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

So Disappointed.

KingsGuardofArchersKingsGuardofArchers Posts: 33Registered Users
I absolutely love the idea of a serious bronze age total war.

I can't stand reading the FAQ on what Troy is going to be like, however. I definitely don't want power ranger heroes doing acrobatics around the battlefield like a fantasy title. I'd love the heroic culture to be represented in spirit but for things to be kept grounded and realistic, albeit with a bit of reasonable gap-filling here and there.

No naval battles? In the Mediterranean? Seriously? I want innovation and addition of depth and features in successive TW titles, not regression and outright omission.

Some units literally immune to flanking as an arcadey representation of their "elite defensive" tag? Is this total war or rock, paper, scissors?

And what the hell does "Our truth behind the myth approach has allowed us to draw from a multitude of mythology’s most renowned monsters and include them within the battlefields of Troy as realistic representations of what their true form may have been. " even mean? It must be fantasy then, surely?

I just want total war to be genuinely brilliant again instead of "one step forward, three steps back."

GAH.
«1

Comments

  • IelloIello Senior Member Posts: 385Registered Users
    To be fair about the naval battles, if I’m not mistaken, the ship-based ramming tactics that were so common in the classical era haven’t been invented yet.
  • KingsGuardofArchersKingsGuardofArchers Posts: 33Registered Users
    Iello said:

    To be fair about the naval battles, if I’m not mistaken, the ship-based ramming tactics that were so common in the classical era haven’t been invented yet.

    The whole era involves a bit of inference and extrapolation, really.In regard to the naval aspect I'm sure something detailed could still be implemented as ramming and boarding are pretty fundamental ideas to success at sea, I'd expect. There are only so many ways to go about defeating an enemy ship after all. I'm not familiar with the archaeology at all though, if indeed there is any regarding dedicated warships from the period.

    But really I'm just annoyed at the direction TW seems to be taking now. In place of depth and realism we seem to be getting arcadiness across the board, and this is coming from a fan of the warhammer side of things and fantasy in general.


  • AmonkhetAmonkhet Posts: 1,359Registered Users
    edited September 19
    To be fair. The Saga titles aren't all going to be Historical, in terms of Rome 2 type historical or Three Kingdoms. Some will be old skool historic (Thrones of Britannia), some will have fantasy elements (Troy) and some may be full fantasy.

    Keep in mind, Saga is a much smaller title than a core game, so its not going to get stuff as deep as Rome 2 say, its for experimenting.
  • IelloIello Senior Member Posts: 385Registered Users
    Are ramming and boarding fundamental, though? Did the ship designs even support it? It was a big deal when they developed hulls and rams capable of withstanding them.

    The Minoans were great sea caters, but peaceful. Mycenaeans raided mostly, as far as we can tell. They didn’t fight set piece naval battles.

    Just because something seems obvious or fundamental to you doesn’t mean it is. I think wheels and steam turbines are pretty basic, but somebody invented the first a long long ago and the second far more recently.
  • EfixEfix Posts: 266Registered Users
    That's it TW is dead to me Single entity monster and heroes again with duel. Emphasis on active ability ( **** no) and no naval battle again.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Posts: 1,207Registered Users
    Amonkhet said:

    Keep in mind, Saga is a much smaller title than a core game, so its not going to get stuff as deep as Rome 2 say, its for experimenting.

    I'd disagree with this, the smaller and tighter focus with less range of forces means they can add more depth and need to add that depth for the game. ToB added more depth to the campaign and factions than was in R2.
  • DrBriansteinDrBrianstein Posts: 2Registered Users
    This is not surprising given the huge success of the Warhammer series. You're just going to see more "enhanced" historical titles from now on. Cause real history doesn't offer much in the way of unit diversity like WH does. So to keep people interested you'll see more titles like this, and it's sad to be honest.
  • KingsGuardofArchersKingsGuardofArchers Posts: 33Registered Users
    Iello said:

    Are ramming and boarding fundamental, though? Did the ship designs even support it? It was a big deal when they developed hulls and rams capable of withstanding them.

    The Minoans were great sea caters, but peaceful. Mycenaeans raided mostly, as far as we can tell. They didn’t fight set piece naval battles.

    Just because something seems obvious or fundamental to you doesn’t mean it is. I think wheels and steam turbines are pretty basic, but somebody invented the first a long long ago and the second far more recently.

    True in principle. However I think the basic notion that you have various powerful empires in play in this period as well as countless minor factions means that conflict is inevitable, and if two seafaring combatants are involved in said conflict then equally inevitable is the probability of their clashing at some point, and in some form, on the waves.

