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

3K and Historical Games really need to improve the battle

jamreal18jamreal18 Senior MemberPosts: 8,589Registered Users
edited August 31 in Total War General Chat
Check it out!

Comments

  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Posts: 2,458Registered Users
    If you ask me, the problem with recent Total War games in general - both Historical and Fantasy - is that every game has this feeling of "two steps forward, one step back".
    Alongside the general improvements and refinements made to each successive game there are also some key features or additions that each game is praised for, but also criticism for other features that seem to have regressed or gotten worse since the previous installment.

    Three Kingdoms
    + Meaningful diplomacy and in-depth campaign management.
    - Very samey battles and lack of diversity between faction rosters and playstyles.

    Warhammer
    + Amazing battles and fantastic diversity between factions rosters and playstyles.
    - Shallow campaign management and diplomacy so poor as to be almost non-existent.

    Thrones of Britannia
    + Some great ideas to expand and improve existing mechanics.
    - Some bad ideas and others that didn't go far enough.

    To me, Rome 2 had the potential to be the best TW game ever; it had a sprawling campaign map with a variety of differing cultures who had a wealth of diversity in their rosters and playstyles in battles and campaign.
    But the game was such a disaster when it launched, CA had to spend the better part of a year (and the game's lifespan) just fixing the damn thing, and they never got the opportunity to expand on that potential.

    Can you imagine what Rome 2 would be like if it was released today with the character system, diplomacy, and campaign management of 3K?
  • shattishatti Posts: 347Registered Users
    rip historical titles
    i truly believe there will not be a historical TW
    either fantasy, or like romance (simi historical)
    if we are lucky they will throw us some sagas
    troy saga, i bet it will be like romance
    records mod battles doesn't have the authentic tw feel
    i hate killing +1000 men with my generals, and these men are flying
    it feels like Bowling




  • RewanRewan Senior Member Posts: 1,347Registered Users
    edited August 31
    i hate killing +1000 men with my generals


    Did you mean like in Total War : Attila ?
  • shattishatti Posts: 347Registered Users
    Rewan said:

    i hate killing +1000 men with my generals


    Did you mean like in Total War : Attila ?
    attila was better "in balance and realism" which 3k misses in records mod
    the general will really die before killing 200 man if u were aggressive
    in 3k "don't worry, u have insurance we will give u resilience and increase ur charge bonus"
  • markp27markp27 Posts: 1,296Registered Users
    That video was more about unit diversity than anything else. I agree 3 kingdoms could do with a lot more diversity and this is something I am hoping we will get in FLC's as the game progresses. However it will never be as diverse as a pure fantasy title like Warhammer. It just simply is not possible.
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Posts: 1,347Registered Users
    edited August 31
    attila was better "in balance and realism" which 3k misses in records mod


    You must be joking. Do you want to talk about the balance of Large Onagers or of the latest additions to the game roster (namely Spet Xyon Archers of the White Huns ?)

    Do you want to talk about the fantasy Viking units that are 400 years too early ?
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,654Registered Users
    Two words:

    Tagmata Cavalry

  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Posts: 2,458Registered Users
    edited August 31
    shatti said:

    Rewan said:

    i hate killing +1000 men with my generals


    Did you mean like in Total War : Attila ?
    attila was better "in balance and realism" which 3k misses in records mod
    the general will really die before killing 200 man if u were aggressive
    in 3k "don't worry, u have insurance we will give u resilience and increase ur charge bonus"


  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 18,633Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    Struggling to see the relevance to the 3k game. Perhaps the OP will send me a PM explaining. In the meantime this thread is moved to TW Chat
    "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
  • mammolo1234mammolo1234 Senior Member Posts: 275Registered Users

    If you ask me, the problem with recent Total War games in general - both Historical and Fantasy - is that every game has this feeling of "two steps forward, one step back".
    Alongside the general improvements and refinements made to each successive game there are also some key features or additions that each game is praised for, but also criticism for other features that seem to have regressed or gotten worse since the previous installment.

    Three Kingdoms
    + Meaningful diplomacy and in-depth campaign management.
    - Very samey battles and lack of diversity between faction rosters and playstyles.

    Warhammer
    + Amazing battles and fantastic diversity between factions rosters and playstyles.
    - Shallow campaign management and diplomacy so poor as to be almost non-existent.

    Thrones of Britannia
    + Some great ideas to expand and improve existing mechanics.
    - Some bad ideas and others that didn't go far enough.

