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

Wanted Changes For Historical Mode?

Artem_IonArtem_Ion Registered Users Posts: 3
edited August 1 in General Discussion
Like many I'm quite excited for the release and update of Troy with Mythos, but I'm primarily interested in the Historical Mode to play a focused, small scale pseudo Bronze Age game. We have little information on what the mode will be like aside from that screenshot of the modes saying that generals with not be SEs with mythical powers, Divine Favour is more passive in effect rather than god spells and colossal buffs, and that 'all units are grounded in reality', which to cynical me reads as we removed mythical units and that's it. Like those others primarily interested in Historical Mode, I have a cynical feeling the mode won't be much content or support wise compared to the other two, and be more akin to 3k Records mode disappointment. They said there is also a dev blog about the new mode at some point closer to release, so they could have something quite substantial worth talking about.

With what information we do and don't know, what changes would you like to see in Historical Mode to offer the best 'historical total war experience' it can?

Couple things that jump out to me would be:

-Custom Bodyguards: 3k generals were a pretty hig letdown just being cav and a far cry from R2 where you could take a high tier unit you wanted as a bodyguard. Being able to do this in Troy would be awesome.

-Battle Icons: Instead of the nonattractive colored icons we could use some actual unit banners.

-Unit Traits: Some traits like Immune to Flanking or Battlefield Healing could be problematic in Historical Mode, so a rework or removal would be necessary.

-Pocket Ladders / Siege: Instead of the same pocket ladders from warhammer how about they act as deployables for the attacker which need to be assigned to the unit, similar to how barricades are deployed for defenders. Once assigned the ladders are carried, not pulled from a magic bag, to the wall and set up to scale. A concern of besieging armies was that they might not have enough ladders to scale the walls effectively so maybe have the number of deployables be determined by something, maybe army size and wood resources could influence it? Rather than the siege tower and battering ram, which shouldn't be available til late in the game, the escalade was the primary siege assault method of the period if you didn't want to starve the defenders out. So in addition to the simple ladder deployables, I think there should be buildable a wheeled scaling ladder somewhat like the one in TW Attila.
Post edited by Artem_Ion on

Comments

  • PERICLES1789PERICLES1789 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 151
    For the ladders it would be a good system to take over that of Rome 1. When a besieging unit was decimated, the ladders remained on the ground, and were taken over by a new unit that resumed the assault. Rams were quite readily flammable. Assaults of cities were great in Rome 1.
  • Artem_IonArtem_Ion Registered Users Posts: 3

    For the ladders it would be a good system to take over that of Rome 1. When a besieging unit was decimated, the ladders remained on the ground, and were taken over by a new unit that resumed the assault. Rams were quite readily flammable. Assaults of cities were great in Rome 1.

    Should've included it in OP, but once a unit had a ladder assigned it would be carried and if the unit was destroyed it would be able to be picked up by any unit around. Once the remaster becomes dirt cheap ill pick it up, I started TW with Med2.
  • toskyruntoskyrun Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 498
    edited August 1
    historical mode? here are my changes:

    - rework sieges: no magic ladders and attrition for besiegers and besieged

    - battle maps: even more importance to the terrain variable, i.e. mud must almost stop heavy units rather than slow them down
    heavy chariots on deep mud should just stop!
    so also the dense forests, should not just enter but go around. uphill terrain should strain units, even light ones, more.

    - add more elements of weather such as rain, dust or extreme heat

    - increase the chance of night battles, even during sieges

    - more importance to the influence of the faction on public order

    - change the names of the factions: no longer achilles but ftia, eneas but dardania etc.

    - change the background of the campaign map and pre-battle screen from orange / black Greek vase pattern to blue / white sky

    - important color desaturation, like in 3k records (I know I can do this from the graphics options but it would be nice if it was default in historical mode)
    Post edited by toskyrun on
  • GloatingSwineGloatingSwine Registered Users Posts: 1,077
    toskyrun said:

    historical mode? here are my changes:

    - rework sieges: no magic ladders and attrition for besiegers and besieged

    I'm not sure this actually does anything other than impose a turn tax if you make the player build ladders every time.

