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.
Lame, 3K:Reforged. Since NetEase is TW publisher in China, not surprised at all if 3K end up being a mobile game or cross PC & mobile game. Most people outside of China probably won't buy it, hopefully the PRCs will also not buy it.
I left an update on the petition. It appears at this point the CA/SEGA response to all of this is to keep silent. In my book the silent treatment is the equivalent of telling us all to pound sand. Not sure where to go from here, but the petition will remain up until the release of '3k:Reforged" or whatever they chose to call the future title. Till then, all the best.
It's a just update. As for you yourself, there's no reason to be disheartened. How many people thought the petition would be ignored by the fans? It's been at least 10 times as successful as anyone thought. Any company would be happy to have someone like you on their team.
As for CA, we all know it's a mistake. They left the best TW ever made unfinished and with bugs (could it not have been the TW game for the ages?), left their core audience in the cold and alienated the Asian market. Even if limited continued support would have cost money, would it not have been worth it to prevent that? And, if only a third of the signers would be the only ones to actually have bought future dlcs (and they aren't the only ones), would it not still have made money? Complete editions of previous TW games still sell: how will they justify 3K being complete for future sells?
In the latest Warhammer and Troy announcements there were enough (not a majority, but enough) responses calling out what happened with 3K to suggest it'll remain a stain for at least a while. 3K made me come back to TW after the Rome2 debacle, hopefully my next break from TW won't be that long. In the mean time, I might give modding a glance too: the one thing missing is a proper endgame with the big 3's themselves, and maybe it's possible to create that ourselves.
I left an update on the petition. It appears at this point the CA/SEGA response to all of this is to keep silent. In my book the silent treatment is the equivalent of telling us all to pound sand. Not sure where to go from here, but the petition will remain up until the release of '3k:Reforged" or whatever they chose to call the future title. Till then, all the best.
As for CA, we all know it's a mistake. They left the best TW ever made unfinished and with bugs (could it not have been the TW game for the ages?), left their core audience in the cold and alienated the Asian market. Even if limited continued support would have cost money, would it not have been worth it to prevent that? And, if only a third of the signers would be the only ones to actually have bought future dlcs (and they aren't the only ones), would it not still have made money? Complete editions of previous TW games still sell: how will they justify 3K being complete for future sells?
In the latest Warhammer and Troy announcements there were enough (not a majority, but enough) responses calling out what happened with 3K to suggest it'll remain a stain for at least a while. 3K made me come back to TW after the Rome2 debacle, hopefully my next break from TW won't be that long. In the mean time, I might give modding a glance too: the one thing missing is a proper endgame with the big 3's themselves, and maybe it's possible to create that ourselves.
That's Warhammer actually, the best TW for all the ages.
I left an update on the petition. It appears at this point the CA/SEGA response to all of this is to keep silent. In my book the silent treatment is the equivalent of telling us all to pound sand. Not sure where to go from here, but the petition will remain up until the release of '3k:Reforged" or whatever they chose to call the future title. Till then, all the best.
As for CA, we all know it's a mistake. They left the best TW ever made unfinished and with bugs (could it not have been the TW game for the ages?), left their core audience in the cold and alienated the Asian market. Even if limited continued support would have cost money, would it not have been worth it to prevent that? And, if only a third of the signers would be the only ones to actually have bought future dlcs (and they aren't the only ones), would it not still have made money? Complete editions of previous TW games still sell: how will they justify 3K being complete for future sells?
In the latest Warhammer and Troy announcements there were enough (not a majority, but enough) responses calling out what happened with 3K to suggest it'll remain a stain for at least a while. 3K made me come back to TW after the Rome2 debacle, hopefully my next break from TW won't be that long. In the mean time, I might give modding a glance too: the one thing missing is a proper endgame with the big 3's themselves, and maybe it's possible to create that ourselves.
That's Warhammer actually, the best TW for all the ages.
It's really not.
Even though they put Taurox in and some ogre mercenaries, I'm already bored of it now. I thought the Beastmen rework would have given me a fresh take on the game and great enjoyment for months... it lasted 6 days and I was bored of it, bored of all the other factions. I'm starting to think even if they add Araby, Cathay and Kislev, I will probably get bored after a month.
