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

The new units of the 8 Princes:

2»

Comments

  • CK2BenchmarkCK2Benchmark Posts: 245Registered Users
    I literally can't tell the difference between the Xiongnu and regular cataphracts. It's a disgrace. Is it just the headpiece?
  • crazyjim0528crazyjim0528 Posts: 47Registered Users

    I literally can't tell the difference between the Xiongnu and regular cataphracts. It's a disgrace. Is it just the headpiece?

    Xiongnu cataphracts have a shield in their hand
  • KirkwaldKirkwald Posts: 712Registered Users
    edited August 2019

    I literally can't tell the difference between the Xiongnu and regular cataphracts. It's a disgrace. Is it just the headpiece?

    Xiongnu cataphracts have a shield in their hand
    Xiongnu cataphracts - wears full lamellar armor w/ shield
    Cataphracts - doesn't have lamellar guantlets and has studded leather boots
    Heavy Cataphracts - wears full lamellar armor and helmet has feather plumes but doesn't have a shield

    That's all really. Too bad this doesn't really portray the Xiongnu as a unique culture in any way. It's just the same unit as cataphracts, but just wearing different pieces of the same armor type.
  • BreadboxBreadbox Posts: 785Registered Users
    edited August 2019
    Don’t really mind the lack of difference between the regular and xiongnu cataphracts, the riders are different, but there is no historical basis for the armour design to be different yet.
    There no need for separate units of heavy and regular cataphracts at all, utterly redundant.

    If they really want to bring out the nomadic feel, make units of large, scruffy looking horsearchers with pointy hats. Armoured cavalry is not where it’s at.

    Also, can the trend of units using 1 handed sword with no shield stop? It look so stupid, you don’t ever do it in previous historical games, why would this happen now? Give them two handed polearm or a shield.

    Also, please stop calling things “Dao Swordguard”, Dao refers to all single edge blades, knife and sabers. Nothing more nothing less. It means Saber swordguards, it makes no sense.

    Stop having units fidget wildly when standing idle, there is SO MUCH model clipping through the armour because of it. It makes them look like they have ADHD and it looks horrible.
    Entire horse butt and legs are clipping through the horse armour when they swing from side to side in their idle animation.

    Last thing: All the cavalry units have such a ridiculous case of hoverhand it’s not even funny. The attention to detail is poor in general, it’s no longer an enjoyment to zoom to the ground level in this title.

    I hope whoever designed those yellow turban units had fun doing it, they are so silly, so absurd, “Arm of Supreme Peace”? It got to be an ironic joke.
    Post edited by Breadbox on
  • KirkwaldKirkwald Posts: 712Registered Users
    edited August 2019
    Breadbox said:

    Don’t really mind the lack of difference between the regular and xiongnu cataphracts, the riders are different, but there is no historical reason for the armour design to be different yet.
    There no need for separate units of Heavy and regular cataphracts at all, utterly redundant.

    If they really want to bring out the nomad feel, make units of large, scruffy looking horsearchers with pointy hats. Armoured cavalry is not where it’s at.

    My problem with this is that the Xiongnu lancers, as you said, feel redundant. They're a "unique" unit but not really, and the only difference visually being is that they have shields. You can interchangeably call them Imperial Lancers or Xianbei Heavy Cavalry and it would still be the same conceptually. They're just cataphracts with shields. This is like making two units called British Riflemen and Colonial Riflemen, with the difference being that British Riflemen wore white gloves while the Colonial Riflemen had no gloves but wore tall boots. It's very silly.

    Unless there was some historical basis where in the Xiongnu steppe riders were famed for using shields versus their Han chinese counterparts, this in my opinion, is just a case of roster bloat for the sake of having unique units. The same case could also be applied with the units with one handed swords but without shields as you mentioned.
  • CK2BenchmarkCK2Benchmark Posts: 245Registered Users
    There's no reason for them to look so similar other than because they didn't make them look different.

    Yellow Turbans are ethnically Chinese and they look completely different from he regular Chinese units. It's all a matter of effort. CA doesn't give a **** about lack of sources either. They pulled Zheng Jiang out of their ass and made a bunch of nobody Yellow Turbans into a faction. Gong Du isn't even a YT historically. Just some bandit dude.
  • unicornvalleyunicornvalley Posts: 111Registered Users

    We should temper our expectations. There really isn't much more room for more unit diversity. This already has a hell of a lot more unit diversity, both in terms of function and aesthetic, compared to similar settings - Shogun 2, all Hellenic factions in Rome 2 or Thrones of Britannia. They even added bunch of fantastical units for the sake of diversity such as dual-wielding swords and axes, explosive arrows and so on.

    Only two era-appropriate units were missing from the basegame - cataphracts and zhanmadao. We are getting the first tomorrow, and the second is already hinted to be in work-in-progress from variants. Perhaps they can also add the historically dubious Nanman elephants. I don't think we can expect more than that.

    honestly I'm just waiting for the elephants, though I barely use them, can't have a total war without them;)
Sign In or Register to comment.