    Making units carry ladders to the wall wouldn't do much other than make them take a bit more tower damage* if you impose a speed penalty for doing it because almost nothing significant happens outside of the walls in sieges anyway. It would just be visual flair.

    *And if you wanted to be really historical those towers would be gone because they're about 700 years too early. Towers integrated into walls didn't really come about until the hellenistic period.
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 609
    - to remove single entity units

    - generals/heroes are no more main battle unit

    Sounds simple, but that would change battles completely
  • toskyruntoskyrun Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 498

    toskyrun said:

    historical mode? here are my changes:

    - rework sieges: no magic ladders and attrition for besiegers and besieged

    I'm not sure this actually does anything other than impose a turn tax if you make the player build ladders every time.

    Making units carry ladders to the wall wouldn't do much other than make them take a bit more tower damage* if you impose a speed penalty for doing it because almost nothing significant happens outside of the walls in sieges anyway. It would just be visual flair.

    *And if you wanted to be really historical those towers would be gone because they're about 700 years too early. Towers integrated into walls didn't really come about until the hellenistic period.
    well at present if you have 20 units you have 20 magical ladders to climb the wall. giving the possibility to build them you will have at most 2/4 of them and you will decide which units to give them to. I think it is a noticeable tactical difference.

    for the towers it would be great if they were made of wood, but I don't think they will change that.
  • GloatingSwineGloatingSwine Registered Users Posts: 1,077
    edited August 1
    toskyrun said:


    well at present if you have 20 units you have 20 magical ladders to climb the wall. giving the possibility to build them you will have at most 2/4 of them and you will decide which units to give them to. I think it is a noticeable tactical difference.

    for the towers it would be great if they were made of wood, but I don't think they will change that.

    Not really. You don't often put more than 1-2 ladders up in a Troy siege. 3 maybe in a pinch (in that settlement built back into the cliffs where the AI can get between the sides real quick.

    The way you do sieges in Troy is to distract the enemy to one side of the city with your hero and 10 units, sneak in the other and open the gate and pile in, then fight them a bit at a time as they come over a bit at a time to deal with you. It'll almost certainly still work the same in historical mode, at worst you build a ram, break the gate and withdraw, then do the same thing.

    And again it's just a turn tax that doesn't change anything real.

    Magic arse ladders are not high on the list of siege problems in Total War.
  • GloatingSwineGloatingSwine Registered Users Posts: 1,077
    Lotor12 said:

    - to remove single entity units

    - generals/heroes are no more main battle unit

    Sounds simple, but that would change battles completely

    Generals' bodyguards will probably still be meaty units, they always have been, but they won't be tanks that last forever I expect.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,384
    edited August 2
    How about increasing unit size?
    Post edited by jamreal18 on
  • Dalnar1983Dalnar1983 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 886
    edited August 2
    Speaking about bodyguards. On higher levels heroes can have chariots/horses. Meaning their bodyguards would have to be replaced as well. So they would have to make a new unit of dismounted charioteers when the hero dismounts. And there are several types of hero chariots, meaning different units. Not to speak about horses for Amazons.
  • Cyrus_550Cyrus_550 Registered Users Posts: 50
    How about no historical mode because this is based on a mythological telling of the Trojan War...

    If you want a historical Bronze Age total war though it should:

    - Not have any siege towers (the first siege towers are not documented to have been used until after the Bronze Age)

    - Not have cavalry units (horses of this region during the Bronze Age were too small to carry humans on their backs which is why chariots were used instead of cavalry). This also means that the Amazonian factions should not be able to be used in historical mode due to their heavy use of cavalry units.

    I doubt CA will make these changed because I doubt many of the people asking for historical Bronze Age mode actually want historical Bronze Age mode.

    Maybe just let this game be what it is and wait until the next full historical mainline title to get your fix of a historical total war game (or go back and play Thrones of Britannia)
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 33,826
    Cyrus_550 said:

    How about no historical mode because this is based on a mythological telling of the Trojan War...

    How about you follow the news? So historical mode is set.


  • Dalnar1983Dalnar1983 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 886

    Cyrus_550 said:

    How about no historical mode because this is based on a mythological telling of the Trojan War...

