Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Poor Historical Total War

There hasnt been a decent total war historical game since Attila (it was/is fab). Britannia campaign mechanics were poorly realised, 3K was just dull, Troy was just awful. Troy campaign map was lovely but battle interface was so cluttered, a mess of color, while the units were so ill defined and difficult to make out if you looked at them from any great height. When you selected a unit, the actual units disappeared behind the selection mechanism.

Compare how clear and uncluttered units in Rome 2/ Attila looked on battlefield in contrast, especially in respect of Troy. If this is a sign of future historical battlefields, things arent looking good.

After WH3, would CA ever consider TW: Conan ? Probably difficulty with the license as Funcom us4e it, but could be fab with magic lite of Conan.

Maybe I'm talking crap

Comments

  • davedave1124#4773davedave1124#4773 Senior Member St Helens UKRegistered Users Posts: 22,082
    I think a lot of people disagree with you on 3K. It’s a solid game, CA just made mistakes with the DLC.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,431
    I think a Hyboria TW could make for a nice next fantasy TW game, but I would also like to see CA make a few more great historical TW games before they possibly go into just making fantasy ones.

    I would personally like to see them make a Empire 2 and a Total War: Antiquity.

    An Empire 2 being everything that Empire 1 wanted to be but couldn't back then, and a TW: Antiquity having campaigns that ranges from the Rise of Persia to the Fall of Rome.

    That would be pretty awesome if you ask me.
  • Lotor12#2810Lotor12#2810 Registered Users Posts: 1,001
    Attila is far from decent game...
    ------------


    It is clear, Empire 2 or Medieval 3
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,431
    edited October 2022
    Lotor12 said:

    Attila is far from decent game...
    ------------


    It is clear, Empire 2 or Medieval 3

    I disagree.

    Attila is decent overall, but it's vanilla units aren't balanced very well.

    I do agree that is should've been a major expansion for Rome 2.
  • chainsawdd#9659chainsawdd#9659 Registered Users Posts: 199
    For me, Attila is more fun than Rome 2.
    The next historical title should overhaul the playstyle and game mechanism of the total war series. They way look too similiar to each other. It's too simple to build armies and start killing. It'd be better to see the logistic and politics play a role in the game.
    Imperatoriam maiestatem non solum armis decoratam, sed etiam legibus oportet esse armatam.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,431

    For me, Attila is more fun than Rome 2.
    The next historical title should overhaul the playstyle and game mechanism of the total war series. They way look too similiar to each other. It's too simple to build armies and start killing. It'd be better to see the logistic and politics play a role in the game.

    I can understand where you're coming from, but I have to disagree.

    I don't think that CA should try to reinvent the wheel as it were, as in they shouldn't try to completely overhaul the playstyle and all of how the TW battles work at their core just to try to seem innovative.

    And I REALLY don't want to see the TW games become the Paradox games, as those are extremely tedious and boring to me. Because it's the battles that are the heart and soul of the TW games.
Sign In or Register to comment.