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

Done with CA bashers

2

Comments

  • KregenKregen Member Posts: 484Registered Users
    If you mean the strath clyde lets play from yester day I watched it last night it looked good to me. The ai seemed to use and be aware of the new game mechanics. I enjoyed watching it.
  • fredericmeyernfredericmeyern Posts: 231Registered Users
    Hunor said:

    Hi Guys. no reaktion about NEW gameplay streamed gameplay ?? (Twitch)

    h_ttps://www.twitch.tv/directory/game/Total%20War%20Saga%3A%20Thrones%20of%20Britannia/videos/all

    is there a link to it somewhere? don't think I've ever used twitch.

    Hugothester could you maybe give some info about AI behaviour? Especially campaign AI.

    It works pretty well, I was surprised by 2 things mainly:
    1- How well it handles the new recruitment system (I expected it to march and attack without waiting for units to replenish). The AI knows it has to wait and replenish before moving, it knows how to handle the new suplies system (has anyone talked about this?) and if you attack it while their units are not yet fully replenished it will respond, and not stay there not moving waiting to replenish.
    2- Events also affect the AI, and it can profit from them. For example, if you have an event where you can annex yourself a territory by diplomacy, the AI can do the same, and sometimes historical events will pop up with factions uniting, a civil war going on in Ireland etc... This is not like Empire tw, where they told you about a particular historical event but it was not really happening on the campaign map. If the event tells you that factions in Irland are fighting among themselves in a civil war, they are REALLY fighting there. I checked.
    LESAMA said:

    Thanks Hugo! My main concern would be around campaign ai behaviour and how it handles the non garrison minor settlements. Both from a defensive as well from an offensive perspective. I would had it if the ai would constantly attack with small armies consisting of one unit sacking all my minor settlements while there doesn’t seem to be an army limit.

    You are welcomed! Good question, the AI won´t spam small armies to attack your settlements, every army needs a general, and the generals system we have since Rome 2 seems to have solved the small armies spam issue, so you can rest assured on that side.
    That being said, the AI will try to raze all the small settlements it can raze before going for you if their army is inferior in number to yours (they are probably trying to destroy your economy so you cannot maintain your army). In case their army is mightier, they will directly try to attack your main army instead of going for small settlements.
    In what regards defense/attack, the AI will only try to defend small settlements if they have spare armies, which happens quite late-game due to the recruitment system. If you attack their small settlements the same rule applies, if their army is stronger they will go out and attack you, but if their army is weaker they will stay behind the walls of a walled city until they have no other option but to go out.

    Two more things:
    1- I have seen a few times the AI try to lure you with one small army, when you follow it with your main army they will use a second hidden (and much bigger) army to pass through you and get to your undefended cities. I do not know if this is intentional, but it felt as if I was fighting a human player in this particular case.
    2- You will not see 20 stacks armies as often as you did in other games. Probably due to the size of the territory (=gameplay reasons) or historical reasons. Armies are very expensive to maintain, the poll of elite units takes time to recharge and generate new units and newly recruited units take a lot to replenish. This makes a full 20 stacks army VERY powerful, if you get it early game you will likely be more powerful than 90% of the factions. That being said, I do not think it is ideal, since you will likely only be able to maintain that 20 stacks units and one more small army, so if you go to war you will leave all your territory exposed.

    In a nutshell, loved the campaign, sorry for the post being so long and I hope I answered your questions ;)
    thanks for posting this.
  • XyphaXypha Brussels (Belgium)Posts: 107Registered Users
    A lot of it comes from the frustration of WH2 content not following.
    Especially not like WH1 even though the WH2 FLC schedule gave that intention.

    Norsca is hurting CA more than just WH.
    The perception now is that WH content is being held back or not worked on in favour of historical content and i think this is where some of the negativity is coming from.
    The fact this is true or not is only something CA knows.

    I find CA has been very ambitious and although i like that ,it now hurts them because of norsca.