It's just not as good as TW Three Kingdoms was, and that's not because im a fan of Three Kingdoms, I literally spent a year listening to Warhammer Lore after it was announced and before TW Warhammer came out. It's not even as good as TW Attila... I had to go back and play that, because I was furious at CA for cancelling TW TK and was too bored of TW Warhammer.
There is no depth in it whatsoever, it's like an ice cream advertised with ribbons, sprinkles, chocolate and bubble gum... but in reality, its just a plain vanilla ice cream, with nothing else in it. I can't bring my self to play it anymore... so I will have to wait for TWW3 in hopes that, that will be actually decent.
"I am the punishment of Tengger, if you had not sinned, he would not have sent me against you." - Chinghis Haan Temujin
I left an update on the petition. It appears at this point the CA/SEGA response to all of this is to keep silent. In my book the silent treatment is the equivalent of telling us all to pound sand. Not sure where to go from here, but the petition will remain up until the release of '3k:Reforged" or whatever they chose to call the future title. Till then, all the best.
As for CA, we all know it's a mistake. They left the best TW ever made unfinished and with bugs (could it not have been the TW game for the ages?), left their core audience in the cold and alienated the Asian market. Even if limited continued support would have cost money, would it not have been worth it to prevent that? And, if only a third of the signers would be the only ones to actually have bought future dlcs (and they aren't the only ones), would it not still have made money? Complete editions of previous TW games still sell: how will they justify 3K being complete for future sells?
In the latest Warhammer and Troy announcements there were enough (not a majority, but enough) responses calling out what happened with 3K to suggest it'll remain a stain for at least a while. 3K made me come back to TW after the Rome2 debacle, hopefully my next break from TW won't be that long. In the mean time, I might give modding a glance too: the one thing missing is a proper endgame with the big 3's themselves, and maybe it's possible to create that ourselves.
That's Warhammer actually, the best TW for all the ages.
I think what warhammer lack is story and graphic quality. I could not care less about the story or if there is any. The graphic are bad compared to 3k. One wall siege battles, crappy fighting and killing animation. I played 3 years of warhammer and its just not for me anymore.
It's a pity that the Creative Assembly only speaks its original position and remains silent.
They don't have anything to say even if they have a hundred mouths. CA cheated consumers buying Total War: The Three Kingdoms with a discount two weeks before the suspension of applications, and still haven't apologized.
They ran away, saying they were making a new product even if the consumer complained. Except they explained that the title change was possession of misunderstanding.
"In case you haven’t heard, Grand Cathay is coming to Total War: WARHAMMER III. In the thrilling conclusion of the WARHAMMER trilogy – well, not counting the years of live support we’ll be offering"
So we really were asking too much when we asked for live support for 3K to remain?
Probably when people didn't buy the DLCs. I mean it's unfair, but that's how the people with the money think. (Not the team working on the game mind you)
At this point, I'm actually very worried for 3K2, because China new laws could definitely kill it before it moves too far in production. And that + the backlash of dropping 3K support definitely gives whoever is working on 3K2 a terrible hand to contend with.
... seriously, they just needed to work one more year on 3K, one more year. Update every month with character FLCs to keep the game moving. Release a Nothern Expansion, rework Sun Jian & Liu Bei mechanics, pretty up the game by fixing things here and there. Finish off by releasing a free 229 startdate with the big threes settled in their Kingdoms.
But that will never happen because some people just don't have vision. (Except when it comes to green paper)
Well, after reading Grand Cathay's campaign mechanic. There are some interesting hypothesis;
1. Grand Cathay's campaign will be even more in-depth than their historical counterpart which is rather odd considering historical game like TW3K lacked diversity versus TWW. 2. Apparently, I got it all wrong to assume TW3K was a gauge meter to see how much interests people have for a TW game set in the orient. Hence, if TW3K sold well, they might add Cathay to Game 3. I think another dude (Takilung is the name) had the same assumption. 3. Related to point 2. TW3K was actually a test bed for Grand Cathay. Things like Wu Xing Compass was from the Wu Xing element in 3K which in my opinion was a bad design choice (you can also read my past comment about this way before Cathay's reveal). The AI for sieges also taken from 3K (based on the blog). There's actually more circumstantial evidence I would like to elaborate but I think I will stop here.
