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

Why I Won't Purchase

13»

Comments

  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonPosts: 3,012Registered Users
    I have to say, I am pretty encouraged by today's Records Mode gameplay reveal. A nice multi-phased battle, heavily influenced by terrain choke-points. I hope this is consistent throughout the game and not just nicely set up for a reveal vid.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,147Registered Users
    Fredrin said:

    Fredrin said:

    I personally have no desire to see battles return to Medieval 2. That's just a massive straw man that Ephraim loves beating.

    But if you look at core battle gameplay over the last decade - and its accompanying faults - they have remained largely unchanged. I would like a similar battle length to Medieval 2, but with a richness of features that truly engaged the player with tactical decision-making, rather than them becoming based on twitch reflexes. No battle was ever won by a commander's manual dexterity or capacity to react to something happening quickly in their peripheral vision...

    Yes and there were issues with older games that have changed. Also the quickest battles were rampant in Shogun 2, yet CA gets great feedback from it. So sure, you like and you want certain things but this is highly subjective and not based on a huge change based on what the customer base wants.
    This is precisely the problem with their design philosophy in my opinion (see italics). The developers are so busy second guessing what the customer base wants, they have forgotten how to craft a truly original product that shows the hallmarks of passion and creativity that the early games had. (Please please don't confuse that with me saying we need to go back in time to those titles, that is such a tired and unnecessary argument)

    The type of battle you're describing isn't TW and never has been.

    There was a time, immediately preceding a number of games, when the type of battle the developers were describing "wasn't TW and never had been". Rome I, Empire, Shogun II. It's what made those games so good. I wish people would stop pretending that some very narrow orthodoxy of battle gameplay was the best thing for this franchise. In my opinion, it's the bitter end. There's a huge amount the battle designers could be doing that we'll never enjoy because of this conservative mindset.

    So sure, you like and you want certain things but this is highly subjective and not based on a huge change based on what the customer base wants.

    You're complaining that CA base future games on what customers are asking for? Now great, you say they need to craft something unique and if everyone said that - fine. Bu8t often when they try new features, they get shouted down. If they checked these forums and take on everything they'd have to make a game that's totally black and totally white.

    Empire was generally disliked when it first came out and the combat wasn't great sea battles were disliked. Shogun 2 was exactly like older TW games but highly polished. Rome 1 was a big change but there's only so many things you can do to a specific type of game before it turns into a totally different type. WW1 would be a big change.. I don't think it would play like a TW game, so why not buy a WW1 game? There's loads.

    What is this totally unique idea you're dreaming of? I'll be honest, I've never heard anything.
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Posts: 231Registered Users
    edited February 20

    Fredrin said:

    I personally have no desire to see battles return to Medieval 2. That's just a massive straw man that Ephraim loves beating.

    But if you look at core battle gameplay over the last decade - and its accompanying faults - they have remained largely unchanged. I would like a similar battle length to Medieval 2, but with a richness of features that truly engaged the player with tactical decision-making, rather than them becoming based on twitch reflexes. No battle was ever won by a commander's manual dexterity or capacity to react to something happening quickly in their peripheral vision...

    Yes and there were issues with older games that have changed. Also the quickest battles were rampant in Shogun 2, yet CA gets great feedback from it. So sure, you like and you want certain things but this is highly subjective and not based on a huge change based on what the customer base wants.

    The type of battle you're describing isn't TW and never has been. What you want sounds more like Fields of Glory 2.
    as to my preference shogun 2 was the best mp yet im not opposed to longer battles and a lack of tactical richness is certainly not what i want. u dont know either "what the customer base wants".
    Post edited by BillyRuffian on
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!!


    Team Shadowgave
    Team Cao Wei
    Team Black Achilleez

    there are billions, mindustry, factorio are perfect examples of artificial complexification done right


  • cupcakeeecupcakeee Posts: 31Registered Users
    Thanks everyone who replied. My final point would be, Turin, IndiePride, Gobbo, pretty much everyone sees the gate bug, sighs at it, and goes "when will CA fix it?"

    If I were really annoyed, I'd make a video of a highlight of all the times it comes up.

    What sparked this was the fact that Three Kingdoms is confirmed to have the same Gate Bug (Open gate, ineffective battering, just standing there looking through an open space) as Rome 2, Warhammer, Warhammer2 (and I'm assuming) Bretonnia.