    My opinion is they could have pushed all historical back internally before communicating a release date.
    Nobody would have known, they might have had the time to fix Norsca in the mean time and all would be perceived differently.
    Because at the moment many say , hey you have no time to fix Norsca but you do have time to release a Rome dlc and TOB.

    That is because they have alot of new players that came specifically for WH.
    On top of that CA always told them they have different teams that don't have an effect on each other.
    With Norsca going to be implemented after TOB, it gives them enough reason to doubt that so they bash on TOB.

    I play TW since Shogun 1 and do like the historical and fantasy, but my opinion is that you always clean up the mess you make before doing something else/new. Especially if that mess is made on your present big title.

    Therefore i will not buy TOB although i have the feeling it is a well done game and will keep to WH and most certainly Three kingdoms.

    Just my opinion as to where some of the negativity comes from. I do hope it gets sorted and doesn't hurt CA to much.
  • RolloSmersonRolloSmerson GermanyPosts: 79Registered Users
    Xypha said:

    A lot of it comes from the frustration of WH2 content not following.
    Especially not like WH1 even though the WH2 FLC schedule gave that intention.

    Norsca is hurting CA more than just WH.
    The perception now is that WH content is being held back or not worked on in favour of historical content and i think this is where some of the negativity is coming from.
    The fact this is true or not is only something CA knows.

    I find CA has been very ambitious and although i like that ,it now hurts them because of norsca.

    My opinion is they could have pushed all historical back internally before communicating a release date.
    Nobody would have known, they might have had the time to fix Norsca in the mean time and all would be perceived differently.
    Because at the moment many say , hey you have no time to fix Norsca but you do have time to release a Rome dlc and TOB.

    That is because they have alot of new players that came specifically for WH.
    On top of that CA always told them they have different teams that don't have an effect on each other.
    With Norsca going to be implemented after TOB, it gives them enough reason to doubt that so they bash on TOB.

    I play TW since Shogun 1 and do like the historical and fantasy, but my opinion is that you always clean up the mess you make before doing something else/new. Especially if that mess is made on your present big title.

    Therefore i will not buy TOB although i have the feeling it is a well done game and will keep to WH and most certainly Three kingdoms.

    Just my opinion as to where some of the negativity comes from. I do hope it gets sorted and doesn't hurt CA to much.

    I see how you feel and I've experienced the same feeling with Warhammer content. First and second TW: WH release was the reason why any historical content was pushed back beyond any reason. The last release of anything historical was 10 December 2015 (I don't count horrible Rome II DLC that just came out). Since 2015 it was only WH that CA talked about with no news and very little hints about history titles.

    I believe history fans waited long enough and deserve to have something new to play. Therefore hang on, CA most likely will start WH3: TW marketing campaign sometime this year. If you like fantasy TW TK will probably fit the bill as well.
  • fredericmeyernfredericmeyern Posts: 231Registered Users
    Just had a look on the Warhammer forum.


  • BlackenedLokiBlackenedLoki Junior Member Posts: 159Registered Users

    Just had a look on the Warhammer forum.


    Hahaha this!

    The 3 kingdoms one was as bad last time I looked... so I fled and never returned. Much happier discussing this game with the 'sensible crowd'
    Yes, I am one of those people who liked Rome 2 and yes my opinion is still valid.
  • norseaxenorseaxe Posts: 402Registered Users
    Hugothester I have just one question if you're free to answer. I know all armies it seems have fleets.
    1. So how do they work exactly, I mean do you just have to set your army to sea and that's it.?
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Posts: 10,048Registered Users
    edited April 2018

    Much happier discussing this game with the 'sensible crowd'

    Imagine you hear Rome 2 is coming out, you're all excited, hyped, life has never been better, then you hear CA is not just making Rome 2, but a trilogy! Not just any old trilogy no, a trilogy that will combine all 3 games into the biggest, baddest and largest total war in history.

