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

Why does everyone want Medieval 3?

VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
edited March 2 in Total War General Chat
This is an honest question.


I just don't get why everyone wants Medieval 3 so badly.

Even after taking that community poll, I still don't get it.


Because from my perspective, it feels like a lot of the hype and demand for a Medieval 3 comes from a lot of blind nostalgia and the wearing of rose tinted glasses when looking back at Medieval 2.

And while I think that Medieval 2 is good game and all, I think it's ridiculously overrated and overhyped. And that's just because I've seen many people talk or act like it's still the best TW game and pretty much has no flaws, which just isn't the case.


I'll give anyone that there are a few things that could be could done with the medieval setting, but think that there's just more that could be done with the time periods of say, an Empire 2 or Rome 3 or whatever you'd call it.

But the more I try to think about it, I honestly keep coming to the same conclusion.


A Medieval 3 may just end up being little more than a recreation of Medieval 2, but with some bells and whistles that have either already been in a TW game or two or that barely do anything themselves.


But what I would like to hear from anyone who really wants to see a Medieval 3, but not just because they liked Medieval 2.


Why do you guys actually want to see a Medieval 3?


But I would like to ask you guys to please follow a set of "conditions" with your explanations.

I would like to ask if you guys could please break up your reasons and such into slightly smaller sections, using the Bold font setting for the name of the section. Something like this

Campaign Mechanics

Units

Factions


I did something similar to that in a thread I made about Rome 3, and while still a pretty long OP, I think that the different sections help break it up so that it's easier to read through.
Post edited by VikingHuscal1066 on
«13

Comments

  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,695
    edited March 2
    The era itself is interesting!

    Campaign Mechanics
    - religion and monarchy. Who don't like Kings and princesses?

    Units
    - units look awesome! Seeing knights fighting another knights with different looks according to their nation would be awesome. Even their cavalry are wearing fantastic armours and ornaments. It is a great sight.

    Factions
    - in this era, almost every factions are equal in terms. Every one is fighting for supremacy and sensitive. Hope CA makes unique siege lay-out and design for each factions. I love to see England's castles/fort look different from France and so on...
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    jamreal18 said:

    The era itself is interesting!

    Campaign Mechanics
    - religion and monarchy. Who don't like Kings and princesses?

    Units
    - units look awesome! Seeing knights fighting another knights with different looks according to their nation would be awesome. Even their cavalry are wearing fantastic armours and ornaments. It is a great sight.

    Factions
    - in this era, almost every factions are equal in terms. Every one is fighting for supremacy and sensitive. Hope CA makes unique siege lay-out and design for each factions. I love to see England's castles/fort look different from France and so on...

    I can understand some of that, though I still have my doubts.

    I'm just concerned that the factions would feel a little too similar to each other, aside from a few special units.


    And the only other factions I can think of reasonably having a major religious choice mechanic would be the Norse/Scandinavian factions, and that'd be really just choosing between going Christian or Pagan.

    And while I think that'd make for some possibly cool units and all, I feel like it might just feel like a gimmicky type of thing.


    And I guess I really just don't want the various factions' armies to mostly feel really similar to each other.

    I think knights and such are plenty cool and all, but I do worry about how some tactical options might be lost if most factions use lots of knights and such.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,710
    I do agree that I think a lot of people have rose tinted glasses for M2, it is still a great setting for TW and is such a large time frame that saw so much in combat, religion and state mechanics change. With it also being the oldest game so far to not see a remake on the new engine with all the improvements that's brought.

    Lack of variety isn't any more of an issue than any other setting, if anything with the length of the time period it opens up more unit choices and unlocks as the time goes by. There's also the element that "knights" are not a single entity, they had such a range of tactics and preferences in the time period, region and wealth which changes how they play.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    Commisar said:

    I do agree that I think a lot of people have rose tinted glasses for M2, it is still a great setting for TW and is such a large time frame that saw so much in combat, religion and state mechanics change. With it also being the oldest game so far to not see a remake on the new engine with all the improvements that's brought.

    Lack of variety isn't any more of an issue than any other setting, if anything with the length of the time period it opens up more unit choices and unlocks as the time goes by. There's also the element that "knights" are not a single entity, they had such a range of tactics and preferences in the time period, region and wealth which changes how they play.

