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?

13»

Comments

  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,798
    edited March 11
    Imagine Medieval 3 with the same graphics in Extreme.

    Post edited by jamreal18 on
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 653
    jamreal18 said:

    Imagine Medieval 3 with the same graphics

    I'd really rather not.

    Because if they just keep pushing the graphics more and more, then the TW games will be hard to run on most peope's PCs. And I want the TW games to actually have a large scale to them and not always have the same sized battles.
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 388
    jamreal18 said:

    Imagine Medieval 3 with the same graphics

    He does not want Medieval at all
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,798

    jamreal18 said:

    Imagine Medieval 3 with the same graphics

    I'd really rather not.

    Because if they just keep pushing the graphics more and more, then the TW games will be hard to run on most peope's PCs. And I want the TW games to actually have a large scale to them and not always have the same sized battles.
    You can adjust the graphics in options though.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 653
    jamreal18 said:


    You can adjust the graphics in options though.

    I know I can, but I think it would be far better if they make a game that's first and foremost functional rather than one that's much harder to run for most people.


    But this goes back to the thread I made about clone soldiers.

    CA should be giving use larger scale battles instead of games that try to push the graphics.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 653
    Lotor12 said:


    He does not want Medieval at all

    It's not that I so much don't want the Medieval setting at all, I just know that there's more options in other settings.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,798
    edited March 11

    jamreal18 said:


    You can adjust the graphics in options though.

    I know I can, but I think it would be far better if they make a game that's first and foremost functional rather than one that's much harder to run for most people.


    But this goes back to the thread I made about clone soldiers.

    CA should be giving use larger scale battles instead of games that try to push the graphics.
    It seems to me you don't have premium computer and you wan't to play on EXTREME settings. Is that the reason why you don't want updated graphics?

    Like I said, you can adjust the graphics in options though. Everyone can play on Medium Settings. Let people who want to play extreme play on "Extreme" settings.

    Everybody win-win!
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 653
    jamreal18 said:

    It seems to me you don't have premium computer and you wan't to play on EXTREME settings. Is that the reason why you don't want updated graphics?

    Like I said, you can adjust the graphics in options though. Everyone can play on Medium Settings. Let people who want to play extreme play on "Extreme" settings.

    Everybody win-win!

    Well, it's a little more than that dude.

    It's not that I desire to play any game on extreme graphic settings, it's more so that even with them set to low settings, and with some new parts, the game still slows down when the battles get too big.

    I'd rather CA just stick to a certain level of graphics for the TW games, and just focus on making the games more playable and fun.


    Because as much as some people will try to defend the pointless updating of graphics, they don't realize that 99% of the time in the TW battles, we don't sit their going "ooo, ahh" at the graphics and such, we're too busy managing our armies and making sure the enemy doesn't flank our troops.

    I'd rather have larger scale battles than have a bunch of stupid fancy graphics that will cause the game to slow if there's just a few too many guys in a battle.


    And that's kind of why I think they should return to using clone models for each type of unit.

    Because the game and computers would just have to factor in a single model for X units and just how many of that unit there are.


    But I'd be ok with the graphics and such if they whole idea of clone units and such was the default settings, and you could turn on the unit variations and that sort of stuff, but the default settings are made to be as optimal as possible rather than just what your computer could just manage to do.

    And I'm still a little salty about the fact that in Rome 1, the game's box said that there'd be able to have 10,000 men on the battlefield at once.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,753

    But I'm thinking more along the lines of balance and such, so that melee units used by other factions would be able to excel in some form or another over all the line infantry from Europe.

    And I don't think that all melee infantry units should be necessarily reliant on attacking in frontal attacks.

    I could see things like Vietnamese or Native American infantry units relying more on stealth or use of terrain to get the upper hand on line infantry.

    So don't think that melee infantry couldn't work within an Empire 2, they would just have to be used a little more carefully than just banzai charging the enemy army.


    I agree, but I just found the bigger buildings to be more interesting and useful. I mean, there were a few smaller buildings that were good, but they were rare and there were only so many of them.

    Would be more down to tactics used and positioning of the enemy for them to really be effective which is historical.

    Would generally be the worst use for them of course, flanking would be the best as you want to avoid taking fire but that's the same for all units even artillery it's generally better if you can hit the enemy on the side - a cannon ball down a full line is nasty.