    The reason this bug bothers me is it shows to me CA doesn't play their own game, which is a criticism people make who spend a lot of time with its innards. It's all aesthetics, no real depth or roundedness.

    The game needs an allocation of assets. Humans, people who want to improve it, and who ARE AWARE OF ITS ISSUES

    The problem isn't the bug.

    The problem is the lack of awareness from CA about their product, which is systemic of just a lack of insight into the creation of their world.

    On the positive side, the art is pretty.

    - modder, 860 hours in game.
  • montejoconquerormontejoconqueror Senior Member Posts: 289Registered Users
    I won't boycott but I'm simply not buying due to the features being cut and that the historical period and region is not interesting to me.
  • LestaTLestaT Senior Member Posts: 3,280Registered Users
    toskyrun said:

    cupcakeee said:




    I won't purchase, and the excitement for this game is tepid at best.

    in relation to this, I can advise you to read the book "the romance of the three kingdoms".


    we Westerners have no idea how deep and full of concepts this book is. of course, we must clash with the endless list of names (it seems silmarillion) but here can help the posters of the creative assembly. I'm reading it with another book that talks about the history of China, and slowly, from 0 my hype is going up.

    then the constant delays and deficiencies lowering my hype, but that's another story.
    I'm actually watching the 2010 Three Kinngdoms series on Youtube just to familiarize myself with the whole story.
  • YaafmYaafm Posts: 1,275Registered Users
    LestaT said:

    toskyrun said:

    cupcakeee said:




    I won't purchase, and the excitement for this game is tepid at best.

    in relation to this, I can advise you to read the book "the romance of the three kingdoms".


    we Westerners have no idea how deep and full of concepts this book is. of course, we must clash with the endless list of names (it seems silmarillion) but here can help the posters of the creative assembly. I'm reading it with another book that talks about the history of China, and slowly, from 0 my hype is going up.

    then the constant delays and deficiencies lowering my hype, but that's another story.
    I'm actually watching the 2010 Three Kinngdoms series on Youtube just to familiarize myself with the whole story.
    Some Westeners. Romance of the Three Kingdoms video games have exsisted since Super Nintendo. Its what got me into grand stratagy and I, hooked all my friends into it. Funny enough ive never read the books, but i know the names and many of the battles. Koei was pretty good with the history background on characters over the years.
  • wandershadowwandershadow Posts: 20Registered Users
    LestaT said:

    toskyrun said:

    cupcakeee said:




    I won't purchase, and the excitement for this game is tepid at best.

    in relation to this, I can advise you to read the book "the romance of the three kingdoms".


    we Westerners have no idea how deep and full of concepts this book is. of course, we must clash with the endless list of names (it seems silmarillion) but here can help the posters of the creative assembly. I'm reading it with another book that talks about the history of China, and slowly, from 0 my hype is going up.

    then the constant delays and deficiencies lowering my hype, but that's another story.
    I'm actually watching the 2010 Three Kinngdoms series on Youtube just to familiarize myself with the whole story.
    I think you'd better read the novel. The 2010 Three Kinngdoms series is not accurate in depicting the story.
  • mitthrawnuruodomitthrawnuruodo Junior Member Posts: 1,662Registered Users

    I won't boycott but I'm simply not buying due to the features being cut and that the historical period and region is not interesting to me.

    Curious! What do you find uninteresting in the historical period? And the "region"? Have you researched any of them?

    Quite the opposite from features being cut, this is probably the Total War game with highest amount of added depth and new features in the history of Total War.
  • LestaTLestaT Senior Member Posts: 3,280Registered Users
    Yaafm said:

    LestaT said:

    toskyrun said:

    cupcakeee said:




    I won't purchase, and the excitement for this game is tepid at best.

    in relation to this, I can advise you to read the book "the romance of the three kingdoms".


    we Westerners have no idea how deep and full of concepts this book is. of course, we must clash with the endless list of names (it seems silmarillion) but here can help the posters of the creative assembly. I'm reading it with another book that talks about the history of China, and slowly, from 0 my hype is going up.

    then the constant delays and deficiencies lowering my hype, but that's another story.
    I'm actually watching the 2010 Three Kinngdoms series on Youtube just to familiarize myself with the whole story.
    Some Westeners. Romance of the Three Kingdoms video games have exsisted since Super Nintendo. Its what got me into grand stratagy and I, hooked all my friends into it. Funny enough ive never read the books, but i know the names and many of the battles. Koei was pretty good with the history background on characters over the years.
    I'm Asian (in Asia). While I am aware of the 3K games I have never interested in them. Actually I'm more interested in the Warring States period than the Three Kingdom period. Havent read the book and the closest I get to it was watching the Red Cliff movies mnay years ago. 😁
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 18,666Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    Moved to Chat, as there is nothing related to the Three Kingdoms game here. Just a lot of personal commentary and chat from a personal perspective.

