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

Do you think CA will dumb down TWW3 even more or will they actually try to make it more strategic?

2»

Comments

  • MSMisfakenewsMSMisfakenews Registered Users Posts: 192
    edited February 28
    Xenos7777 said:

    I don't really feel Warhammer was "dumbed down" in comparison with previous TW games. It was always a relatively beer & pretzel strategy series, and then mods made it more complex and realistic. It's just how it works.

    For example being able to replenish your army when in enemy territory makes zero sense and is clearly and example of dumbing down.

    Heck this is Dumbing Down 101 for dumbies
  • JungleElfJungleElf Registered Users Posts: 3,906
    Medieval 2 was one of the most frustrating titles, with the most frustrating form of backstabbing player-focussing AI.

    I got way more enjoyment out of Empire.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,260

    Xenos7777 said:

    I don't really feel Warhammer was "dumbed down" in comparison with previous TW games. It was always a relatively beer & pretzel strategy series, and then mods made it more complex and realistic. It's just how it works.

    For example being able to replenish your army when in enemy territory makes zero sense and is clearly and example of dumbing down.

    Heck this is Dumbing Down 101 for dumbies
    You replenish a lot slower in enemy territory and must be in a particular stance.

    The idea that replenishing in enemy territory (at all) is impossible is rather strange. Would you really take a force to challenge an enemy without supply lines? Without the ability to send extra equipment including troops?

    Is there no planning involved in military campaigns?
  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 974
    edited February 28
    I think there's, this is why in older games, you were forced to pay dearly for newly recruited units to arrive to the front. Instead of magically replacing (or getting healed). Crazy stuff, I know.

    Not Shogun, but yeah, Medieval II and Rome I actually require the player to think a bit. For example, to take care of his men and other extraordinary stuff like that magical replenishment relieved us from.

    Oh yeah, they were so complicated weren’t they? I remember not painting the map with little challenge.. oh wait, I did and they did have the same issues as every other TW game and this is more to do with a severe case of rise tinted spectacles. That’s right, I remember.

    I remember highlights such as killing entire peasant armies with general in R1 or watching as an entire army lined up in front of the settlement gate as my heavy spears shattered the cavalry the second they made contact and watched their entire army walk into my heavily protected gate. Those were the days.
    Yeah, not at all comparable to Tyrion and an overpowered vampire wiping out entire armies single-handedly.

    Anyway, because you seem to be struggling with different opinions:
    There were several aspects of the older games, which I like, because I believe they made the games more immersive, thoughtful and enjoyable.

    You are of course welcome to disagree with my opinion and clumsily attempt to dismiss it as nostalgia, but you should not expect your triggered reaction to be taken very seriously.
    Coming from the guy who kept losing his head because people didn’t accept his vision of WH3.. monos as core and nothing else?

    But they’re expanding the game - reply ‘waaah the Russian leak’

    But they need a good faction - reply ‘waaah the Russian leak’

    But the Chaos faction isn’t popular, it’s a big risk - reply ‘waaah the Russian leak’

    Cathay would be good to enter the Chinese market - reply ‘waaah the Russian leak’

    It did make me chuckle when you mentioned ‘struggling with different opinions’.
    So, no counter-argument...

    Alright, I accept your surrender.
    You didn’t give one.. Tyrian’s really powerful? Yeah, so is England with its powerful armoured infantry, great cav and easy island start. So what? I still painted the map with little thought, there were multiple cheeses that could be used.

    What argument? Are you trying to tell me M2 was a huge challenge? It was deep? The AI was vastly better? If you are - you’re simply wrong.

    So, I thought I’d just focus on the hilarity of you accusing someone else of not being able to disagree.. ok sweet pea?
    Didn't say it was hard, lmao. Do try to argue without strawmen and goal-post shifting Dave. Anyway, as I said, there are quite a few features that I found deeper than skill trees, skype diplomacy and magic replenishment. You are free to disagree of course, but getting triggered over a different opinion?

