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

✍The Death Of Lü Bu.Don't wanna "Total War" be next.

vbb29481mttvvbb29481mttv Posts: 66Registered Users
edited March 20 in General Discussion
(Romance Of The Three Kingdoms 1994)
Lü Bu gets captured by his own men and they turn him over to Cao Cao.


Got some unknown foreboding.
Today's strategy games are hard to make the plot more vivid and exciting. Nothing shocking has changed in even a few years. Hope that in the future "Total War" can change qualitatively! Give us "earth-shaking" changes in gameplay, control, and graphics or new virtual human motion system,even playing sandbox is as exciting as the plots in history or movies. I know this may be a fantastic idea and hard to achieve. But I always hope CA can be more ambitious and refuse mediocrity! If there has been only a few changes and progress, then there may be a day to be eliminated. Show us some new breakthrough. Come on!
Post edited by vbb29481mttv on
Tagged:

Comments

  • vbb29481mttvvbb29481mttv Posts: 66Registered Users
    edited March 20
    Lü Bu vs The Three Brothers combat scene
  • vbb29481mttvvbb29481mttv Posts: 66Registered Users
    edited March 20
    An idea. Any way to destroy the city with floods to restore Cao Cao's history of the battle of Xiapi?

  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Posts: 212Registered Users
    put this way its a bit vague. mbe at least in terms of gameplay u could give a couple examples of what qualifies as "earth-shaking" changes
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!!

    appeal to CA:

    skirmish related (applicable for historical titles):
    new innovations in the ToB campaign look very promising! skirmish need that kind of revamp too!
    pls, dont overemphasize unit r/p/s counter-matching as the hierarchical confluence of all decision making
    - ! make unit formations (and perhaps abilities) great again! (charlemagne)
    - ! same with LoS system! (tw:arena/UG:CivilWars)
    - ! same with terrain (ridges) (tw:arena/shogun2/UG:CivilWars)
    you've already made the tools!
    just make use of them!


    menu related (mp skirmish lobby):
    * add "large army" option to quickmatch pls!
    * have "large army" settings be tagged visually in lobby selector (so that all players have easier time in lobby select)
    * pls introduce scheduled rank resets to quickmatch as means to repress unsportsmanlike conduct related to stat fetishism
    * enable shared team funds (sum == opposition funds irrespective of player count) that all members can (optionally) submit to that facilitate the setup of uneven teams

    campaign related:
    + kudos for adding a basic supply system to the ToB campaign
    * for a much more elegant way of addressing autoresolve of not so decisive battles and how armies reinforce each other mount and blade's marshal system could b a fitting reference. mbe there is a way to integrate the marshal concept in one way or the other
    -or-
    * instead of imposing a hard cap of 20 units per army introduce a more organic approach of having lower ranking officers command ~ 10/15 units at max and higher ones up to ~ 40 (with supply, replenishment and all considered)
    * * reinforcing armies in this case would trickle in so a count of 40 intact units is kept rather than exceed 40+ units
    * dynamic quest/notification-event system (may b interesting for 3 kings)

    + thx for addressing spaghetti lines
    + kudos for adding a basic supply system to the ToB campaign


    • Tier1: Shogun 2 / Wh 2 / Warhammer
    • Tier2: Age of Charlemagne / Napoleon
    • Tier3: Attila / Medieval 2 / Rome
    • ....
    • Accident: Rome II

    • pending: ToB is yet to b acquired
    • pending: Three Kings not been released yet
    image

    Team Shadowgave
    Team Cao Wei
    Team Black Achilleez


  • vbb29481mttvvbb29481mttv Posts: 66Registered Users
    edited March 20

    put this way its a bit vague. mbe at least in terms of gameplay u could give a couple examples of what qualifies as "earth-shaking" changes

    Changes between Red Alert 2 and Red Alert 3 may a good example. Like, upgrade from M4 Sharman to M1A1 Abrams feeling.
    A new look or experience, completely abandon the original framework and get rid of the shackles of thought, keep the good points! If these can be done it will be a new era of total war. Don't know if my analogy makes sense.
  • ThedossbossThedossboss Posts: 139Registered Users

    put this way its a bit vague. mbe at least in terms of gameplay u could give a couple examples of what qualifies as "earth-shaking" changes