    Nothing wrong with that by any means. It's just that this is the wrong area for it.
    "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
  • juankkjuankk Posts: 210Registered Users
    Be aware any negative comment about game and CA will be closed or punished (jjajj)
  • YaafmYaafm Posts: 1,275Registered Users
    juankk said:

    Be aware any negative comment about game and CA will be closed or punished (jjajj)

    Be aware of people that only leave negative comment, but say they are being silenced when 1/10 of their threads get closed.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,147Registered Users
    edited February 20

    Fredrin said:

    I personally have no desire to see battles return to Medieval 2. That's just a massive straw man that Ephraim loves beating.

    But if you look at core battle gameplay over the last decade - and its accompanying faults - they have remained largely unchanged. I would like a similar battle length to Medieval 2, but with a richness of features that truly engaged the player with tactical decision-making, rather than them becoming based on twitch reflexes. No battle was ever won by a commander's manual dexterity or capacity to react to something happening quickly in their peripheral vision...

    Yes and there were issues with older games that have changed. Also the quickest battles were rampant in Shogun 2, yet CA gets great feedback from it. So sure, you like and you want certain things but this is highly subjective and not based on a huge change based on what the customer base wants.

    The type of battle you're describing isn't TW and never has been. What you want sounds more like Fields of Glory 2.
    as to my preference shogun 2 was the best mp yet im not opposed to longer battles and a lack of tactical richness is certainly not what i want. u dont know either "what the customer base wants".
    Oh.. you're not opposed to? Well that's clear feedback for CA. Yes, no one dislikes tactical richness but you need to describe it a little more objectively or it's an empty statement. Well I know when there's a big push for something CA normally comments on it or changes it.
    Post edited by BillyRuffian on
  • TayvarTayvar Posts: 10,525Registered Users
    edited February 20

    LestaT said:

    toskyrun said:

    cupcakeee said:




    I won't purchase, and the excitement for this game is tepid at best.

    in relation to this, I can advise you to read the book "the romance of the three kingdoms".


    we Westerners have no idea how deep and full of concepts this book is. of course, we must clash with the endless list of names (it seems silmarillion) but here can help the posters of the creative assembly. I'm reading it with another book that talks about the history of China, and slowly, from 0 my hype is going up.

    then the constant delays and deficiencies lowering my hype, but that's another story.
    I'm actually watching the 2010 Three Kingdoms series on Youtube just to familiarize myself with the whole story.
    I think you'd better read the novel. The 2010 Three Kingdoms series is not accurate in depicting the story.
    Well according to wikipedia the series is not based only on the novel, and the novel itself is also not accurate to the records, so it's not such a big deal, and some people prefer watching over reading.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kingdoms_(TV_series)
  • BillyRuffianBillyRuffian Moderator UKPosts: 36,076Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    Some comments removed. Chat is one thing but bickering is another.

    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts - for support rather than illumination." (Andrew Lang)

    |Takeda| Yokota Takatoshi

    Forum Terms and Conditions: - https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest

    "We wunt be druv". iot6pc7dn8qs.png
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Posts: 231Registered Users
    -

    Fredrin said:

    I personally have no desire to see battles return to Medieval 2. That's just a massive straw man that Ephraim loves beating.

    But if you look at core battle gameplay over the last decade - and its accompanying faults - they have remained largely unchanged. I would like a similar battle length to Medieval 2, but with a richness of features that truly engaged the player with tactical decision-making, rather than them becoming based on twitch reflexes. No battle was ever won by a commander's manual dexterity or capacity to react to something happening quickly in their peripheral vision...

    Yes and there were issues with older games that have changed. Also the quickest battles were rampant in Shogun 2, yet CA gets great feedback from it. So sure, you like and you want certain things but this is highly subjective and not based on a huge change based on what the customer base wants.