    I dunno, you are free to do that, as well, of course, but it does look kinda weird, mate, ain't gonna lie.

    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!

  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,281

    Xenos7777 said:

    I don't really feel Warhammer was "dumbed down" in comparison with previous TW games. It was always a relatively beer & pretzel strategy series, and then mods made it more complex and realistic. It's just how it works.

    For example being able to replenish your army when in enemy territory makes zero sense and is clearly and example of dumbing down.

    Heck this is Dumbing Down 101 for dumbies
    Why does it make zero sense? I mean, didn't the English receive reinforcements from England while they were fighting the Hundred Years War in France? It's just an abstraction of reinforcements coming from your country. Usually proper wargames simulate supply lines so the enemy can cut you from reinforcements, but it's still very rare to have reinforcements showing up on the map while they come to the front. I don't remember any wargame working that way.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,260

    I think there's, this is why in older games, you were forced to pay dearly for newly recruited units to arrive to the front. Instead of magically replacing (or getting healed). Crazy stuff, I know.

    Not Shogun, but yeah, Medieval II and Rome I actually require the player to think a bit. For example, to take care of his men and other extraordinary stuff like that magical replenishment relieved us from.

    Oh yeah, they were so complicated weren’t they? I remember not painting the map with little challenge.. oh wait, I did and they did have the same issues as every other TW game and this is more to do with a severe case of rise tinted spectacles. That’s right, I remember.

    I remember highlights such as killing entire peasant armies with general in R1 or watching as an entire army lined up in front of the settlement gate as my heavy spears shattered the cavalry the second they made contact and watched their entire army walk into my heavily protected gate. Those were the days.
    Yeah, not at all comparable to Tyrion and an overpowered vampire wiping out entire armies single-handedly.

    Anyway, because you seem to be struggling with different opinions:
    There were several aspects of the older games, which I like, because I believe they made the games more immersive, thoughtful and enjoyable.

    You are of course welcome to disagree with my opinion and clumsily attempt to dismiss it as nostalgia, but you should not expect your triggered reaction to be taken very seriously.
    Coming from the guy who kept losing his head because people didn’t accept his vision of WH3.. monos as core and nothing else?

    But they’re expanding the game - reply ‘waaah the Russian leak’

    But they need a good faction - reply ‘waaah the Russian leak’

    But the Chaos faction isn’t popular, it’s a big risk - reply ‘waaah the Russian leak’

    Cathay would be good to enter the Chinese market - reply ‘waaah the Russian leak’

    It did make me chuckle when you mentioned ‘struggling with different opinions’.
    So, no counter-argument...

    Alright, I accept your surrender.
    You didn’t give one.. Tyrian’s really powerful? Yeah, so is England with its powerful armoured infantry, great cav and easy island start. So what? I still painted the map with little thought, there were multiple cheeses that could be used.

    What argument? Are you trying to tell me M2 was a huge challenge? It was deep? The AI was vastly better? If you are - you’re simply wrong.

    So, I thought I’d just focus on the hilarity of you accusing someone else of not being able to disagree.. ok sweet pea?
    Didn't say it was hard, lmao. Do try to argue without strawmen and goal-post shifting Dave. Anyway, as I said, there are quite a few features that I found deeper than skill trees, skype diplomacy and magic replenishment. You are free to disagree of course, but getting triggered over a different opinion?

    I dunno, you are free to do that, as well, of course, but it does look kinda weird, mate, ain't gonna lie.

    So it's easy? So you don't need to use strategy or tactics? Glad we sorted that out.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,281
    edited February 28

    Xenos7777 said:

    Xenos7777 said:

    I don't really feel Warhammer was "dumbed down" in comparison with previous TW games. It was always a relatively beer & pretzel strategy series, and then mods made it more complex and realistic. It's just how it works.

    Autoconversion says hello, probably the #1 piece of evidence that TWWH was indeed dumbed down massively.
    I don't call that "dumbing down". It's just a change in gameplay pace, but it's not like having to rebuild a province from the ground up was some kind of big strategic choice. Sure it was harder, but not more complex. Still, I prefer a slower pace so use the mod disabling autoconversion, it works fine.
    False.