    Changes between Red Alert 2 and Red Alert 3 may a good example.
    Like, upgrade from M4 Sharman to M1A1 Abrams feeling. A new look or experience, completely abandon the original framework
    but keep the good points! Don't know if my analogy makes sense.
    Offering actual options instead of analogies would be better. If we cannot fathom how the TW series should evolve, then it has no need to evolve
  • ThedossbossThedossboss Posts: 139Registered Users
    It's simply asking something to be better instead of knowing how. I myself know exactly how I want the TW series to evolve, and it would be a massive undertaking without the technology available to do so. If you don't know what you want and don't know how possible it is to create what you want, there is no point in complaining about the thought of wanting more. It just comes across as complaining for the sake of it
  • Warlord_Lu_BuWarlord_Lu_Bu Posts: 1,924Registered Users
    Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    "I am the punishment of Tengri, if you had not sinned, he would not have sent me against you." - Chenghis Khan Temujin
  • yolordmcswagyolordmcswag Posts: 679Registered Users
    I would argue that three kingdoms already provides some earth-shattering changes with the guanxi-system, espionage and improved diplomacy (provided these are well implemented of course). That aside, I find it a bit hard to imagine what kind of changes you would want?

    IMO the battles are what makes total war into what it is, and changing the battles too drastically would change the whole game. The campaign can always be made more or less complex (more in the case of three kingdoms), but if the changes introduced so far are not earth-shattering by your standards I really don't know what you would want, aside from adding a paradox level of complexity.
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Posts: 212Registered Users
    edited March 20

    Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    more like """"ouurrgggghghhhhkk!!" (*curse be upon your head liu bei! / :angry_fist_gesture)

    I would argue that three kingdoms already provides some earth-shattering changes with the guanxi-system, espionage and improved diplomacy (provided these are well implemented of course). That aside, I find it a bit hard to imagine what kind of changes you would want?

    IMO the battles are what makes total war into what it is, and changing the battles too drastically would change the whole game. The campaign can always be made more or less complex (more in the case of three kingdoms), but if the changes introduced so far are not earth-shattering by your standards I really don't know what you would want, aside from adding a paradox level of complexity.

    to be fair though along OP's purposefully vague notions, i think the (primarily the historical) tw skirmish battles r indeed mediocre which becomes especially clear when comparing the historical skirmish battles with the tw warhammer ones.

    so far the only thing for the purpose of this thread we certainly know is that op thinks that despite some small changes, generally the tw franchise has grown a bit stale. personally i think big game changes can b achieved with minimal mechanical adjustments but thats another story.

    based on the videos provided, op seems to plead for an extensive rework of the 'event -manager / -listener' perhaps more akin to fallout's random encounter events to aide the story driven romantical focus of the game. mbe a couple cinematics mixed in or dipplomacy system more nudged towards the even more character focussed mount and blade system.
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!!

    appeal to CA:

    skirmish related (applicable for historical titles):
    new innovations in the ToB campaign look very promising! skirmish need that kind of revamp too!
    pls, dont overemphasize unit r/p/s counter-matching as the hierarchical confluence of all decision making
    - ! make unit formations (and perhaps abilities) great again! (charlemagne)
    - ! same with LoS system! (tw:arena/UG:CivilWars)
    - ! same with terrain (ridges) (tw:arena/shogun2/UG:CivilWars)
    you've already made the tools!
    just make use of them!


    menu related (mp skirmish lobby):
    * add "large army" option to quickmatch pls!
    * have "large army" settings be tagged visually in lobby selector (so that all players have easier time in lobby select)
    * pls introduce scheduled rank resets to quickmatch as means to repress unsportsmanlike conduct related to stat fetishism
    * enable shared team funds (sum == opposition funds irrespective of player count) that all members can (optionally) submit to that facilitate the setup of uneven teams

    campaign related:
    + kudos for adding a basic supply system to the ToB campaign
    * for a much more elegant way of addressing autoresolve of not so decisive battles and how armies reinforce each other mount and blade's marshal system could b a fitting reference. mbe there is a way to integrate the marshal concept in one way or the other
    -or-
    * instead of imposing a hard cap of 20 units per army introduce a more organic approach of having lower ranking officers command ~ 10/15 units at max and higher ones up to ~ 40 (with supply, replenishment and all considered)
    * * reinforcing armies in this case would trickle in so a count of 40 intact units is kept rather than exceed 40+ units
    * dynamic quest/notification-event system (may b interesting for 3 kings)

    + thx for addressing spaghetti lines
    + kudos for adding a basic supply system to the ToB campaign


    • Tier1: Shogun 2 / Wh 2 / Warhammer
    • Tier2: Age of Charlemagne / Napoleon
    • Tier3: Attila / Medieval 2 / Rome
    • ....
    • Accident: Rome II

    • pending: ToB is yet to b acquired
    • pending: Three Kings not been released yet
    image

    Team Shadowgave
    Team Cao Wei
    Team Black Achilleez


  • united84united84 Posts: 571Registered Users
    edited March 20

    I would argue that three kingdoms already provides some earth-shattering changes with the guanxi-system, espionage and improved diplomacy (provided these are well implemented of course). That aside, I find it a bit hard to imagine what kind of changes you would want?