    How about you follow the news? So historical mode is set.
    How about you follow the news? It's just a few toggles that remove content...
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 609
    Cyrus_550 said:

    How about no historical mode because this is based on a mythological telling of the Trojan War...

    If you want a historical Bronze Age total war though it should:

    - Not have any siege towers (the first siege towers are not documented to have been used until after the Bronze Age)

    - Not have cavalry units (horses of this region during the Bronze Age were too small to carry humans on their backs which is why chariots were used instead of cavalry). This also means that the Amazonian factions should not be able to be used in historical mode due to their heavy use of cavalry units.

    I doubt CA will make these changed because I doubt many of the people asking for historical Bronze Age mode actually want historical Bronze Age mode.

    I would like to keep Siege towers and limited cavalry just for gameplay reasons

    If We really want to be "historical police" - We need to ban Rome 1 first, than rework Shogun 2, because it has multiplle variants of Samurais (bow, naginata, katana) instead of one; etc

    Lets have a look from positive side, people without any knowledge , can learn a lot from Troy about this era, even there would be some abstract things, it is game

    Anyway, the most important point is to just remove single entities in "historical mode"
  • Dalnar1983Dalnar1983 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 886
    edited August 4
    Are single entities really the problem? I mean realistically, you can recruit them in like 3 towns on whole map and only if you build the building (high turn) and some even require you to worship certain gods, meaning realistically the moment you have access to cosplaying minotaur or cyclops, the campaign is pretty much done anyway. Noone is forcing people to build these units, they are there just for fun and flavour. And really, compared to heroes they are somewhat underwhelming compared to high tier units anyway. Just the bonuses you can stack for regular units are overwhelming. It almost feels that people who often critize them have no really played the campaign at all.

    I have the feeling that people that hope that they can make army full of mythical beasts will be disappointed, because once you are in position to do that in campaign, it's over. Even in mythos, people will have to relly on regular troops.

    Imho siege towers and machine gun turrets are more anti.historical that few cosplaying dudes in furs and skull helmets.

    The only "mythical" units I was bothering to stack, were armoured giants for Ajax.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 33,826

    Cyrus_550 said:

    How about no historical mode because this is based on a mythological telling of the Trojan War...

    How about you follow the news? So historical mode is set.
    How about you follow the news? It's just a few toggles that remove content...
    He said it shouldn't be included at all. That's obviously not going to happen.



  • GloatingSwineGloatingSwine Registered Users Posts: 1,077

    Are single entities really the problem? I mean realistically, you can recruit them in like 3 towns on whole map and only if you build the building (high turn) and some even require you to worship certain gods, meaning realistically the moment you have access to cosplaying minotaur or cyclops, the campaign is pretty much done anyway. Noone is forcing people to build these units, they are there just for fun and flavour. And really, compared to heroes they are somewhat underwhelming compared to high tier units anyway. Just the bonuses you can stack for regular units are overwhelming. It almost feels that people who often critize them have no really played the campaign at all.

    I have the feeling that people that hope that they can make army full of mythical beasts will be disappointed, because once you are in position to do that in campaign, it's over. Even in mythos, people will have to relly on regular troops.

    Imho siege towers and machine gun turrets are more anti.historical that few cosplaying dudes in furs and skull helmets.

    The only "mythical" units I was bothering to stack, were armoured giants for Ajax.

    Yeah, I hardly ever use mythic units because they're just inconvenient to recruit. They'd have to have to enable a really strong tactic that you couldn't do otherwise to make it worth chasing down a recruitment building for them in what is a relatively short campaign all told. By and large you build an effective team out of your faction elites plus whatever supports them best and stick with it because you can recruit it all in one place (reducing your gold costs up-tiering settlements for relatively little payout)

    If they went into the special recruitment pool then I'd probably use them more.
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 609
    edited August 5

    Lotor12 said:

    - to remove single entity units

    - generals/heroes are no more main battle unit

    Sounds simple, but that would change battles completely

    Generals' bodyguards will probably still be meaty units, they always have been, but they won't be tanks that last forever I expect.
    they should be strong, just like in older pre-Warhammer games,
    The point is, not to being main battle units - "tanks" ,
    not like Romance mode in 3K, where the battles are sometimes about, who will bring stronger heroes to the battle
  • Dalnar1983Dalnar1983 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 886
    Considering heroes eventually get chariots, it will be just extra chariot unit on battlefield. The real headache will be with various chariot types and the switching of bodyguards from the regular ones to chariot ones.

