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

Historical mode could have been more - some thoughts for CA moving forward in developing the game.

ESKEHLESKEHL Senior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 518
So for what I get from a complete rundown of the different modes, is this:
Historical mode basically don`t have mythological units and the general bodyguard now has companions. That is the big change.

First of all, I think there could have been more done. Here are a few take aways from my thoughts:

The Trojan war is a ten year siege. Now that is probably not possible to do in a Total War game, but you could do a game that has a limited span on 20-40 years, 5 turns per year and have seasons affect your realm.

In historical mode you could have court dynamics, and family politics etc in the same way as in Three Kingdoms. In TBTM you could scale that back a bit, while perhaps ignoring this completely in Mythological mode.

Administration seems like a cool mechanic, but it could also be used in another way, namely to make a conwuest victory harder, and instead forcing you towards a sort of "King of kings"-playstyle. That is, one way of maintianing a great realm is to force other factions to be vassals.

And that connects to my last point: The Three Kingdoms diplomacy system - IMPLEMENT IT!

«1

Comments

  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,058
    edited September 2021
  • Ares101Ares101 Registered Users Posts: 254
    Wow, the historical mode really is a joke. Yes you get your Bodyguard units but besides that it's a huge letdown. They basically just cut things. Would it been to much to just add a new ability that makes sense instead of just cutting all of them? I mean we had a simple motivate ability in Rome 2 or Atilla... Would it been to much to replace Zentaures with some ragtag Thessalian Horseman or Trojan Cav?

    The change of buffs from the gods i don't see. Looks the same for me.

    Hate the change of colouring. I don't get why they changed it. The map was beautiful before, now it's dark and grimmy. Why? Because there was no sun at the time?

    Oh man CA, you messed it up again!
  • shattishatti Registered Users Posts: 753
    edited September 2021
    regarding historical mod
    yep.. still feels like a reskinned Warhammer with a lot of similarities in design.

    Unit design though is my favorite thing in the game
    -The looks of them.
    -And the switching weapons mechanic is so great.
    ____________________________Total War: Three Kingdoms mods______________________________
    -Records Mod: Classic Total War https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2229620309
    -Court Actions & Politics https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2525984504
    -Big Dong https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2585802057&searchtext=

  • Fan3982173917524862Fan3982173917524862 Registered Users Posts: 1,582
    CA seems to think that historical games are just fantasy titles with removed features and content. I know I won't look forward to any future historical TW if that is the case with historical game design from now on.
  • MightfoMightfo Registered Users Posts: 201
    edited September 2021

    CA seems to think that historical games are just fantasy titles with removed features and content. I know I won't look forward to any future historical TW if that is the case with historical game design from now on.

    Well, what else would it be? What does historical have, mechanically, that fantasy cannot have?

    It seems they typically try to make historical titles have a bit more complicated city building than warhammer, but Troy already has that especially thanks to the resource system. And more complicated city building is not something that *can't* be in fantasy- it's just that so far they've leveraged it as an advantage for non-warhammer titles. But that is not guaranteed to last forever.

    I really don't see what you would expect. Anything you can imagine to add to historical could also be added to fantasy. Complicated internal politics? Might as well be in fantasy too- I'd love to have both fantasy and more internal politics. And so on.
    Post edited by Mightfo on
  • redburdredburd Registered Users Posts: 135
    Mightfo said:

    CA seems to think that historical games are just fantasy titles with removed features and content. I know I won't look forward to any future historical TW if that is the case with historical game design from now on.

    Well, what else would it be? What does historical have, mechanically, that fantasy cannot have?

    It seems they typically try to make historical titles have a bit more complicated city building than warhammer, but Troy already has that especially thanks to the resource system. And more complicated city building is not something that *can't* be in fantasy- it's just that so far they've leveraged it as an advantage for non-warhammer titles. But that is not guaranteed to last forever.

    I really don't see what you would expect. Anything you can imagine to add to historical could also be added to fantasy. Complicated internal politics? Might as well be in fantasy too- I'd love to have both fantasy and more internal politics. And so on.
    I agree 100%.