    To me, Rome 2 had the potential to be the best TW game ever; it had a sprawling campaign map with a variety of differing cultures who had a wealth of diversity in their rosters and playstyles in battles and campaign.
    But the game was such a disaster when it launched, CA had to spend the better part of a year (and the game's lifespan) just fixing the damn thing, and they never got the opportunity to expand on that potential.

    Can you imagine what Rome 2 would be like if it was released today with the character system, diplomacy, and campaign management of 3K?

    Simply perfect!

    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam - In the end, I think that Carthago must be destroyed
  • shattishatti Posts: 347Registered Users
    edited September 1
    Rewan said:

    attila was better "in balance and realism" which 3k misses in records mod


    You must be joking. Do you want to talk about the balance of Large Onagers or of the latest additions to the game roster (namely Spet Xyon Archers of the White Huns ?)

    Do you want to talk about the fantasy Viking units that are 400 years too early ?
    i'm talking about the battles, leave vikings aside right now
    will good for u trapping me to say something nice on attila
    i know it's not perfect, i just said better
    no massive +1000 kills for horses, and no resilience and a large amount of bonuses used only by the player
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Posts: 8,589Registered Users
    edited September 1

    If you ask me, the problem with recent Total War games in general - both Historical and Fantasy - is that every game has this feeling of "two steps forward, one step back".
    Alongside the general improvements and refinements made to each successive game there are also some key features or additions that each game is praised for, but also criticism for other features that seem to have regressed or gotten worse since the previous installment.

    Three Kingdoms
    + Meaningful diplomacy and in-depth campaign management.
    - Very samey battles and lack of diversity between faction rosters and playstyles.

    Warhammer
    + Amazing battles and fantastic diversity between factions rosters and playstyles.
    - Shallow campaign management and diplomacy so poor as to be almost non-existent.

    Thrones of Britannia
    + Some great ideas to expand and improve existing mechanics.
    - Some bad ideas and others that didn't go far enough.

    To me, Rome 2 had the potential to be the best TW game ever; it had a sprawling campaign map with a variety of differing cultures who had a wealth of diversity in their rosters and playstyles in battles and campaign.
    But the game was such a disaster when it launched, CA had to spend the better part of a year (and the game's lifespan) just fixing the damn thing, and they never got the opportunity to expand on that potential.

    Can you imagine what Rome 2 would be like if it was released today with the character system, diplomacy, and campaign management of 3K?

    Strongly Agree with Rome 2.
    Instead of expanding and improving the experience, CA just fix it. They didn't go far as they were stuck fixing it. So sad.
  • united84united84 Posts: 604Registered Users
    edited September 1
    Thing is Rome 2 had more development budget than Three Kingdoms. R2 even had a live trailer while 3K got those lame posters as marketing material and who could forget Liu Bei's fugly beard made for E3 trailer lol.

    Besides, it is also funny reading comments like how three kingdoms campaign is better than Rome 2 etc. You should realize that, Three Kingdoms has no naval warfare, no agents (spy system sucks) and many other cost cutting exercises like no siege weapons and unit clones. Besides, it is easier to draw a single land mass than to draw coastlines. If the campaign or diplomacy offers nothing unique, this title is the 2nd ToB.

    To be honest, I would trade Guanxi or networking mechanic (main selling point for 3K lol) for Naval battles. I would also probably trade the heroes equipment and weapons for completely unique faction rosters (like coalition, governor, tyrant and bandits having their completely own unique rosters & mechanic). Yea, resource bar is not a proper mechanic.

    Three Kingdoms has a lot of broken feature that many people either don't realize it, dont care or overhype because it is the first setting set in China. One of them is the guanxi mechanic, nothing like what the developers described during those interviews.

    Three Kingdoms is still a great game but not the triple AAA treatment it deserves.
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Posts: 1,347Registered Users
    edited September 1
    no massive +1000 kills for horses


    If you had played the game you would know that one of the cav recognized as one of the weakest because of its weight and stats aka the Scout Equites is perfectly capable of getting a thousand kills in a battle if macro'd properly.

    Because you know, horses in Attila are killing machines that makes the horses in Three Kingdom look bad. (and the same went for the artillery but we've been over this already)
    Since you know, charging a spear infantry unit head on in 3K will kill the cav unit (actually even charging in the back is painful for some reason) while iIn Attila the cavalry can actually wipe a spear unit with a frontal assault. (Pretty much only thing guaranteed to do its job against cav is other cavs since they are immune to impact damage and pikes)
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Posts: 8,589Registered Users
    edited September 1
    Hope CA makes Korea Three Kingdoms as Stand Alone Expansion.