    Yeah they can work, they did work for some factions in the first game, just doesn't make sense for a faction that didn't use melee in their army in the time frame to do so.

    Even then I'm not sure the unit AI and design is good enough to work with the buildings still. Also clashes with one of your other ideas of bigger battles as it's harder to put larger units in a building.

    Would be interesting as well how they could handle the guns on forts for a reboot. Might be akin to the wall mounted siege equipment we've had since R2 I guess. Hopefully with a wider range of options.

    Because if they just keep pushing the graphics more and more, then the TW games will be hard to run on most peope's PCs. And I want the TW games to actually have a large scale to them and not always have the same sized battles.

    Ca has access to global metrics. While yes older rigs will find it harder to run people do move on and get better rigs and software so they keep advancing it.

    In general I don't expect battle size to really change that much, it will probably weaken most of the battles. More men just means a longer line and more micro. Larger individual units makes pathfinding and placement harder while also making lines longer but not adding extra micro.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,798
    How about CA makes Medium Settings for Graphics as default. Its optimized.

    So people who wants ultra/extreme would be able to play at their heart's content.

    Is that ok for everyone?
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 653
    Commisar said:


    Would be more down to tactics used and positioning of the enemy for them to really be effective which is historical.

    Would generally be the worst use for them of course, flanking would be the best as you want to avoid taking fire but that's the same for all units even artillery it's generally better if you can hit the enemy on the side - a cannon ball down a full line is nasty.

    Yeah they can work, they did work for some factions in the first game, just doesn't make sense for a faction that didn't use melee in their army in the time frame to do so.

    Even then I'm not sure the unit AI and design is good enough to work with the buildings still. Also clashes with one of your other ideas of bigger battles as it's harder to put larger units in a building.

    Would be interesting as well how they could handle the guns on forts for a reboot. Might be akin to the wall mounted siege equipment we've had since R2 I guess. Hopefully with a wider range of options.

    I guess I wasn't really thinking about the AI being super good, but that's kind of why I could see some of the factions being far better in a player's hands then those of the AI.

    But I do think that most of the melee units could be useful in the hands of most decent players, and could certainly have their uses, for the factions that have them that is.

    Do you hold them back in a siege and wait until you've blown open a nice big hole in the wall to send them in to murder whatever's left after your bombardment? Or do you use terrain features like hills or forests to out maneuver the enemy army?

    But I would think that it could depend on the faction or what culture it came from.


    And I do agree with you. I wouldn't expect the AI to be that good at using the buildings to the best of their abilities.

    That would be more for the players to make use of effectively.


    And it's not that I want the battles to be so big that there's 500 guys per basic infantry unit, but just a slightly larger scale to certainly units, to give a slightly more varied feel to the numbers, like what they did in the past.

    They had kind of varied unit numbers back in Shogun 2, which didn't make the game chug or really bother the pathfinding in any way that I noticed.
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 388


    It's not that I so much don't want the Medieval setting at all, I just know that there's more options in other settings.

    This is the point, You are wrong with this
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 653
    Lotor12 said:


    This is the point, You are wrong with this

    How so exactly?

    I don't see you explaining all the differences between the medieval armies beyond rather superficial things like English Longbows and Genoese Crossbows, which are just fancy archers and crossbowmen, which have been done before.

    And I expect you to actually give a better explanation than "They just do".

    So yeah, explain all the ways in which the armies of the European factions in the medieval period will differ from each other.

    And don't try to go for the Turks, Egypt, or Russia, because those are the low hanging fruits.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,753

    I guess I wasn't really thinking about the AI being super good, but that's kind of why I could see some of the factions being far better in a player's hands then those of the AI.

    But I do think that most of the melee units could be useful in the hands of most decent players, and could certainly have their uses, for the factions that have them that is.

    Do you hold them back in a siege and wait until you've blown open a nice big hole in the wall to send them in to murder whatever's left after your bombardment? Or do you use terrain features like hills or forests to out maneuver the enemy army?

    But I would think that it could depend on the faction or what culture it came from.


    And I do agree with you. I wouldn't expect the AI to be that good at using the buildings to the best of their abilities.

    That would be more for the players to make use of effectively.


    And it's not that I want the battles to be so big that there's 500 guys per basic infantry unit, but just a slightly larger scale to certainly units, to give a slightly more varied feel to the numbers, like what they did in the past.