    Well, I'm just concerned with the time period because most battles during the middle ages were usually mostly very straight forward in their nature.

    That's not to say there were no tactics or anything involved, but just that things like ambushes and the idea of stealth tactics was frowned upon by most nations in Europe at least.

    I just like how the Roman period and possibly one or two factions in an Empire 2 could offer more options for stealth tactics and such things.

    I just want as much tactical variety of options as possible.


    I mean, one thing I think that could possibly do is to allow you to create your own units, that way you could do whatever you wanted, but I think that that would be more fitting for a Age of Empires type of TW game.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,795
    edited March 3
    See, I don't like M2 at all and that's exactly why I'd like there to be an M3, just so that there's a Medieval TW game that I can actually enjoy playing and which isn't ridiculously obsolete like M1.

  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487

    See, I don't like M2 at all and that's exactly why I'd like there to be an M3, just so that there's a Medieval TW game that I can actually enjoy playing and which isn't ridiculously obsolete like M1.

    I think that you're one of the first people I've seen openly admit to not liking Medieval 2.

    And while I personally think that the game does have a lot of good things about it, I'm more than willing to admit that it's old and rather dated now.


    And I can understand wanting an newer more up to date medieval TW game.


    But my only worry about the medieval period is that since a lot of battles during that time period tended to be more straight forward affairs, that things like stealth units an such would fall by the wayside as it were.

    And I don't just want hit and run tactics to be purely restricted to horse archers alone.

    But maybe I'm worrying too much.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,695
    edited March 3
    I want Medieval warfare to be heavy reliant on tactics and formations like Schiltrom, etc... rather than special abilities like whip, headhunt, healing, etc...

    Tactics are important in this era as soldiers during this time period(High and Late Period) are fully armoured. So battles must be longer compared to Three Kingdoms.
    Post edited by jamreal18 on
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    jamreal18 said:

    I want Medieval warfare to be heavy reliant on tactics rather than special abilities.

    Tactics are important in this era as soldiers during this time period(High and Late Period) are fully armoured. So battles must be longer compared to Three Kingdoms.

    Oh, I totally agree.

    Tactics need to very important in the battles.

    Though I worry that with so many heavily armored knights and men at arms and such, that the tactical options in a Medieval 3 might be limited compared to those in a Empire 2 or Rome 3.

    Because I don't want the only hit and run stuff to be solely horse archers.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,695

    Because I don't want the only hit and run stuff to be solely horse archers.

    Those are Mongols specialty which shall have it's own game.

  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    jamreal18 said:


    Those are Mongols specialty which shall have it's own game.

    I know that, but you can do a little more well rounded hit and run tactics in Rome 2 with some of the stealth units and such.

    I just want such tactics to be actually be an option, and not just for like maybe a small handful of units at best.


    And why would the Mongols get their own game?


    I know they conquered and fought a lot of people, but I don't think they should get their own TW game.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,710
    There was still a-symmetrical warfare in the Medieval period. Light infantry and terrain was still a thing. TW does tend to over amp the entire army ambushing other armies rather than the small actions that it tends to be in most accounts. Been something the series lacks with the character lead armies.

    I'd guess Mongols could get their own game the same way Attila and Napoleon got theirs. Change in game focus and better coverage of the specifics of these periods.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    Commisar said:

    There was still a-symmetrical warfare in the Medieval period. Light infantry and terrain was still a thing. TW does tend to over amp the entire army ambushing other armies rather than the small actions that it tends to be in most accounts. Been something the series lacks with the character lead armies.

    I'd guess Mongols could get their own game the same way Attila and Napoleon got theirs. Change in game focus and better coverage of the specifics of these periods.

    I don't know dude.

    I can only think of that one javelin armed spear infantry unit from Portugal and maybe Spain's unit rosters that might really count as proper light infantry.

    I only say that because things like peasants and such don't really strike me as being the most effective of troops to rely on as light infantry.


    And I don't know.

    TW Attila was more akin to Barbarian Invasion 2, but as its own game, rather than just focusing on Attila's campaigns.

    I don't think that Genghis Khan's campaigns would make for a bad TW game, but it depends on just how they might go about doing it.