    In other games until you converted you got less money, no garrison and slowed down replenishment, so if you captured a settlement with heavy losses you couldn't immediately replace them and were at a disadvantage if you got counter attacked. You had to invest time and money into a new conquest to make it pay for itself too. This consideration falls completely to the wayside in TWWH thanks to autoconversion, now constantly expanding is always the best course of action and has no drawbacks at all and you get to save a ton of time and money. So what happens? Earlier and easier steamrolling, that's what.
    Well, let's be honest, expanding is the best course of action in every 4x game. For example, EU4 puts a lot of penalties on recently conquered provinces, particularly if they have foreign culture/religion. It's actually a strong part of that design. Still, conquering is always a good idea, because you grow stronger (if not now, down the way) and make your enemy weaker. That's why I say it's mostly a matter of pace, not of complexity. You have to pay attention not to conquer so fast to get overwhelmed, but that's about it. For me, complexity is about having simulated supply lines vs not having them, having different resources aside from money, different kinds of governments, that stuff.
  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 974

    I think there's, this is why in older games, you were forced to pay dearly for newly recruited units to arrive to the front. Instead of magically replacing (or getting healed). Crazy stuff, I know.

    Not Shogun, but yeah, Medieval II and Rome I actually require the player to think a bit. For example, to take care of his men and other extraordinary stuff like that magical replenishment relieved us from.

    Oh yeah, they were so complicated weren’t they? I remember not painting the map with little challenge.. oh wait, I did and they did have the same issues as every other TW game and this is more to do with a severe case of rise tinted spectacles. That’s right, I remember.

    I remember highlights such as killing entire peasant armies with general in R1 or watching as an entire army lined up in front of the settlement gate as my heavy spears shattered the cavalry the second they made contact and watched their entire army walk into my heavily protected gate. Those were the days.
    Yeah, not at all comparable to Tyrion and an overpowered vampire wiping out entire armies single-handedly.

    Anyway, because you seem to be struggling with different opinions:
    There were several aspects of the older games, which I like, because I believe they made the games more immersive, thoughtful and enjoyable.

    You are of course welcome to disagree with my opinion and clumsily attempt to dismiss it as nostalgia, but you should not expect your triggered reaction to be taken very seriously.
    Coming from the guy who kept losing his head because people didn’t accept his vision of WH3.. monos as core and nothing else?

    But they’re expanding the game - reply ‘waaah the Russian leak’

    But they need a good faction - reply ‘waaah the Russian leak’

    But the Chaos faction isn’t popular, it’s a big risk - reply ‘waaah the Russian leak’

    Cathay would be good to enter the Chinese market - reply ‘waaah the Russian leak’

    It did make me chuckle when you mentioned ‘struggling with different opinions’.
    So, no counter-argument...

    Alright, I accept your surrender.
    You didn’t give one.. Tyrian’s really powerful? Yeah, so is England with its powerful armoured infantry, great cav and easy island start. So what? I still painted the map with little thought, there were multiple cheeses that could be used.

    What argument? Are you trying to tell me M2 was a huge challenge? It was deep? The AI was vastly better? If you are - you’re simply wrong.

    So, I thought I’d just focus on the hilarity of you accusing someone else of not being able to disagree.. ok sweet pea?
    Didn't say it was hard, lmao. Do try to argue without strawmen and goal-post shifting Dave. Anyway, as I said, there are quite a few features that I found deeper than skill trees, skype diplomacy and magic replenishment. You are free to disagree of course, but getting triggered over a different opinion?

    I dunno, you are free to do that, as well, of course, but it does look kinda weird, mate, ain't gonna lie.

    So it's easy? So you don't need to use strategy or tactics? Glad we sorted that out.
    As easy as Warhammer, but difficulty =/= strategy, tactics, immersion or realism.
    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!