Conclusion is, although I am excited for TWW3. I do feel worried for TW3K "sequel" (TW3K2). It feels like it is going to be Troy 2.0 all over again. If TW3K2 is anything less than a single faction in TWW3 and also smells like another test bed for CA's lovechild, I am not buying TW3K2.
I honestly wonder what would happen if 3k2 dlc don't sell well like this game. Will they also cut support? Who knows but it seem very likely. I would honestly wait a few year or just not buy it at all.
Games Workshop decide to bring back Cathay I don't think there is any connection between it and 3K outside of animation re-use to save money, some of these theories are just far too farfetched.
Supporter of Shu-Han, I wish Total War Three Kingdoms had a Three Kingdoms start date, Rider of Kislev, Admiral of The Awakened, Elector Count of Shu-Han, Magistrate of Grand Cathay, Cultist of Khrone.
due to game design choices further down patch history, i had only modest interest in three kings despite me embracing the setting; (though wont dive into details but basically my predictions for skirmish became true) though the campaign side of things certainly was well defined and promising. yet despite my step child relation with it, i still feel so bad for the abrupt cancel of three kings, and left with NO PROPER START DATE, and at least for the players that still had interest in it, and also for the corporate shenanigans that CA/SEGA pulled, in putting three kings on discount days before they announced to decommission their support. recent trajectory and particularly the way they handled three kings left such a bitter after taste. i have no trust anymore in historical games CA anymore. it would seem the company slowly but surely morphs into another wargaming (dubious CR attitude and lack of talent bar the marvellous graphics department). instead they now only copy from warhammer and make inferior versions of it. after warhammer 3 ill prolly move on altogether as i dont see any promise in what CA is doing.
dear CA, - pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded. - as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route) - kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games
feature requests / suggestions / wishlist
this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell
judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process; beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them); judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso. all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket (which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature) which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!
anyways, i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples. in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.
but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either (as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions) but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination) with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched [update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)
the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially (for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference) but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily
obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features) i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.
someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting
campaign
* replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it * attila unit progression was nice * keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate * limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions * keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all); .........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad ......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks) .........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps) ............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system * further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer, ......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills ......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings * keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga) * tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces) ............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions * further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!
tactical/3d skirmish
* imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw; ......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player .........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist .........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)
* tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after (( ......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure .........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition .........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units) .........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of .........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf]) .........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina .........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines; .........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-), .........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block) .........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about .........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage .........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage .........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating .........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband) .........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat) .........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank ............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective; ............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)
......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below .........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones), .........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat) .........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects) .........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments .........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS .........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits .........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw) .........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls ...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess
* keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player ......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation .........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness) .........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain
* make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff]) ......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof) .........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis .........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c. .........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics .........war cry, suebian charge et c. .........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot .........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained .........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash .........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged .........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation .........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order .........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance) .........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging) .........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command
* re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system; ..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size ......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades, ......* dug-ins, ......* bamboo-walls ........and other deployables, ......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon), ......* inside/behind dense vegetation ......* along river banks) et c
* restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode) .........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point, .........decisive and rewarding .........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places. .........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!
* pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise ..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment
......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units .........and heres why
.........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp) .........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful .........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups! .........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and .........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles .........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty .........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience .........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons) .........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup .........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable .........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle
.........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced .........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry) .........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain .........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation, .........veteran spears should be able to push offensively .........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective .........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it .........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway .........different period as well require distinction obviously .........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall .........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length .........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen .........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement .........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units .........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii, .........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro) .........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized .........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation) .........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys .........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas .........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen .........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category .........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese .........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator .........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp .........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2 .........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav .........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them .........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin .........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre
......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish .........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break) .........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation .........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)
* add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did) ......* more strict and developed .........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units .........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer ............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel .........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^ .........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units .........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel .........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is .........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable) .........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction .........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.; .........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve .........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS .........example of diversionist maneuvre .........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer .........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken, .........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity .........another example .........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there .........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank .........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess) .........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement .........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed .........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers
......* instead: .........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges .........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning .........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error .........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception
......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel .........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules? ......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason! .........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces .........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy .........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though) .........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide .........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium; .........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing .........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)
- i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity
dear CA, - pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded. - as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route) - kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games
feature requests / suggestions / wishlist
this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell
judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process; beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them); judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso. all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket (which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature) which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!
