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

Tao Qian arrives for free for THREE KINGDOMS on 16 January.

24

Comments

  • LESAMALESAMA Member Registered Users Posts: 2,138
    Kirkwald said:

    LESAMA said:

    It's pretty clear at this point CA is just going through the motions with 3K. They were trying to break into the Chinese market, didn't succeed the way they wanted, and at this point it's just about milking as much out of the game as they can without investing real resources.

    Complete nonsense. 3k was their best selling title to date.

    Next to that the new dlc will add more units to the base game
    ALL of those new units are reskins. Modders already do this. Siege towers are things that should have been in the game since day 1. The only new thing really is the ballista and it must be really sad if the thing you're going to excited about in a Total War game is a giant crossbow.

    Also you're forgetting that all this new stuff is for free. The only new units exclusive to the DLC are the yellow turbans units for the 3 brothers which will get shared with the 190 AD YT characters.

    Also new battle deployments. Point is that ca spend time and effort to improve the base game and that’s for free. So saying that there went no resources into this game or milking the franchise is complete nonsense.
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,677
    edited January 2020
    But why would you want homogenized rosters though? Where is the fun and variety in that?


    You gotta understand that there are people that like one or the other. It's not because you like it diverse that everyone does.
    Because believe me, everybody doesn't. (Honnestly I believe it's 50/50)


    And as far as balance goes : homogenized > "fun and variety". So there's that as well.
    _________________________________

    My personal collection of hazardous tests and quickfixes (yes this is a link).
    Wondering why you get some traits on your characters this may give you a vague idea

    Balance enthusiast, I like tinkering and messing with stuff and values. Cool heads prevails !
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 23,699
    Rewan said:

    Having no restrictions is why a lot of people hate on Radious mods


    And having over the top restrictions is why a lot of people hated on AoC is what I'm saying. (Because yes AoC actually had the whole "your roster is lacking something" sort of thing)


    I'm personnally good with both anyways but if we go deep down I think I'd rather have the Shogun 2 treatment than the AoC treatment. And both of these over Warhammer.
    The main reason why I never really enjoyed Shogun 2 was that every faction had the same unit roster. That resulted in the problem that every faction played exactly the same.

    3K has the same problem now.

    In Rome 2 you could choose to play a certain culture. Illyrians, Thracians, Scythians, Iberians, Punians, Romans, Greeks and so on. That together with unique rosters and unit limitations made most factions play different. I said MOST because obviously we also had redundant factions like Syracuse or Kolchis but that are only a few.
    Nurgle is love, Nurgle is life
  • KirkwaldKirkwald Registered Users Posts: 947
    Rewan said:

    But why would you want homogenized rosters though? Where is the fun and variety in that?


    You gotta understand that there are people that like one or the other. It's not because you like it diverse that everyone does.
    Because believe me, everybody doesn't. (Honnestly I believe it's 50/50)


    And as far as balance goes : homogenized > "fun and variety". So there's that as well.
    Eh, whatever floats your boat. But Warhammer proved to me that asymmetrical factions are the best idea ever for a strategy game because it forces you to actually make use of the limited tools you are given with and think outside of the box instead of having something to deal with every problem.
  • KirkwaldKirkwald Registered Users Posts: 947
    LESAMA said:

    Kirkwald said:

    LESAMA said:

    It's pretty clear at this point CA is just going through the motions with 3K. They were trying to break into the Chinese market, didn't succeed the way they wanted, and at this point it's just about milking as much out of the game as they can without investing real resources.

    Complete nonsense. 3k was their best selling title to date.

    Next to that the new dlc will add more units to the base game
    ALL of those new units are reskins. Modders already do this. Siege towers are things that should have been in the game since day 1. The only new thing really is the ballista and it must be really sad if the thing you're going to excited about in a Total War game is a giant crossbow.

    Also you're forgetting that all this new stuff is for free. The only new units exclusive to the DLC are the yellow turbans units for the 3 brothers which will get shared with the 190 AD YT characters.

    Also new battle deployments. Point is that ca spend time and effort to improve the base game and that’s for free. So saying that there went no resources into this game or milking the franchise is complete nonsense.
    It's not adequate enough imo. Also, you do realize battlefield deployables have been a thing in TW for a long time? Rome 2 even had flaming rock traps that 3K doesn't have.
    Meanwhile Warhammer modders are already doing things like this
    https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1926259142
    https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1936822519

  • RewanRewan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,677
    edited January 2020
    Eh, whatever floats your boat.


    My boat floats with whatever comes his way. I'm more comfortable playing with homogenized factions than diverse but I can definitely play well with both.

    I'm just saying I can see the both sides of the argument and that people claiming high and mighty that "WE MUST HAVE DIVERSITY" well, they are wrong. It's entierly up for debate. (... and just not meant to happen in this thread btw)
    _________________________________

    My personal collection of hazardous tests and quickfixes (yes this is a link).
    Wondering why you get some traits on your characters this may give you a vague idea

    Balance enthusiast, I like tinkering and messing with stuff and values. Cool heads prevails !
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 23,699
    Rewan said:

    Eh, whatever floats your boat.