    They had kind of varied unit numbers back in Shogun 2, which didn't make the game chug or really bother the pathfinding in any way that I noticed.

    Yeah players can use melee units quite well, especially with factions that relied on them but that's not reason to add them to nations that didn't use them.

    They've had it since Empire I think. But it's not the same as going from max units of 160 to 300 men per unit. They design the game for the upper unit level and there is pathfinding and placement issues with them as a result.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 653
    Commisar said:


    Yeah players can use melee units quite well, especially with factions that relied on them but that's not reason to add them to nations that didn't use them.

    They've had it since Empire I think. But it's not the same as going from max units of 160 to 300 men per unit. They design the game for the upper unit level and there is pathfinding and placement issues with them as a result.

    Look dude, I just want a faction in Europe that isn't pretty much nothing but line infantry and such ok.

    And Scotland just fits that bill.


    But I'm not talking about even making the units 300 guys.

    I kind of what them to bring back the proper unit tiers, which they sorta had back in Empire and Napoleon. And have the numbers be based around them

    And those would be

    Levy
    Irregular
    Professional
    Elite

    Now, the numbers I'm thinking they should do would probably be more fitting for a Rome 3 than Empire, but I think they could probably tweak them a little.

    Levy Infantry = 240
    Irregular Infantry= 200
    Professional Infantry = 160
    Elite Infantry = 160, possibly with unit caps


    They could possibly balance out melee infantry in an Empire 2 by making them all 200 guys men unit.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,753

    Look dude, I just want a faction in Europe that isn't pretty much nothing but line infantry and such ok.

    And Scotland just fits that bill.


    But I'm not talking about even making the units 300 guys.

    I kind of what them to bring back the proper unit tiers, which they sorta had back in Empire and Napoleon. And have the numbers be based around them

    And those would be

    Levy
    Irregular
    Professional
    Elite

    Now, the numbers I'm thinking they should do would probably be more fitting for a Rome 3 than Empire, but I think they could probably tweak them a little.

    Levy Infantry = 240
    Irregular Infantry= 200
    Professional Infantry = 160
    Elite Infantry = 160, possibly with unit caps


    They could possibly balance out melee infantry in an Empire 2 by making them all 200 guys men unit.

    Then the time period isn't for you. Scotland doesn't fit the bill any more than every other nation in Europe.

    It is when you talk about making battles bigger. You have to either make it so there's more units at the same size or increase the size of the units.

    Yeah unit size tends to be linked to their role more than just "rating". The Ghoorkas in Empire were slightly larger than the line units, didn't help them that much though.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 653
    Commisar said:


    Then the time period isn't for you. Scotland doesn't fit the bill any more than every other nation in Europe.

    It is when you talk about making battles bigger. You have to either make it so there's more units at the same size or increase the size of the units.

    Yeah unit size tends to be linked to their role more than just "rating". The Ghoorkas in Empire were slightly larger than the line units, didn't help them that much though.

    Well, I wouldn't be heartbroken if Scotland didn't make it in, but there are plenty of other factions that could make use of a big more old school type of units.

    And you are right, the Ghoorkas do number 200 men per unit, though they're the only melee infantry in Empire who number that many, But weirdly, so the the Austrian Line Infantry.

    No joke. Was just on the game checking.


    But I think that they could pull off the unit tiers type of thing by having a little more of a organized feeling to the unit's stats to reflect the quality of its tier.

    I'll use some Rome 2 units as an example of what I'm talking about.


    Levy units should be akin to Hillmen or Germanic Club Levy units in their effectiveness, being more useful as either cheap skirmishers or simply tar pit units, if that.

    Irregular units would be more akin to Celtic Warriors or Hastati, who should be able to fight fairly effectively against your more basic types of troops.

    Professional units should be, well, professional soldiers/warriors, that should be akin to Legionary Cohorts or Galatian Legionaries, and they should be considerably better units that even the irregular units.

    Elite units should be the best units you can get your hands on. They are your Oathswon of Evocati Cohorts. They should be the units that can pretty much murder anything in front of them.


    But I think that if they not simply made the unit numbers more varied, but also took care to make sure the units were at least in a semi tier like state, then it could work without too many issues.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 653
    Commisar said:

    Have you ever gotten the chance to read my thread about Rome 3?