    Korea has three major nations (Goguryeo, Baekje and Silla). Hope each of them has their own unique roster unlike China 3 Kingdoms.

    Hoping also to play as nations rather than character. Characters should be part of nation itself.

    Also I'm worried about unit size. As I'm happy that infantry can now have 240 men, I'm really sad about cavalry which now only have 60 men on Ultra... So disappointing.

    And lastly, hope no more unrealistic romance mode.
  • markp27markp27 Posts: 1,296Registered Users
    jamreal18 said:

    Also I'm worried about unit size. As I'm happy that infantry can now have 240 men, I'm really sad about cavalry which now only have 60 men on Ultra... So disappointing.

    How is 60 cavalry compared to 240 infantry disappointing? 20%-30% of units during this time period were cavalry, so 25% of 240 seems correct.

  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Posts: 8,589Registered Users
    markp27 said:

    jamreal18 said:

    Also I'm worried about unit size. As I'm happy that infantry can now have 240 men, I'm really sad about cavalry which now only have 60 men on Ultra... So disappointing.

    How is 60 cavalry compared to 240 infantry disappointing? 20%-30% of units during this time period were cavalry, so 25% of 240 seems correct.

    Imagine in Medieval or Mongol... Infantry is composed of 240 while cavalry only has 60 men.
  • markp27markp27 Posts: 1,296Registered Users
    jamreal18 said:

    markp27 said:

    jamreal18 said:

    Also I'm worried about unit size. As I'm happy that infantry can now have 240 men, I'm really sad about cavalry which now only have 60 men on Ultra... So disappointing.

    How is 60 cavalry compared to 240 infantry disappointing? 20%-30% of units during this time period were cavalry, so 25% of 240 seems correct.

    Imagine in Medieval or Mongol... Infantry is composed of 240 while cavalry only has 60 men.
    Different part of the world. China lacked cavalry at this point, and had only recently started breeding larger horses.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Posts: 8,589Registered Users
    markp27 said:

    jamreal18 said:

    markp27 said:

    jamreal18 said:

    Also I'm worried about unit size. As I'm happy that infantry can now have 240 men, I'm really sad about cavalry which now only have 60 men on Ultra... So disappointing.

    How is 60 cavalry compared to 240 infantry disappointing? 20%-30% of units during this time period were cavalry, so 25% of 240 seems correct.

    Imagine in Medieval or Mongol... Infantry is composed of 240 while cavalry only has 60 men.
    Different part of the world. China lacked cavalry at this point, and had only recently started breeding larger horses.
    Do they really lack cavalry?
    Dong Zhou' Xiliang Cavalry?
    Ma Teng is also known for his cavalry.
    So Cao Cao only has fewer cav for his Leopard Cavalry?
    Wonder how Gongsun Zan defend northern China from invaders who are known cavalry riders if he lacks in cavalry.
  • markp27markp27 Posts: 1,296Registered Users
    jamreal18 said:

    markp27 said:

    jamreal18 said:

    markp27 said:

    jamreal18 said:

    Also I'm worried about unit size. As I'm happy that infantry can now have 240 men, I'm really sad about cavalry which now only have 60 men on Ultra... So disappointing.

    How is 60 cavalry compared to 240 infantry disappointing? 20%-30% of units during this time period were cavalry, so 25% of 240 seems correct.

    Imagine in Medieval or Mongol... Infantry is composed of 240 while cavalry only has 60 men.
    Different part of the world. China lacked cavalry at this point, and had only recently started breeding larger horses.
    Do they really lack cavalry?
    Dong Zhou' Xiliang Cavalry?
    Ma Teng is also known for his cavalry.
    So Cao Cao only has fewer cav for his Leopard Cavalry?
    Wonder how Gongsun Zan defend northern China from invaders who are known cavalry riders if he lacks in cavalry.
    Yes it is historically recorded that only 20% of troops in China were cavalry up to 230 CE. At this point when the Three Kingdoms came in, it increased to between 25-30%.