anyways, i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples. in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.
but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either (as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions) but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination) with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched [update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)
the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially (for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference) but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily
obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features) i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.
someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting
campaign
* replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it * attila unit progression was nice * keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate * limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions * keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all); .........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad ......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks) .........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps) ............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system * further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer, ......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills ......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings * keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga) * tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces) ............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions * further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!
tactical/3d skirmish
* imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw; ......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player .........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist .........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)
* tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after (( ......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure .........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition .........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units) .........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of .........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf]) .........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina .........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines; .........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-), .........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block) .........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about .........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage .........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage .........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating .........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband) .........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat) .........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank ............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective; ............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)
......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below .........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones), .........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat) .........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects) .........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments .........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS .........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits .........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw) .........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls ...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess
* keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player ......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation .........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness) .........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain
* make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff]) ......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof) .........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis .........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c. .........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics .........war cry, suebian charge et c. .........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot .........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained .........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash .........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged .........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation .........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order .........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance) .........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging) .........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command
* re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system; ..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size ......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades, ......* dug-ins, ......* bamboo-walls ........and other deployables, ......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon), ......* inside/behind dense vegetation ......* along river banks) et c
* restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode) .........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point, .........decisive and rewarding .........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places. .........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!
* pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise ..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment
......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units .........and heres why
.........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp) .........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful .........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups! .........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and .........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles .........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty .........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience .........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons) .........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup .........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable .........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle
.........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced .........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry) .........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain .........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation, .........veteran spears should be able to push offensively .........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective .........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it .........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway .........different period as well require distinction obviously .........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall .........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length .........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen .........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement .........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units .........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii, .........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro) .........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized .........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation) .........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys .........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas .........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen .........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category .........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese .........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator .........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp .........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2 .........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav .........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them .........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin .........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre
......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish .........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break) .........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation .........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)
* add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did) ......* more strict and developed .........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units .........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer ............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel .........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^ .........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units .........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel .........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is .........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable) .........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction .........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.; .........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve .........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS .........example of diversionist maneuvre .........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer .........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken, .........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity .........another example .........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there .........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank .........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess) .........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement .........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed .........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers
......* instead: .........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges .........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning .........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error .........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception
......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel .........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules? ......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason! .........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces .........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy .........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though) .........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide .........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium; .........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing .........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)
- i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity
Tried troy. First total war since shogun that I stopped playing within 2 hours. 3k set the bar that high that all previous total war games from a campaign perspective feel shallow when compared to 3k.
Still hugely disappointed with the abandonment of 3k and especially the lack of honest communication about the reasons why. Profit seems to be the most obvious reasons probably in combination with the complexity of the code and the amount of resources needed to keep the game going. But man i totally agree that supporting the game for another year and managing expectations simultaneously would have been the far better choice in the long run than the sudden death announcement and bringing it as good news. A total misjudgement
... seriously, they just needed to work one more year on 3K, one more year. Update every month with character FLCs to keep the game moving. Release a Nothern Expansion, rework Sun Jian & Liu Bei mechanics, pretty up the game by fixing things here and there. Finish off by releasing a free 229 startdate with the big threes settled in their Kingdoms.
Don't know what the numbers are like, but plenty of people posted about their experiences with the DLCs to suggest enough of us were buying them. Apart from continued DLC support, 3K is one, just one, essential dlc away from greatness (whether that would be something around 207 featuring the prelude moving into the 3K period, or 229 with the 3K proper, wouldn't have mattered much). That DLC could have addressed/fixed the somewhat boring endgame, and then 3K would have been one hell of a legendary game.