    I mean, if they make it to where you can conquer the known world, they might as well make it its own full TW game.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,695
    Mongols was one of the largest empire in the world. They interacted with lots of nations during their time just like Romans in their time.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    jamreal18 said:

    Mongols was one of the largest empire in the world. They interacted with lots of nations during their time just like Romans in their time.

    I know that, I'm just talking about how big the scale of the campaigns, and after a certain point, it might be better just to make a full TW game at that point and not just one about the Mongols.

    You know what I mean?
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,795

    See, I don't like M2 at all and that's exactly why I'd like there to be an M3, just so that there's a Medieval TW game that I can actually enjoy playing and which isn't ridiculously obsolete like M1.

    I think that you're one of the first people I've seen openly admit to not liking Medieval 2.

    And while I personally think that the game does have a lot of good things about it, I'm more than willing to admit that it's old and rather dated now.


    And I can understand wanting an newer more up to date medieval TW game.


    But my only worry about the medieval period is that since a lot of battles during that time period tended to be more straight forward affairs, that things like stealth units an such would fall by the wayside as it were.

    And I don't just want hit and run tactics to be purely restricted to horse archers alone.

    But maybe I'm worrying too much.
    Damn ironic when you consider that setpiece battles actually were more common during the cabinet wars of the 18th century because there was a concerted effort to minimise damage to civilians and infrastructure after the bloody wars in past centuries had ravaged the countryside.

    So no, those concerns are invalid.

  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487


    Damn ironic when you consider that setpiece battles actually were more common during the cabinet wars of the 18th century because there was a concerted effort to minimise damage to civilians and infrastructure after the bloody wars in past centuries had ravaged the countryside.

    So no, those concerns are invalid.

    That's kind of why I want different non European factions in an Empire 2 to not all play the same.

    Because you could get away with giving many of the non European factions in an Empire 2 different playstyles, at least when it comes to their armies.

    But I don't know if you can have the same liberty with medieval armies without going too un-historically accurate.

    I mean, you could get away with making the Mongols have a heavy focus on cavalry and such in an Empire 2 as that was kind of the thing they were known for throughout their history.

    But I don' know if you can really do anything like that with any of the Medieval factions, at least not the same degree.

    I just don't want the factions' armies to be pretty much just the Medieval 2 ones but with a shiny new coat of paint and different UI
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,695
    Medieval - knights wearing armour
    Empire - men wearing uniforms

    Which is more better?

  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    jamreal18 said:

    Medieval - knights wearing armour
    Empire - men wearing uniforms

    Which is more better?

    I think you mean which would be better.


    But as much fun as playing units of knights and such can be, I'd rather have Empire 2, because there are more factions than just those in Europe.

    Heck, even a few that might come with the base game might not play the same as the European factions.

    Looking at you Ottomans.


    I just think that there's a little more room for possible army playstyles in Empire as compared to the medieval time period.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 21,325
    edited March 5
    jamreal18 said:

    Medieval - knights wearing armour
    Empire - men wearing uniforms

    Which is more better?

    Having descended from a long, very long, line of peasants myself - 'men wearing uniforms' or just wearing something. From heavy bows and crossbows through muskets, knights are "toast".

    Guns & Powder is my personal first preference. Knights, etc., would certainly be next though, if done better than Med II.
    "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
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,695
    dge1 said:

    From heavy bows through muskets, knights are "toast".

    Archers can shoot overhead, muskets must shoot direct so more tactics involve with archers.

    Muskets reloading takes time and ineffective when it rains.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    jamreal18 said:


    Archers can shoot overhead, muskets must shoot direct so more tactics involve with archers.

    Muskets reloading takes time and ineffective when it rains.

    Well, not all the possible factions in an Empire 2 would necessarily rely solely on muskets.

    There are a number of different factions that could fall into such a category.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,695

    jamreal18 said:


    Archers can shoot overhead, muskets must shoot direct so more tactics involve with archers.

    Muskets reloading takes time and ineffective when it rains.

    Well, not all the possible factions in an Empire 2 would necessarily rely solely on muskets.

    There are a number of different factions that could fall into such a category.
    Please elaborate what will be the playstyle each factions.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,795
    jamreal18 said:

    dge1 said:

    From heavy bows through muskets, knights are "toast".