    Rome 2 becomes of the best TW games in the series, hype for Attila has never been greater. Then you find out the pre-order bonus for a game released in September will not be available to play until 8 months after launch, in May. EIGHT WHOLE MONTHS.

    You also find every quality of life improvement made to Rome 2 over it's life cycle seems to have been forgotten for Attila and it appears Attila was made with the original base code instead of the updated version, so every major game issue which we thought the series had resolved is returned with a fiery vengeance.

    But it's fine, because we get the Rome 2 + Attila mega campaign right? Well, we get it. A rushed, broken, un-fun game mode which we get the pleasure of beta testing for CA. "But it's free-LC" I hear you cry. Sure, FLC which only costs the entirely of two triple A titles + any DLC you wish to play on said mega campaign, FLC which was advertised before Rome 2 even came out as the penultimate TW experience and the reason to buy the series.


    So do tell me why exactly the current happiness meter with CA isn't at "sensible" levels? Let's not feign some kind of intellectual superiority just because you don't play Warhammer. It doesn't make you smarter, it doesn't make you better.
    Post edited by Commissar_G on
    "As a sandbox game everyone, without exception, should be able to play the game exactly as they see fit and that means providing the maximum scope possible." - ~UNiOnJaCk~
  • ronmartheonlyronmartheonly Posts: 19Registered Users

    -snip-

    Imagine you hear Rome 2 is coming out, you're all excited, hyped, life has never been better, then you hear CA is not just making Rome 2, but a trilogy! Not just any old trilogy no, a trilogy that will combine all 3 games into the biggest, baddest and largest total war in history.

    Rome 2 becomes of the best TW games in the series, hype for Attila has never been greater. Then you find out the pre-order bonus for a game released in September will not be available to play until 8 months after launch, in May. EIGHT WHOLE MONTHS.

    -snip-

    So do tell me why exactly the current happiness meter with CA isn't at "sensible" levels? Let's not feign some kind of intellectual superiority just because you don't play Warhammer. It doesn't make you smarter, it doesn't make you better.

    Norsca was described initially as DLC for Warhammer I, not II. See news article. Also, see their blog post.

    In fact, CA came out and said that Norsca "will also eventually be playable in [Mortal Empires]" but would not be available at launch of that campaign. Here is that blog post.

    Finally, CA came out in December stating that they were having an extremely difficult time implementing Norsca, and further said that the method they were utilizing "won’t be quick, but it is guaranteed to work." https://www.totalwar.com/blog/warhammer-ii-development-update

    Thus, I don't really see how they ever told you that Norsca was a pre-order bonus explicitly for Warhammer II.

    Now, the foregoing isn't being said just to be rude, but the context is important. Yes, Norsca was hopefully going to be implemented shortly after Mortal Empires (which was available on Oct. 26, 2017). Yet, when CA determined to share their issues with the implementation, only a little over a month had passed since its release.

    Hopefully the Norsca issue will help they better approach the final combined campaign that has been planned to be released at some point along with Warhammer III.

  • HugothesterHugothester Senior Member Posts: 566Registered Users
    edited April 2018
    norseaxe said:

    Hugothester I have just one question if you're free to answer. I know all armies it seems have fleets.
    1. So how do they work exactly, I mean do you just have to set your army to sea and that's it.?

    I don´t really know since I only had one sea battle, but my units had a trait "seasick" or something like that in red, and I lost the sea battle heavily against a viking fleet. But I have not seen naval recruitment, so I guess there has to be a way to get rid of that seasick trait and make a regular army fight on the sea.
    I can´t elaborate more because I usually tend to ignore the sea and go for the land, I only use the water to get from A to B. I can check if you want.

    Just had a look on the Warhammer forum.


    hahaha welcome back to the civilized side of the forums.
    Biggest Spanish total war youtube Channel
    https://www.youtube.com/user/hugothester
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIPosts: 7,162Registered Users

    In fact, CA came out and said that Norsca "will also eventually be playable in [Mortal Empires]" but would not be available at launch of that campaign. Here is that blog post.