It's still the best TW ever made. But that it's been abandoned so close to perfection leaves me with little trust in future endeavours.
Comments
- Report
0 · 1Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeAs for CA, we all know it's a mistake. They left the best TW ever made unfinished and with bugs (could it not have been the TW game for the ages?), left their core audience in the cold and alienated the Asian market. Even if limited continued support would have cost money, would it not have been worth it to prevent that? And, if only a third of the signers would be the only ones to actually have bought future dlcs (and they aren't the only ones), would it not still have made money? Complete editions of previous TW games still sell: how will they justify 3K being complete for future sells?
In the latest Warhammer and Troy announcements there were enough (not a majority, but enough) responses calling out what happened with 3K to suggest it'll remain a stain for at least a while. 3K made me come back to TW after the Rome2 debacle, hopefully my next break from TW won't be that long. In the mean time, I might give modding a glance too: the one thing missing is a proper endgame with the big 3's themselves, and maybe it's possible to create that ourselves.
- Report
1 · Disagree 1Agree- Report
1 · 2Disagree 1AgreeEven though they put Taurox in and some ogre mercenaries, I'm already bored of it now. I thought the Beastmen rework would have given me a fresh take on the game and great enjoyment for months... it lasted 6 days and I was bored of it, bored of all the other factions. I'm starting to think even if they add Araby, Cathay and Kislev, I will probably get bored after a month.
It's just not as good as TW Three Kingdoms was, and that's not because im a fan of Three Kingdoms, I literally spent a year listening to Warhammer Lore after it was announced and before TW Warhammer came out. It's not even as good as TW Attila... I had to go back and play that, because I was furious at CA for cancelling TW TK and was too bored of TW Warhammer.
There is no depth in it whatsoever, it's like an ice cream advertised with ribbons, sprinkles, chocolate and bubble gum... but in reality, its just a plain vanilla ice cream, with nothing else in it. I can't bring my self to play it anymore... so I will have to wait for TWW3 in hopes that, that will be actually decent.
- Report
0 · 1Disagree Agree- Report
1 · 1Disagree 1AgreeThey don't have anything to say even if they have a hundred mouths. CA cheated consumers buying Total War: The Three Kingdoms with a discount two weeks before the suspension of applications, and still haven't apologized.
They ran away, saying they were making a new product even if the consumer complained. Except they explained that the title change was possession of misunderstanding.
As a fan of the Total War series, I'm really sad.
- Report
2 · 1Disagree 2Agree- Report
0 · 1Disagree Agreehttps://www.totalwar.com/blog/total-war-warhammer-3-grand-cathay-lore/
So we really were asking too much when we asked for live support for 3K to remain?
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeProbably when people didn't buy the DLCs. I mean it's unfair, but that's how the people with the money think. (Not the team working on the game mind you)
At this point, I'm actually very worried for 3K2, because China new laws could definitely kill it before it moves too far in production. And that + the backlash of dropping 3K support definitely gives whoever is working on 3K2 a terrible hand to contend with.
... seriously, they just needed to work one more year on 3K, one more year. Update every month with character FLCs to keep the game moving. Release a Nothern Expansion, rework Sun Jian & Liu Bei mechanics, pretty up the game by fixing things here and there. Finish off by releasing a free 229 startdate with the big threes settled in their Kingdoms.
But that will never happen because some people just don't have vision. (Except when it comes to green paper)
My personal collection of hazardous tests and quickfixes (yes this is a link).
Wondering why you get some traits on your characters this may give you a vague idea
Balance enthusiast, I like tinkering and messing with stuff and values. Cool heads prevails !
- Report
1 · Disagree 1Agree1. Grand Cathay's campaign will be even more in-depth than their historical counterpart which is rather odd considering historical game like TW3K lacked diversity versus TWW.
2. Apparently, I got it all wrong to assume TW3K was a gauge meter to see how much interests people have for a TW game set in the orient. Hence, if TW3K sold well, they might add Cathay to Game 3. I think another dude (Takilung is the name) had the same assumption.
3. Related to point 2. TW3K was actually a test bed for Grand Cathay. Things like Wu Xing Compass was from the Wu Xing element in 3K which in my opinion was a bad design choice (you can also read my past comment about this way before Cathay's reveal). The AI for sieges also taken from 3K (based on the blog). There's actually more circumstantial evidence I would like to elaborate but I think I will stop here.