    Archers can shoot overhead, muskets must shoot direct so more tactics involve with archers.

    Muskets reloading takes time and ineffective when it rains.
    Actually no, because archers still need to actually see what they're shooting. Don't mistake TW ignoring that aspect as how that actually works in RL.

  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,710
    Also bows are impacted by rain as well, I think actually more likely to lose power than guns due to them not being able to try and counter it.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    jamreal18 said:


    Please elaborate what will be the playstyle each factions.

    Ok, but I'll just give you two example of things they could do differently with a faction, because I don't want the comment to become a novel.

    And I'll use Scotland and the Mongols from actual Mongolia proper as said examples.


    Scotland
    I think that one thing they could do with Scotland is to give them Highland Clan units that fight in the "old way" as it were.

    Since a lot of highland clans were known to fight in the same "tribalish" manner up until 1746 or so.

    Here's a list of what the highland clan units should have in the ways of variety

    Highland/Clan Militia: Basic melee infantry armed with axes, clubs, and long knives who carry shields.
    Highland Archers: Just a basic archer unit with 150 range, and being "decent" melee combatants.
    Highland Spearmen: Just a basic spear and shield infantry unit.
    Lochaber Axemen: Two Handed Axe/Halberd unit that is decent at both attack and defense.
    (just google the lochaber axe, and you'll see what I mean)
    Highland Clansmen: Your standard melee infantry armed with swords, axes, and maces and shields.
    Highland Clan Nobles: Slightly older, more experienced clansmen who are armed with swords and shields, but actually have some armor, in the form of mail or scale shirts and more basic armor. Not making them knights, but considerably sturdier in a melee fight.
    Highland Clan Nobles (Claymores): Highland Clan Nobles armed with claymore two handed swords.
    Highland Light Infantry: A musket armed light infantry unit that can act as both light infantry skirmishers and as decent melee combatants.

    I would also think that most of the highland units should get get an ability called Highland Charge.

    The ability should simply be very similar to Shogun 2's Banzai ability, giving a boost of speed, charge bonus, and melee attack, while also making them unbreakable for a fairly short time.

    I just think that they'd be some nice flavor units they could give Scotland to give them something a little different to all the other European factions.

    That's not to say they shouldn't get line infantry and artillery of their own, just that they also get these units as well.


    Mongols
    I think that the Mongols could be a fairly interesting faction, for two main reasons.

    1. They different army playstyle.

    2. Their own special objective.


    As far as their playstyle goes, they're the Mongols, they should be able to become the masters of all things cavalry again.

    That's not to say they should have NO other troops, just that their biggest strength should lay in their cavalry.

    And as for special objectives.

    I think that they should have the goal to recreate the Mongol Empire, the size of which would depend on what length of campaign you picked, be it a short, medium, or long campaign.

    I could see the short campaign goals being pretty simple, like just conquer most of Mongolia and northern China, that sort of thing.

    The medium campaign goals could be to not just conquer and control part of the steppes, but also take over most of China as well.

    And their long campaign goals would be to pretty much conquer most of East Asia and bring it all under Mongol rule again.

    But back to their playstyle.


    I think that one of the biggest things that would effect the Mongols would be how they apply range weapons stats, which they would need to be do right, especially the range of the weapons.

    I think that the range of most, well, non artillery ranged weapons should be something like this

    Line Infantry Muskets: 100 Range (with no formations)
    Light Infantry Muskets: 125 Range
    Rifles: 150 Range
    Bows: 150 Range
    Elite Bows: 175 range

    Now, what would count for elite bows shouldn't necessarily always be elite troops, but more on what type of bows they use.

    Most Mongol bow units for instance would be using composite bows, which could not only hit harder than your standard self bow, but also shoot further.

    So most if not all Mongol bow units, mounted or on foot, would have 175 range, easily outranging anything short of artillery.

    That's not to say that they'd be the only guys to have the "elite bows", but they would have a lot of them.

    Things such as elite Qing archers and Ottoman Janissary Archers would also have 175 range, as they also would use composite bows.


    But if you as the Mongols could silence a European army's artillery with an ambush or something, they would all but be completely at your mercy, as you could not just out range their puny muskets, but also out maneuver them with your excellent cavalry.


