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

Total War: Victoria

2»

Comments

  • Tman0617Tman0617 Registered Users Posts: 3
    I would have to disagree with most of the previous few points made. Most criticism about the idea relates to the shortcomings of existing TW games, not necessarily the possibilities of future games.

    -Forts, while agreeably not so useful in ETW, could be employed in a more practical way, similar to the zone of influence system. Forts would be positioned at key places, such as crucial river crossings, valleys, mountain passes, river deltas, or straits (the latter two of course pertaining to fleets) and if manned would be impassable to enemy forces unless conquered. Certain key points, like the 3k passes, could be automatically garrisoned like towns to avoid the recruitment cap issue

    -Why exactly couldn't combined battles work? I can understand the issue with amphibious landings compared to earlier games, but fire support shouldn't be an issue; just look at the ships armed with ballistae, catapults, or Greek fire (in mods) in Rome II, Attila, and Thrones. The fire support system in Shogun 2 is certainly not well done, but some implementation of naval artillery in a more realistic manner would not be impossible (think of a TW version of the Ultimate General/Admiral series). Shogun 2 also showed it was entirely possible for coastal batteries to duel with ships during strictly naval battles, so why not build land elements into that?

    -Infrastructure has already been done very well in many other games. Look back to ETW and NTW (especially the ACW mod for the former) and how infrastructure upgrades could massively increase trade and army movement range. An undeveloped territory, like Africa or South America, would start with no infrastructure at all, which would make armies move slowly, supply (like in 3k) very low, and provide negative debuffs to trade and infrastructure. Upgrading to basic infra would cost a ton, to represent the challenge of developing an area, then become a standard upgrade cost as in rural European areas

    -The issue of scale has been mentioned before, and is among the only major issues. A scale like ETW would be impossible with modern upgrades, considering how long turns take already in recent titles. However, that's where the DLC element comes in (Warhammer 2 style) Unfortunate as that is from a customer perspective, it would appeal to CA and make that global scale a possibility.

    -Eurocentric, yes. But the title, and the era itself, is called "Victoria" after all. As you mentioned, though, this era would also present the greatest chance for diversity of any title yet. China, Indochina, India, all of Africa, South America, Europe, North America, etc. After six consecutive titles set prior to the turn of the millennia, or not in the real world at all, Eurocentric would be welcome for many fans.

    -You say naval battles aren't worth it because players hated playing it. Don't you think making them more fun to play would be better than removing them completely? Technology changes would be a VERY welcome change for once, considering the last few titles haven't evolved one bit, being spears and shields for over eight years now.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,033
    Tman0617 said:

    -Forts, while agreeably not so useful in ETW, could be employed in a more practical way, similar to the zone of influence system. Forts would be positioned at key places, such as crucial river crossings, valleys, mountain passes, river deltas, or straits (the latter two of course pertaining to fleets) and if manned would be impassable to enemy forces unless conquered. Certain key points, like the 3k passes, could be automatically garrisoned like towns to avoid the recruitment cap issue

    Doesn't solve the issue and skips over other issues. We don't currently have the armies to garrison them. They will be set in pre-placed locations which might not be key and as a result of the auto-garrison be easily dealt with as it doesn't seem likely they will fix the core issue of defence of forts.

    They have tried this with 3K with the gates, they fail to stop anything on water as they are a land base, but they can also be easily by-passed due to TW game mechanics - one force siege and removes their zone and another can walk past, first then breaks siege and second sieges, first can now walk past and both are now on the other side. This is a core element of TW that CA wasn't able to change to make them work.
    Tman0617 said:

    -Why exactly couldn't combined battles work? I can understand the issue with amphibious landings compared to earlier games, but fire support shouldn't be an issue; just look at the ships armed with ballistae, catapults, or Greek fire (in mods) in Rome II, Attila, and Thrones. The fire support system in Shogun 2 is certainly not well done, but some implementation of naval artillery in a more realistic manner would not be impossible (think of a TW version of the Ultimate General/Admiral series). Shogun 2 also showed it was entirely possible for coastal batteries to duel with ships during strictly naval battles, so why not build land elements into that?