    They did, however, upon release of Mortal Empires promise that Norsca would be playable in 2017 in Mortal Empires on both the Mortal Empires page and Norsca page on Steam.
    Thrones of Britannia: 69/100
    Warhammer II: 73/100
    Warhammer: 79/100
    Attila: 70/100 [Age of Charlemagne: 72/100]
    Rome II: 49/100
    Shogun II: 93/100 [Fall of the Samurai: 95/100]
    Napoleon: 58/100
    Empire: 53/100
    Medieval II: 90/100 [Kingdoms: 90/100]
    Rome I: 88/100
    Medieval I: 92/100
    Shogun I: 84/100
  • BlackenedLokiBlackenedLoki Junior Member Posts: 159Registered Users

    Much happier discussing this game with the 'sensible crowd'

    Imagine you hear Rome 2 is coming out, you're all excited, hyped, life has never been better, then you hear CA is not just making Rome 2, but a trilogy! Not just any old trilogy no, a trilogy that will combine all 3 games into the biggest, baddest and largest total war in history.

    Rome 2 becomes of the best TW games in the series, hype for Attila has never been greater. Then you find out the pre-order bonus for a game released in September will not be available to play until 8 months after launch, in May. EIGHT WHOLE MONTHS.

    You also find every quality of life improvement made to Rome 2 over it's life cycle seems to have been forgotten for Attila and it appears Attila was made with the original base code instead of the updated version, so every major game issue which we thought the series had resolved is returned with a fiery vengeance.

    But it's fine, because we get the Rome 2 + Attila mega campaign right? Well, we get it. A rushed, broken, un-fun game mode which we get the pleasure of beta testing for CA. "But it's free-LC" I hear you cry. Sure, FLC which only costs the entirely of two triple A titles + any DLC you wish to play on said mega campaign, FLC which was advertised before Rome 2 even came out as the penultimate TW experience and the reason to buy the series.


    So do tell me why exactly the current happiness meter with CA isn't at "sensible" levels? Let's not feign some kind of intellectual superiority just because you don't play Warhammer. It doesn't make you smarter, it doesn't make you better.
    Yeah, I never mentioned Warhammer... I don't play the games, have never even looked at the forum.

    My comment was about the 3K forum...

    Judging from your reply you're absolutely fuming about the current state of Warhammer, of which I have no relevant opinion, but lets not rage at me about something I didn't even mention.
    Yes, I am one of those people who liked Rome 2 and yes my opinion is still valid.
  • XyphaXypha Brussels (Belgium)Posts: 107Registered Users
    @RolloSmerson

    I never blamed historical content, i played all said historical before WH and i like the historical.

    I just wanted to give my opinion as to where some of the negativity came from.
    My thought is that if Norsca (not any new content) was resolved before the historical the perception off it all could
    have been different.

    Now some will bash on the historical because they see that content as to why Norsca and other issues aren't fixed.
  • FranzSaxonFranzSaxon Posts: 2,357Registered Users
    For all the people conflating and whining about warhammer, historical fans have waited 3 years plus for a title, so please leave that point alone. We like warhammer to, but we are entitled to be excited about our historical content and we deserve a game. Warhammer has had a great content lineup, and you guys deserve a polished product, but we deserve a historical title to. Just leave it be. Nobody is bashing warhammer. We don't care. Nobody even mentioned it.
  • fredericmeyernfredericmeyern Posts: 231Registered Users
    edited April 2018


    Let's not feign some kind of intellectual superiority just because you don't play Warhammer. It doesn't make you smarter, it doesn't make you better.