    This is why the fantasy route seems the obvious way to go as far as development.
  • toskyruntoskyrun Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 618
    well, in this case the historical version should have given a totally different campaign, while CA only thought about the battles.
    historical campaign would have meant: giving the names of the tribes and not the heroes (Danai, Pelasgians, etc.) the other tribes such as the Ions and the Thracians add the Hittites as a playable faction, maybe even the Egyptians in some way. the seapeople as a horde. remove all the storytelling about the siege of troy, but leave diplomatic penalties between the factions. win like a classic sandbox by conquering a number of territories or by defeating the rival faction.

    I hope some modder will do it sooner or later
  • Vin362Vin362 Registered Users Posts: 1,491
    While I think political intrigue and family trees are good mechanics to have given the scope of Troy I don't think they would work very well.
    Supporter of Shu-Han, I wish Total War Three Kingdoms had a Three Kingdoms start date, rider of Kislev, admiral of The Awakened and Elector Count of Shu-Han
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 915
    toskyrun said:

    well, in this case the historical version should have given a totally different campaign, while CA only thought about the battles.
    historical campaign would have meant: giving the names of the tribes and not the heroes (Danai, Pelasgians, etc.) the other tribes such as the Ions and the Thracians add the Hittites as a playable faction, maybe even the Egyptians in some way. the seapeople as a horde. remove all the storytelling about the siege of troy, but leave diplomatic penalties between the factions. win like a classic sandbox by conquering a number of territories or by defeating the rival faction.

    I hope some modder will do it sooner or later

    This is game about Trojan war,

    With adding the Egypt, removing storylines, it would be really better to have just seperate "bronze age" campaign, what we talk in another topic
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 915
    Vin362 said:

    While I think political intrigue and family trees are good mechanics to have given the scope of Troy I don't think they would work very well.

    The inner faction-political intrigues do not really fit in to the Trojan war setting
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 915
    Mightfo said:

    CA seems to think that historical games are just fantasy titles with removed features and content. I know I won't look forward to any future historical TW if that is the case with historical game design from now on.

    Well, what else would it be? What does historical have, mechanically, that fantasy cannot have?

    It seems they typically try to make historical titles have a bit more complicated city building than warhammer, but Troy already has that especially thanks to the resource system. And more complicated city building is not something that *can't* be in fantasy- it's just that so far they've leveraged it as an advantage for non-warhammer titles. But that is not guaranteed to last forever.

    I really don't see what you would expect. Anything you can imagine to add to historical could also be added to fantasy. Complicated internal politics? Might as well be in fantasy too- I'd love to have both fantasy and more internal politics. And so on.
    Very well said
    agree 100%
  • toskyruntoskyrun Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 618
    Lotor12 said:

    toskyrun said:

    well, in this case the historical version should have given a totally different campaign, while CA only thought about the battles.
    historical campaign would have meant: giving the names of the tribes and not the heroes (Danai, Pelasgians, etc.) the other tribes such as the Ions and the Thracians add the Hittites as a playable faction, maybe even the Egyptians in some way. the seapeople as a horde. remove all the storytelling about the siege of troy, but leave diplomatic penalties between the factions. win like a classic sandbox by conquering a number of territories or by defeating the rival faction.

    I hope some modder will do it sooner or later

    This is game about Trojan war,

    With adding the Egypt, removing storylines, it would be really better to have just seperate "bronze age" campaign, what we talk in another topic
    I know it's a Trojan War Game, but at the same time it's a Bronze Age Aegean game. if we talk about a historical modality, it cannot be a game on the iliad. because the Iliad is a heroic poem. that's why the "truth behind the myth" version
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 915
    @toskyrun

    Trojan war based on Iliad is "the backbone" of the game, not Bronze Age Aegean area

    The historical mode is more about bringing classic TW feel like Shogun 2 or Rome 2, without single entities, not to bring "historical modality"
  • ESKEHLESKEHL Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 518
    Ok, I actually picked up the game a year ago and was kind of disappointed. My expectations was, until I started hearing more about the game, that this would basically be a Three Kingdoms style of game set in the Trojan war. That is, I expected it to work from the latest TW-installment and use alot of it´s great mechanics. By that I mean having mechanics that are tied to lore as well as to what I come to expect from a TW historical game, as well as actually having the option of realistic grounded battles or more fantasy battles. This concept did make 3K a success after all. And I liked it cause I could play records mode, and wasn´t forced into romance mode.