    My boat floats with whatever comes his way. I'm more comfortable playing with homogenized factions than diverse but I can definitely play well with both.

    I'm just saying I can see the both sides of the argument and that people claiming high and mighty that "WE MUST HAVE DIVERSITY" well, they are wrong. It's entierly up for debate. (... and just not meant to happen in this thread btw)
    Wrong. Diversity is the main reason why people play total war games for years. That’s why Rome 2 is still so popular and I don’t even want to start with Warhammer which is the most popular total war game ever.

    3K sold great but did it motivate players to play it longer than 2 months? No. Most players lost their interest around August. The main reason for that is that every faction plays the same. A problem Warhammer and Rome 2 don’t have.

    To stay on topic:
    Tao Qian offers nothing unique or anything interesting. Compare him with Dacia and Tiktacto.

    Dacia is a completely unique ancient culture with unique units. Something that wasn’t playable before.

    Tiktacto offers a unique fast airforce playstyle in a fresh region of the map. He plays absolutely different with armies that mostly consists of flying units. Something you don’t do as other LM factions.

    Tao Qian just starts right next to Liu Bei, Cao Cao, Kong Rong and the YT. He normally dies around turn 20 and has no unique heir. So you basically decide to play a generic clone while most other factions offer a unique leader with other unique characters.
    Is there any reason to choose Mr. grandpa over Liu Bei or Cao Cao? No there is absolutely no reason.
    Nurgle is love, Nurgle is life
  • markp27markp27 Registered Users Posts: 1,539
    I do think a lot of players a being OTT over his sons not being made legendary.

    I would like to know who else is in Tao Qian's court however?
  • Avenger237Avenger237 Registered Users Posts: 313
    IMO Tao Qian's sons do not deserve to be made legendary but some of his subordinates who later became quite famous like Sun Qian, Mi Zhu and Chen Deng definitely should
  • Rasmus242Rasmus242 Registered Users Posts: 552
    The only reason I see them picking Tao Qian is because he was already half done in-game and maybe because he's not super bad for the 182 start. But yes, I'm not excited about him at all and I'm scratching my head a bit. Like others have said would be good to know if your events will be a bit different if you play him and if he had a unique son that could feel like mabye worth it.

    I do think the general free content that comes with the DLC is great though. But I guess it shouldn't be understated how the leaders are the lifeblood of the game so even if they include a lot of great stuff it's sullied by a kind of shoehorned LL.
  • RadiousRadious Senior Member Czech RepublicRegistered Users Posts: 498
    You can check our roster for 3K - https://drive.google.com/open?id=1UHlc8i_uZ8Sv0bRDUwEN9mDCwlsFnM3R

    Every faction got way more love and unique content only for them so each is far more different then before.

    Also units are based on time period and 3k era, worked with many dedicated people who love this period so all fits well.
  • KirkwaldKirkwald Registered Users Posts: 947
    Radious said:

    You can check our roster for 3K - https://drive.google.com/open?id=1UHlc8i_uZ8Sv0bRDUwEN9mDCwlsFnM3R

    Every faction got way more love and unique content only for them so each is far more different then before.

    Also units are based on time period and 3k era, worked with many dedicated people who love this period so all fits well.

    Lmao, no thanks.
  • KirkwaldKirkwald Registered Users Posts: 947
    Also, Tao Qian will be the Pontus or Tretch of 3K.
    A guy nobody wants to play as and will forever be sore spot due to the fact that he took up someone else's place.
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 23,699
    Kirkwald said:

    Also, Tao Qian will be the Pontus or Tretch of 3K.
    A guy nobody wants to play as and will forever be sore spot due to the fact that he took up someone else's place.

    Never understood the hate against Pontus. Still one of my favourite Rome 2 factions. It basically was the first faction with a mixed culture. That mixed Hellenic/Persian vibe was Just amazing, it offered a faction that used units of 2 different cultures while all other factions only had one cultural identity.
    Nurgle is love, Nurgle is life
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Registered Users Posts: 2,138
    Kirkwald said:

    LESAMA said:

    Kirkwald said:

    LESAMA said:

    It's pretty clear at this point CA is just going through the motions with 3K. They were trying to break into the Chinese market, didn't succeed the way they wanted, and at this point it's just about milking as much out of the game as they can without investing real resources.

    Complete nonsense. 3k was their best selling title to date.

    Next to that the new dlc will add more units to the base game
    ALL of those new units are reskins. Modders already do this. Siege towers are things that should have been in the game since day 1. The only new thing really is the ballista and it must be really sad if the thing you're going to excited about in a Total War game is a giant crossbow.

    Also you're forgetting that all this new stuff is for free. The only new units exclusive to the DLC are the yellow turbans units for the 3 brothers which will get shared with the 190 AD YT characters.

    Also new battle deployments. Point is that ca spend time and effort to improve the base game and that’s for free. So saying that there went no resources into this game or milking the franchise is complete nonsense.
    It's not adequate enough imo. Also, you do realize battlefield deployables have been a thing in TW for a long time? Rome 2 even had flaming rock traps that 3K doesn't have.
    Meanwhile Warhammer modders are already doing things like this
    https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1926259142
    https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1936822519

    Jep, have been playing since the very first shogun so are aware of Old mechanics being taken out and in. That is only part of the cake however. The new unit cards, diplomacy options, trophy’s mechanic etc etc clearly shows the commitment of ca. Let’s see what they have more in store for us when they publish the path notes.
  • Warlord_Lu_BuWarlord_Lu_Bu Registered Users Posts: 2,782
    Ah, the man who killed Cao Cao's daddy.... WELL DONE! <3
    "I am the punishment of Tengri, if you had not sinned, he would not have sent me against you." - Chenghis Khan Temujin
  • HeinzuHeinzu Registered Users Posts: 937


    I'm not sure if you have played warhammer, but even their worst FLCs have provided more mechanics and at least a single new model.

    OK, can people please stop this nonsense of plonking Warhammer up on a pedestal as a shining example of the perfect way to do things, and can do no wrong? I remember many, many instances (including very recently) of people screaming their lungs out in the Warhammer forums over FLC Lords that weren't up to scratch, or people simply didn't want.

    As for this thing of "even their worst FLCs have provided more mechanics and at least a single new model"; let's take a quick gander at that...
    Vlad Von Carstein - New model & voice lines. No new mechanics, units, or starting position.
    Wurrzag - New model & voice lines, new starting position. No new mechanics or units.
    Grombrindal - New model & voice lines, "new" dilemma-based mechanic. No new starting position or units.
    Isabella - New model & voice lines, "new" (if you can call it that) starting position. No new mechanics or units.
    Tretch Craventail - New model & voice lines, new starting position. No new mechanics or units.
    Alith Anar - New model & voice lines, new starting position, new units, new hero, and 2 new mechanics.
    Lokhir Fellheart - New model & voice lines, new starting position, one new rite. No new units.
    Tiktaq'to - New model & voice lines, new start position, new mechanic. No new units.
    Gor-Rok - New model & voice lines, new start position. No new mechanics or units.
    Repanse - New model & voice lines, new start position, "new" mechanic which is basically army supplies. No new units.

    Apart from Alith Anar - who was the exception, not the rule - Tao Qian is no better or worse than what Warhammer got. Sure, he's not the best choice, but you'll find plenty of people in the Warhammer forums who will still argue that Tretch, Tiktaq'to, Rapanse, and others were all the worst characters CA could have chosen for their respective FLC slots.
    Also not forgetting that everyone's favorite duo, Gotrek & Felix (who were FLC), are still a contentious point of discussion due to the poorly-designed way they were (are still are) implemented.
    You are missing few important things.

    Tao Qian is very old. Even if developers prolong his life, he is not going to see 3 Kingdoms. His sons do not have unique models. If Tao Qian dies, you will be stuck with generic characters for the rest of your campaign unless you employ someone unique.

    His starting position is terrible. Almost all Warhammer FLC Lords offer something new. Tretch adds Skaven starting position to Naggaroth. Lokhir adds Dark Elves to Lustria....... Tao Qian starts in the most crowded area in the game. Because this game lacks different cultures, he doesn't add anything new or unique. He is payable Han character surrounded by large amount of another playable Han characters.

    Liu Zhang and Han Sui are both superior choices. Especially Liu Zhang looks very promising. He starts near tea and spice resources. His starting location is unique. He could prevent Sun family from streamrolling entire South.
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Registered Users Posts: 377
    imo
    a funnel in choice can also lead to one-dimensionality. having restricted options not necessarily forces different solutions to different problems as rather entices an optimized approach to resolve all. i meant to say faction roster diversity can lead to one-dimensional gameplay. (nomad faction with trash infantry anyone?)
    Kirkwald said:

    Rewan said:

    But why would you want homogenized rosters though? Where is the fun and variety in that?


    You gotta understand that there are people that like one or the other. It's not because you like it diverse that everyone does.
    Because believe me, everybody doesn't. (Honnestly I believe it's 50/50)


    And as far as balance goes : homogenized > "fun and variety". So there's that as well.
    Eh, whatever floats your boat. But Warhammer proved to me that asymmetrical factions are the best idea ever for a strategy game because it forces you to actually make use of the limited tools you are given with and think outside of the box instead of having something to deal with every problem.
    warhammer has more options though
    warhammer does not count, as the title being a fantasy setting has vastly more utilities to a more based historical one.
    with heroes, monsters and lores magic and all wh titles can handle wildly varied base units.

    im able to enjoy beastmen (morghur) campaigns over and over whilst also enjoying vampire counts or reikland(empire) whereas in rome ii i couldnt bear finish or even retry a nomad campaign albeit having played nomad in mp predominantly. guess i should had tried seleucids or pontus instead. perhaps rome ii's praisen faction "diversity" was to me never that most prominent selling point. or mbe im so much biased against rome ii that id rather enjoy a shogun 2 takeda than a rome ii parthian campaign. (and anyways trying skirmishing setups against ai generally is just a dull experience).
    to me shogun 2 vanilla despite same base units (excpt. oda / ikko ikki) still does fairly well but with additions of special units (special matchlocks, cav and all).

    i can see how similar or same base units make for a legitimate case.
    if rosters r similar, one can try different albeit sometimes subtly different approaches.
    Shogun 2 mirror in comparison to FotS imperial vs shogunate - may b an analoguous comparison albeit we speaking mp for a second.
    if mirror, all options r available from rush, melee infantry (although better have ag least one argument verse mounted skirm), balanced or mounted skirm. if facing as traditional a rifle based imperial roster (rifle veterans) the tactical approach is clear from beginning with only map (flat or mountaineous) being an additional side factor.
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!! [moddable + ui-scale]

    CA pls, where is Three Kings start date?

    Gavespawn Fan Club________dont forget about the beastmen! beastmen content is long overdue!!1!
    Fan Club Cao Wei__________.*(Cao 190-start lacks sentinel assignment)
    Lobby Group Black Achilleez __Troy Saga in a nutshell

    dear CA,
    - pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded.
    - as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route)
    - kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games

    feature requests / suggestions / wishlist

    this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell


    judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process;
    beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them);
    judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso.
    all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket
    (which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature)
    which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition
    so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!

    anyways,
    i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples.
    in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well
    that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.

    but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either
    (as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions)
    but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination)
    with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched
    [update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)

    the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially
    (for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference)
    but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily

    obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features)
    i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.

    someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting



    campaign

    * replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it
    * attila unit progression was nice
    * keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate
    * limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions
    * keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all);
    .........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad
    ......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks)
    .........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps)
    ............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system
    * further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer,
    ......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills
    ......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings
    * keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga)
    * tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces)
    ............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions
    * further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!



    tactical/3d skirmish

    * imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw;
    ......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player
    .........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist
    .........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)

    * tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after ((
    ......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure
    .........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition
    .........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units)
    .........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of
    .........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf])
    .........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina
    .........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines;
    .........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-),
    .........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block)
    .........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about
    .........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage
    .........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage
    .........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating
    .........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband)
    .........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat)
    .........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank
    ............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective;
    ............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)

    ......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below
    .........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones),
    .........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat)
    .........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects)
    .........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments
    .........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS
    .........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits
    .........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw)
    .........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls
    ...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess

    * keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player
    ......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation
    .........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness)
    .........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain

    * make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff])
    ......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof)
    .........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis
    .........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c.
    .........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics
    .........war cry, suebian charge et c.
    .........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot
    .........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained
    .........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash
    .........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged
    .........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation
    .........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order
    .........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance)
    .........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging)
    .........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command

    * re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system;
    ..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size
    ......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades,
    ......* dug-ins,
    ......* bamboo-walls
    ........and other deployables,
    ......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon),
    ......* inside/behind dense vegetation
    ......* along river banks) et c

    * restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode)
    .........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point,
    .........decisive and rewarding
    .........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places.
    .........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!

    * pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise
    ..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment

    ......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units
    .........and heres why

    .........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp)
    .........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful
    .........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups!
    .........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and
    .........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles
    .........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty
    .........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience
    .........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons)
    .........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup
    .........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable
    .........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle

    .........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced
    .........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry)
    .........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain
    .........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation,
    .........veteran spears should be able to push offensively
    .........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective
    .........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it
    .........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway
    .........different period as well require distinction obviously
    .........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall
    .........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length
    .........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen
    .........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement
    .........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units
    .........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii,
    .........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro)
    .........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized
    .........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation)
    .........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys
    .........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas
    .........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen
    .........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category
    .........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese
    .........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator
    .........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp
    .........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2
    .........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav
    .........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them
    .........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin
    .........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre

    ......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish
    .........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break)
    .........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation
    .........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)

    * add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did)
    ......* more strict and developed
    .........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units
    .........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer
    ............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel
    .........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^
    .........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units
    .........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel
    .........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is
    .........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable)
    .........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction
    .........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.;
    .........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve
    .........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS
    .........example of diversionist maneuvre
    .........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer
    .........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken,
    .........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity
    .........another example
    .........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there
    .........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank
    .........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess)
    .........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement
    .........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed
    .........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers

    ......* instead:
    .........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges
    .........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning
    .........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error
    .........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception

    ......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel
    .........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules?
    ......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason!
    .........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces
    .........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy
    .........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though)
    .........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide
    .........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium;
    .........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing
    .........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)

    - i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Registered Users Posts: 377
    edited January 2020
    the suns rly need strong contender ASAP, theyre such a pest

    imo 3k campaign is fairly decent as is, regional ressources add economic flavour even though im not excessively impressed by 3k's economics game (but at least taxes got reintroduced after all).
    if CA keeps adding some similar to defenders of earth, some spears of that other place and farmers of the fertile soil and what not with some minor extra stats for differentiation (even so in redundance to base units) if by the and 3k reaches shogun 2 lvl of content ill b much content.
    barbarians of the south still need to b added as well as the ones xiliang or so and their buddies to the north, theres much room for growrth but it appears all at a snail's pace

    im not telling marketing what to do but as some other guy said, the majority does not get excited over that one old git and if the FLC would had been advertised as the diao chan flc perhaps the feedback would had turned more positive. regardless the announcement is for those that do frequent the forums only sporadically so no real news here
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!! [moddable + ui-scale]

    CA pls, where is Three Kings start date?

    Gavespawn Fan Club________dont forget about the beastmen! beastmen content is long overdue!!1!
    Fan Club Cao Wei__________.*(Cao 190-start lacks sentinel assignment)
    Lobby Group Black Achilleez __Troy Saga in a nutshell

    dear CA,
    - pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded.
    - as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route)
    - kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games

    feature requests / suggestions / wishlist

    this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell


    judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process;
    beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them);
    judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso.
    all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket
    (which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature)
    which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition
    so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!

    anyways,
    i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples.
    in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well
    that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.

    but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either
    (as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions)
    but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination)
    with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched
    [update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)

    the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially
    (for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference)
    but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily

    obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features)
    i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.

    someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting



    campaign

    * replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it
    * attila unit progression was nice
    * keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate
    * limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions
    * keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all);
    .........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad
    ......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks)
    .........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps)
    ............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system
    * further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer,
    ......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills
    ......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings
    * keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga)
    * tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces)
    ............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions
    * further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!



    tactical/3d skirmish

    * imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw;
    ......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player
    .........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist
    .........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)

    * tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after ((
    ......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure
    .........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition
    .........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units)
    .........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of
    .........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf])
    .........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina
    .........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines;
    .........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-),
    .........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block)
    .........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about
    .........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage
    .........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage
    .........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating
    .........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband)
    .........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat)
    .........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank
    ............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective;
    ............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)

    ......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below
    .........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones),
    .........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat)
    .........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects)
    .........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments
    .........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS
    .........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits
    .........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw)
    .........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls
    ...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess

    * keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player
    ......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation
    .........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness)
    .........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain

    * make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff])
    ......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof)
    .........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis
    .........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c.
    .........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics
    .........war cry, suebian charge et c.
    .........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot
    .........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained
    .........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash
    .........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged
    .........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation
    .........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order
    .........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance)
    .........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging)
    .........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command

    * re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system;
    ..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size
    ......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades,
    ......* dug-ins,
    ......* bamboo-walls
    ........and other deployables,
    ......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon),
    ......* inside/behind dense vegetation
    ......* along river banks) et c

    * restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode)
    .........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point,
    .........decisive and rewarding
    .........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places.
    .........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!

    * pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise
    ..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment

    ......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units
    .........and heres why

    .........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp)
    .........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful
    .........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups!
    .........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and
    .........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles
    .........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty
    .........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience
    .........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons)
    .........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup
    .........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable
    .........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle

    .........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced
    .........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry)
    .........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain
    .........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation,
    .........veteran spears should be able to push offensively
    .........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective
    .........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it
    .........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway
    .........different period as well require distinction obviously
    .........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall
    .........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length
    .........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen
    .........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement
    .........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units
    .........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii,
    .........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro)
    .........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized
    .........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation)
    .........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys
    .........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas
    .........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen
    .........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category
    .........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese
    .........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator
    .........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp
    .........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2
    .........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav
    .........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them
    .........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin
    .........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre

    ......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish
    .........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break)
    .........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation
    .........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)

    * add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did)
    ......* more strict and developed
    .........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units
    .........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer
    ............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel
    .........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^
    .........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units
    .........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel
    .........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is
    .........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable)
    .........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction
    .........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.;
    .........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve
    .........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS
    .........example of diversionist maneuvre
    .........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer
    .........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken,
    .........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity
    .........another example
    .........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there
    .........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank
    .........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess)
    .........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement
    .........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed
    .........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers

    ......* instead:
    .........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges
    .........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning
    .........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error
    .........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception

    ......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel
    .........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules?
    ......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason!
    .........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces
    .........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy
    .........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though)
    .........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide
    .........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium;
    .........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing
    .........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)

    - i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 23,699

    the suns rly need strong contender ASAP, theyre such a pest

    imo 3k campaign is fairly decent as is, regional ressources add economic flavour even though im not excessively impressed by 3k's economics game (but at least taxes got reintroduced after all).
    if CA keeps adding some similar to defenders of earth, some spears of that other place and farmers of the fertile soil and what not with some minor extra stats for differentiation (even so in redundance to base units) if by the and 3k reaches shogun 2 lvl of content ill b much content.
    barbarians of the south still need to b added as well as the ones xiliang or so and their buddies to the north, theres much room for growrth but it appears all at a snail's pace

    im not telling marketing what to do but as some other guy said, the majority does not get excited over that one old git and if the FLC would had been advertised as the diao chan flc perhaps the feedback would had turned more positive. regardless the announcement is for those that do frequent the forums only sporadically so no real news here

    The main problem is that Tao Qian is not new. He’s already recruitable as a character.

    The least played factions are those with old leaders. Liu Biao is a good example here.

    A new playable FLC faction should be someone new or at least someone that starts in a new area of the map.

    Nobody ever asked about Grandpa Qian, he was the most unnecessary unique character of the game and making him playable is as unnecessary as the stupid Dynasty mode.

    The 3K DLC team is constantly wasting resources instead of really improving the game.

    The main problem in 3K is that you just play a character and not a nation/tribe/race/kingdom. You as the player take over the role of a single character. So why should anyone wants to play as a character that dies after 15 turns and gets replaced by a generic clone?
    Nurgle is love, Nurgle is life
  • Avenger237Avenger237 Registered Users Posts: 313
    Not sure if you have seen reddit but Liu Biao's faction mechanic has been changed to be like Sima Liang's in 8 Princes i.e. he can only expand without incurring too many public order penalties by increasing his vassal count.

    Maybe there are other surprises in the upcoming patch!!
  • KirkwaldKirkwald Registered Users Posts: 947
    edited January 2020
    LESAMA said:

    Kirkwald said:

    LESAMA said:

    Kirkwald said:

    LESAMA said:

    It's pretty clear at this point CA is just going through the motions with 3K. They were trying to break into the Chinese market, didn't succeed the way they wanted, and at this point it's just about milking as much out of the game as they can without investing real resources.

    Complete nonsense. 3k was their best selling title to date.

    Next to that the new dlc will add more units to the base game
    ALL of those new units are reskins. Modders already do this. Siege towers are things that should have been in the game since day 1. The only new thing really is the ballista and it must be really sad if the thing you're going to excited about in a Total War game is a giant crossbow.

    Also you're forgetting that all this new stuff is for free. The only new units exclusive to the DLC are the yellow turbans units for the 3 brothers which will get shared with the 190 AD YT characters.

    Also new battle deployments. Point is that ca spend time and effort to improve the base game and that’s for free. So saying that there went no resources into this game or milking the franchise is complete nonsense.
    It's not adequate enough imo. Also, you do realize battlefield deployables have been a thing in TW for a long time? Rome 2 even had flaming rock traps that 3K doesn't have.
    Meanwhile Warhammer modders are already doing things like this
    https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1926259142
    https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1936822519

    Jep, have been playing since the very first shogun so are aware of Old mechanics being taken out and in. That is only part of the cake however. The new unit cards, diplomacy options, trophy’s mechanic etc etc clearly shows the commitment of ca. Let’s see what they have more in store for us when they publish the path notes.
    Well I have been vocal about my praise over the unit cards since it was one of the many things I complained about the game even prior to release, however I'm less impressed with so called "new" gimmick mechanics mostly because any modder could potentially make such systems. For example, the so called trophy system looks like a glorified version of Warhammer's follower/banner system where you can pick 6 "items" that can buff your lord and his army, but unlike in Warhammer where everyone has access to 6 slots, only Liu Chong gets this while everyone else is restricted to 1 ancillary and 1 follower.
  • mitthrawnuruodomitthrawnuruodo Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,972
    edited January 2020
    Kirkwald said:

    the faction design in 3K which follows the same philosophy of offering all unit types and letting the players have the freedom to pick the units they want.

    And as a result every faction in 3K ended up being the same. Could it be that those factions in Rome 2 stood out because of roster limitations?
    Yeah... make some things worse, so that others seem better. Sounds like great design strategy lol.

    The only tangible boon of unit restrictions (e.g. Scythia locked to cavalry) was in AI armies. When you go up against Scythia, you knew what to expect and planned accordingly. Go up against Macedon, better be prepared for pikes. This added to strategy.

    CA can replicate this without the need for nonsensical hard restrictions by greatly increasing the affinity for certain AI warlords towards certain army compositions. I assume this is one of the changes that will come with this patch which is intended to increase army diversity. If CA fail to do this, I will join you in criticism.

    And yes... it is nonsensical. People who keep making this complaint have put no thought in this at all. Looking for some reason to hate, and found an easy target. It was nonsensical in Rome 2. Your Macedonian ancestors conquered Asia and can now recruit Persian archers. But if you as Macedon do the same, you for some nonsensical reason are stuck with your dev-mandated Macedonian units. It is even more nonsensical in 3K, where we are talking about a unified culture,where warlords changed their allegiances and moved around the country constantly. What room for unique units was there, CA have exploited and more. Cao Cao has Tiger Cavalry. Dong Zhuo has the Xiliang. Gongsun Zan has his White Horsemen. There is no reason while any of them should be prevented from recruiting a soldier with Spear and Shield.

    Unit variety in a game like this would have to be introduced organically, via access to resources, economic penalties and benefits etc, not by hard restrictions.
  • nephlitenephlite Registered Users Posts: 407
    @mitthrawnuruodo
    The drawback of such design is the AI of this game is not capable of such an advanced calculation. They will always build the same militia army.
  • Warlord_Lu_BuWarlord_Lu_Bu Registered Users Posts: 2,782
    Tao Qian is a good FLC imo... it allows us to impact history by a huge margin.... what if Tao Qian didn't give Liu Bei his lands? what if he actually managed to fend off Cao Cao? What if the Big Eared Villan served Tao Qian's family, instead of usurping it's power.

    Tao Qian was known as a kind an honourable leader towards his people (If I remember correctly?) and I think Liu Bei siphoned off of this "kindness" as part of his reputation... Liu Bei was a peasant that claimed noble birth, but Tao Qian was a noble governor and for nobles in that age to show kindness and just behaviour towards their subjects is rare.

    I really like the FLC and thank CA for their decision, it was well made. Yes I would have preferred Han Sui... but there is nothing stopping that to come in the future. Tao Qian on the other... intrigues me... many people see a coward perhaps... but I see a wise man on his death bed, that would rather bend the knee and let a wolf (like Liu Bei) take control, rather than watch his family be massacred in power games.

    It will be interesting to see how I can change history, by fending off the vicious wolf Cao Cao... perhaps absorbing Kong Rong and that damned peasant, Liu Bei into my state (or coalition) and creating a "Gentlemen's Empire" filled with intellectuals, merchants, scholars and gentlemen warriors! Ah! it will be lovely... especially if I can get Lu Bu adopted and help him "man up" the Tao family.
    "I am the punishment of Tengri, if you had not sinned, he would not have sent me against you." - Chenghis Khan Temujin
  • KirkwaldKirkwald Registered Users Posts: 947

    Kirkwald said:

    the faction design in 3K which follows the same philosophy of offering all unit types and letting the players have the freedom to pick the units they want.

    And as a result every faction in 3K ended up being the same. Could it be that those factions in Rome 2 stood out because of roster limitations?
    Yeah... make some things worse, so that others seem better. Sounds like great design strategy lol.

    The only tangible boon of unit restrictions (e.g. Scythia locked to cavalry) was in AI armies. When you go up against Scythia, you knew what to expect and planned accordingly. Go up against Macedon, better be prepared for pikes. This added to strategy.

    CA can replicate this without the need for nonsensical hard restrictions by greatly increasing the affinity for certain AI warlords towards certain army compositions. I assume this is one of the changes that will come with this patch which is intended to increase army diversity. If CA fail to do this, I will join you in criticism.

    And yes... it is nonsensical. People who keep making this complaint have put no thought in this at all. Looking for some reason to hate, and found an easy target. It was nonsensical in Rome 2. Your Macedonian ancestors conquered Asia and can now recruit Persian archers. But if you as Macedon do the same, you for some nonsensical reason are stuck with your dev-mandated Macedonian units. It is even more nonsensical in 3K, where we are talking about a unified culture,where warlords changed their allegiances and moved around the country constantly. What room for unique units was there, CA have exploited and more. Cao Cao has Tiger Cavalry. Dong Zhuo has the Xiliang. Gongsun Zan has his White Horsemen. There is no reason while any of them should be prevented from recruiting a soldier with Spear and Shield.

    Unit variety in a game like this would have to be introduced organically, via access to resources, economic penalties and benefits etc, not by hard restrictions.
    There is still a difference that cannot be simply locked to 1 or 2 unique units. For example Cao Cao and Yuan Shao's armies were frequently touted as being more heavily armored than everybody else because they had access to iron deposits in the central plains.
    Sun Quan's armies had a notorious number of reformed pirates due to their proximity by the sea. Liu Bei's armies when they reached Chengdu studied the art of mountain warfare and defense.
    There is so much you could do to make every faction play completely different from each other.

    Also you are blatantly ignoring the mercenary system from Rome 2 that allows you to hire local auxiliaries from the province you're in. 3K should have this so that you can hire various warbands like Xiongnu horsemen or Shanyue hillmen.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 4,230
    This thread has gone off the rails a bit.

    Is Tao Qian the best choice for an FLC lord? No, nobody thinks so for a variety of reasons;
    - He's more than likely going to die of old age before you can even get to the Three Kingdoms.
    - He comes with no additional unique characters to carry on playing with.
    - He starts in an area of the map that is already crowded with major Warlords.
    - His unique units seem very "meh".
    - His faction mechanic is lacklustre, and as far as I can tell, he doesn't even have an early-game dilemma.
    - There were at least two better choices, if only by virtue of them starting in distant parts of the map.

    Beyond that, he's FREE. So, I don't get why people are having such a tizzy about this.
    Kirkwald said:

    There's a difference, although negligible. Diaochan and the rest are forced updates, meanwhile Tao Qian is an optional downloadable content. On a glance, this may seem inconsequential, but Tao Qian taking up a faction slot means someone else that could have been included NOW was pushed back later down the line.

    Also Whiskeyjack_5691, at the very least Warhammer FLC provided us with NEW MODELS. Tao Qian isn't new, and modders have made him playable since day 1. His campaign effects and units aren't anything to write home about either.

    Gotta be honest, the argument that he's "taken an FLC slot" doesn't make sense to me. Is there some hard limit to the number of FLC factions CA can release? Has CA ever stated that such a limit exists, or suggested that this is a policy of theirs? If CA has ever, at any point, said that they can only release X number of playable factions as FLC, then I'd appreciate if somebody could send me a link to that.
    Otherwise, I have no idea where people are getting that idea from.
  • mitthrawnuruodomitthrawnuruodo Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,972
    nephlite said:

    @mitthrawnuruodo
    The drawback of such design is the AI of this game is not capable of such an advanced calculation. They will always build the same militia army.

    That is a problem, not just for AI, but a lot of human players as well who can not figure out how to recruit high tier units. Part of it has to do with high tier units being exponentially more expensive and significantly less cost effective compared to militia. That is something CA definitely need to look at.

    Cost and upkeep can definitely be one of the organic factors that can be used to encourage unit diversity, for example taxing factions in the south progressively for recruiting too many cavalry units so that it becomes untenable.

    But as Sergeant Whiskeyjack points out this has gone way off topic lol. Let's see what the are army diversity measures promised in this patch actually are, then we can get back to this subject.
  • Misaka_ComplexMisaka_Complex Registered Users Posts: 3,704
    I hope they added both of the Mi brothers, Cao Bao and some others but I doubt it.

  • KirkwaldKirkwald Registered Users Posts: 947

    nephlite said:

    @mitthrawnuruodo
    The drawback of such design is the AI of this game is not capable of such an advanced calculation. They will always build the same militia army.

    That is a problem, not just for AI, but a lot of human players as well who can not figure out how to recruit high tier units. Part of it has to do with high tier units being exponentially more expensive and significantly less cost effective compared to militia. That is something CA definitely need to look at.

    Cost and upkeep can definitely be one of the organic factors that can be used to encourage unit diversity, for example taxing factions in the south progressively for recruiting too many cavalry units so that it becomes untenable.

    But as Sergeant Whiskeyjack points out this has gone way off topic lol. Let's see what the are army diversity measures promised in this patch actually are, then we can get back to this subject.

    This thread has gone off the rails a bit.

    Is Tao Qian the best choice for an FLC lord? No, nobody thinks so for a variety of reasons;
    - He's more than likely going to die of old age before you can even get to the Three Kingdoms.
    - He comes with no additional unique characters to carry on playing with.
    - He starts in an area of the map that is already crowded with major Warlords.
    - His unique units seem very "meh".
    - His faction mechanic is lacklustre, and as far as I can tell, he doesn't even have an early-game dilemma.
    - There were at least two better choices, if only by virtue of them starting in distant parts of the map.

    Beyond that, he's FREE. So, I don't get why people are having such a tizzy about this.

    Kirkwald said:

    There's a difference, although negligible. Diaochan and the rest are forced updates, meanwhile Tao Qian is an optional downloadable content. On a glance, this may seem inconsequential, but Tao Qian taking up a faction slot means someone else that could have been included NOW was pushed back later down the line.

    Also Whiskeyjack_5691, at the very least Warhammer FLC provided us with NEW MODELS. Tao Qian isn't new, and modders have made him playable since day 1. His campaign effects and units aren't anything to write home about either.

    Gotta be honest, the argument that he's "taken an FLC slot" doesn't make sense to me. Is there some hard limit to the number of FLC factions CA can release? Has CA ever stated that such a limit exists, or suggested that this is a policy of theirs? If CA has ever, at any point, said that they can only release X number of playable factions as FLC, then I'd appreciate if somebody could send me a link to that.
    Otherwise, I have no idea where people are getting that idea from.
    It's not about the limit but the very idea that someone more important could be added RIGHT NOW instead of this guy. For example in Warhammer, a lot of people have expressed their disatisfactions over FLC and DLC character choices respectively. For example, Skaven players really hate Tretch Craventail for not only being utterly remarkable as a Lord, his lore importance is also very insignificant, when other characters such as Thanquol could be in the game right now but as such were pushed back to god knows when in the future, or worse, they might not even see the light of day if CA plans to transfer their attention to other games.
Sign In or Register to comment.