    They don't make sense for the period, it's rather rare for combined battles. Ships don't have the range till rather late in the war outside of a few special units which are then terrible in standard battles like the rocket ships and bomb ketches.

    FotS naval bombardment was a joke. The Allies on D-day wish they had that fire power and accuracy! But it also skips over the element that historically most locations by the coast would have defences against ships and when even tech powers the ships tend to come off worse, taking damage/losing ships and failing their objective.
    Tman0617 said:

    -Infrastructure has already been done very well in many other games. Look back to ETW and NTW (especially the ACW mod for the former) and how infrastructure upgrades could massively increase trade and army movement range. An undeveloped territory, like Africa or South America, would start with no infrastructure at all, which would make armies move slowly, supply (like in 3k) very low, and provide negative debuffs to trade and infrastructure. Upgrading to basic infra would cost a ton, to represent the challenge of developing an area, then become a standard upgrade cost as in rural European areas

    Most of the world is low to no infrastructure at the game start. Main method is using existing water ways. It also then runs in to the issue that you will then never take any of these regions as you wont be able to get to the capture zone thanks to the debuffs and the scale difference between Europe and Africa.
    Tman0617 said:

    -The issue of scale has been mentioned before, and is among the only major issues. A scale like ETW would be impossible with modern upgrades, considering how long turns take already in recent titles. However, that's where the DLC element comes in (Warhammer 2 style) Unfortunate as that is from a customer perspective, it would appeal to CA and make that global scale a possibility.

    Not really resolves it either way, it will still have issues with the scale and performance and the sheer cost for CA for little overall benefit.
    Tman0617 said:

    -Eurocentric, yes. But the title, and the era itself, is called "Victoria" after all. As you mentioned, though, this era would also present the greatest chance for diversity of any title yet. China, Indochina, India, all of Africa, South America, Europe, North America, etc. After six consecutive titles set prior to the turn of the millennia, or not in the real world at all, Eurocentric would be welcome for many fans.

    At which point we lose one of the benefits of doing such a large scale game, when nearly all the playable choices are in the same place and end up running the same way. Helps CA cut the costs of course.
    Tman0617 said:

    -You say naval battles aren't worth it because players hated playing it. Don't you think making them more fun to play would be better than removing them completely? Technology changes would be a VERY welcome change for once, considering the last few titles haven't evolved one bit, being spears and shields for over eight years now.

    Not always and not everyone has the same view of "fun". I enjoyed the naval battles in Empire/Napolon/FotS and can see why people didn't enjoy them in R2, A and S2. But even then those weren't widely popular and would be skipped by most. The tech changes in the Victoria period tend not to make it more fun, mid they make it more frustrating if you didn't develop or make it a joke if you did, then make it more complicated as you now have more buttons to press and then finally make it rather boring with the pre-dreadnoughts firing at targets we can barely see.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 17,411
    Tman0617 said:

    I would have to disagree with most of the previous few points made. Most criticism about the idea relates to the shortcomings of existing TW games, not necessarily the possibilities of future games.

    -Forts, while agreeably not so useful in ETW, could be employed in a more practical way, similar to the zone of influence system. Forts would be positioned at key places, such as crucial river crossings, valleys, mountain passes, river deltas, or straits (the latter two of course pertaining to fleets) and if manned would be impassable to enemy forces unless conquered. Certain key points, like the 3k passes, could be automatically garrisoned like towns to avoid the recruitment cap issue

    -Why exactly couldn't combined battles work? I can understand the issue with amphibious landings compared to earlier games, but fire support shouldn't be an issue; just look at the ships armed with ballistae, catapults, or Greek fire (in mods) in Rome II, Attila, and Thrones. The fire support system in Shogun 2 is certainly not well done, but some implementation of naval artillery in a more realistic manner would not be impossible (think of a TW version of the Ultimate General/Admiral series). Shogun 2 also showed it was entirely possible for coastal batteries to duel with ships during strictly naval battles, so why not build land elements into that?