    Also amazon heroes have horses and If I remember correctly, you cannot dismount these.... sucks at sieges.
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 609

    Are single entities really the problem?

    I consider "the myth behind the truth" concept with Single entities and RPG elements as right for Trojan War, and I like them there

    But in "historical mode" I am looking forward to play like older TW titles with the generals not being the "main battle unit"
    with single entities, is "questionable" how the unit collision and flanking is working


    Imho siege towers and machine gun turrets are more anti.historical that few cosplaying dudes in furs and skull helmets.

    machine gun turrets are problem in other titles as well, I would prefer something like in Stronghold, the defensive weapons need operators

    BTW if we want to make "historical" siege battles, do we have sources for it? How it should be?

    Some people complain, for missing naval battles, but if I am right, there is no info about navy from this era at all
  • GloatingSwineGloatingSwine Registered Users Posts: 1,077
    Lotor12 said:

    Lotor12 said:

    - to remove single entity units

    - generals/heroes are no more main battle unit

    Sounds simple, but that would change battles completely

    Generals' bodyguards will probably still be meaty units, they always have been, but they won't be tanks that last forever I expect.
    they should be strong, just like in older pre-Warhammer games,
    The point is, not to being main battle units - "tanks" ,
    not like Romance mode in 3K, where the battles are sometimes about, who will bring stronger heroes to the battle
    To be honest, heroes in Troy aren't that anyway unless they're on a chariot, and that's because of chariots not because of the hero.

    Heroes are "tanks" in the MMORPG sense of the guy who can stand there all day and take damage for the rest of the team, they don't actually have a lot of killing power because they have low splash zones and numbers, so whilst they'll chew through infantry reliably they'll take forever doing it.

    And even then if you get a flanker into them, two units of middling infantry will reliably break a non-epic hero.

    They are categorically not the war winners of Three Kingdoms and Warhammer, they are a stack of hitpoints that's hard to grind down but doesn't actually do much by themselves.
  • GloatingSwineGloatingSwine Registered Users Posts: 1,077
    edited August 5
    Lotor12 said:


    BTW if we want to make "historical" siege battles, do we have sources for it? How it should be?

    Some people complain, for missing naval battles, but if I am right, there is no info about navy from this era at all

    If you want to be historical, "Siege battle" is an oxymoron. A siege isn't a battle, it's a months or years long encirclement where you try to induce surrender by starving the enemy out and demoralise them by persistently attacking them with bows and slings. Siege equipment was largely shovels. Earthen ramps up to the walls were reliable and hard to get rid of.

    The towers wouldn't be there, towers integrated into defensive walls wouldn't be built until about 700 years later.

    Troy takes place at the absolue birth of naval battle. What accounts we do have of organised naval conflicts from the period are mostly ships firing slings and arrows at each other until they reached boarding range, then doing that. Naval rams came later.
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 609
    edited August 5
    @GloatingSwine

    To be honest , I consider myself as history enthusiast and I am confident with my knowledge of history :smile:

    But I admit, I have a limited knowledge of the "trojan" era , I consider it as kind of real beginning of organized warfare

    So it is suppose to have only besiege in Trojan war, not assault of walls in any form? if we want to go real "historical" way
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 609


    If you want to be historical, "Siege battle" is an oxymoron. A siege isn't a battle, it's a months or years long encirclement where you try to induce surrender by starving the enemy out and demoralise them by persistently attacking them with bows and slings.

    Just want to note, that I recently read a book about siege of Ujvár 😎

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Érsekújvár_(1663)
  • Toiox43uqToiox43uq Registered Users Posts: 77
    I see troy heroes , more powerful and better fighting ability like every other leader in history, that is , there was always up to a dozen bodyguards following the Hero into battle , never to leave his side wherever he went

    so Troy heroes in my mind is stronger due to a representation of a bodyguard
Sign In or Register to comment.