    I only ask because I went far more in depth on that topic than I did with Empire 2.

    I will warn you, the OP is long, but I did break it up into different little sections that will help make getting through it far easier.
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 388

    Lotor12 said:


    This is the point, You are wrong with this

    How so exactly?

    I don't see you explaining all the differences between the medieval armies beyond rather superficial things like English Longbows and Genoese Crossbows, which are just fancy archers and crossbowmen, which have been done before.

    And I expect you to actually give a better explanation than "They just do".

    So yeah, explain all the ways in which the armies of the European factions in the medieval period will differ from each other.

    And don't try to go for the Turks, Egypt, or Russia, because those are the low hanging fruits.
    Please, let me explain it,
    Lets say we are going to design a new TW game, we have primary 3 settings to choose from

    1/ Medieval,
    2/ Pike and Shot - 16th - 17th century, Renaissance
    3/ Gunpowder - 18th century, Age of Enlightenment

    If choose any of these era, there would the "generic" European unit rooster,

    1/ Knights, archers, crossbowmen etc
    2/ Pikemen, Musketeer, Landsknechts etc
    3/ Line infantry, Hussars, Dragoon cavalry, Artillery etc

    It would be same as in Shogun II or 3K, the factions from one cultural group (European, Japanese in S2, Chinnese in 3K) would share basic identical or similar unit rooster, whatever era we choose ,
    but the certain factions would have their unique unit - English longbowmen, French heavy cavalry, Hungarian light cavalry etc

    For "unit diversity", we need include different culture / military group with own rooster (but balanced to the others), like Nanman in 3K

    If we choose medieval , we need to include Europeans, Arabs and Mongols, and immediately we have 3 different groups
    ...and there should be Turks, Egypt, or Russia, because they were main military powers, and I would go for Persia, Mughal Empire (in India) for Pike & Shot, and Gunpowder eras,

    In medieval:
    Rise of Timurid Empire (Pesians & Tatars)
    The Georgian golden age (Caucasus)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Golden_Age
    Mali Empire in Africa, they had sophisticate warfare and build empire
    https://about-history.com/the-history-of-the-mali-empire/
    in America, we can work with Aztec and Mayan Empire, (like in american campaign for Medieval 2), there are -great- opportunities
    ----------

    Simple, The era is not that important, we need to include more territory, not just west Europe
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 653
    Lotor12 said:


    Please, let me explain it,
    Lets say we are going to design a new TW game, we have primary 3 settings to choose from

    1/ Medieval,
    2/ Pike and Shot - 16th - 17th century, Renaissance
    3/ Gunpowder - 18th century, Age of Enlightenment

    If choose any of these era, there would the "generic" European unit rooster,

    1/ Knights, archers, crossbowmen etc
    2/ Pikemen, Musketeer, Landsknechts etc
    3/ Line infantry, Hussars, Dragoon cavalry, Artillery etc

    It would be same as in Shogun II or 3K, the factions from one cultural group (European, Japanese in S2, Chinnese in 3K) would share basic identical or similar unit rooster, whatever era we choose ,
    but the certain factions would have their unique unit - English longbowmen, French heavy cavalry, Hungarian light cavalry etc

    For "unit diversity", we need include different culture / military group with own rooster (but balanced to the others), like Nanman in 3K

    You see, that's the problem with that argument.

    The games NEED more diversity to the units more than just some recolors and such.

    And while I do somewhat agree with you about the whole cultures thing having similar armies, I think they could possibly manage to make the cultures mean a little more in an Empire 2 compare to a Medieval 3.

    And I think that the Mali and Mughal empires could also feel a little more unique in an Empire 2, because they were still around at about 1680 or so.

    This is kind of why I'm starting to want a "Rome 3" more than either an Empire 2 or Medieval 3.

    There you could have a lot more variety, with both armies and mechanics.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,753


    Have you ever gotten the chance to read my thread about Rome 3?

    I only ask because I went far more in depth on that topic than I did with Empire 2.

    I will warn you, the OP is long, but I did break it up into different little sections that will help make getting through it far easier.

