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

Empire 2 > Medieval 3

124»

Comments

  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,706

    It's not just a claim pal, it's an actual basic understanding of military history.

    And I understand that most medieval Europeans armies had a big focus on heavy cavalry and infantry, with most if any missile troops in a supporting role at best.

    But you clearly don't want to admit to those facts.

    I've explained and admitted as to why the European armies wouldn't be that different. And part of that would be because it would be historically inaccurate in a dumb way.

    Giving the Mongols a heavy focus on cavalry wouldn't be. Because, they're the freaking Mongols after all, it's kind of their thing.

    And Scotland was a good example of a European faction that could be different while still being historically accurate.


    There's a little bit of stuff that the could possibly bring into a Medieval 3 to actually make the battles interesting and different, like a mechanic that let you create your own units in the campaign and such. But unless something like that happens, they would just end up being little more than just the same battles as in Medieval 2.

    And that's because most of the possible playable factions will all have similar armies to each other.


    And despite what someone like you thinks Commisar, the battles are indeed the heart and soul of the TW games.


    And I've also explained how your obsession with mechanics would probably just make most of the factions' armies feel really lack luster because most of them would be so similar to each other.

    Yes infantry and cavalry were the main combat unit...but the exact same is true of the Empire period. You don't see that change until late 1800s when vehicles start to be used. The advantage of earlier time periods is they have a wider range of weapons and armours in use which gives a wider range of units.

    And in the Medieval period they would be different. The European armies didn't fight all the same during the Medieval period.

    And the Mongols during their peak of power during the Medieval period would have the same strength but actually more likely to be a playable faction.

    No it's not, as I pointed out during the period you've mentioned it fought the same as the rest of the Europe - Pike & Shot.

    Again you still haven't made any changes to battles. We already have nations that can focus on cavalry, we have nations that have next to none. It's not new.

    Again you're the one obsessed with mechanics. Feel free to read your own posts from the start.

    That's what I've tried explaining to him, but what he constantly ignores.

    Again that supports my point not yours. This is covering the period before your suggested game and covers the end of the Medieval period which sets it up.

    Reformation to War of Spanish Succession would be the natural choice IMHO. So it would start with events like the Hugeonot Wars, then shift to the Eighty/Thirty Years War and cap off with the wars of the Sun King, Louis XIV. You'd also have the Islamic "Gunpowder" Empires, Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals and the continued conquest of the Americas.

    The Pike and Shot Era would simply offer so much more to work with than the 18th century.

    Ah yeah, the Diet of Worms lol, that alone could be enough for CA to have the start date during M2s time frame! I know quite a few people go on about a trilogy of historical TW games and think doing Medieval - P&S -E2 would be a good way to build off each other.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 458
    Commisar said:


    And in the Medieval period they would be different. The European armies didn't fight all the same during the Medieval period.

    That's it.

    You're GOING to explain just how some of those factions' armies would be different as compared to what they were in Medieval 2.


    And I am going to hold you to not trying to go for the super obvious ones, such as the Turks, Egypt, and Russia.

    So no using those three.

    And I almost want to rule out the Swiss Confederation or the Counties of Flanders, because while they did adopt pikes and halberds and such earlier than other European nations, it's kind of not the same as being fully unique, since everyone started using pikemen and gunners by the late middle ages.


    But I do expect you to actually come up with more than just "England had longbows!" or "Genoa had elite crossbowmen!", basically just things that have already been done in Medieval 2.


    And I am of course talking about ARMIES.

    So don't think you can get away with dancing around the point by talking about X faction having Y campaign mechanics.

    I'm not going to let you try to play that childish game.


    So go ahead.

    Try to explain how some of the factions such as England, France, or the Holy Roman Empire's armies will be different from each other.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 21,264
    Take it easy folks. Wild Ass Speculation about a game is fine, as are differing opinions on what elements should or should not be in a "potential game that may or may not happen".

    With my Moderator hat having to be on right now I can't post my personal opinion. I do expect the conversation to be a little less distressed, shall we say, by some folks going forward.

    Thanks.
    "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.

  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,706
    Well as you haven't read the thread where I've already explained where a number of factions in the Medieval period would fight differently, where I've explained where you're own factions "uniques" are applicable mostly or entirely in the Medieval period and not the Empire period there's no point making dge1s job harder.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 458
    Commisar said:

    Well as you haven't read the thread where I've already explained where a number of factions in the Medieval period would fight differently, where I've explained where you're own factions "uniques" are applicable mostly or entirely in the Medieval period and not the Empire period there's no point making dge1s job harder.

    This is what I'm talking about.


    I did read most of what you said about the Normans and Anglo-Saxons and such, and even that part about how some Saxon nobles fled to Scotland after the Normans took over.

    But most of what little army related stuff you mentioned was already in Medieval 2, Attila, or Thrones. So not really unique or new. And if anything, it helps my argument.


    And my whole point is that the if you add in little things into a different time period, you'd get some more unique armies than what you think they would be.


    And I'm not just talking about making so many faction unique just because, but also because it would fit within the historical context of that faction, such as what I explained about Scotland's highlanders.

