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

Does CA Know about KOEI's strategy game series "Romance of the three kingdoms 1~13" ?

WudadiWudadi Junior MemberPosts: 12Registered Users



The best ROTK RPG strategy game is KOEI's ROTK 10 (2004~2005)



The best ROTK ruler strategy game is KOEI's ROTK 9 (2003~2004)



The best ROTK RTS game is Object Software's Fate of The Dragon (2001) & Fate of The Dragon:Battle of Red cliffs (2002)




Top 3---PC Strategy---Three kingdoms game series (except TW: TK)



I guess CA doesn't know it B)
There are tons of historical strategy Three Kingdoms games in the market, most Asian players know it, Unfortunately, most western players just know about KOEI's Dynasty Warriors series which is called "no brain mowing game" by Chinese players.

I think Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming, Qing time period are more interest than Three Kingdoms time period, there are too many Three kingdoms games in the market already.

e.g. If CA make Tang dynasty, Tang destroy Eastern & Western Turkic Khaganate, Battle of Talas: Arab Empire VS Tang, Tibet Empire VS Tang, Battle of Baekgang: Tang destroy Japanese small ships, Silla–Tang War, Goguryeo–Tang War, Baekje–Tang War.......

In the end, I hope CA can add some other historical countries around the Three Kingdoms map, like nomad, Xianbei & Northern Huns.......



tips

1. The Twenty-five Histories, also known as the Orthodox Histories are the Chinese official historical books covering a period from 3000 BC to the Qing dynasty in the 20th century.

2. The Twenty-five Histories (Chinese official historical books) don't not have English translate version.

3. All of Twenty-five Histories are biography, not chronicle, That's is why the novel 'Romance of the Three Kingdoms' have many vivid characters.

4. Official historical book about Three kingdoms periord is called "Records of the Three Kingdoms", but this book don't not have English translate version. If western player really love Three Kingoms history, and you like pure history, study Chinese at least.

Comments

  • FossowayFossoway Posts: 2,019Registered Users
    I'm pretty sure they know about it. I mean, how can you make a game about the Three Kingdoms and not find out about these games?

    But these are way too unrealistic. I hope CA makes their own style rather than copy ROTK.
  • LestaTLestaT Senior Member Posts: 3,247Registered Users
    edited January 2018
    《sarcasm on》No. CA does not know. CA just like other Europeans does not know anything else outside Europe.《sarcasm off》
  • Grimgor_the_CAkeGrimgor_the_CAke Posts: 1,561Registered Users
    Not much memory on ROTK 9 and 10, but ROTK 11 really impressed me.
  • takilung31takilung31 Posts: 1,318Registered Users
    CA 100% would know and I hope they have played them.

    Many of the Diplomacy aspects can be improved or gotten ideas of them. its a very good source material and they are historical as well (no fantasy crap or magic)

    I really hope and hope that the Three Kingdom will be a success. I desperately hope so.

  • irurobinirurobin Posts: 1,826Registered Users
    Koei RTK 9, 10, 11 are simple perfect.
  • SherasonniSherasonni Senior Member Posts: 412Registered Users
    I remember someone in the old Total War forum said that CA's TW was influenced by the early RTK games.
    Sherasonni's most wanted TW games:

    1. Eurasia Total War
    2. East Asia Total War
    3. Mulan Total War
    4. Bao Si Total War
    5. Power Dolls Detachment of Limited Lines Service Total War
  • mitthrawnuruodomitthrawnuruodo Junior Member Posts: 1,633Registered Users
    edited January 2018
    Fossoway said:

    I'm pretty sure they know about it. I mean, how can you make a game about the Three Kingdoms and not find out about these games?

    But these are way too unrealistic. I hope CA makes their own style rather than copy ROTK.

    A lot more realistic compared to Total War actually. Just of the top of my head -

    1. Realistic political structure, with rulers, ministers and officials, at every level (cities, provinces and factions) with hundreds of characters all working individually on the map.
    2. Realistic army structure with overall commanders > unit commanders > adjutants in every army.
    3. Realistic army sizes. An epic battle in ROTK can have hundreds of thousands of troops, unlike the couple of thousands in Total War.
    4. Realistic time scaling. It takes a week or so to travel from one city to the next, not 6 months or a year like in most Total War games. Diplomatic negotiations actually requires a character to travel to the target faction, instead of instantaneous.
    5. Realistic chain of command. Your regional governors and city prefects (who are actual characters, not faceless nameless AI) work autonomously, while you give them overall objectives, like a real ruler would, instead of micromanaging every settlement.
    6. Realistic interaction between characters. Characters can form individual relations, engage in debates and duels, maintain individual households with their personal armies etc.
    7. Realistic court system. A ruler can hold councils and get ideas and opinions from officials on the course of actions.
    8. Classless character system. Your characters are not limited by some abstract definition like "general" or "spy". You can send them to do whatever they are good at.
    9. Fewer arbitrary hard caps compared to Total War, such as army limits or maximum number of agents etc.
    10. Realistic actions. Every action requires a person to perform it - from leading a tactical charge in a battle to training soldiers to supervising civil development.