  • KrocodileKrew212KrocodileKrew212 Registered Users Posts: 226
    People just leave. You'll never look back in future and think, "God, I should have spent more time on trivial bull crap like this."
    Team Ogre Kingdoms

    "We threatened to grind their bones up to make bread if they didn't pay. Course that's just a threat - it takes too long to grind 'em and most of this lot are just as 'appy to eat'em raw." -- Olag Skullcracker, Ogre Tyrant
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,260

    I think there's, this is why in older games, you were forced to pay dearly for newly recruited units to arrive to the front. Instead of magically replacing (or getting healed). Crazy stuff, I know.

    Not Shogun, but yeah, Medieval II and Rome I actually require the player to think a bit. For example, to take care of his men and other extraordinary stuff like that magical replenishment relieved us from.

    Oh yeah, they were so complicated weren’t they? I remember not painting the map with little challenge.. oh wait, I did and they did have the same issues as every other TW game and this is more to do with a severe case of rise tinted spectacles. That’s right, I remember.

    I remember highlights such as killing entire peasant armies with general in R1 or watching as an entire army lined up in front of the settlement gate as my heavy spears shattered the cavalry the second they made contact and watched their entire army walk into my heavily protected gate. Those were the days.
    Yeah, not at all comparable to Tyrion and an overpowered vampire wiping out entire armies single-handedly.

    Anyway, because you seem to be struggling with different opinions:
    There were several aspects of the older games, which I like, because I believe they made the games more immersive, thoughtful and enjoyable.

    You are of course welcome to disagree with my opinion and clumsily attempt to dismiss it as nostalgia, but you should not expect your triggered reaction to be taken very seriously.
    Coming from the guy who kept losing his head because people didn’t accept his vision of WH3.. monos as core and nothing else?

    But they’re expanding the game - reply ‘waaah the Russian leak’

    But they need a good faction - reply ‘waaah the Russian leak’

    But the Chaos faction isn’t popular, it’s a big risk - reply ‘waaah the Russian leak’

    Cathay would be good to enter the Chinese market - reply ‘waaah the Russian leak’

    It did make me chuckle when you mentioned ‘struggling with different opinions’.
    So, no counter-argument...

    Alright, I accept your surrender.
    You didn’t give one.. Tyrian’s really powerful? Yeah, so is England with its powerful armoured infantry, great cav and easy island start. So what? I still painted the map with little thought, there were multiple cheeses that could be used.

    What argument? Are you trying to tell me M2 was a huge challenge? It was deep? The AI was vastly better? If you are - you’re simply wrong.

    So, I thought I’d just focus on the hilarity of you accusing someone else of not being able to disagree.. ok sweet pea?
    Didn't say it was hard, lmao. Do try to argue without strawmen and goal-post shifting Dave. Anyway, as I said, there are quite a few features that I found deeper than skill trees, skype diplomacy and magic replenishment. You are free to disagree of course, but getting triggered over a different opinion?

    I dunno, you are free to do that, as well, of course, but it does look kinda weird, mate, ain't gonna lie.

    So it's easy? So you don't need to use strategy or tactics? Glad we sorted that out.
    As easy as Warhammer, but difficulty =/= strategy, tactics, immersion or realism.
    Why do you need to use strategy if it's easy? Immersion and realism? You are talking about M2 right?
  • NemoTheElf101NemoTheElf101 Registered Users Posts: 1,784
    "Why doesn't CA pander to my playstyle!!!??" summerizes the majority of these hot takes.

    No one is making you play a game you think is easy. You want more strategy, play an older title or a Paradox game; Total War is a war-game, not a government simulator.
  • Mogwai_ManMogwai_Man Registered Users Posts: 4,613
    edited February 28
    It probably won't be more strategic, CA knows that the spectacle already sells well enough already.

    The Total War series isn't exactly all that strategic anyway, I've had better battles against the Starcraft 2 AI.
  • BonutzBonutz Registered Users Posts: 3,770
    I like turtles.
    I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass...and I’m all out of bubblegum.
  • elkappelkapp Registered Users Posts: 261
    Well, following my definition of strategy i would make every unit in the game "available" such that every unit alone or together is/are able to defeat stronger enemies.
    I would change sieges to become way way harder to attack without a proper strategy and proper army.
    I would also change economy such that every race can do something to pump it beyond the "more settlement more money" thing.