    Nah nothing like that.
    I don't really get Warhammer or what it's all about, other than it's sort of similar to lord of the rings?
    So A: I'm not sure what anyone is saying, and B: Many posters seemed really angry.
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIPosts: 7,162Registered Users
    edited April 2018

    For all the people conflating and whining about warhammer, historical fans have waited 3 years plus for a title, so please leave that point alone. We like warhammer to, but we are entitled to be excited about our historical content and we deserve a game. Warhammer has had a great content lineup, and you guys deserve a polished product, but we deserve a historical title to. Just leave it be. Nobody is bashing warhammer. We don't care. Nobody even mentioned it.

    This is a massive strawman. No one said that historical content shouldn't come out, but that CA royally **** up by the numbers with Norsca, some Warhammer content.

    Also, Hugothester and fredericmeyern both talked about Warhammer, so again, factually incorrect.
    Post edited by MrJade on
    Thrones of Britannia: 69/100
    Warhammer II: 73/100
    Warhammer: 79/100
    Attila: 70/100 [Age of Charlemagne: 72/100]
    Rome II: 49/100
    Shogun II: 93/100 [Fall of the Samurai: 95/100]
    Napoleon: 58/100
    Empire: 53/100
    Medieval II: 90/100 [Kingdoms: 90/100]
    Rome I: 88/100
    Medieval I: 92/100
    Shogun I: 84/100
  • BlackenedLokiBlackenedLoki Junior Member Posts: 159Registered Users
    MrJade said:

    For all the people conflating and whining about warhammer, historical fans have waited 3 years plus for a title, so please leave that point alone. We like warhammer to, but we are entitled to be excited about our historical content and we deserve a game. Warhammer has had a great content lineup, and you guys deserve a polished product, but we deserve a historical title to. Just leave it be. Nobody is bashing warhammer. We don't care. Nobody even mentioned it.

    This is a massive strawman. No one said that historical content shouldn't come out, but that CA royally **** up by the numbers with Norsca, some Warhammer content.

    Also, BlackenedLoki and fredericmeyern both talked about Warhammer, so again, factually incorrect.
    Again, did not mention Warhammer.... I have no opinions on it one way or the other.

    I mentioned the 3K forum
    Yes, I am one of those people who liked Rome 2 and yes my opinion is still valid.
  • kuryakinkuryakin Posts: 78Registered Users
    So basically WH fans are **** because they have been waiting for some dlc for 8 months, hence badmouth ToB and they want historical fans to wait another xxx months/years till CA finishes said dlc? Wow amazing!
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 18,633Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    Let's stop bashing each other, as a group or as an individual. Discuss the topic in the context and as outlined by the OP.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIPosts: 7,162Registered Users
    kuryakin said:

    So basically WH fans are **** because they have been waiting for some dlc for 8 months, hence badmouth ToB and they want historical fans to wait another xxx months/years till CA finishes said dlc? Wow amazing!

    Where does anyone say that?

    And to @BlackenedLoki, you are correct, it was Hugo talking in response to Warhammer.
    Thrones of Britannia: 69/100
    Warhammer II: 73/100
    Warhammer: 79/100
    Attila: 70/100 [Age of Charlemagne: 72/100]
    Rome II: 49/100
    Shogun II: 93/100 [Fall of the Samurai: 95/100]
    Napoleon: 58/100
    Empire: 53/100
    Medieval II: 90/100 [Kingdoms: 90/100]
    Rome I: 88/100
    Medieval I: 92/100
    Shogun I: 84/100
  • BlackenedLokiBlackenedLoki Junior Member Posts: 159Registered Users
    MrJade said:

    kuryakin said:

    So basically WH fans are **** because they have been waiting for some dlc for 8 months, hence badmouth ToB and they want historical fans to wait another xxx months/years till CA finishes said dlc? Wow amazing!

    Where does anyone say that?