    -Infrastructure has already been done very well in many other games. Look back to ETW and NTW (especially the ACW mod for the former) and how infrastructure upgrades could massively increase trade and army movement range. An undeveloped territory, like Africa or South America, would start with no infrastructure at all, which would make armies move slowly, supply (like in 3k) very low, and provide negative debuffs to trade and infrastructure. Upgrading to basic infra would cost a ton, to represent the challenge of developing an area, then become a standard upgrade cost as in rural European areas

    -The issue of scale has been mentioned before, and is among the only major issues. A scale like ETW would be impossible with modern upgrades, considering how long turns take already in recent titles. However, that's where the DLC element comes in (Warhammer 2 style) Unfortunate as that is from a customer perspective, it would appeal to CA and make that global scale a possibility.

    -Eurocentric, yes. But the title, and the era itself, is called "Victoria" after all. As you mentioned, though, this era would also present the greatest chance for diversity of any title yet. China, Indochina, India, all of Africa, South America, Europe, North America, etc. After six consecutive titles set prior to the turn of the millennia, or not in the real world at all, Eurocentric would be welcome for many fans.

    -You say naval battles aren't worth it because players hated playing it. Don't you think making them more fun to play would be better than removing them completely? Technology changes would be a VERY welcome change for once, considering the last few titles haven't evolved one bit, being spears and shields for over eight years now.

    These days the scale would not be a problem, especially since the upgrade on the ME and adding to the fact the current ME as large as it is will almost double in size. With Current tech CA could easily create a global sized map, the WH world will almost be a full globe missing (possibly) just Nippon.
  • IchonIchon Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,595
    edited October 2021
    Tman0617 said:


    -You say naval battles aren't worth it because players hated playing it. Don't you think making them more fun to play would be better than removing them completely? Technology changes would be a VERY welcome change for once, considering the last few titles haven't evolved one bit, being spears and shields for over eight years now.

    This is actually my main concern other than scale, as you point out CA has made games mostly around spears and shields for the past decade with Warhammer throwing in flying units and magic which wasn't all that different from Rome 2 'magic' abilities though some of the direct damage spells are in a league of their own.

    Has CA successfully made spea&shield battle more fun? Arguably not. 99% of the improvements have come on the campaign side of the map with certain aspects of battles, notably sieges and cavalry collisions getting worse.

    That gives me zero confidence that CA could make something they have tried 3 times to make fun- naval battles, finally fun for most people.

    The other thing is that while CA has improved the campaign side of things they've done it be making the map even more equal in resources, much closer to the older hex based maps than assymetric maps that would need to be in a Victoria era game.

    Not all nations had equal access to coal, sulphur, saltpatre, knowledge, and infrastructure. Simply making climate inhospitable in low infrastructure regions and requiring larger investments to pay off makes including those regions rather pointless if it is done to historical scale, if its not done to even half of the historical scale it still does not make sense as two centuries later 90% of the low infrastructure regions remain low infrastructure.

    There were very few natural resources that make the cost of controlling them via coloniazation worthwhile, most of the colonization game was driven by prestige and FOMO than practical economic concerns other than for a handful of British and Dutch merchants.

    Finally, scale- yes CA would make a global sized map... if places like Germany, England, France, etc were only 1 or 2 regions out of 200 that happen to have held 50% or more of the global industrial capacity for long periods of time.
    YouTube, it takes over your mind and guides you to strange places like tutorials on how to talk to a giraffe.
  • norte14norte14 Registered Users Posts: 3


    Fall of the Samurai (yes as a DLC):
    - Detailed map of Japan (FotS size)
    - Several Japanese factions





    Personally, I would disagree with that one only, rest seem like a lovely idea, if an Asian Campaign DLC came out,i think it would be better to either have southeast Asia colonization or India or probably even better, an opium wars DLC
Sign In or Register to comment.