How do you guys deal with your historical cravings?

jonatron5#5899

Long time historical fan here. And desperately wanting some new historical content. But we have don't even have any rumors of content.

I'm craving hard, how do you guys deal?

Commisar#2307

Still got the back catalogue of historical TW titles to play and then choice of all the other games from other devs.

LESAMA#5456

Waiting for coh3 (launch 23 Feb) and the great war western front (launch March). Also Manor Lords is high on my list.

feuersturm#8023

I can be happy even with medieval 2 remaster.didnt played any other singleplayer game that much.every campaign is unique even if you play with the same faction.so many memories and so many more incoming...the only bad brand for me is attila war.because ai completely destroys cities just made me hate the game.i still play medieval 2 with different mods and sometimes just play original.just cant get enough of it.normally i smoke every 1-2 hours.with MW2 there are times that i didnt smoke 5 6 hours.that i didnt wake up to work because i didnt realised the time last night when i was playing xd

cbferris1#4524

They abandoned us years ago. It took me a long to finally accept it but Historical is done.

dge1

Recently played the base Rome II. Wasn't long before I was reminded out the game changes screwed it up. Still like some of the other campaigns they introduced though. Completed my "hundredth! or so" TW Empire game several weeks ago.

Looking to tackle the Western Roman Empire in Attila again. I've failed with it seven times already. The only one of the factions in which I played (around 20 or so) in which I do not have at least one campaign win.

LESAMA#5456

cbferris1#4524 said:

They abandoned us years ago. It took me a long to finally accept it but Historical is done.

Nonsense, ca already confirmed historical content this year.

Lotor12#2810

Age of Empires 4

Lotor12#2810

Actually, I would like to ask here...

Did You guys played "Knights of Honour 2"?
If yes, what do You think?

LESAMA#5456 said:

Also Manor Lords is high on my list.

Manor Lords and Knights of Honour 2 were claimed to be "Total War killers" by some YouTubers. I remember my surprise, when I checked Manor Lords and discovered, that it is city builder game, I expected something similar to Total War

LESAMA#5456

Knights of honor 2 seems like not worth the money at the moment. Lake of faction variation being the most critical one but also battle performance. I would wait until they add more content.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

I wasn't going really weigh in on this topic, as I do feel like the CA does do real time battles better than anyone else with the TW games, but do feel like I need to warn some people about a "historical" game series to actually stay away from.

And that would be the Field of Glory 2 games.

Now, the games themselves are alright, being turn and grid space based strategy games that actually have a pretty good foundation to it, but it's the recent actions of their fanboys and even developers that I want warn people about.

They also kind of make pretty lazy DLCs, which don't really change up any units and such, but just add in "new" army lists and units, which are really just reskinned versions of existing units.

Comment against the Forum Terms & Conditions removed.

But the point is that while the games themselves are alright overall, the attitudes and actions of their small community and developers is very telling and is sadly a prime example of a ugly personalities ruining a decent game series.

I'd suggest playing pretty much ANY other historical games other than those, strategy or otherwise.

#95814

I play paradox and slitherine titles for that. Knights of Honor 2 is also a lot of fun, a little bit reminiscent of MTW2 at times, also a bit like a 'lite' version of a paradox game.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

#95814 said:

I play paradox and slitherine titles for that. Knights of Honor 2 is also a lot of fun, a little bit reminiscent of MTW2 at times, also a bit like a 'lite' version of a paradox game.

I think that the Paradox games are fairly overrated myself, and I would recomend staying away from the slitherine games, as the devs are pretty mean if you don't blindly praise their games.

gabe1010#7432

I tried making my own:
https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/328351/historical-total-war-like-indie-prototype#latest
https://gabe1010.itch.io/formation-tactics-game-prototype-battle
*it's a bit pseudo-historical right now in terms of the exact units, but the idea is to hash out the more complex and historical mechanics first using prototype assets

Lotor12#2810

VikingHuscal1066#5774 said:

I wasn't going really weigh in on this topic, as I do feel like the CA does do real time battles better than anyone else with the TW games, but do feel like I need to warn some people about a "historical" game series to actually stay away from.

And that would be the Field of Glory 2 games.

Now, the games themselves are alright, being turn and grid space based strategy games that actually have a pretty good foundation to it, but it's the recent actions of their fanboys and even developers that I want warn people about.

They also kind of make pretty lazy DLCs, which don't really change up any units and such, but just add in "new" army lists and units, which are really just reskinned versions of existing units.

Comment against the Forum Terms & Conditions removed.

But the point is that while the games themselves are alright overall, the attitudes and actions of their small community and developers is very telling and is sadly a prime example of a ugly personalities ruining a decent game series.

I'd suggest playing pretty much ANY other historical games other than those, strategy or otherwise.

You can just ignore the DLCs, You are not interested in. maybe other people like it.
From my view, You are just doing pointless drama here

Actually, I would like to Total War developers to check these Field of Glory 2 games, how the unit concept (with unit price, economy) works in historical enviroment, it does not need (not should) be the rock-paper-scissors system, each unit has its role on battlefield

VikingHuscal1066#5774

Lotor12#2810 said:

You can just ignore the DLCs, You are not interested in. maybe other people like it.
From my view, You are just doing pointless drama here

Actually, I would like to Total War developers to check these Field of Glory 2 games, how the unit concept (with unit price, economy) works in historical enviroment, it does not need (not should) be the rock-paper-scissors system, each unit has its role on battlefield

Well, I know that, but I had hoped that those devs wouldn't have been so toxic and hostile toward me just giving suggestions for how they could improve their games. But this isn't really the place to go into all that.

But I have to completely disagree about the whole rock-paper-scissors system, because it does work.

In most cases, the ranged units can whittle down infantry if not dealt with by cavalry or other skirmishers, and cavalry has never been good at breaking solid lines of infantry from the front, and infantry has always been the main body of most armies throughout history.

There are some exceptions, but the system does in fact work for a reason.

The Field of Glory 2 games are decent games, but they do also seem to pick and choose what parts of historical data to use for their games.