    And to @BlackenedLoki, you are correct, it was Hugo talking in response to Warhammer.
    @MrJade No problem :)

    I'm just not going to wade into this argument... if it has been delayed for 8 months then that sucks but it's a completely different team to the Historic and Saga team.
    Yes, I am one of those people who liked Rome 2 and yes my opinion is still valid.
  • Lin_HuichiLin_Huichi Posts: 265Registered Users
    As long time Total War fan since Medieval 1 I waited with eager anticipation for Medieval 3 when it was Warhammer that released. Needless to say I was disappointed but was easily comforted by CAs announcement of new historical content, especially 3 new ideas. So after 2 years of Warhammer my hopes were through the roof with the new historical releases coming up.

    Unfortunately, I finally put Rome 2 to rest (with the other dead games in my library) so any additional content for that game I don't even consider, I tried but that game offers nothing for me anymore.

    Then Thrones was announced and although the era isn't exactly my favourite , they said the Saga was targeted at hardcore fans and as a fan from 2002 I was excited! But as more of the campaigns mechanics were revealed my interested waned then vanished suddenly.

    All of the new mechanics are on top of the streamlined to the core Rome 2 foundation that I have come to despise. At least with Attila I have hordes and Warhammer has untapped unit matchups to help me stomach the boring Rome 2 army and building system.

    However, the new mechanics don't interest me at all, indeed some turn me off completely. No agents? Single buildings for a region? A campaign mechanic that artificially limits when you can go to war and when you can't? On top of units locked to an army which I cannot fathom was a good call at all, going from Warhammer to Rome Total War is like injecting freedom into my bloodstream.

    I wasn't interested in Warhammer at all and ironically these historical releases pushed me to buy it on a whim. Despite the shallow campaign that game dwarfs every other Total War in terms of breadth. I was hyped for the historical stuff but the gameplay is too streamlined and devoid of strategy. Too much is removed from every release and everything that is added does not improve as a replacement. China gives me goosebumps but if it follows the Rome 2 formula I will just get WH3 to complete my collection and end Total War there, especially if that formula is here to stay.

    CA have obviously worked hard here with TB and I congratulate them for that but I will not be getting it. Im sure others will enjoy the game but honestly I do not care if it succeeds or not. If it does not meet expected profit margins and Sega shuts Saga down then I will not be sorry. Every week there is a thread about some old mechanic tons of fans have missed and CA turns a blind eye, the best I have seen them do is implement ffa in Warhammer 2 after 11 years, plus its only 4 players not even the 8 older titles get.

    Not all the negativity surrounding this game is unjustified, some are just the cries of fans who dearly love the franchise. I myself really want Total War to remember more of the older mechanics, but my concerns fall on deaf ears.

    Rome 1 and Shogun 2 are my highest played TW games and I used to play Total War exclusively but now Ive branched out, getting DOOM and Brawlhalla recently, instead of wasting money on Total Wars I will play 4 hours then get bored and never touch again.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,617Registered Users
    All of the new mechanics are on top of the streamlined to the core Rome 2 foundation that I have come to despise. At least with Attila I have hordes and Warhammer has untapped unit matchups to help me stomach the boring Rome 2 army and building system.

    Rome2 is more complex than anything that came before it, especially now. They removed the garbage mechanics of preceding titles and added some that actually make sense.

  • ExarchExarch Posts: 575Registered Users
    Give it a try and then judge!

    From everything Jack says, and from what I've seen, the whole approach to thrones is to make every system streamlined in itself, but with more complex interplay and strategy arising from how all the systems fit together :)
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,617Registered Users
    People who use "streamlining" like it's some dirty word should not forget that on the opposite spectrum you have "clunky" and "arduous". I take streamlined over clunky any time of the day.

  • julius_civilisjulius_civilis Posts: 365Registered Users
    dge1 said:

    Let's stop bashing each other, as a group or as an individual. Discuss the topic in the context and as outlined by the OP.

