:
    Astraeus said:


    AI rivalries - Perhaps simplistically, I always thought in TWW1/2 "despises High Elves -20 diplomatic penalty" reflected this and the overall AI campaign strategy. Am I wrong? I certainly like the notion that the current ruler may, but his successor may not, thereby creating a dilemma.

    Hmm, that's just one of the stat penalties CA hands out. Sure, because they don't like each other the diplomatic relationship is -20. But it's not something the AI seems to pursue often. The AI seems to lack goals, and targets for conquest. Now if an AI gets a rival, it would make sense if he exploited that rival's weaknesses. And peace with them should be much more fragile than the current state of the effect of minor diplomatic penalties. If you ask me I feel like the current diplomatic system is too much focused on numbers, it doesn't feel very personal.
    Astraeus said:


    supplies - I do not wish for your unecessary complexity of food/equip. A supply wagon is a supply wagon is a supply wagon. However, I do not like today's namby-pamby softer sounding patch notes. It should be damn hard to go off raiding and sacking. I had a welsh sapper army unable to mount planned seiges down South due to severely depleted resources; I relished my mistake and is why I adore TW franchise attention to details.

    Yeah, adding supplies to armies was already a big step in the right direction. And I can imagine plenty of players don't want to be too involved with managing those supplies. In any case I feel supplies need to be implemented in a way that's both engaging and important. Take a look at how far Romans went to organize good supply lines. Take any point in history and look at how important it was to develop the infrastructure to supply your men with equipment and food. It wasn't a minor thing in warfare, it was an important thing that had to be managed well. Or you ended up like the confederates during the Civil War, running around on bare feet, looking for boots to steal near Gettysburg haha. So that's my argument for a supply system, and the manner of engaging with it, well I mean, it adds to the game if it's something you have to get involved with, instead of it just being another passive number ticking away on the UI as you go about your business right? But we can agree to disagree there :wink:
    Astraeus said:


    retreats - TW3K has the first iteration of this now, you will be pleased to hear. I look fwd to more videos for the fun factor though as frankly it seemed a foregone conclusion?

    Is that a retreat battle, or an ambush one? I believe in Rome II they already wanted to experiment with it originally. The historical battle in the Teutoburg forest also features that system. And of course the first historical battle in FotS requires you to keep the enemy from retreating. It's those two battles I drew the inspiration from. And If it's not an ambush, it will be more of a chase. With it being optional, players don't have to engage in it. But the AI shouldn't just be able to march into your lands, or siege your settlements, and retreating at a high pace, without risking damage to his army. Just like the player should have some risks attached to marching into enemy territory without scouting ahead :blush: In any case, it will be a nice addition in Three Kingdoms :smile:
    Astraeus said:


    As you say, we are all different in our ideals of the ultimate TW. :D

    And that's the truth! :smiley: Thanks for your input Astraeus!
    It was there that he decided to stand and hold his ground against many. And it was there that he fell.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 28,262
    #nostalgiaalwaysbetraysyou

  • slapnut1207slapnut1207 Registered Users Posts: 678
    edited August 2018
    I like these suggestions, I would like for them to at least add back ambush battles and add back agents in a limited form. Mainly that the agents will now just function as scouts with limited abilities to affect an army or person I suppose. I would also like them to add a option to form Roman Britain/Diocese of the Britains and rule as Emperor or Vicarius of Britannia.(I suppose only the Welsh could do this) as a form of alternate history. They could also give some factions ships that were designed by the Romans I suppose. Because if iirc, every faction in ToB uses Danish designed ships.
    In Hoc Signo Vinces

  • AstraeusAstraeus Member BrittonisRegistered Users Posts: 388
    Jiruri said:

    The historical battle in the Teutoburg forest.

    TW masterpiece! More of this please :p

    For me, the TW3K footage was unexpectedly a spectacle; so much so I evidently missed the point of it thinking the objective was to retreat out of harms way [insert facepalm emoji here.]