    These seems points you won't like, and honestly, that's the problem: other than "strategy" or "balance" is something no-one gives a **** on Reddit, people have different views on what "strategy" or "balance" mean.
    For me balance imply that every army, either single, double or mixed stack, if though well enough should be good enough, at least compared to the effort it took to get that army in the first place. For other balance is done through restrictions such as TT-like army caps, factionwide recruitment caps or other bs caps just because people feel like the unit they like is not used in the way they like.

    Even if CA wanted, there's not a single clear voice that's asking, but a multitute of conflicting voices.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,870

    "Why doesn't CA pander to my playstyle!!!??" summerizes the majority of these hot takes.

    No one is making you play a game you think is easy. You want more strategy, play an older title or a Paradox game; Total War is a war-game, not a government simulator.

    Hey, remember when you disagreed with me on the whole gatekeeping thing? Nice to see that you're 100% in favor of doing so after all.


  • RockNRolla92RockNRolla92 Registered Users Posts: 1,770
    Xenos7777 said:

    I don't really feel Warhammer was "dumbed down" in comparison with previous TW games. It was always a relatively beer & pretzel strategy series, and then mods made it more complex and realistic. It's just how it works.

    It was dumbded down. I love it but they clearly prioritized making Warhammer work with total war systems and removed things that would be more effort to get working. They didn't know how it would sell and the art budget was huge so fair enough.

    Yes I agree total war was never that complex but it had more to it. Look at 3K, that has far more strategy elements.

    Yes Warhammer is great but the total war parts of it are pretty lacking. Diplomacy is utterly terrible and we don't even have trade.
  • NemoTheElf101NemoTheElf101 Registered Users Posts: 1,784

    "Why doesn't CA pander to my playstyle!!!??" summerizes the majority of these hot takes.

    No one is making you play a game you think is easy. You want more strategy, play an older title or a Paradox game; Total War is a war-game, not a government simulator.

    Hey, remember when you disagreed with me on the whole gatekeeping thing? Nice to see that you're 100% in favor of doing so after all.

    All in response to the point of the OP, which was "You can play however you want", which, again is the polar opposite of gatekeeping.

    I am not telling you that you shouldn't play this game. I am not tetlling you to "get good". I am not even telling you that you shouldn't be frustrated.

    What I am telling you is that Total War has a formula. It is not a Paradox game where every mechanic is its own system, or that it utiliizes similar ones accross the franchise. There is no other way other people have put this; what you want isn't going to be in a Total War title, and it shouldn't be changed for that.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,281

    Xenos7777 said:

    I don't really feel Warhammer was "dumbed down" in comparison with previous TW games. It was always a relatively beer & pretzel strategy series, and then mods made it more complex and realistic. It's just how it works.

    It was dumbded down. I love it but they clearly prioritized making Warhammer work with total war systems and removed things that would be more effort to get working. They didn't know how it would sell and the art budget was huge so fair enough.

    Yes I agree total war was never that complex but it had more to it. Look at 3K, that has far more strategy elements.

    Yes Warhammer is great but the total war parts of it are pretty lacking. Diplomacy is utterly terrible and we don't even have trade.
    That's not true. Warhammer has laboratories, forges, cooking, upgradeable units, crusades, magic, flying, ships, raise undead... it has a lot more mechanics if you add them all.
  • KrocodileKrew212KrocodileKrew212 Registered Users Posts: 226
    Just gonna drop this here and go.



    For the record, this is applicable in multiple directions.
    Team Ogre Kingdoms

    "We threatened to grind their bones up to make bread if they didn't pay. Course that's just a threat - it takes too long to grind 'em and most of this lot are just as 'appy to eat'em raw." -- Olag Skullcracker, Ogre Tyrant
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,870

    "Why doesn't CA pander to my playstyle!!!??" summerizes the majority of these hot takes.