    IMO the battles are what makes total war into what it is, and changing the battles too drastically would change the whole game. The campaign can always be made more or less complex (more in the case of three kingdoms), but if the changes introduced so far are not earth-shattering by your standards I really don't know what you would want, aside from adding a paradox level of complexity.

    While I like the new changes to the campaign in 3K, the changes are more evolution than revolution hence not "earth-shattering".

    Espionage - is a rebrand of agent's action.
    Satisfaction - loyalty mechanic.
    Guanxi - feels a bit like R2 power & politics but, Guanxi is more at an individual level & deeper detail.

    I could go on. As a player who plays numerous games (including older TW titles), I find that 3K is more evolutionary.

    Overall, I am happy that 3K is not a complete copy and paste from TWW but it is not a revolutionary title either.

  • LaindeshLaindesh Junior Member Posts: 1,556Registered Users
    edited March 20
    united84 said:

    I would argue that three kingdoms already provides some earth-shattering changes with the guanxi-system, espionage and improved diplomacy (provided these are well implemented of course). That aside, I find it a bit hard to imagine what kind of changes you would want?

    IMO the battles are what makes total war into what it is, and changing the battles too drastically would change the whole game. The campaign can always be made more or less complex (more in the case of three kingdoms), but if the changes introduced so far are not earth-shattering by your standards I really don't know what you would want, aside from adding a paradox level of complexity.

    While I like the new changes to the campaign in 3K, the changes are more evolution than revolution hence not "earth-shattering".

    Espionage - is a rebrand of agent's action.
    Satisfaction - loyalty mechanic.
    Guanxi - feels a bit like R2 power & politics but, Guanxi is more at an individual level.

    I could go on. As a player who plays numerous games (not just warhammer lol), there isn't a single revolutionary element in 3K. The graphic engine is obvious the same used in Warhammer 2. TS has a point, only thing is he probably doesnt know how to express them properly.

    Overall, I am happy that 3K is not a complete copy and paste from TWW but it is not a revolutionary title either.

    +Proper diplomacy overhaul

    While not revolutionary, the campaign map seem to have been done far better than previous titles.

    Take WH 1 and 2 f.ex. Great battles with lots of variety. Bland campaign, with very few mechanics and a joke of a diplomacy system.

    WHile 3K does not polish the battles that much, arguably the game polishes what seriously needed polishing for a long time: The campaign mechanics. Especially diplomacy.

    It still remains to see how things turn out. Wether the game turns out great or not. But i think it was about high time we got a proper look at the campaign. And 3K seems to have given us just that :)

    edit: I know some people will argue that we got paradox games and CK2 for deeping campaigns, but i counter that with the fact that TW campaigns is something different from that and a simpler campaign has its market too.
  • vbb29481mttvvbb29481mttv Posts: 66Registered Users
    edited March 20

    Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    more like """"ouurrgggghghhhhkk!!" (*curse be upon your head liu bei! / :angry_fist_gesture)

    I would argue that three kingdoms already provides some earth-shattering changes with the guanxi-system, espionage and improved diplomacy (provided these are well implemented of course). That aside, I find it a bit hard to imagine what kind of changes you would want?

    IMO the battles are what makes total war into what it is, and changing the battles too drastically would change the whole game. The campaign can always be made more or less complex (more in the case of three kingdoms), but if the changes introduced so far are not earth-shattering by your standards I really don't know what you would want, aside from adding a paradox level of complexity.

    to be fair though along OP's purposefully vague notions, i think the (primarily the historical) tw skirmish battles r indeed mediocre which becomes especially clear when comparing the historical skirmish battles with the tw warhammer ones.

    so far the only thing for the purpose of this thread we certainly know is that op thinks that despite some small changes, generally the tw franchise has grown a bit stale. personally i think big game changes can b achieved with minimal mechanical adjustments but thats another story.

    based on the videos provided, op seems to plead for an extensive rework of the 'event -manager / -listener' perhaps more akin to fallout's random encounter events to aide the story driven romantical focus of the game. mbe a couple cinematics mixed in or dipplomacy system more nudged towards the even more character focussed mount and blade system.
    Agreed
    Post edited by vbb29481mttv on
  • vbb29481mttvvbb29481mttv Posts: 66Registered Users
    edited March 20
    totally agree. The historical title of total war always makes me feel lacking in authenticity and persistent interestingness, even if there are grand scenes of battle and some clothing research.