    Only thing "more realistic" in Total War is CGI. That definitely does not mean its a worse game though. Total War is more accessible, and potentially a lot more "fun" based on what you are looking for. Just not anywhere near as realistic.
    Post edited by mitthrawnuruodo on
  • XiyngXiyng Posts: 19Registered Users
    I don't think there's much chance these days that any significant publisher is going to release a major title without studying the market, including competition, first.
  • BreadboxBreadbox Posts: 768Registered Users
    edited March 2018
    Necroing this thread.
    But Koei’s strategy titles might as well not exsisted in CA eye.

    Shogun 2 took zero inspiration from Nobunaga’s ambition,even when the latter series has a far greater understanding of the setting.
    The events,personalities and reference are all better fleshed out in the latter and it would add much to the immersion of the game.

    For example,Nob’s Amb and ROTK has an encyclopedia of historical character biographies,big and small.
    How about using them instead of those ghastly auto-generated names?

    Yes,S2 is a product meant for an audience who has no understanding of the setting beyond its aesthetics.

    But enough is enough,how about giving some spotlight for the Sub-S tier characters? Instead of silliness the likes of ‘XuFei’ or ‘XiaHouMeng’.
  • FranzSaxonFranzSaxon Posts: 2,357Registered Users

    Fossoway said:

    I'm pretty sure they know about it. I mean, how can you make a game about the Three Kingdoms and not find out about these games?

    But these are way too unrealistic. I hope CA makes their own style rather than copy ROTK.

    A lot more realistic compared to Total War actually. Just of the top of my head -

    1. Realistic political structure, with rulers, ministers and officials, at every level (cities, provinces and factions) with hundreds of characters all working individually on the map.
    2. Realistic army structure with overall commanders > unit commanders > adjutants in every army.
    3. Realistic army sizes. An epic battle in ROTK can have hundreds of thousands of troops, unlike the couple of thousands in Total War.
    4. Realistic time scaling. It takes a week or so to travel from one city to the next, not 6 months or a year like in most Total War games. Diplomatic negotiations actually requires a character to travel to the target faction, instead of instantaneous.
    5. Realistic chain of command. Your regional governors and city prefects (who are actual characters, not faceless nameless AI) work autonomously, while you give them overall objectives, like a real ruler would, instead of micromanaging every settlement.
    6. Realistic interaction between characters. Characters can form individual relations, engage in debates and duels, maintain individual households with their personal armies etc.
    7. Realistic court system. A ruler can hold councils and get ideas and opinions from officials on the course of actions.
    8. Classless character system. Your characters are not limited by some abstract definition like "general" or "spy". You can send them to do whatever they are good at.
    9. Fewer arbitrary hard caps compared to Total War, such as army limits or maximum number of agents etc.
    10. Realistic actions. Every action requires a person to perform it - from leading a tactical charge in a battle to training soldiers to supervising civil development.

    Only thing "more realistic" in Total War is CGI. That definitely does not mean its a worse game though. Total War is more accessible, and potentially a lot more "fun" based on what you are looking for. Just not anywhere near as realistic.
    Lmao have u seen the battles..realistic? I get ur point about mechanics, but TW is a different animal and they will never take influence from anime kiddie looking games like ROTK. I'd rather have 3000 men that look amazing graphics wise and in combat, as opposed to ROTKs "hundreds of thousands" that look like shuffling ants on a Nintendo game boy. Come on are you kidding me? You can't compare total wars battles to a game like that...the amazing battles are what makes total war total war. Eventually they'll be able to program good performance with more troops, but until then ill take this number with how they look over ROTK..
  • mitthrawnuruodomitthrawnuruodo Junior Member Posts: 1,633Registered Users
    edited March 2018
    duplicate
    Post edited by mitthrawnuruodo on
  • mitthrawnuruodomitthrawnuruodo Junior Member Posts: 1,633Registered Users
    edited March 2018

    Fossoway said:

    I'm pretty sure they know about it. I mean, how can you make a game about the Three Kingdoms and not find out about these games?

    But these are way too unrealistic. I hope CA makes their own style rather than copy ROTK.

