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

Governors vs Coalition leaders.

KrunchKrunch Junior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 4,354
Something I found interesting from the stream today is that Governors cannot declare themselves Emperor since they are theoretically loyal. They must wait for the Han to abdicate or conquer another Emperors power base.

Comments

  • KruegerCondailKruegerCondail Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 22
    What I want to know is what category do the bandit leaders and dong zhuo fit into
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Registered Users Posts: 1,721
    Yeah very interesting. The game is getting more depth everytime you watch a stream. Well done ca!

    Curious how this develops and plays out for other non coalition factions.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 3,754
    edited March 2019
    I'm not sold on this mechanic myself.

    Forcing "loyalist" characters to have to defeat another established Emperor before they can become one themselves seems like an unnecessary additional challenge, considering that most other characters don't have to do this.

    I feel like if the "Han Loyalists" are going to be so loyal to the Han that they can't become Emperor via the normal route, then there should some alternate route to victory for them altogether.
    This goes back to other discussions where some players have suggested an alternate victory type where you can rescue the Child Emperor and become Regent (instead of Emperor) while you seek to reunify China and restore the Child Emperor to the throne.
  • YaafmYaafm Registered Users Posts: 1,276
    I like it. Makes them have a different playstyle right off the bat. Give replayability for those of us that find more then one or two playthroughs the same.

    Also answers a question i kept wondering if why they seperated them like that on the character select screen.
  • KrunchKrunch Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,354

    I'm not sold on this mechanic myself.

    Forcing "loyalist" characters to have to defeat another established Emperor before they can become one themselves seems like an unnecessary additional challenge, considering that most other characters don't have to do this.

    I feel like if the "Han Loyalists" are going to be so loyal to the Han that they can't become Emperor via the normal route, then there should some alternate route to victory for them altogether.
    This goes back to other discussions where some players have suggested an alternate victory type where you can rescue the Child Emperor and become Regent (instead of Emperor) while you seek to reunify China and restore the Child Emperor to the throne.

    Agreed.
  • BreadboxBreadbox Registered Users Posts: 785
    edited March 2019
    This makes no sense, no such distinction exsists in the novel or history. Almost all warlords are/were Provincal governers/Administrators. Perhaps they could be more appropriately named Staunch Loyalists instead.

    Even the man who kept up the loyalist facade for the longest, Liu Bei, declared himself the Emperor of a successor Han dynasty right after Cao Wei.

    Those ‘loyalists’ with Liu surname should have the option of declaring a new ‘Han dynasty’ after another empire is declared.
    much like how Liu Bei did it. The other ‘loyalists’ should have the same option as everyone else.
    Or alternatively, place themselves in the command of the original Han dynasty under a figurehead Han emperor.

    “But but but wouldn’t it lead to multiple Han dynasty on the map?”, yes and it has happen before, nor will it be the last time it happened in history.
    Ma Teng is never a true loyalist, there’s no strong indication on how loyal Kong Rong and Liu Biao are(both suffering from lack of military ambition and a short life)
    Almost everyone exhibited a strong loyalist tendency initially.

    I see no gameplay and historical reason why there should be a limition of ‘cannot declare Empire’ or ‘3 Empires maximum’.
  • ComradCommodoreComradCommodore Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 541
    Breadbox said:

    This makes no sense, no such distinction exsists in the novel or history. Almost all warlords are/were Provincal governers/Administrators. Perhaps they could be more appropriately named Staunch Loyalists instead.

    Even the man who kept up the loyalist facade for the longest, Liu Bei, declared himself the Emperor of a successor Han dynasty right after Cao Wei.

    Those ‘loyalists’ with Liu surname should have the option of declaring a new ‘Han dynasty’ after another empire is declared.
    much like how Liu Bei did it. The other ‘loyalists’ should have the same option as everyone else.
    Or alternatively, place themselves in the command of the original Han dynasty under a figurehead Han emperor.

    “But but but wouldn’t it lead to multiple Han dynasty on the map?”, yes and it has happen before, nor will it be the last time it happened in history.
    Ma Teng is never a true loyalist, there’s no strong indication on how loyal Kong Rong and Liu Biao are(both suffering from lack of military ambition and a short life)
    Almost everyone exhibited a strong loyalist tendency initially.

    I see no gameplay and historical reason why there should be a limition of ‘cannot declare Empire’ or ‘3 Empires maximum’.

    I think the three emperor system is an attempt to re create the "three kingdoms" aspect. It insures that everyone's end game will have 3 strong factions combating for power.

    If everyone could declare regardless I think it would just end up being the same grind fest we all hate in these campaigns (a bunch of solo nation's being steam rolled by you) with the 3 emperor's and all the other allies picking a side, this insures a good end game
Sign In or Register to comment.