    When this occurs they're naturally bound to want to consider all the tools at their disposal to achieve advantage (as in any combat). And since we know for certain from later periods that the principle methods of doing this were essentially boarding, ramming, shooting or immobilizing, it's a natural assumption to apply this thinking to earlier engagements to one extent or another. Were rams purposely featured on bronze age vessels as in later periods? Perhaps not, but it might be a case of simply having a vessel with greater mass than that of your enemy and using that to gain said advantage.
    Efix said:

    That's it TW is dead to me Single entity monster and heroes again with duel. Emphasis on active ability ( **** no) and no naval battle again.

    I'm tempted to agree there. I'm hoping it won't be as bad as I fear but it's not looking good. I'd much rather have the heroic culture reflected in the campaign and style of the game than in single hero form.
  • TemudhunTemudhun Member Posts: 94Registered Users

    And what the hell does "Our truth behind the myth approach has allowed us to draw from a multitude of mythology’s most renowned monsters and include them within the battlefields of Troy as realistic representations of what their true form may have been. " even mean? It must be fantasy then, surely?

    I think it's more of a Scully Syndrome approach than actual fantasy, something even ancient Greeks started doing when they grew dissatisfied with the supernatural explanation. It often ended up with an even more unbelievable and silly compromise then, and so does it now. You don't want an actual monster with the body of a man and the head of a bull, son you turn him into an idiot wearing a bull's skull as a hat. You don't want magic, so you use anachronic technology instead. You don't want gods, so you turn them into ancient kings with great achievements. It can be fun if there are just one or two elements to ground into reality, but when it's an entité mythology it usually end up as something way more ridiculous than the fantasy/mythological version. Just assuming that myth are more often than not just myths, with little to no ground un reality, works better un my opinion.
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 742Registered Users
    Temudhun said:

    It can be fun if there are just one or two elements to ground into reality, but when it's an entité mythology it usually end up as something way more ridiculous than the fantasy/mythological version. Just assuming that myth are more often than not just myths, with little to no ground un reality, works better un my opinion.

    If the mythical elements are presented exactly as they were in historical accounts, there's no reason why compromises should have to be made (e.g. No armies of minotaurs, just one minotaur on Minos that's the object of a "hero challenge", or perhaps part of the garrison). The gods should definitely be characters in the diplomacy menu because negotiations with the gods were integral to ruling a kingdom. If the mythology was presented in this manner, then anyone who knows anything about the bronze age would accept it as a historical title.
  • AmonkhetAmonkhet Posts: 1,359Registered Users

    This is not surprising given the huge success of the Warhammer series. You're just going to see more "enhanced" historical titles from now on. Cause real history doesn't offer much in the way of unit diversity like WH does. So to keep people interested you'll see more titles like this, and it's sad to be honest.

    Its just not what people are into any more, Attila and before are just plain boring honestly now. Its possible for a game to be too clinical, too sterile, and devoid of any sense of diverse fun.
  • DrBriansteinDrBrianstein Posts: 2Registered Users
    Amonkhet said:

    This is not surprising given the huge success of the Warhammer series. You're just going to see more "enhanced" historical titles from now on. Cause real history doesn't offer much in the way of unit diversity like WH does. So to keep people interested you'll see more titles like this, and it's sad to be honest.

    Its just not what people are into any more, Attila and before are just plain boring honestly now. Its possible for a game to be too clinical, too sterile, and devoid of any sense of diverse fun.
    It is true, I know they'll probably never update Empire or Napoleon and it's not for everyone. But why do Troy? If fantasy is where they want to go, they have plenty of other tales to choose from. This will just be a waste of time.
  • Emperor_NapoleonEmperor_Napoleon Posts: 122Registered Users

    Amonkhet said:

    This is not surprising given the huge success of the Warhammer series. You're just going to see more "enhanced" historical titles from now on. Cause real history doesn't offer much in the way of unit diversity like WH does. So to keep people interested you'll see more titles like this, and it's sad to be honest.

    Its just not what people are into any more, Attila and before are just plain boring honestly now. Its possible for a game to be too clinical, too sterile, and devoid of any sense of diverse fun.
    It is true, I know they'll probably never update Empire or Napoleon and it's not for everyone. But why do Troy? If fantasy is where they want to go, they have plenty of other tales to choose from. This will just be a waste of time.
    They want to at least pretend they still make vaguely historical games, I guess.
  • KingsGuardofArchersKingsGuardofArchers Posts: 33Registered Users
    Amonkhet said:

    This is not surprising given the huge success of the Warhammer series. You're just going to see more "enhanced" historical titles from now on. Cause real history doesn't offer much in the way of unit diversity like WH does. So to keep people interested you'll see more titles like this, and it's sad to be honest.