    The Scottish highland clans literally fought with swords and such as they did up until 1746 or so.

    So it's not just wanting to give them highlander units out of nothing, but out of wanting Scotland as a faction to have some units that would historically have made use of, and just making a few variants of them based on their different weapons.


    And just making the Mongol Khanate a playable faction would be kind of a flavor thing, as nobody wants to play the Mongols if they just have mostly infantry.

    Cavalry is their thing dude. So it's kinda dumb to expect them to be different and change their focus.


    So at this point, you're just trying to ignore the fact that I've explained stuff about my factions and what their armies could be like in a much more straight forward manner than you have.

    Because you're still trying to make this all about mechanics or whatever rather than factions' armies actually being different from each other.


    But I'm sure you'll just ignore all that, because you're just going to keep saying the same thing over and over again, despite the facts I've explained, because you don't want to accept that an Empire 2 would actually have some more room for options than a Medieval 3 would.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 458
    Commisar said:

    I also posted a thread several days ago, called "Rome 3" > Medieval 3.

    And its OP is much, MUCH longer and more in depth than this discussion's OP was.


    And you've been pretty much just saying that the medieval armies wouldn't all be the same and that all the Empire ones would be, while not really adding anything that hasn't already been done before.

    I just wish you'd accept the fact that an Empire 2's factions wouldn't all be the same exactly thing, like I've explained several times now.
  • EazyCEazyC Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 4
    I think it's highly dependable on how the game is set-up. Some ideas:

    Timespan
    What I liked about medieval I (yes I go back that far) was that you could pick a starting date in early-, mid-, or late medieval period and would have other factions, an adjusted starting position and unit roster accordingly. This somehow also returned in TK, but would be a very nice to see this back in a next title. The medieval age roughly spans from 500-1500 so that should give a lot of options on unit types varying from late Roman infantry to early matchlock. In my opinion this timespan could also be rolled out to the start of Empire: 1700. This would make the game-setting very similar to the Shogun setting: starting with low end infantry and ending up with guns. Empire being the FOTS expansion.

    Technology
    After the fall of Rome there was a big fall-back in technology. These early medieval period is a very mystical age where the surviving Roman buildings and artifacts might have had a mythical status where the people of this age would clung onto. This highly contrasts with the late middle ages where science flourished and let to all kind of inventions that could deliver a huge advantage on development, trade (discoveries), diplomacy, economics or the battlefield.

    Nations
    The medieval timescape in Europe is perfect, as it knows no real dominant power, similar to Shogun. However, it would be very interesting to make the map a lot bigger and give the opportunity to for instance enlarge your world through discovery-missions. Not only giving European nations the option to discover, but also Asian nations the other way around. Furthermore, if you know something about history, or ever read a book about it, you will know that both units and tactics in Europe alone where very diverse in this period of time. But for starters, try wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warfare

    Other
    It might be interesting to add strategic elements considering terrain and climate and their influence on units (fatigue, sickness, homesick/desertion, unable to move guns or large units into marches or mountains, etc). Add a little mystery in the game with grabbing back to lost Roman technologies in the early stages of teh game. And personally: please stop with hero-units. Just make it as realistic as possible, it will deliver more than enough fun.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 458
    EazyC said:

    I would hardly call the medieval time period perfect.

    Because to me, one of the most important things in a Total War game is the armies of the different factions.

    And honestly, I think that aside from some mechanics and such from 3K or other TW games, the Medieval 3 factions will be little more than what they were in Medieval 2.

    And the fact that most of the factions that we know were in Medieval 2 were European factions, which usually used armies that were focused around heavy cavalry and infantry.

    And I'd much rather have a game where the factions' playstyles may or may not have been done before, but worked, than have one where most of the faction's armies are mostly the same aside from a few rather superficial things.
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 361


    What can they really do with a Medieval 3 as far as mechanics and such that wouldn't turn it into those EU4 type games.

    Because I really don't ever want the TW games to become like those boring games.

    Many people are afraid of single entity units in future historical games; but actually, this is, what I am personally really afraid off - to turn future TW games to the "paradox game style" (EU4, Crusaders Kings, Imperator: Rome)

    for me TW is a "wargame" at first, than 4x game,
    paradox games are kind of management simulators

  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 458
    Lotor12 said:


    Many people are afraid of single entity units in future historical games; but actually, this is, what I am personally really afraid off - to turn future TW games to the "paradox game style" (EU4, Crusaders Kings, Imperator: Rome)

    for me TW is a "wargame" at first, than 4x game,
    paradox games are kind of management simulators

    Oh, I completely understand that.

    I honestly want the historical TW games to go back to using body guard units like in Rome 2, but maybe have a few little bonuses if the general becomes a "Melee" warrior general or something, like a few extra hit points and such, but otherwise just going back to good old bodyguard units.


    And I totally agree.

    I never want to se the TW games even come close to being the management simulators that the Paradox games are.


    That's not to say I don't mind CA expanding the diplomatic options a little, but just not to the point where any of the games would become like EU4 or anything.
Sign In or Register to comment.