    Yuan Shao moved to attack Gongsun Zan and the two sides met in battle twenty li south of Jie Bridge. Gongsun Zan had thirty thousand foot soldiers in square formation and ten thousand horsemen split into left and right wings. His White Cavalry Volunteers followed in the center. They split in two, the left riding right, and the right riding left. Their armour and flags shined with brilliance, lighting up heaven and earth. Yuan Shao sent Qu Yi against them with eight hundred soldiers while a thousand crossbowmen on either side supported his advance. Yuan Shao himself led tens of thousands of soldiers from the rear. Qu Yi had resided in Liangzhou for a long time and was familiar with the way of war as practiced by the Qiang tribes. Seeing Qu Yi's small force, Gongsun Zan sent cavalry to crush them. Qu Yi's troops hid behind their shields and made no move until the enemy were ten or twenty yards away; then they leapt up together, their cries shaking the ground, rushing forward with crossbows shooting bolts like thunder, killing all who were struck, and completely defeated Gongsun Zan's army...... killing more than a thousand armed men, Yuan Shao's troops maintained their pursuit to Jie Bridge. Gongsun Zan rallied his troops to turn and fight, but Qu Yi again defeated them. Reaching Gongsun Zan's camp, they captured his standard and the rest of his army took to flight.[13]

    — Sanguo Zhi

    So 30k foot and 10k cavalry.
    30k + 10k = 40k
    Meaning 25% of the total troops Gongsun Zan had were cavalry.

  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Posts: 8,589Registered Users
    How about Ma Teng?

    Xianbei?
  • markp27markp27 Posts: 1,296Registered Users
    jamreal18 said:

    How about Ma Teng?

    Xianbei?

    A memorial made in 177 CE records that the Xianbei had taken all the lands previously held by the Xiongnu and their warriors numbered 100,000.

    The loose Xianbei confederacy lacked the organization of the Xiongnu but was highly aggressive until the death of their khan Tanshihuai in 182. Tanshihuai's son Helian lacked his father's abilities and was killed in a raid on Beidi in 186. Helian's brother Kuitou succeeded him, but when Helian's son Qianman came of age, he challenged his uncle to succession, destroying the last vestiges of unity among the Xianbei. By 190, the Xianbei had split into three groups with Kuitou ruling in Inner Mongolia, Kebineng in northern Shanxi, and Suli and Mijia in northern Liaodong.

    So they lacked any real numbers to make any real significance on troops in China.

    In 167 AD, Duan Jiong conducted an anti-Qiang campaign and massacred Qiang populations as well as settled them outside the frontier. So they would of still of been replenishing their numbers in 190 CE. Which is when Ma Teng starts the game. The Qiang were also associated with the Shu-Han, Shamoke was Qiang and they aided Shu in their northern campaigns.
  • HavieHavie Posts: 1,107Registered Users
    shatti said:

    rip historical titles

    i hate killing +1000 men with my generals, and these men are flying
    it feels like Bowling



    Wait,, why dont you just play records mode?
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Posts: 1,347Registered Users
    You can also get 1000+ kills with your generals in Records.

    Actually it's much easier to do than in Romance.
  • TheWittyWatermelomTheWittyWatermelom Member Posts: 130Registered Users
    edited September 4
    I haven't played 3K too much yet. Only played a little bit of records mode. My complaint with battles are two:

    a) They seem to end too quickly. Too fast paced.
    b) The white lines that represent arrows flying I don't like. Shogun 2 had it perfect. You can see actual arrows without the unrealistic white lines following them. I don't know why they keep changing it. Its really disappointing as a long time Total War player.

    Otherwise for me the battles seem fun.

    Also, something I've complained about since Rome 2 and I've been lied to about over and over again are the roads on the campaign map. Every total war had roads in each region that you had to upgrade to improve trade, faster movements, etc.

    They just took all of it out since Rome 2. I was told roads upgrade automatically as a region's wealth increases. I've played so much but still never saw any of it. I haven't played 3K much so idk if it's different but I'm not keeping my hopes up.
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Posts: 1,347Registered Users
    edited September 4
    They just took all of it out since Rome 2. I was told roads upgrade automatically as a region's wealth increases. I've played so much but still never saw any of it. I haven't played 3K much so idk if it's different but I'm not keeping my hopes up.


    In Rome II and Attila settlements buildings had a hidden road improvement value. But the mechanic was never really explained (was it something scaling ? a flat value ?) - which I complained about multiple times (Things I hate : obscure mechanics)

    In 3K there is no such thing afaik, roads are defined from turn 1 on and stay in the state they were historically. (Which I don't like either but at least the mechanic is not obscure anymore)
  • BreadboxBreadbox Posts: 780Registered Users
    For a start, balance the existing battle, make it so that a Lv1 General is not an easily obtainable heavy shock cavalry unit(which is OP in general), have it become one through level up or upgrades.
Sign In or Register to comment.