    Its just not what people are into any more, Attila and before are just plain boring honestly now. Its possible for a game to be too clinical, too sterile, and devoid of any sense of diverse fun.
    It's true that the unit diversity and magic etc of a fantasy setting offers much but personally I find the immersion of a really well done historical setting makes up for the lack of these factors. Sadly that not be an opinion held by the majority of players though and I can't exactly blame a studio for going where the money is, I guess I just pine for "the good old days."

    I've always loved the idea of as much detail as possible, with features like wind direction affecting arrow range, pushing exhausted troops causing them to start keeling over from heat exhaustion and a lack of range markers so your volleys might just fall short if you order them too soon. Or how about a loyalty mechanic where you see how loyal a general appears to be, rather than how loyal he actually is, and you have to actually try and read them a bit.That's what I fantasize about, not bombastic and ungrounded alternatives.

    I also think the greater depth a game might have would serve to compensate for the lack of fantastical brilliance and there's so much they could do to achieve that. I love fantasy to death, I just wish it'd keep to its own side of the field. Bah.
  • twwatchertwwatcher Posts: 2,213Registered Users
    Seems pretty much your normal historical sandbox with religion playing a role, a few themed units based on the smallest of historical evidence to help with varying the game play and rosters etc.

    Agents are back etc. this article summarises whats known at present:

    https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/everything-we-know-about-a-total-war-saga-troy/

    It does have the hero aspect introduced with 3K including duels and presumably these characters will take some bring down on the battlefield by the sounds of it. They also seem to have a quest system similar to TWW. If they ever do a Med 3 it will be difficult to see how something similar would also still be appropriate.
  • obippoobippo Member Posts: 2,244Registered Users
    edited September 20
    It's a saga title (= half assed TW). Didn't expect much else...
    Always be aware when a Content Refusing Troll Brigade (CRTB) representative is near. Contact your local Witch Hunter for further info.


  • JPBrazJPBraz Posts: 7Registered Users
    edited September 20
    It looks like CA is bowing down to the fantasy base, which is understandable since its a big fan base, yet it's kinda sad that people who've been supporting CA through the years get brushed aside. Money speaks, and it is loud.

    You can see people who just noticed CA and started playing their games in 2016 now claiming that historical is boring and they should stop. They are now asking for WH3, while us who started in the early 2000's are left as second class costumers.

    The fantasy titles will be full out fantasy (as they should), but apparently historical titles are going to incorporate some fantastical aspects to perhaps bring some of that fanbase into historical, but by doing so, completely destroying the historical aspect of the game. Basing historical titles on novels, poems or romances is not a good start, especially when introducing such fantastical and romanticized elements like the duels... In 3K they at least made half half with romance version and historical version.

    I would rather have troy be branded a fantasy title and have mythology, than have this dishonest historical title with yet again the same fantastical elements.

    Sorry for my rant, but for me it's getting more and more clear that historical titles are being neglected, or transformed into this half-ass history/fantasy games to please the fantasy fanbase.
  • AltervisionAltervision Posts: 31Registered Users
    edited September 20
    The game has just being announced and there's no gameplay, but people is already hating it. Comment removed.
    Post edited by dge1 on

  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Posts: 10,048Registered Users
    JPBraz said:

    It looks like CA is bowing down to the fantasy base, which is understandable since its a big fan base, yet it's kinda sad that people who've been supporting CA through the years get brushed aside. Money speaks, and it is loud.

    You can see people who just noticed CA and started playing their games in 2016 now claiming that historical is boring and they should stop. They are now asking for WH3, while us who started in the early 2000's are left as second class costumers.

    The fantasy titles will be full out fantasy (as they should), but apparently historical titles are going to incorporate some fantastical aspects to perhaps bring some of that fanbase into historical, but by doing so, completely destroying the historical aspect of the game. Basing historical titles on novels, poems or romances is not a good start, especially when introducing such fantastical and romanticized elements like the duels... In 3K they at least made half half with romance version and historical version.

    I would rather have troy be branded a fantasy title and have mythology, than have this dishonest historical title with yet again the same fantastical elements.

    Sorry for my rant, but for me it's getting more and more clear that historical titles are being neglected, or transformed into this half-ass history/fantasy games to please the fantasy fanbase.

    It doesn't please the fantasy fanbase and it isn't cowtowing to it. If it was we'd see actual minotaurs and not big men in furs.
    "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~
  • KingsGuardofArchersKingsGuardofArchers Posts: 33Registered Users
    edited September 20

    The game has just being announced and there's no gameplay, but people is already hating it. Comment removed. .