    A lot more realistic compared to Total War actually. Just of the top of my head -

    1. Realistic political structure, with rulers, ministers and officials, at every level (cities, provinces and factions) with hundreds of characters all working individually on the map.
    2. Realistic army structure with overall commanders > unit commanders > adjutants in every army.
    3. Realistic army sizes. An epic battle in ROTK can have hundreds of thousands of troops, unlike the couple of thousands in Total War.
    4. Realistic time scaling. It takes a week or so to travel from one city to the next, not 6 months or a year like in most Total War games. Diplomatic negotiations actually requires a character to travel to the target faction, instead of instantaneous.
    5. Realistic chain of command. Your regional governors and city prefects (who are actual characters, not faceless nameless AI) work autonomously, while you give them overall objectives, like a real ruler would, instead of micromanaging every settlement.
    6. Realistic interaction between characters. Characters can form individual relations, engage in debates and duels, maintain individual households with their personal armies etc.
    7. Realistic court system. A ruler can hold councils and get ideas and opinions from officials on the course of actions.
    8. Classless character system. Your characters are not limited by some abstract definition like "general" or "spy". You can send them to do whatever they are good at.
    9. Fewer arbitrary hard caps compared to Total War, such as army limits or maximum number of agents etc.
    10. Realistic actions. Every action requires a person to perform it - from leading a tactical charge in a battle to training soldiers to supervising civil development.

    Only thing "more realistic" in Total War is CGI. That definitely does not mean its a worse game though. Total War is more accessible, and potentially a lot more "fun" based on what you are looking for. Just not anywhere near as realistic.
    Lmao have u seen the battles..realistic? I get ur point about mechanics, but TW is a different animal and they will never take influence from anime kiddie looking games like ROTK. I'd rather have 3000 men that look amazing graphics wise and in combat, as opposed to ROTKs "hundreds of thousands" that look like shuffling ants on a Nintendo game boy. Come on are you kidding me? You can't compare total wars battles to a game like that...the amazing battles are what makes total war total war. Eventually they'll be able to program good performance with more troops, but until then ill take this number with how they look over ROTK..
    Why are you replying to me? I clearly wrote "realistic army sizes", not "realistic looking battles", and that Total War has more realistic CGI. Do please bother to at least read before you start raging.

    Besides if you claim that ROTK is "anime kiddie looking game", you know either nothing about anime, or nothing about ROTK.
    Post edited by mitthrawnuruodo on
  • FranzSaxonFranzSaxon Posts: 2,357Registered Users

    Fossoway said:

    I'm pretty sure they know about it. I mean, how can you make a game about the Three Kingdoms and not find out about these games?

    But these are way too unrealistic. I hope CA makes their own style rather than copy ROTK.

    A lot more realistic compared to Total War actually. Just of the top of my head -

    1. Realistic political structure, with rulers, ministers and officials, at every level (cities, provinces and factions) with hundreds of characters all working individually on the map.
    2. Realistic army structure with overall commanders > unit commanders > adjutants in every army.
    3. Realistic army sizes. An epic battle in ROTK can have hundreds of thousands of troops, unlike the couple of thousands in Total War.
    4. Realistic time scaling. It takes a week or so to travel from one city to the next, not 6 months or a year like in most Total War games. Diplomatic negotiations actually requires a character to travel to the target faction, instead of instantaneous.
    5. Realistic chain of command. Your regional governors and city prefects (who are actual characters, not faceless nameless AI) work autonomously, while you give them overall objectives, like a real ruler would, instead of micromanaging every settlement.
    6. Realistic interaction between characters. Characters can form individual relations, engage in debates and duels, maintain individual households with their personal armies etc.
    7. Realistic court system. A ruler can hold councils and get ideas and opinions from officials on the course of actions.
    8. Classless character system. Your characters are not limited by some abstract definition like "general" or "spy". You can send them to do whatever they are good at.
    9. Fewer arbitrary hard caps compared to Total War, such as army limits or maximum number of agents etc.
    10. Realistic actions. Every action requires a person to perform it - from leading a tactical charge in a battle to training soldiers to supervising civil development.

    Only thing "more realistic" in Total War is CGI. That definitely does not mean its a worse game though. Total War is more accessible, and potentially a lot more "fun" based on what you are looking for. Just not anywhere near as realistic.
    Lmao have u seen the battles..realistic? I get ur point about mechanics, but TW is a different animal and they will never take influence from anime kiddie looking games like ROTK. I'd rather have 3000 men that look amazing graphics wise and in combat, as opposed to ROTKs "hundreds of thousands" that look like shuffling ants on a Nintendo game boy. Come on are you kidding me? You can't compare total wars battles to a game like that...the amazing battles are what makes total war total war. Eventually they'll be able to program good performance with more troops, but until then ill take this number with how they look over ROTK..
    Why are you replying to me? I clearly wrote "realistic army sizes", not "realistic looking battles", and that Total War has more realistic CGI. Do please bother to at least read before you start raging.