    The type of battle you're describing isn't TW and never has been. What you want sounds more like Fields of Glory 2.
    as to my preference shogun 2 was the best mp yet im not opposed to longer battles and a lack of tactical richness is certainly not what i want. u dont know either "what the customer base wants".
    Oh.. you're not opposed to? Well that's clear feedback for CA. Yes, no one dislikes tactical richness but you need to describe it a little more objectively or it's an empty statement. Well I know when there's a big push for something CA normally comments on it or changes it.
    it appears that a couple posts got removed. for debate's sake i will simply restate my viewpoints
    i thought it should have been clear that i did not try to provide feedback to CA but made my post in contradiction to ur notion that shogun 2 was as popular in mp explictly because of faster pace. second sentence is self evident
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!!


    Team Shadowgave
    Team Cao Wei
    Team Black Achilleez

    there are billions, mindustry, factorio are perfect examples of artificial complexification done right


  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,147Registered Users

    -

    Fredrin said:

    I personally have no desire to see battles return to Medieval 2. That's just a massive straw man that Ephraim loves beating.

    But if you look at core battle gameplay over the last decade - and its accompanying faults - they have remained largely unchanged. I would like a similar battle length to Medieval 2, but with a richness of features that truly engaged the player with tactical decision-making, rather than them becoming based on twitch reflexes. No battle was ever won by a commander's manual dexterity or capacity to react to something happening quickly in their peripheral vision...

    Yes and there were issues with older games that have changed. Also the quickest battles were rampant in Shogun 2, yet CA gets great feedback from it. So sure, you like and you want certain things but this is highly subjective and not based on a huge change based on what the customer base wants.

    The type of battle you're describing isn't TW and never has been. What you want sounds more like Fields of Glory 2.
    as to my preference shogun 2 was the best mp yet im not opposed to longer battles and a lack of tactical richness is certainly not what i want. u dont know either "what the customer base wants".
    Oh.. you're not opposed to? Well that's clear feedback for CA. Yes, no one dislikes tactical richness but you need to describe it a little more objectively or it's an empty statement. Well I know when there's a big push for something CA normally comments on it or changes it.
    it appears that a couple posts got removed. for debate's sake i will simply restate my viewpoints
    i thought it should have been clear that i did not try to provide feedback to CA but made my post in contradiction to ur notion that shogun 2 was as popular in mp explictly because of faster pace. second sentence is self evident
    Not because; despite. Hardly a huge issue if people generally enjoyed the battles. As I said I wasn't replying to you I was replying to someone else, so I'm confused as to why you think I was answering what you said.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,476Registered Users
    Shogun 2 had a fast-pace, which was the beginning of the complaints over pacing which CA ignored for almost six years.

    However, it was also the best for unit-design there has ever been. The roster was narrow, but within that limitation was a diversity of unit-roles packed-in like Tetris blocks perfectly fitting together.

    It meant that if you wanted battles to be shorter, you could choose highly-effective offensive units with limited ability to defend themselves or others. If however you wanted longer battles and to preserve your forces, you had unit options for that. It depended on the tactics you wanted to use and the choice of units enables tactics. This is very different from unit-design where X unit is good against Y unit but is weak to Z unit. That isn't tactics: it's busy-work and a contest of who can get the orders issued fastest. Great for a very granular game like Starcraft 2 where macro and basic control mattered the most until you got into Masters league, but not for a game where tactics and strategy are supposed to be there from the start and the basic control ceiling is very low.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,147Registered Users

    Shogun 2 had a fast-pace, which was the beginning of the complaints over pacing which CA ignored for almost six years.

    However, it was also the best for unit-design there has ever been. The roster was narrow, but within that limitation was a diversity of unit-roles packed-in like Tetris blocks perfectly fitting together.

    It meant that if you wanted battles to be shorter, you could choose highly-effective offensive units with limited ability to defend themselves or others. If however you wanted longer battles and to preserve your forces, you had unit options for that. It depended on the tactics you wanted to use and the choice of units enables tactics. This is very different from unit-design where X unit is good against Y unit but is weak to Z unit. That isn't tactics: it's busy-work and a contest of who can get the orders issued fastest. Great for a very granular game like Starcraft 2 where macro and basic control mattered the most until you got into Masters league, but not for a game where tactics and strategy are supposed to be there from the start and the basic control ceiling is very low.