    This.
    Let's remain respectful guys, we all love the same thing.
  • GingerRoeBroGingerRoeBro Senior Member Posts: 3,036Registered Users

    Go to any random video on YouTube or even any topic on this forum and you'll see somebody say this game is a rip off or saying it is Attila dlc. It is an insult to the hard work this team has put into the game. I do not understand any of this. People are writing this game off because the game has the same engine as Attila. Atilla was not terrible at all, sure the battles were a bit clunky however that's pretty common in the total war genre, even in warhammer which people are using as a comparison now for some reason. Warhammer has enough buggy things and I'll take Attila's matched combat over warhammers boring hack n' slash any day of the week. To say this game is a simple re-skin of Attila is laughable to me, Charlemagne was a reskin, Age of Charlemagne was received well over all. The only thing which will be simmilar to Attila are the battle mechanics and the animations, and I'm sure there will be some things that are tweaked and some animations added etc.

    I think the game is shaping up to be something special for veterans of the total war genre and for newcomers alike. The campaign is shaping up to be very interesting in my opinion. The battles in Attila are not great it's true. But in my opinion they look stunning visually and the exagerration of some people on these forums rather annoys me. For all of you who haven't played Attila or Rome 2, the battles are a bit clunky but nothing gamebreaking at all so don't believe the CA bashers. Also they are adding a lot of great historical settlements, that's a huge pro to me which outweighs a lot of cons.

    Ever since the release of rome 2 there has been a consistent group of people bashing anything CA wanted to release. I remember even warhammer 1 was hated on before release, warhammer 2 also as people found it to be DLC (again). These games are now seen as some of the best CA has ever produced.
    You people need to stop and think for a second. CA is a company they need to earn money while delivering games which are made with a lot of passion and skill. They probaply went for the Attila engine because it's the most recent historical game, they can't go for rome 2 because that engine is worse than Attila's and with any engine before that the graphics would be outdated or the mechanics wouldn't fit the era. It is a Saga game and it's not full priced, but it is still a FULL game made on an older engine, so what? Also this is the moment for historical fans to support our genre in total war. I'm not saying you MUST buy this game but if you're doubting I think you should buy it. The warhammer series is making tremendous sales for CA, us historical fans need to show that there's still a big market for historical total war games.

    I'm convinced this game will be great, for anybody who enjoyed Attila at least..
    So if you're doubting to buy this don't believe all the hate there are a lot of people who loved Attila too.

    You think attila's battle's weren't great?
    You think AOC was just a reskin?
    How about you get a life you mud slinging dirtbag.
    I bet you haven't even played AOC.
    I am tired of People's criticism of CA
    You claim the settlements outweigh "the cons".
    What con's? Are you really that much of a cynic?
    How about instead you just play call of duty.

    Oh, look, I wrote the same thing you did. :smile:



    You may need to visit a safe space and remember that these are all just opinions.
    These forums and youtube streamers combined don't even make up 5% of the people playing this.
    Most are just average joes who see something cool and buy it. You ain't gotta get all antsy everytime you see somthing negative, and I ain't gotta spend my time responding to it, but I honestly hope for yah and would recommend some sort of anger management if all it takes for you to get riled up is someone not liking the games made by a company you've never even met say.

    You call them bashers, they would more than likely call you white knight. Difference is that one would be flagged and removed the other wouldn't.

    There is nothing good or productive that can come from this thread. That's my take on it anyway.
    Bigger Budget for game 3?

    They're gonna need it for all of the monogod glory.
    Which will be the "4 distinct gods representing the different aspects of Chaos such as Khorne, Slaanesh, Tzeentch, and Nurgle." :blush: ^CA quote

    Thank you CA for seeing them as what they truly are.
    Let the Games Begin!
    https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/The_Great_Game
  • Lin_HuichiLin_Huichi Posts: 265Registered Users
    Exarch said:

    Give it a try and then judge!