    Besides if you claim that ROTK is "anime kiddie looking game", you know either nothing about anime, or nothing about ROTK.
    I get it, but saying realistic for army size means implies that it makes the battles somewhat realistic. I'm just saying you can't compare the two because with total wars CGI they simply CANT make realistic army sizes right now. Didn't mean to sound rage, I wasn't so sorry if it cane off that way. And I actually don't know much about ROTK, but the battle videos I've seen just look like a game boy game. Not insulting it, just saying TW is a different animal in terms of battles
  • mitthrawnuruodomitthrawnuruodo Junior Member Posts: 1,633Registered Users
    edited March 2018


    I get it, but saying realistic for army size means implies that it makes the battles somewhat realistic. I'm just saying you can't compare the two because with total wars CGI they simply CANT make realistic army sizes right now. Didn't mean to sound rage, I wasn't so sorry if it cane off that way. And I actually don't know much about ROTK, but the battle videos I've seen just look like a game boy game. Not insulting it, just saying TW is a different animal in terms of battles

    No problem. Everything comes off as extra raging on the internet I guess.

    By "realistic army sizes" I was implying the simple fact that it has realistic army sizes, nothing more.

    It need not necessarily be limited by more demanding CGI, actually. A single sprite / model can strategically represent multiple soldiers. It is a common practice in wargames, e.g. Scourge of War, Tin Soldiers, Field of Glory , and many more.
    Post edited by mitthrawnuruodo on
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,195Registered Users
    edited March 2018
    Breadbox said:



    Shogun 2 took zero inspiration from Nobunaga’s ambition,even when the latter series has a far greater understanding of the setting.
    The events,personalities and reference are all better fleshed out in the latter and it would add much to the immersion of the game.

    For example,Nob’s Amb and ROTK has an encyclopedia of historical character biographies,big and small.
    How about using them instead of those ghastly auto-generated names?

    Yes,S2 is a product meant for an audience who has no understanding of the setting beyond its aesthetics.

    But enough is enough,how about giving some spotlight for the Sub-S tier characters? Instead of silliness the likes of ‘XuFei’ or ‘XiaHouMeng’.

    RTW also didn't take much inspiration from Gladiator, which it clearly rode on the back of. I wouldn't say they take inspiration from other media, but it often feels like they are trend-chasers rather than the trend-setters.

    Oh well at least there won't be loot boxes....or will they?! :O

    I do agree with how Shogun2 wan't really a copy of another themed game, at least not one I am familiar with; I've never played Nobunaga's Ambition. I thin kit should stay that way, the more CA copies other games the less it's got its own brand identity. When you do that, investors and SEGA start asking why they should keep such a developer in the first place.

    The worst part is that some people want TW to go down that route, they want something like Dynasty Warriors or KOEI or whatever. The problem though is that it's not good for CA to be doing that, they ought to be making their own game, and sometimes that involves sacrificing certain elements we liked in other ones.
    Of course there's also the converse where they DO make their own game and people just don't like it since the formula is too stale or just plain sucks due to design or lack of testing. Relic with their Dawn of War 3 suffered that fate, and DoW series was popular.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • BalaminienGSBalaminienGS Posts: 20Registered Users
    Like others have said, I'm very sure they have. Having put a good chunk of hours into Romance of the Three Kingdoms (first with 7 and then a whole lot in 11 and eventually 13) the appeal of this game definitely will be the feel of the battles and sieges. The battles and the sieges in ROTK could be/were epic at times, but it was a different epic, not a "my Imperial king vs the Polish king (having lost all their body guard) duelling one on one under two opposing streams of arrow fire, behind the battles lines of a tense melee going in the favour of my opponent whose Calvary is about to break my force, before my king slays the Polish king and I snatch Victory out of the jaws of defeat" - kind of epic.

    Things can get so tense in ROTK. Working out the formations of a battle that has you outnumbered and working out the proper formations and utilization of character traits to make up the difference can be so rewarding, but the battles still remain more ... well the mechanics work out to be like a Final Fantasy Tactics (real-time or turn based depending on what entry) that you get placed into inside the overall strategic movement of large scale forces. Some entries even streamline the movement of forces on the main strategic map as well (or in the case of 11 and others you have tiles to move forces about on).

    It's strange though, while the battles in Total War (albeit without the duels) feel far more personal, as you see individual men fighting for their lives or get crushed or set a flame, the diplomacy and personal workings of officers in ROTK is far far more personal. Rocking debates as my own independent officer was epic, building friendships was interesting and helped get me invested, but that heavily relies a cast of characters for a particular time period that has become dramatized and immortalized in Chinese culture. Add onto that the investment that Koei has made into bring these characters back again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and .... well at some point Koei feels like the official fan club of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms and ROTK 13 with it's streamlined strategic map and (fun) smaller scaled (map) tactical bouts (baring large numbers and strategic significance) begins to feel like a friendship simulator.

    I'll probably end up recommending Total War familiars who like TW TK a ROTK entry and any ROTK fans TW TK
Sign In or Register to comment.