    The FAQ alone has lots of information in it, and not much I like. I can sense the way the wind's blowing.
    Post edited by dge1 on
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,081Registered Users
    You won't get naval battles, they are not popular enough compared to how much effort it takes to create them.
  • petertel123petertel123 Junior Member Posts: 737Registered Users
    IIRC Hektor kills 30000 men in the illiad, which is pretty much the only source about the conflict. This is absolutely the wrong game to expect realism and historical accuracy from.
    Team Bretonnia
    Team Dark Elves
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 742Registered Users

    IIRC Hektor kills 30000 men in the illiad, which is pretty much the only source about the conflict. This is absolutely the wrong game to expect realism and historical accuracy from.

    If CA has done legit research and wants to take a Mythbusters approach to the "truth behind the myth", then I'm willing to have my inner child killed for the sake of progress. However, if they're just making up Scooby Doo explanations to keep the historical fans happy they're on a fool's errand IMO.
  • BreadboxBreadbox Posts: 780Registered Users
    edited September 21
    Why on earth would you scooby doo the minotaur, whyyy, I couldn’t have anyother reaction but to laugh when I saw the axe wielding furry.

    Please either make an actual minotaur or don’t, or name a unit as a reference, not scooby doo a furry replacement.

    You don’t make historical fantasy for the sake of diversity, if you actually want diversity, prepare to sit down and actually study HISTORY, the cultures and archaeological discoveries.
    Converting it into fantatsy just means hero vs moshpit or duels, which I find repetitive and unimmersive.

    Also, being immune to flanking is a terrible mechanics.
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 742Registered Users
    Breadbox said:

    Why on earth would you scooby doo the minotaur, whyyy, I couldn’t have anyother reaction but to laugh when I saw the axe wielding furry.

    Please either make an actual minotaur or don’t, or name a unit as a reference, not scooby doo a furry replacement.

    You don’t make historical fantasy for the sake of diversity, if you actually want diversity, prepare to sit down and actually study HISTORY, the cultures and archaeological discoveries.

    It's possible that the majority of TW historical purists are actually just "fantasy haters". If that's the case, they might accept non-historical Minoan bull warriors without question, as long as they make the mythology go away.
  • HGNKHGNK Junior Member Posts: 27Registered Users
    I agree 100% with the original post. TW has deliberately moved away from its old fan base (lovers of historical gameplay) in pursuit of another and then we are told that we are being too fussy about how we like our history and should be more accommodating of heroes, magic swords and dragons and stop complaining about it. Well, CONTINUE TO COMPLAIN WE WILL my friend and vote with our wallets (code for buy some other form of entertainment).
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,081Registered Users
    HGNK said:

    I agree 100% with the original post. TW has deliberately moved away from its old fan base (lovers of historical gameplay) in pursuit of another and then we are told that we are being too fussy about how we like our history and should be more accommodating of heroes, magic swords and dragons and stop complaining about it. Well, CONTINUE TO COMPLAIN WE WILL my friend and vote with our wallets (code for buy some other form of entertainment).

    Or, CA are looking at the figures and realising that Warhammer reinvigorated the franchise. I think this all proves that gameplay will always beat historical accuracy in the TW series.

    Do you really think CA actually woke up one day and decided to upset their entire fanbase or do you think they looked at the sales of various games, collected feedback and maybe came to a conclusion?
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 742Registered Users

    Do you really think CA actually woke up one day and decided to upset their entire fanbase or do you think they looked at the sales of various games, collected feedback and maybe came to a conclusion?

    I imagine they're expanding their genres into fantasy and mythology because it's fun and they like it. Everyone at CA was a Warhammer fan before they even acquired the license. The original TW engine borrowed heavily from Warhammer. I wouldn't be surprised to see a biblical Saga game with supernatural elements at some point (if they don't decide to produce an epic bronze age game based off Troy's popularity). However, I'm sure we'll see more pure historical games in the future.
  • HGNKHGNK Junior Member Posts: 27Registered Users
    Dave I 100% agree that it was a commercial decision to go the fantasy route to increase sales. O simply doubt that it worked for them? Maybe it did? All I know is that 20 years ago when Rome was first released it was the hottest game in town. I doubt their present titles are achieving this, but I may be wrong? If they are then good luck to them, but they won't get my money is all I am saying.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,607Registered Users
    edited September 22
    HGNK said:

    Dave I 100% agree that it was a commercial decision to go the fantasy route to increase sales. O simply doubt that it worked for them? Maybe it did? All I know is that 20 years ago when Rome was first released it was the hottest game in town. I doubt their present titles are achieving this, but I may be wrong? If they are then good luck to them, but they won't get my money is all I am saying.

    3K and WH have blown all previous releases out of the water sales-wise.

    And the older TW games were pretty fanciful when it comes to history already. It's the newer ones like R2 and Attila that actually go harder into historical authencity than their predecessors.

Sign In or Register to comment.