    (Still not convinced TW3K is a game for this fence sitter though...)
    Jiruri said:

    And right, it was pretty neat seeing your buildings appear on the battle map, and also having those buildings damaged on the campaign map if they were damaged in the battle. :smiley:

    For sure! Hopefully @CA will eventually employ an ex-Battlefield-Dice employee to implement Levolution in TW B)

  • JiruriJiruri Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 219

    I like these suggestions, I would like for them to at least add back ambush battles and add back agents in a limited form. Mainly that the agents will now just function as scouts with limited abilities to affect an army or person I suppose. I would also like them to add a option to form Roman Britain/Diocese of the Britains and rule as Emperor or Vicarius of Britannia.(I suppose only the Welsh could do this) as a form of alternate history. They could also give some factions ships that were designed by the Romans I suppose. Because if iirc, every faction in ToB uses Danish designed ships.

    Thanks Slapnut, I'm glad you like them!

    And yeah, not having ambush battles is a shame, but it seems lioe they will be back in 3KTW :smiley: however with some of my suggestions agents that scout would have a better use than they did in some of the past games.


    #nostalgiaalwaysbetraysyou

    Thanks for your insightful, meaningful, in-depth contribution to gameplay mechanics you'd like to see in TW :lol:

    @JackLustedCA, do you guys and gals ever replay old TW games to draw inspirations from older mechanics and see if you can improve upon that? :blush:
    It was there that he decided to stand and hold his ground against many. And it was there that he fell.
  • MarcerorMarceror Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 540
    Nah, veterans don't matter, at least not much. According to a study, they are statistically more than 50% more likely to kick the bucket soon than is a fresh faced newbie. They are often of the more decrepit variety, and have likely **** away way too much of their lives in front of a computer screen playing Total War. Now I ask you. How many games is a dead person going to buy, really?

    Invest in the living, is a good business model. n00Bs are the future!

    Excuse me while I go croak from some random malady that I'm semi-likely to contract in short order, while I reminisce of the good old days when a settlement could have a good 20 buildings constructed in it.

    Good day. That is to say, GOOD! DAY!!

    /croaks
    This is not a troll post. Sometimes I make humorous posts. These forums desperately need a bit of humor to contrast all of the angst. Moderators, please do not ban me for making an innocent, humorous post every now and again.
  • Emperor_NapoleonEmperor_Napoleon Registered Users Posts: 122
    I completely agree with all of these things, but I doubt we'll ever see them implemented into TW. The general direction of the series has been away from in-depth population and strategic features like this. The unfortunate reality is that deep mechanics such as these aren't really great selling points to most casual gamers, who prefer seeing stuff like badass heroes dueling each other.
  • RonBurgundyRonBurgundy Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,347

    ozzylaos said:

    i'd like to see all of this 'options / suggestions' improved in a next total war title. I've played all the total war games since the beginning. But there is something missing in the new titles. Some depth, i don't know... In this days i'm playing Medieval 2 (Crusade). It's a very old game now, but there is something about 'caring' the characters, the army, the cities... i don't know how to describe... At the same time i'm playing Total War Britannia: beautifull graphics of course... but i dont' care if my general or king die... or to conquer a particular army... There was a video made by Darren about that...https://youtube.com/watch?v=bDFTI2bUSFQ&t=11s

    That's because in M2, we need to "work" to attain all those and those troops and general we do have ain't come for free nor unlimited(population point). While recent Total War titles tend to make all those more "automatically" available. In older titles, if you have casualties, you must return to the region you recruit your troops from, this alone makes the troops feels so precious and feels more irreplacable should your troops destroyed or sustaining heavy casualties. In recent titles, you can just wait some turns to make it back to full strength again.
    Agree with everything you said, OP and yes! I loved that it was very expensive to get the buildings that gave you the higher tier units and when you had them, you guarded them very closely and losing them was a serious blow. You might be too far from a city that can recruit them so when you lost too many men in that unit, sometimes it made sense to disband them. So much about Med2 was superior to the TW games we have now. Its way too easy
    Team Mercia

    Team Picts

    Team WRE
  • JiruriJiruri Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 219
    edited August 2018


    I completely agree with all of these things, but I doubt we'll ever see them implemented into TW. The general direction of the series has been away from in-depth population and strategic features like this. The unfortunate reality is that deep mechanics such as these aren't really great selling points to most casual gamers, who prefer seeing stuff like badass heroes dueling each other.