    Yes, some complained, but some didn't. Here's a couple of threads with mixed opinions. In a few cases as the game continues morale gets higher.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/4m1o3g/are_the_battles_paced_too_fast_im_pausing_most_of/
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/207166/battle-pace-is-too-slow/p1

    The rock paper scissors battle style has been with TW since Shogun 1. There are highly defensive/offensive troops in all games.

    as I've said, this is personal opinion and I'm not sure we can have a go at CA for not agreeing with one or the other.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,476Registered Users
    @davedave1124

    Rock-paper-scissors is not 'x beats y'.

    RPS was not CA's guide for design, but their analogy for explanation. In Shogun, cavalry were not effective against archers because a designer said so, but because of the scenario that was being simulated. It's not there to tell you to just use cavalry against archers, but to let you know to protect your archers from cavalry. It didn't tell you how to protect them, you had options: archers could cover each other and cavalry did not have the absurd missile block that has recently been given to some cavalry units(ignoring that horses are very vulnerable to missiles as large targets which can't be effectively shielded and still be mobile).

    Likewise, archers were not strong for the sake of it against infantry, but because of the realistic scenario grounded in reality. Back then archers could actually out-run other infantry well-enough to properly skirmish, turning to fire at least twice before moving again. This was during the times when all shooting was synchronised volleys and the unit wouldn't fire at all if one troop wasn't ready, a frustrating issue, but they still worked because CA stuck rigidly to the grounded-reality that archers could move and react faster whilst also having realistic range for bows. These days, CA have to basically cheat in order to get them to properly skirmish by adding ridiculous gimmick mechanics like fire-while-moving AND 360-degree arcs. You can just about accept those are possible for some non-human races in Warhammer, but even the elite warriors from history had limitations on those skills and it wasn't the elites doing the low and dirty work of the skirmish phase in battles.

    In 'x beats y', one unit simply does more damage to a certain other type of unit than it's likely to recieve from it and that's it. The contextual scenario hardly matters any more, which is why spear units can be given '-100% missile block chance' and no one at CA thinks about what possible scenario this is representing.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,147Registered Users

    @davedave1124

    Rock-paper-scissors is not 'x beats y'.

    RPS was not CA's guide for design, but their analogy for explanation. In Shogun, cavalry were not effective against archers because a designer said so, but because of the scenario that was being simulated. It's not there to tell you to just use cavalry against archers, but to let you know to protect your archers from cavalry. It didn't tell you how to protect them, you had options: archers could cover each other and cavalry did not have the absurd missile block that has recently been given to some cavalry units(ignoring that horses are very vulnerable to missiles as large targets which can't be effectively shielded and still be mobile).

    Likewise, archers were not strong for the sake of it against infantry, but because of the realistic scenario grounded in reality. Back then archers could actually out-run other infantry well-enough to properly skirmish, turning to fire at least twice before moving again. This was during the times when all shooting was synchronised volleys and the unit wouldn't fire at all if one troop wasn't ready, a frustrating issue, but they still worked because CA stuck rigidly to the grounded-reality that archers could move and react faster whilst also having realistic range for bows. These days, CA have to basically cheat in order to get them to properly skirmish by adding ridiculous gimmick mechanics like fire-while-moving AND 360-degree arcs. You can just about accept those are possible for some non-human races in Warhammer, but even the elite warriors from history had limitations on those skills and it wasn't the elites doing the low and dirty work of the skirmish phase in battles.

    In 'x beats y', one unit simply does more damage to a certain other type of unit than it's likely to recieve from it and that's it. The contextual scenario hardly matters any more, which is why spear units can be given '-100% missile block chance' and no one at CA thinks about what possible scenario this is representing.

    I don't know which came first, may be CA planned a RPS element or it just happened naturally. The fact is this gameplay style has been obvious since Shogun 1 and hasn't really changed. It's RPS + (unit quality and map upgrades like blacksmiths). It doesn't matter which game you play, if archers get caught away from the main army, they get cut to ribbons by cavalry, this doesn't change.

    Why would archers be able to outrun light infantry? Historically skirmishes would hit an approaching army and retreat behind or inside an infantry formation. Only horse archers skirmished in the way you're describing and did have a 360 arch. That's mostly Elves who would've had 100s of years training - so I'll let them off.

