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

Medieval 3 wouldn't work

VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 614
edited February 20 in Total War General Chat
I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but I feel like I need to say this.

Screw Medieval 3!


Now, I don't utterly hate the medieval times or anything as far as a setting for most other games, but I really don't think it would make for a great setting for a future TW game. And that's for three main reasons.


1. There's not enough unique things that CA could with a Medieval 3.

I say this because if you stop and think about the time period, you'll probably see that a Medieval 3 won't really be that much of a enhancement of what Medieval 2 brought to the table, as it were.

Because a lot of us want more unique things for our TW factions, and the medieval setting would probably make most of the factions all feel really similar to each other.

But the only thing I can think of CA adding in to a M3 that would be new and unique would be to give the Danish faction the ability to stay "pagan" and actually have a bunch of special units that come from staying pagan. And that's only if the campaign starts early enough


But that's all I can think of them doing without trying to make the game too much like the second point.


2. It needs to be a TW game and not EU4 or whatever.

I personally can't stand those games.

And it's not that I hate them and wish they would fail or anything like that, but those games are certainly not my cup of tea.

But what I don't want to have happen is for a Medieval 3 to become all about the politics and such to the point where stupid nonsense can happen.

Allow me to explain.

My brother plays those games, and he told me about how some pretty ridiculous stuff can happen in it.

Like,

You could be building you kingdom into an empire, and you happened to make a marriage alliance with a neighboring nation.

Then your king or whatever dies and that allied nation's heir suddenly gets to be king and absorbs your kingdom into theirs.

And the game is over for you.


And I don't want any of the TW games to stray too close to being anything like EU4 and such games.


3. Building up for disappointment.

And I think that part of the problem is also the fact that so many M2 fanboys have put that game on such a ridiculously high pedestal, that even if CA did make a Medieval 3 to the best of their ability, that a lot of those people will give the game flak for not being the same Medieval 2.

And I personally think that while M2 was a good game, I think it's highly overrated.



I just think that CA would be better off either making an Empire 2 or Rome 3, since there's a lot more interesting options and other things they could do with those settings as compared to a Medieval 3.
Post edited by VikingHuscal1066 on

Comments

  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 31,219
    edited February 22

    I

    I say this because if you stop and think about the time period, you'll probably see that a Medieval 3 won't really be that much of a enhancement of what Medieval 2 brought to the table, as it were.

    The engine M2 ran on didn't even allow more than 20+ something factions on the map, so not only were there a ton of faceless rebels (which includes the Welsh and the Irish), it also presented nations that were internally divided as large unified blobs, like the HRE.

    Yeah no, M2 actually gave a very warped version of the Middle Ages that was even less sophisticated than in M1, since in that title you actually had regional titles, succession wars and more sophisticated religion mechanics.

  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 614


    The engine M2 ran on didn't even allow more than 20+ something factions on the map, so not only were there a ton of faceless rebels (which includes the Welsh and the Irish), it also presented nations that were internally divided as large unified blobs, like the HRE.

    Yeah no, M2 actually gave a very warped version of the Middle Ages that was even less sophisticated than in M1, since in that title you actually had regional titles, succession wars and more sophisticated religion mechanics.

    I didn't know that about Medieval 1.


    But I honestly just think that while a Medieval 3 could be a fun game and all , I don't think there's that many unique mechanics and such that they can do for many of the factions in it. Aside from maybe giving at least the Danish faction the ability to either go pagan or Christian, and actually get some cool units for going pagan.

    But that's all I can really think of for the medieval setting


    But that's why I think that an Empire 2 or Rome 3 would work far better than a Medieval 3.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 4,160
    Truth be told, the game would probably be better off without each faction in the game having a unique mechanic. It worked great for a fantasy setting like Warhammer, but in historical settings they don't seem to work very well for whatever reason.

    In some cases Troy took mechanics that had been standard mechanics available to all factions in pervious games, and made them "unique" faction mechanics. Agamemnon's Vassals, and Hector's Alliances being two prime examples. The one advantage this did have was that those mechanics were expanded on and made more useful and impactful on your game.
    In 3K, faction mechanics were often so lackluster and had such little impact, you could play through an entire game without ever paying attention to some of them. A lot of players seemed to agree that CA was spreading themselves too thin in trying to design unique mechanics for each faction, and the result was a bunch of shallow mechanics that weren't much fun.

    Conversely, 3K introduced a ton of new features and mechanics - like expanded diplomacy, courts, faction management, espionage, and character development - which proved so fun that players actually asked for them to be made even more impactful and meaningful.
    The best option would be to take all of these new features and mechanics CA have added in recent games, and expand them further and make them deeper. Then, instead of unique mechanics for each faction, give each faction a handful of simple bonuses to certain mechanics.

    A "multiplicative" rather than "additive" approach to mechanics.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 614
    edited February 23

    Truth be told, the game would probably be better off without each faction in the game having a unique mechanic. It worked great for a fantasy setting like Warhammer, but in historical settings they don't seem to work very well for whatever reason.

    In some cases Troy took mechanics that had been standard mechanics available to all factions in pervious games, and made them "unique" faction mechanics. Agamemnon's Vassals, and Hector's Alliances being two prime examples. The one advantage this did have was that those mechanics were expanded on and made more useful and impactful on your game.
    In 3K, faction mechanics were often so lackluster and had such little impact, you could play through an entire game without ever paying attention to some of them. A lot of players seemed to agree that CA was spreading themselves too thin in trying to design unique mechanics for each faction, and the result was a bunch of shallow mechanics that weren't much fun.

    Conversely, 3K introduced a ton of new features and mechanics - like expanded diplomacy, courts, faction management, espionage, and character development - which proved so fun that players actually asked for them to be made even more impactful and meaningful.
    The best option would be to take all of these new features and mechanics CA have added in recent games, and expand them further and make them deeper. Then, instead of unique mechanics for each faction, give each faction a handful of simple bonuses to certain mechanics.

    A "multiplicative" rather than "additive" approach to mechanics.

    I appreciate someone actually explaining something out about what they could do with a Medieval 3.

    And while I still have my doubts, mainly concerning the units and how all their armies would play, I do appreciate that some of those things you mentioned could certainly liven up the campaign a fair bit.

    But like I said, I just worry that the armies in a Medieval 3 would end up mostly all playing very similarly to each other.
Sign In or Register to comment.