    Thanks Emperor_Napoleon! And though I can relate to your pessimism, I can't help but being hopeful myself. I kinda have a feeling that with Three Kingdoms they were initially thinking about dropping the historical part completely, until the community spoke out after the first E3 footage, when they suddenly promised a historical campaign on the side (with no mention of it during E3) and the game was delayed for at least half a year. As a business you want to make something that appeals to as many people as possible. Warhammer surely does that, so they figured fantasy is the way to go. Then people spoke out about what they wanted, and as a result they changed their approach. Which is exactly why we should always share our criticism and wishes.
    On the side, if you compare the concurrent player numbers for Paradox games, and put them across from the concurrent player numbers for Total War, you can see that TW is being outperformed, and that there is a big market out there interested in deep, complex, strategy.


    Agree with everything you said, OP and yes! I loved that it was very expensive to get the buildings that gave you the higher tier units and when you had them, you guarded them very closely and losing them was a serious blow. You might be too far from a city that can recruit them so when you lost too many men in that unit, sometimes it made sense to disband them. So much about Med2 was superior to the TW games we have now. Its way too easy

    Thanks RonBurgundy!
    I know right, I can imagine people feel like it's such a bother, but it's a challenge as well. Usually, the army you started out with on a campaign, was a very different one than the one that finished a campaign. And every unit still standing had a story, and you had the memories of the battles where those units saved your ass. That mechanic sure had a charm to it!

    Quote and comment removed.

    As much as gamedevelopers try to think of fun, engaging ways to make the gamer enjoy their game and be challenged by it, they might miss the point here and there. Or look past things that work well and instead choose to expand on things that aren't as engaging. This is why we, as the players, as the customers, have a place to voice our thoughts. To give them an in-depth few in what we would like and what we enjoy.

    No matter what we say, whether it's complaining or giving constructive feedback, we all just want one thing: For TW to be a successful and amazing franchise that will entertain us for years to come. And when that experience feels like it's lacking, we should speak up and let the creators know. And when we all want different things, it's up to the developer to see make a choice in that regard.

    At the moment these are the concurrent players of each game (ranked least to most)

    Rome 1: 1042
    Napoleon: 1149
    Thrones: 1167
    Warhammer: 1723
    Attila: 2045
    Shogun 2: 2124
    Empire: 2196
    Medieval 2: 2575
    Rome 2: 5984
    Warhammer 2: 8067

    With Warhammer drawing from a mostly different crowd (fantasy fans and Warhammer fans) I don't like including them. But in any case, you see that Thrones is just barely outperforming Rome 1 and Napoleon. With Medieval, a 12 year old game, being third in the list.

    Overall 17K are playing historic TW games at this very moment.

    Just before the launch of the latest update for Thrones I also checked the concurrent players:

    Thrones: 1122
    Napoleon: 1644
    Rome 1: 1648
    Warhammer: 2496
    Shogun 2: 2975
    Attila: 3149
    Empire: 3506
    Medieval 2: 3644
    Rome 2: 9790
    Warhammer 2: 11822.

    Granted, it was a little later in the day, maybe four hours later than now. I let those numbers speak for themselves, but clearly older TW titles have a hold over the community, or otherwise they wouldn't be played, let alone make it into the top 3 consistently. Given the right design, those players could be drawn into a new title, or they might let newer games slip as those games fail to provide the desired depth or captivate the players. But with CA's more hands on approach towards the community nowadays, I'm sure it will be fine.
    Post edited by dge1 on
    It was there that he decided to stand and hold his ground against many. And it was there that he fell.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 20,756
    Posts removed or edited. Keep the personal bickering and negative comments out of the discussion.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
Sign In or Register to comment.