    From everything Jack says, and from what I've seen, the whole approach to thrones is to make every system streamlined in itself, but with more complex interplay and strategy arising from how all the systems fit together :)

    Thanks for your encouragement but after playing Attila and Warhammer and even playing Rome 2 after the update I have enough experience with this sort of system to know is does not agree with me at its core. I just don't have fun with it, at best it is boring at worst I go play a different game. Even if I think positively about this game I know it will be a waste of money for me.

    All of the new mechanics are on top of the streamlined to the core Rome 2 foundation that I have come to despise. At least with Attila I have hordes and Warhammer has untapped unit matchups to help me stomach the boring Rome 2 army and building system.

    Rome2 is more complex than anything that came before it, especially now. They removed the garbage mechanics of preceding titles and added some that actually make sense.
    I respectfully disagree. Rome 2 in my opinion is the worst Total War. The sort of artificial complexity that is tacked on is still hamstrung by the very narrow core. There are many improvements with Attila and WH and undoubtedly ToB but it is all white washing tombs. But if you like it then that's great.
  • julius_civilisjulius_civilis Posts: 365Registered Users

    I think the game is shaping up to be something special for veterans of the total war genre and for newcomers alike. The campaign is shaping up to be very interesting in my opinion. The battles in Attila are not great it's true. But in my opinion they look stunning visually and the exagerration of some people on these forums rather annoys me. For all of you who haven't played Attila or Rome 2, the battles are a bit clunky but nothing gamebreaking at all so don't believe the CA bashers. Also they are adding a lot of great historical settlements, that's a huge pro to me which outweighs a lot of cons.

    Ever since the release of rome 2 there has been a consistent group of people bashing anything CA wanted to release. I remember even warhammer 1 was hated on before release, warhammer 2 also as people found it to be DLC (again). These games are now seen as some of the best CA has ever produced.
    You people need to stop and think for a second. CA is a company they need to earn money while delivering games which are made with a lot of passion and skill. They probaply went for the Attila engine because it's the most recent historical game, they can't go for rome 2 because that engine is worse than Attila's and with any engine before that the graphics would be outdated or the mechanics wouldn't fit the era. It is a Saga game and it's not full priced, but it is still a FULL game made on an older engine, so what? Also this is the moment for historical fans to support our genre in total war. I'm not saying you MUST buy this game but if you're doubting I think you should buy it. The warhammer series is making tremendous sales for CA, us historical fans need to show that there's still a big market for historical total war games.

    I'm convinced this game will be great, for anybody who enjoyed Attila at least..
    So if you're doubting to buy this don't believe all the hate there are a lot of people who loved Attila too.

    You think attila's battle's weren't great?
    You think AOC was just a reskin?
    How about you get a life you mud slinging dirtbag.
    I bet you haven't even played AOC.
    I am tired of People's criticism of CA
    You claim the settlements outweigh "the cons".
    What con's? Are you really that much of a cynic?
    How about instead you just play call of duty.

    Oh, look, I wrote the same thing you did. :smile:



    You may need to visit a safe space and remember that these are all just opinions.
    These forums and youtube streamers combined don't even make up 5% of the people playing this.
    Most are just average joes who see something cool and buy it. You ain't gotta get all antsy everytime you see somthing negative, and I ain't gotta spend my time responding to it, but I honestly hope for yah and would recommend some sort of anger management if all it takes for you to get riled up is someone not liking the games made by a company you've never even met say.

    You call them bashers, they would more than likely call you white knight. Difference is that one would be flagged and removed the other wouldn't.

    There is nothing good or productive that can come from this thread. That's my take on it anyway.

    Its ironic that you are stating I should go to anger management with the kind of respond you are giving me.

    I'm not angry, I'm just annoyed haha. Simply stating that I see people are hating this game for no reason and are actively trying to convince others in doing the same thing.

    And what good or productive is there to come from your reaction? If you don't like what you are reading than what are you doing? Don't be like this. People who are stating others should get help are more often than not people who need help themselves ;)

    Good night to you sir.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 18,633Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    Personal conversation posts removed.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
Sign In or Register to comment.