    No, it's other issues like infantry moves slower so takes more damage from archers before they reach the lines. Light cavalry approaches a lot quicker. It's not always about how much a unit damages another. Some spear units do and some don't, depends on their abilities and equipment.. as it should be.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,476Registered Users
    If you charge my English Longbowmen in Medieval 2, it doesn't matter what cavalry you brought: they will be shredded because that is what would have happened if bowmen were presented with a target-rich environment. This is not because 'a designer says so' like modern Total War does, but because reality rules and CA used to take their cues from that. This is why I say CA have forgotten Sun Tzu and his common sense lessons on how to make war work.

    Skirmishers outrun even light infantry because they carried less weight, namely they didn't carry shields. One problem Total War has had for years was this absurd design choice where swords were virtually always better than spears and polearms. This was only true in so far as many elite warriors carried swords rather than the objectively superior polearms, because the swords were used as sidearms and the main weapon was often a bow if they were Japanese samurai or a lance if they were a European knight. Swords in themselves were inferior in organised unit combat, where the main thing was every man on the front-line having a shield and second to that was whether they had a weapon that could reach beyond the enemies shield-line, a polearm or spear.

    CA have forgotten how any of this should tie together, so we have the ridiculous scenario where 'swordsmen' are better than spearmen in most games and '-100% missile block chance' is a thing that actually happens to a spear-wall.
  • hendo1592hendo1592 Posts: 1,563Registered Users
    Fredrin said:

    I personally have no desire to see battles return to Medieval 2. That's just a massive straw man that Ephraim loves beating.

    But if you look at core battle gameplay over the last decade - and its accompanying faults - they have remained largely unchanged. I would like a similar battle length to Medieval 2, but with a richness of features that truly engaged the player with tactical decision-making, rather than them becoming based on twitch reflexes. No battle was ever won by a commander's manual dexterity or capacity to react to something happening quickly in their peripheral vision...

    100% agree. Records mode does look a little bit Loren promising. But I won’t be purchasing 3k. At least not soon-(soon=CAs use).

    I’m sticking with Warhammer series and I will continue to support (as long as I think the content is worth getting) until it’s completio. For warhammer, I’ve accepted (limitedly) that it’s an on going development. I just hope by TWW3 installment CA has implemented features, mechanics and other things I’ve wanted for way too long. If it doesn’t, I don’t think I will be opening my wallet for another series. Especially , CAs path of the continued battle design.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,147Registered Users

    If you charge my English Longbowmen in Medieval 2, it doesn't matter what cavalry you brought: they will be shredded because that is what would have happened if bowmen were presented with a target-rich environment. This is not because 'a designer says so' like modern Total War does, but because reality rules and CA used to take their cues from that. This is why I say CA have forgotten Sun Tzu and his common sense lessons on how to make war work.

    Skirmishers outrun even light infantry because they carried less weight, namely they didn't carry shields. One problem Total War has had for years was this absurd design choice where swords were virtually always better than spears and polearms. This was only true in so far as many elite warriors carried swords rather than the objectively superior polearms, because the swords were used as sidearms and the main weapon was often a bow if they were Japanese samurai or a lance if they were a European knight. Swords in themselves were inferior in organised unit combat, where the main thing was every man on the front-line having a shield and second to that was whether they had a weapon that could reach beyond the enemies shield-line, a polearm or spear.

    CA have forgotten how any of this should tie together, so we have the ridiculous scenario where 'swordsmen' are better than spearmen in most games and '-100% missile block chance' is a thing that actually happens to a spear-wall.

    Actually you're wrong. In reality if it was just a case of light or armoured cav against longbows then the chances are the cav, especially armoured cav could run them down. The reason the English won certain battles was a wider strategy, which involved the use of stakes, positioning of archers with heavy infantry. Let's not boil historical battles down to the level of Age of Kings.

    Light infantry can be skirmishes and heavy infantry can skirmish. Also, some skirmishes did use shields. CA use the old strategy of double handed swords being used (sometimes successfully) to smash through long spear/pike formations. However, CA have always done this, it isn't something they suddenly applied to the new generation of games.

    It's a gameplay issue that CA handled. Ok, have spears beating swords.. why have swords in the game? No one will bother. It's about gameplay balance and I for one wouldn't like CA to unbalance it.
Sign In or Register to comment.