    I hope that this has been somewhat informative.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,795
    Commisar said:

    Also bows are impacted by rain as well, I think actually more likely to lose power than guns due to them not being able to try and counter it.

    Exactly, that's why the French Crossbowmen at Crecy were so ineffective while the English Longbowmen, who were able to keep their strings dry during the torrent of rain that went down before were so devastating.

  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,710


    Ok, but I'll just give you two example of things they could do differently with a faction, because I don't want the comment to become a novel.

    And I'll use Scotland and the Mongols from actual Mongolia proper as said examples.


    Scotland
    I think that one thing they could do with Scotland is to give them Highland Clan units that fight in the "old way" as it were.

    Since a lot of highland clans were known to fight in the same "tribalish" manner up until 1746 or so.

    Here's a list of what the highland clan units should have in the ways of variety

    Highland/Clan Militia: Basic melee infantry armed with axes, clubs, and long knives who carry shields.
    Highland Archers: Just a basic archer unit with 150 range, and being "decent" melee combatants.
    Highland Spearmen: Just a basic spear and shield infantry unit.
    Lochaber Axemen: Two Handed Axe/Halberd unit that is decent at both attack and defense.
    (just google the lochaber axe, and you'll see what I mean)
    Highland Clansmen: Your standard melee infantry armed with swords, axes, and maces and shields.
    Highland Clan Nobles: Slightly older, more experienced clansmen who are armed with swords and shields, but actually have some armor, in the form of mail or scale shirts and more basic armor. Not making them knights, but considerably sturdier in a melee fight.
    Highland Clan Nobles (Claymores): Highland Clan Nobles armed with claymore two handed swords.
    Highland Light Infantry: A musket armed light infantry unit that can act as both light infantry skirmishers and as decent melee combatants.

    I would also think that most of the highland units should get get an ability called Highland Charge.

    The ability should simply be very similar to Shogun 2's Banzai ability, giving a boost of speed, charge bonus, and melee attack, while also making them unbreakable for a fairly short time.

    I just think that they'd be some nice flavor units they could give Scotland to give them something a little different to all the other European factions.

    That's not to say they shouldn't get line infantry and artillery of their own, just that they also get these units as well.

    Again, the Highland clans weren't used by the Scottish military by the 1700s at best they are rebels against the Scottish government. Rest were recruited from the highlands and fought in the standard form of pike and shot and moved to full musket with the advances from the bayonet.

    And with the combat of the period they would just be a bad investment as the line forces were and are superior.

    Plus the issue that Scotland isn't fully independent and joins officially to form Great Britain early on.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    Commisar said:


    Again, the Highland clans weren't used by the Scottish military by the 1700s at best they are rebels against the Scottish government. Rest were recruited from the highlands and fought in the standard form of pike and shot and moved to full musket with the advances from the bayonet.

    And with the combat of the period they would just be a bad investment as the line forces were and are superior.

    Plus the issue that Scotland isn't fully independent and joins officially to form Great Britain early on.

    And you don't seem to understand that the TW games are a not entirely historically accurate sandbox game. So they could be made independent.

    And you're wrong, because two notable battles were at Prestonpans and Culloden. Where the Scottish clansmen did NOT fight in Pike and Shot style.

    So that's just you not knowing the history.

    So quit trying to make a decent option isn't an option at all.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,710

    And you don't seem to understand that the TW games are a not entirely historically accurate sandbox game. So they could be made independent.

    And you're wrong, because two notable battles were at Prestonpans and Culloden. Where the Scottish clansmen did NOT fight in Pike and Shot style.

    So that's just you not knowing the history.

    So quit trying to make a decent option isn't an option at all.

    I do, but they don't seem to do that for minors which in the time period Scotland is. Same reason why Spain hasn't been split up or all the different small states across the world, many of which had more independent impact on history.

    I'm not wrong there, I am right. The clans men were rebels attacking the British governments forces, which I did mention in the post. It's also after the point that Scotland had joined England and become the nation of Great Britain.
  • virginia1861virginia1861 Registered Users Posts: 249
    I cant think of a better historical period for ca to do than med 3. Perhaps American civil war but there just isn't enough factions likely.
Sign In or Register to comment.