Conclusion is, although I am excited for TWW3. I do feel worried for TW3K "sequel" (TW3K2). It feels like it is going to be Troy 2.0 all over again. If TW3K2 is anything less than a single faction in TWW3 and also smells like another test bed for CA's lovechild, I am not buying TW3K2.
- Report
0 · 1Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agreeyet despite my step child relation with it, i still feel so bad for the abrupt cancel of three kings, and left with NO PROPER START DATE, and at least for the players that still had interest in it, and also for the corporate shenanigans that CA/SEGA pulled, in putting three kings on discount days before they announced to decommission their support.
recent trajectory and particularly the way they handled three kings left such a bitter after taste. i have no trust anymore in historical games CA anymore. it would seem the company slowly but surely morphs into another wargaming (dubious CR attitude and lack of talent bar the marvellous graphics department). instead they now only copy from warhammer and make inferior versions of it. after warhammer 3 ill prolly move on altogether as i dont see any promise in what CA is doing.
---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!! [moddable + ui-scale]
CA pls, where is Three Kings start date?
Gavespawn Fan Club________the tributes in charlemagne are appreciatedFan Club Cao Wei__________.*(Cao 190-start lacks sentinel assignment)
Lobby Group Black Achilleez __Troy Saga in a nutshell
dear CA,
- pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded.
- as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route)
- kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games
feature requests / suggestions / wishlist
this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell
judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process;
beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them);
judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso.
all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket
(which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature)
which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition
so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!
anyways,
i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples.
in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well
that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.
but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either
(as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions)
but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination)
with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched
[update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)
the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially
(for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference)
but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily
obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features)
i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.
someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting
campaign
* replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it
* attila unit progression was nice
* keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate
* limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions
* keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all);
.........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad
......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks)
.........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps)
............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system
* further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer,
......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills
......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings
* keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga)
* tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces)
............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions
* further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!
tactical/3d skirmish
* imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw;
......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player
.........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist
.........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)
* tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after ((
......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure
.........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition
.........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units)
.........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of
.........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf])
.........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina
.........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines;
.........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-),
.........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block)
.........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about
.........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage
.........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage
.........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating
.........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband)
.........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat)
.........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank
............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective;
............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)
......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below
.........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones),
.........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat)
.........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects)
.........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments
.........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS
.........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits
.........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw)
.........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls
...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess
* keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player
......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation
.........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness)
.........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain
* make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff])
......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof)
.........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis
.........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c.
.........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics
.........war cry, suebian charge et c.
.........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot
.........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained
.........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash
.........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged
.........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation
.........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order
.........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance)
.........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging)
.........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command
* re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system;
..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size
......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades,
......* dug-ins,
......* bamboo-walls
........and other deployables,
......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon),
......* inside/behind dense vegetation
......* along river banks) et c
* restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode)
.........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point,
.........decisive and rewarding
.........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places.
.........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!
* pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise
..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment
......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units
.........and heres why
.........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp)
.........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful
.........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups!
.........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and
.........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles
.........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty
.........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience
.........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons)
.........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup
.........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable
.........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle
.........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced
.........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry)
.........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain
.........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation,
.........veteran spears should be able to push offensively
.........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective
.........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it
.........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway
.........different period as well require distinction obviously
.........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall
.........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length
.........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen
.........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement
.........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units
.........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii,
.........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro)
.........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized
.........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation)
.........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys
.........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas
.........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen
.........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category
.........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese
.........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator
.........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp
.........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2
.........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav
.........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them
.........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin
.........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre
......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish
.........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break)
.........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation
.........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)
* add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did)
......* more strict and developed
.........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units
.........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer
............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel
.........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^
.........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units
.........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel
.........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is
.........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable)
.........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction
.........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.;
.........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve
.........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS
.........example of diversionist maneuvre
.........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer
.........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken,
.........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity
.........another example
.........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there
.........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank
.........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess)
.........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement
.........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed
.........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers
......* instead:
.........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges
.........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning
.........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error
.........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception
......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel
.........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules?