    Yeah, not going to happen any time soon as R2 is still very fresh. Runs in to the issue that again most mechanics are not time specific and can apply just as much to the Medieval period.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 653
    Commisar said:


    Yeah, not going to happen any time soon as R2 is still very fresh. Runs in to the issue that again most mechanics are not time specific and can apply just as much to the Medieval period.

    Have you actually checked out my discussion on "Rome 3"?

    Because it actually gives a lot more reasons and explanation to what they could do with the Classical/Roman period than a Medieval one.

    And I make it clear at the start of the thread that I'm only referring to the game as Rome 3 because it's easier than saying something like Total War: Antiquity a bunch of times.

    You see, I realize that an Empire 2 could be a nice setting for armies that have different playstyles and such.

    But I've also realized that a "Rome 3" could probably not only have different armies, but also make use of mechanics that could be a lot more meaningful in a ancient time period.


    Please, just check out the thread to see what I mean.
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 388
    edited March 16



    You see, that's the problem with that argument.

    The games NEED more diversity to the units more than just some recolors and such.

    So how do You imagine that "diversity" in Empire 2 ? In that era all European nations fought in completely same way

    best unit diversity/concept was in Shogun II, where all unit have meaning till the end of game

    we do not need 25 versions of line or levy infantry,
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 653
    Lotor12 said:


    So how do You imagine that "diversity" in Empire 2 ? In that era all European nations fought in completely same way

    best unit diversity/concept was in Shogun II, where all unit have meaning till the end of game

    we do not need 25 versions of line or levy infantry,

    Well, I think that the diversity in an Empire 2 would come more in a playstyle manner when it comes to armies.

    Like if you have the Qing Dynasty in China, they could have their own unique roster, which I would think would be pretty well rounded, kind of like a lot of units from 3K, but with the addition of some guns and artillery.

    I think that a smaller faction, such as the Mongols in Mongolia proper could have their own unit roster that's really theirs.

    But I would think that a things like the European and Native American factions would probably have a lot of the same overall cultural units, at least for the Native American tribes anyway. But I think it could work in their case.

    But I don't think that there needs to be 25 different versions of any single unit, I just think that maybe some factions could have some off shoots in their tech trees that give bonuses for things they were known for.
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 388
    but 18th century era does not allow to much diversity, it would be limited to line infantry, light cavalry and mainly artilery, which would play main role

    the non-Europeans would be similar, and the mohawks - this is tricky topic :D

    definitely not more potential than medieval - what You was claimed

    but 18th century China would be cool

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Great_Campaigns
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 653
    Lotor12 said:

    but 18th century era does not allow to much diversity, it would be limited to line infantry, light cavalry and mainly artilery, which would play main role

    the non-Europeans would be similar, and the mohawks - this is tricky topic :D

    definitely not more potential than medieval - what You was claimed

    but 18th century China would be cool

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Great_Campaigns

    I would agree, that the Native American tribes would probably be pretty similar to each other, but I think that they could certainly be interesting as a playable culture.

    But I think they could make the possibly playable factions in Asia at least different from one another.

    Because they're not all just Chinese or one single culture.


    But I honestly think that a "Rome 3" would probably have the most room for unit diversity and army playstyle.
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 388
    Native Americans are bit "sensitive" topic , but I really would like to see them back in TW, but do not want them OP
    their units: mohawk infantry, bowmen, "musketter" , melee cavalry, archer cavalry, mounted gunners; and that is probably all

    Generally with the unit concept, we do not need to 14 units to choose from, if we use only 5 in practice

  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 653
    Lotor12 said:

    Native Americans are bit "sensitive" topic , but I really would like to see them back in TW, but do not want them OP
    their units: mohawk infantry, bowmen, "musketter" , melee cavalry, archer cavalry, mounted gunners; and that is probably all

    Generally with the unit concept, we do not need to 14 units to choose from, if we use only 5 in practice

    Oh, I agree, it could be a little tricky, but I think CA could probably make their in game representations with respect.

    Though I think it would be cool for the various major tribes to have some special units and bonuses for certain types of troops, like the Commanche having bonuses for cavalry units, since they were known to be great horsemen.


    But I think that the Classical/Roman period would be where a TW game could not just have a lot of unit variety, but also mechanics and variety for factions.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 653
    edited March 17
    Lotor12 said:

    ....I just want to talk about a "Rome 3" ok.
    Post edited by VikingHuscal1066 on
Sign In or Register to comment.