    It may be that battle and campaign mode lacks diversity and randomness that makes me feel like I'm fighting again and again in the same scenario.

    And the characters'motion is not fluent enough or their repetition rate is too high, not vivid enough. Anyway, a lot of thoughts spilled out of my head!

    If I had to list them specifically, I could say need
    1.Vivid character motion animation
    2.Unexpected or shocking events in battle and campaign
    3. Keep making complex game systems
    4. More campaign event videos make the game more interactive.

    Conclusion: a feeling of newness and complexity
  • YaafmYaafm Posts: 1,275Registered Users
    Some people are diffrent, but for me, usually only playing through twice at most is it. I like total war, I like three kingdoms. But other then some slight mechanics changes it's just taking over the same map again against the same opponents.

    There are always new games though.
  • DragantisDragantis PolandPosts: 181Registered Users


    2.Unexpected or shocking events in battle and campaign

    So you want some random things in battle that make in less tactical?
    What is the point of making strategic choose and then use specially prepared tactic when there will be "shocking" random event that make you lose or make your tactic useless. Unexpected and shocking events can be good in FPS or actions game where player want fast and interesting gameplay. IMHO in strategic game I as a player want to collect information about my enemy, analyze them, find out tactics and plan how and when use this tactic in battle.
    Blood for the Blood God!
    Among men, Lu Bu. Among horses, Red Hare.
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Posts: 212Registered Users
    last point appears a bit ironic to me since tw campaign at least as to my impression is quite rich on random events. agent actions r quite random and considering the impact they can have in the early campaign some probability indicator does not remedy the situation if the outcome is true or false rather than a weighted range of success/failure. similar randomness with natural catastrophies, good / bad seasons, pestilent outbreaks, faction events et c.

    chess, albeit undoubtetly a beautiful game, appears fairly mechanistic due to the deterministic controlled setting, on the other hand some randomness in games can appeal with a certain simulator factor due to crisis management. so, where to draw the line as to say tactics cease to matter? i would not discard OPs notion on principle
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!!

    appeal to CA:

    skirmish related (applicable for historical titles):
    new innovations in the ToB campaign look very promising! skirmish need that kind of revamp too!
    pls, dont overemphasize unit r/p/s counter-matching as the hierarchical confluence of all decision making
    - ! make unit formations (and perhaps abilities) great again! (charlemagne)
    - ! same with LoS system! (tw:arena/UG:CivilWars)
    - ! same with terrain (ridges) (tw:arena/shogun2/UG:CivilWars)
    you've already made the tools!
    just make use of them!


    menu related (mp skirmish lobby):
    * add "large army" option to quickmatch pls!
    * have "large army" settings be tagged visually in lobby selector (so that all players have easier time in lobby select)
    * pls introduce scheduled rank resets to quickmatch as means to repress unsportsmanlike conduct related to stat fetishism
    * enable shared team funds (sum == opposition funds irrespective of player count) that all members can (optionally) submit to that facilitate the setup of uneven teams

    campaign related:
    + kudos for adding a basic supply system to the ToB campaign
    * for a much more elegant way of addressing autoresolve of not so decisive battles and how armies reinforce each other mount and blade's marshal system could b a fitting reference. mbe there is a way to integrate the marshal concept in one way or the other
    -or-
    * instead of imposing a hard cap of 20 units per army introduce a more organic approach of having lower ranking officers command ~ 10/15 units at max and higher ones up to ~ 40 (with supply, replenishment and all considered)
    * * reinforcing armies in this case would trickle in so a count of 40 intact units is kept rather than exceed 40+ units
    * dynamic quest/notification-event system (may b interesting for 3 kings)

    + thx for addressing spaghetti lines
    + kudos for adding a basic supply system to the ToB campaign


    • Tier1: Shogun 2 / Wh 2 / Warhammer
    • Tier2: Age of Charlemagne / Napoleon
    • Tier3: Attila / Medieval 2 / Rome
    • ....
    • Accident: Rome II

    • pending: ToB is yet to b acquired
    • pending: Three Kings not been released yet
    image

    Team Shadowgave
    Team Cao Wei
    Team Black Achilleez


Sign In or Register to comment.