......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason!
.........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces
.........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy
.........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though)
.........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide
.........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium;
.........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing
.........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)
- i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!! [moddable + ui-scale]
CA pls, where is Three Kings start date?
Gavespawn Fan Club________the tributes in charlemagne are appreciatedFan Club Cao Wei__________.*(Cao 190-start lacks sentinel assignment)
Lobby Group Black Achilleez __Troy Saga in a nutshell
dear CA,
- pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded.
- as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route)
- kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games
feature requests / suggestions / wishlist
this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell
judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process;
beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them);
judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso.
all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket
(which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature)
which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition
so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!
anyways,
i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples.
in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well
that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.
but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either
(as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions)
but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination)
with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched
[update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)
the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially
(for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference)
but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily
obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features)
i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.
someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting
campaign
* replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it
* attila unit progression was nice
* keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate
* limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions
* keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all);
.........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad
......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks)
.........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps)
............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system
* further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer,
......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills
......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings
* keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga)
* tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces)
............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions
* further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!
tactical/3d skirmish
* imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw;
......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player
.........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist
.........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)
* tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after ((
......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure
.........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition
.........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units)
.........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of
.........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf])
.........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina
.........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines;
.........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-),
.........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block)
.........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about
.........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage
.........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage
.........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating
.........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband)
.........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat)
.........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank
............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective;
............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)
......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below
.........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones),
.........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat)
.........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects)
.........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments
.........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS
.........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits
.........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw)
.........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls
...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess
* keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player
......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation
.........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness)
.........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain
* make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff])
......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof)
.........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis
.........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c.
.........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics
.........war cry, suebian charge et c.
.........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot
.........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained
.........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash
.........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged
.........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation
.........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order
.........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance)
.........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging)
.........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command
* re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system;
..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size
......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades,
......* dug-ins,
......* bamboo-walls
........and other deployables,
......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon),
......* inside/behind dense vegetation
......* along river banks) et c
* restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode)
.........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point,
.........decisive and rewarding
.........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places.
.........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!
* pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise
..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment
......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units
.........and heres why
.........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp)
.........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful
.........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups!
.........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and
.........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles
.........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty
.........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience
.........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons)
.........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup
.........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable
.........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle
.........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced
.........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry)
.........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain
.........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation,
.........veteran spears should be able to push offensively
.........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective
.........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it
.........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway
.........different period as well require distinction obviously
.........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall
.........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length
.........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen
.........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement
.........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units
.........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii,
.........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro)
.........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized
.........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation)
.........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys
.........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas
.........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen
.........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category
.........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese
.........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator
.........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp
.........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2
.........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav
.........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them
.........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin
.........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre
......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish
.........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break)
.........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation
.........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)
* add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did)
......* more strict and developed
.........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units
.........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer
............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel
.........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^
.........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units
.........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel
.........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is
.........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable)
.........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction
.........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.;
.........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve
.........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS
.........example of diversionist maneuvre
.........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer
.........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken,
.........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity
.........another example
.........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there
.........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank
.........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess)
.........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement
.........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed
.........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers
......* instead:
.........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges
.........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning
.........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error
.........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception
......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel
.........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules?
......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason!
.........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces
.........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy
.........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though)
.........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide
.........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium;
.........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing
.........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)
- i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeStill hugely disappointed with the abandonment of 3k and especially the lack of honest communication about the reasons why. Profit seems to be the most obvious reasons probably in combination with the complexity of the code and the amount of resources needed to keep the game going. But man i totally agree that supporting the game for another year and managing expectations simultaneously would have been the far better choice in the long run than the sudden death announcement and bringing it as good news. A total misjudgement
- Report
0 · 3Disagree AgreeIt's still the best TW ever made. But that it's been abandoned so close to perfection leaves me with little trust in future endeavours.
- Report
2 · 1Disagree 2Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree