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

Total War Idea- 1870-1900s Victoria Era/Imperalism

2»

Comments

  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,144

    Yes, your sentence was wrong in all regards. Horrible of me pointing that out, now I will only live in shame.

    Oh.. so it was a few history nerds like you said? Or other TW games weren’t effected? Despite a thread full of people complaining about other games being downvoted?

    I think you need to initiate a tactical retreat.
  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 611
    From all we went to WH. From mostly negative we went to downvoted. Quite a goalpost move, wouldn't you say? By the way, never said it was a few history nerds, so please don't misquote me. The campaign started from Stormfront, from Neo-Nazis who weren't even playing the game. It's OK, only the Pope is flawless.
    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,144
    Let me get this straight.. you've moved from a few nerds to admitting it was a major issue and now you are trying to dig yourself out of a hole by arguing how serious the review bombing was? The review bombing was serious enough for someone to bring it up, I remember some of the major titles getting moved to mostly negative. All your original points have been off the mark.. totally.

    Facts:

    All major titles got review bombed.. not just R2
    It was a major issue for CA.. not a 'few nerds'
    It was a political issue were CA sided with progessive politics.. nothing to do with history nerds

    The fact that you're arguing insignificant details about how badly each individual game was review bombed just goes to show how painfully wrong you were.

    Advice.. don't jump in with both feet without knowing the facts.
  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 611
    Please notice how we moved from all titles to all major titles. Of course, all major titles means Warhammer and Warhammer. Maybe Warhammer, as well.
    Not sure who are you quoting by a ''few nerds''. Yourself? It's only you who brought up the strawman, as I, from the beginning, have argued that the controversy started from an online campaign of Stormfront.
    CA siding with progressive politics is your own, ultimately irrelevant and contradicted by facts interpretation. Methinks they sided with monies.
    I take your silence on the rest of the issues as a concession.
    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,144

    Please notice how we moved from all titles to all major titles. Of course, all major titles means Warhammer and Warhammer. Maybe Warhammer, as well.
    Not sure who are you quoting by a ''few nerds''. Yourself? It's only you who brought up the strawman, as I, from the beginning, have argued that the controversy started from an online campaign of Stormfront.
    CA siding with progressive politics is your own, ultimately irrelevant and contradicted by facts interpretation. Methinks they sided with monies.
    I take your silence on the rest of the issues as a concession.

    Sooo.. now you’re saying that because people on the WH thread wanted to talk about WH specifically being affected that proves that other games weren’t affected?

    No.. you misunderstand, your main premise has been proven wrong. If you admit your initial argument of ‘a few nerds got upset’ was wrong we can carry on to your other points. Wouldn’t that be better than defending a point you lost the first time you said it?

    From the beginning you argued it was a campaign by Stormfront? Perhaps a different dimesnsion.. it was ‘a few history nerds’ if I remember correctly.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,144
    What feedback? Only a couple of history nerds reacted. Do you seriously believe that many are mad at female generals, while Rome II is riddled with inaccuracies of the most obvious kind? Genuine suggestion, don't listen to twitter too much, the world is much less adamant about that stuff than social media echo chambers would let you believe.

    Remember? You started changing your story about the time you clicked on Google.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,144
    A full explanation of what happened and no, it didn’t start with Stormfront.

    1. Back in March, CA added female Important Characters to the game in an update. (Important Characters are those that can serve as Generals, Admirals or Politicians.) In many factions (Rome, Carthage, Hellenic/Greek except Egypt, Eastern) the female Important Characters can only take part in the political and family parts of the game. They can never lead an Army or Navy. In others they can also be generals/admirals, based on their culture/history. (Barbarians because of people like Boudicca, Egypt because of their Queens such as Cleopatra, Masaesyli because they're Nomads and Kush because it's kind of their "hat.")

    The spawn rates for female characters was (and still is) fairly low. Kush it's 50%, other factions which can have Female Generals it's 10-15%, and factions who can't have Female Generals it's something like 6% (and they can never be Generals.)

    2. In August, CA released another update (Ancestral Update) which added family tree, political intrigues etc. This also added the family tree retroactively to campaigns people had which were already in progress.

    One of the effects of this was that spouses of Important Characters now themselves became Important Characters (having previously only represented them with a "card" on the Important Character's details.)

    Reason this is important, is that if you loaded an old save, the game had to turn all those wife and husband "cards" into Important Characters. So if I was playing say Egypt, and I had 5 married male Generals before the update, when I loaded after the update I'd now have 5 new female Important Characters (the wives.) And because Egypt can have female Generals, they will all also appear as possible choices whenever I appoint a General.

    So it appeared that peoples campaigns were being flooded with new female characters, when in actual fact they'd been there all along, just in a different form.

    3. Because of this, as well as there being new ways to create characters (male or female) such as the Seek Spouse political intrigue, people started seeing more female characters appearing in the campaigns.

    4. Someone shared a screenshot which "appeared" to show them only having the option to recruit female Generals. I say "appeared" because if you play and are familiar with the game you can clearly see they have more than the 5 candidates they are showing and at least one male candidate. Also if you read what they wrote about how they were playing, that's also likely a contributing factor. Finally, as randomness and probility are involved, you end up with results that are on the extreme ends of the range. Just because Player A ends up with 5 female candidates, doesn't mean Player B isn't going to have 5 male candidates under the same conditions, and Players C through Z will mostly end up somewhere in between.

    5. Also around this time there were a spate of threads about female leaders, almost all of which quickly devolved into insults and namecalling, escalating to some particularly nasty stuff, often by the same small group of people.

    CA Ella and other moderators handled this in a professional manner, warning them and ultimately some bans were handed out, to people who had repeatedly or very seriously violated the Steam Rules we all agreed to when we joined the forums. Despite what some have claimed, from what I saw (as I was following those discussions) nobody was banned for objecting female leaders, only for violating the Steam rules due to their abusive language (and in some cases saying they were going to aquire the games in a non-legal fashion in future, which is a straight ban by the Steam Rules.)

    Threads about the topic which had not devolved like this, and people who had expressed their opinions on it without violating the Steam Rules weren't locked/banned.

    6. On August 13th (more than six weeks ago!,) after yet another one of these threads had gone exactly the same way, with more insults, namecalling, abusive language etc CA Ella locked the thread with the following:

    "This thread is a mess so I'm locking it (and bans have been issued for those who repeatedly violated Steam community guidelines).

    As has been said previously: Total War games are historically authentic, not historically accurate - if having female units upsets you that much you can either mod them out or just not play."

    Source: https://steamcommunity.com/app/214950/discussions/0/1698293068433895118/?ctp=8#c1746720717351059516

    The final parts been quoted a lot in isolation, but I think it's worth keeping in mind the context of it, as well as the fact it was directed at a small group of people not the entire community.

    Also note that the authentic vs accurate quote comes from an article released in 2013 before Rome 2 was even released: https://www.pcgamesn.com/totalwar/placing-authenticity-over-accuracy-total-war-rome-ii

    It's also worth noting this got barely any attention at the time.

    7. In the past week, a Youtuber (ArchWarhammer,) a gaming blog (OneAngryGamer,) and a far-right website (The Daily Stormer,) all did pieces about the addition of female leaders (often getting the facts wrong,) the screenshot (again getting the facts wrong and in some cases cropping it to be just the female candidates) and CA Ella's post (without the context.)

    8. Over the weekend we suddenly saw on Steam and some other forums a rush of people complaining about the female leaders (which had been in the game for 6 months,) the current patch (which had been out for 6 weeks,) about CA Ella's post (from 6 weeks ago,) and such a huge spike in negative reviews that it actually triggered Steam's mechanism for alerting people to a possible review bombing.

    9. Finally yesterday (September 25th,) CA released an official response:

    https://steamcommunity.com/app/214950/discussions/0/1735465524721186900/

    ***

    So that's basically it.

    I've tried to keep this as unbiased as possible, but I think it's only fair to state that I personally like the way CA has implemented female leaders, and the only real issue I have with CA Ella's post is she forgot to mention you can also roll back the game to an earlier patch using the Betas tab.

    Hope that helps.
  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 611
    edited June 17
    lmao, professional manner. CA Ella literally told them to mod it away, if they don't like it. About an update that was added several months after the game was released. So professional, much objective, very sober. Instead of reading dave's diatribe, I recommend Darren's more accurate and less obnoxious summary.

    Meanwhile, two posts above the one you quoted:

    Lmao, the review bombing of Rome II was an organised attempt by Stormfront, which happened several years after their inclusion. Most of them haven't even played the damn game. Internet campaigns =/= indication of popularity.

    I'll happily accept your apology. Lying is very rude you know.

    Oh, I almost forgot. It's up to you to prove that more games than WH and Rome 2 were affected by the review-bombing. And also that they both fell to mostly negative. We are already in the second page and you are still struggling, so you should perhaps admit you made it up. It's OK, I ain't gonna bite you, mate.
    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,144

    lmao, professional manner. CA Ella literally told them to mod it away, if they don't like it. About an update that was added several months after the game was released. So professional, much objective, very sober. Instead of reading dave's diatribe, I recommend Darren's more accurate and less obnoxious summary.

    Meanwhile, two posts above the one you quoted:

    Lmao, the review bombing of Rome II was an organised attempt by Stormfront, which happened several years after their inclusion. Most of them haven't even played the damn game. Internet campaigns =/= indication of popularity.

    I'll happily accept your apology. Lying is very rude you know.

    Oh, I almost forgot. It's up to you to prove that more games than WH and Rome 2 were affected by the review-bombing. And also that they both fell to mostly negative. We are already in the second page and you are still struggling, so you should perhaps admit you made it up. It's OK, I ain't gonna bite you, mate.
    More comedy gold.

    Your argument meandered around like an old drunk for the last 2 pages and you're actually having a go at others? Next you'll be saying you're sure only the Daemons will appear as core in WH3.

    Question.. what started the issue? Was it a far right website or a few history geeks? Pick an option.

    Question.. originally you were sure it was only R2 which was review bombed.. yet not you are sure it is just WH1 and 2 as well. Is it likely those same angry people went over to the other games or did they all decide to call it a day at R2 and WH? As I remember them doing it to all, but even if I'm wrong (I'm not), so what? What does that prove.

    It's clear that CA dug their heels in when it comes to female generals even if it meant upsetting a substantial % of the fanbase, why? They are obviously progressive and they will never fall on the side of alt right. Why not allow an option to turn off female generals? Easy.. I think we both know why they didn't.

    The UK is currently going through mass protests, certain media is being taken off streaming sites and 100s of statues connected to imperialism are either being thrown into the sea or taken down by local councils. If you think CA are watching all this and thinking it's a great time to do Imperial TW then that's your up to, I simply don't agree with your 'logic'.



  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 611
    lmao still salty about the Monogods? Please take your complaints to the Russian hackers who revealed CA's plans about the trilogy, I'm just the messenger.

    Of course, we do. Why spend your special resources in an old game, because Stormfront organised a campaign against Rome II.

    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,144

    lmao still salty about the Monogods? Please take your complaints to the Russian hackers who revealed CA's plans about the trilogy, I'm just the messenger.

    Of course, we do. Why spend your special resources in an old game, because Stormfront organised a campaign against Rome II.

    haha that's brilliant.. it was all Stormfront? A second rate far right magazine? Yeah they did it all didn't they? It wasn't all the articles, alt right Youtubers and already existing culture within gaming.. nah it was Stormfront all a long.. that's cute.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 20,344
    Several posts removed. Let's all keep the personal remarks about each other's opinion, and about each other, out of the conversation.

    Discuss the thread topic......
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 611
    edited June 17

    lmao still salty about the Monogods? Please take your complaints to the Russian hackers who revealed CA's plans about the trilogy, I'm just the messenger.

    Of course, we do. Why spend your special resources in an old game, because Stormfront organised a campaign against Rome II.

    haha that's brilliant.. it was all Stormfront? A second rate far right magazine? Yeah they did it all didn't they? It wasn't all the articles, alt right Youtubers and already existing culture within gaming.. nah it was Stormfront all a long.. that's cute.
    You realise there's a difference between organising a campaign and reporting said campaign? The only Youtuber that took the side of Stormfront was Arch Warhammer, whose political beliefs are special, let's just say... Oh, and Stormfront is a forum, mate, not a magazine.
    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,144

    lmao still salty about the Monogods? Please take your complaints to the Russian hackers who revealed CA's plans about the trilogy, I'm just the messenger.

    Of course, we do. Why spend your special resources in an old game, because Stormfront organised a campaign against Rome II.

    haha that's brilliant.. it was all Stormfront? A second rate far right magazine? Yeah they did it all didn't they? It wasn't all the articles, alt right Youtubers and already existing culture within gaming.. nah it was Stormfront all a long.. that's cute.
    You realise there's a difference between organising a campaign and reporting said campaign? The only Youtuber that took the side of Stormfront was Arch Warhammer, whose political beliefs are special, let's just say... Oh, and Stormfront is a forum, mate, not a magazine.
    I love the way you think the genius' in Stormfront could organise anything, they reposted something that had already been posted *slow clap* and you're equating the entire situation to come from them? The original post used by Stormfront was taken from a Steam user called Erick and people were already commentating on it.

    Just Arch.. not The Quartering, No Bulls**t etc and a raft of online articles? If you think this was about history then great.. but I didn't see any articles about Bronze Age Egyptian armies being used in medieval TW or the Byzantines using WW2 style flamethrowers coming up much. If you think that was about historical accuracy and not 'politics' then I can only congratulate you on your ability to shy away from the harsh reality of our modern times. "People throwing a statue in a river? Probably bored"..
  • NiriziNirizi Registered Users Posts: 1
    edited June 29

    I really enjoy the fall of the samurai, napoleon total war, and late empire mechanics (specifically guns and all that). I also figured that it would be interesting to see how total war would do this sort of thing.
    The idea of this one would center around conflicts like the Spanish-American war, American conflicts with natives, European, Japanese, and American imperialism, Russian-Ottoman conflicts, and such.

    It's funny, I just made a forum account to suggest something similar. I want to march across Europe as Prussia. Although I think the start year should be 1790 and end around 1890 so we don't run into WWI. 100 years with 4 turns per year would be a hella long game.

    Or even better - they could make it open ended and add technology research to acquire things like tanks (the very early versions) aircraft and rifles once we hit the 1900's. An attack from air could be a one time command during the in game battles - you'd have to have aircraft in one of your cities close enough to the battle for it to work. Press a button when the battle starts and a biplane flies over the enemy and drops a few bombs. I feel CA really should break out of their comfort zone and start doing things like this. As much as I'd like to see a Total War - Rome III, I'd much rather see them do something different.

    Wanted to add: Trench warefare could be set up for the defensive side during the setup phase of the battles. Make it a formation option for the infantry - select infantry unit card, click a trench option, place and stretch the trench into place. Now your previously grouped infantry is now set in trenches in a defensive position.
    Post edited by Nirizi on
  • Barbarian BorelordBarbarian Borelord Registered Users Posts: 33
    I'm just gonna ignore everything about female warriors, stormfront and review bombing and all that and tell what I would like to see in an Empire II or Victoria Total War game:

    I've always been interested in the history of the Boers and the Zulu War. I would love a Victoria TW to include a South Africa map with the British, the Zulus, and the Boer republics as playable factions.

    I also like to read about the American Civil War: include that into Victoria TW as well please.

    In general, I would like to see a Victoria TW game that covers as many places in the world. That would be nice change from only painting the map of Europe over and over again.

    And also I had a rather crazy idea, crazy but awesome: how about a DLC called 'Total War of the Worlds', in which at the 100th turn the Martians invade?
Sign In or Register to comment.