    No one is making you play a game you think is easy. You want more strategy, play an older title or a Paradox game; Total War is a war-game, not a government simulator.

    Hey, remember when you disagreed with me on the whole gatekeeping thing? Nice to see that you're 100% in favor of doing so after all.

    All in response to the point of the OP, which was "You can play however you want", which, again is the polar opposite of gatekeeping.

    I am not telling you that you shouldn't play this game. I am not tetlling you to "get good". I am not even telling you that you shouldn't be frustrated.

    What I am telling you is that Total War has a formula. It is not a Paradox game where every mechanic is its own system, or that it utiliizes similar ones accross the franchise. There is no other way other people have put this; what you want isn't going to be in a Total War title, and it shouldn't be changed for that.
    You are expressing the clear with that people who aren't happy with the current design of he game should be silent and go somewhere else. Sorry, but people can air their grievances as much as they like and have their complaints taken seriously as long as they manage to do so constructively. If you want a fanboy echo-chamber where the mob can silence any opinion it doesn't like, go to reddit.

    Yes, TW has as formula. This TW has skipped several parts of it for not reason and it shows with a campaign that loses steam much earlier than in other TWs. If you like shallow and trivial experiences, fine. Play on easy then. But don't try to have the whole game cater solely for you.

  • EarlybirdEarlybird Registered Users Posts: 781
    Secondary weapons for knights so they dont melee with jousting spears
  • NemoTheElf101NemoTheElf101 Registered Users Posts: 1,784

    "Why doesn't CA pander to my playstyle!!!??" summerizes the majority of these hot takes.

    No one is making you play a game you think is easy. You want more strategy, play an older title or a Paradox game; Total War is a war-game, not a government simulator.

    Hey, remember when you disagreed with me on the whole gatekeeping thing? Nice to see that you're 100% in favor of doing so after all.

    All in response to the point of the OP, which was "You can play however you want", which, again is the polar opposite of gatekeeping.

    I am not telling you that you shouldn't play this game. I am not tetlling you to "get good". I am not even telling you that you shouldn't be frustrated.

    What I am telling you is that Total War has a formula. It is not a Paradox game where every mechanic is its own system, or that it utiliizes similar ones accross the franchise. There is no other way other people have put this; what you want isn't going to be in a Total War title, and it shouldn't be changed for that.
    You are expressing the clear with that people who aren't happy with the current design of he game should be silent and go somewhere else. Sorry, but people can air their grievances as much as they like and have their complaints taken seriously as long as they manage to do so constructively. If you want a fanboy echo-chamber where the mob can silence any opinion it doesn't like, go to reddit.

    Yes, TW has as formula. This TW has skipped several parts of it for not reason and it shows with a campaign that loses steam much earlier than in other TWs. If you like shallow and trivial experiences, fine. Play on easy then. But don't try to have the whole game cater solely for you.
    Where did I say I play on easy? Come on now.

    Yes, I am saying that because this game is not designed to be that way. Every strategy game, no matter if you're talking Stelllaris, Civilization, AoE, or whatever has a threshold where you learn the game well enough to where it's easy to exploit, because of how it plays. This isn't a Total War "issue", it's just a stragegy game feature. All of them have a point to where it's not going to be challenging unless if you focus entirely on multiplayer, or deliberately change the experience with mods.
  • CnConradCnConrad Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,182

    So we all now that TWW2 is balanced in only one direction = Rapid growth, unlimited cheap doomstacks and way OP heros that basically make the game unplayable after turn 50.

    Do you think in TWW3 that they will actually try to make TWW3 more of a strategic thought based game instead of the current mindless zombie romp broken mess that it currently is?

    This is a funny troll attempt. Nice user name at least.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 21,332
    Thread closed. If anyone objects send me a PM. I'll be able to reopen, pop a few folks with infractions for inappropriate personal comments and for trolling.

    "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
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

This discussion has been closed.