    Troy in 2020 basically went with the Warhammer-engine and with a gamestyle in battles for example that I wasn´t at all familiar with and I was forced to play a Bronze age game very much in a semi-fantasy environment. When I booted up Troy last night, I actually was quite impressed. The battles in historical mode felt great. And I liked the reshaping of the UI etc. It felt like the game had underwent a transformation. And I agree, perhaps family trees etc doesn´t work with the Trojan war. And any mechanic implemented might have to be adapted to fit all modes in some way. My proposal would be to have court mechanic similar to Rome II pre-Ancestral update perhaps. Perhaps make family of the heroic characters be more eventdriven. I haven´t played Warhammer 1 or 2, but I have seen that some factions have courts etc. Might be worth considering also taking a look there.

    I also would like to see more of the diplomacy of Three Kingdoms implemented. There has probably never been a better setting for a TW-game that focuses on that sort of 3K-diplomacy than Troy, given that it is driven by characters, not nations, as is the case of the diplomacy screen it is built on, a relic from Rome II. This also works very well with Mythos update I would say.

    Another thing to just separate it from Warhammer, is to make the game have seasons and years, environment changing depending on time of year etc, and characters ageing. This could work in all modes as well and will drive the point that heroic characters afterall are, albeit superhumans in two of the modes, still humans (even The Illiad has this point!! ). The changing seasons could tie well into resource use and income, and also drive the point that even in Mythos the backbone of the army are humans and susceptible to all dangers of the bronze age world, while mythological creatures are not.

    I haven´t played long enough, but I also think that Agamemnons special mechanic with a sort of "King of kings"-court, should be a mechanic that can be reached by others, if they get powerful enough. The same mechanic should also exist in the Troy camp, hold by King Piram.
  • toskyruntoskyrun Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 618
    Lotor12 said:

    @toskyrun

    Trojan war based on Iliad is "the backbone" of the game, not Bronze Age Aegean area

    The historical mode is more about bringing classic TW feel like Shogun 2 or Rome 2, without single entities, not to bring "historical modality"

    Lotor12 said:

    @toskyrun

    Trojan war based on Iliad is "the backbone" of the game, not Bronze Age Aegean area

    The historical mode is more about bringing classic TW feel like Shogun 2 or Rome 2, without single entities, not to bring "historical modality"

    the title of the topic is what the historical campaign could have been. well it could have been a simulator of the late Aegean Bronze Age.

    for the rest we are in agreement. there is no point in writing historical campaign, if the protagonist is Achilles the demigod.
  • Vin362Vin362 Registered Users Posts: 1,491
    edited September 2021
    Here is a thought if you took away the Truth Behind the myth and ignore the Mythos DLC and all we had was the "Historical Mode" would people have still found it lacking, or is just the removal of special abilities that people are complaining about?
    Supporter of Shu-Han, I wish Total War Three Kingdoms had a Three Kingdoms start date, rider of Kislev, admiral of The Awakened and Elector Count of Shu-Han
  • ESKEHLESKEHL Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 518
    I would simply say that The Illiad is fiction, and mainly support the narrative for the historical mode, but the focus should be about bronze age agean civilizations.

    I think that barter economy is a great edition to the game that reflects the bronze age in a natural way. What I think this game lacks is the 3K diplomacy and the relationship between characters (also in 3K). Perhaps a "King of kings feature (similar to Agamemnon's but something attainable by greater factions) intervowen in diplomacy. Given that research shows that pre-democratic greek societies was basically a protection racket, it makes sense.

    I could also think of having TPY similar to that of Napoleon: Total War. It makes sense since the game is set in a 10 year war. That in the game is 240 turns, Or perhaps one turn = one month -> 120 turns for 10 years. Then seasons could play into the game and perhaps most importantly food supply.

    If there is one more addition to the game that would be interesting perhaps specifically to Historical Mode, it is population. Making a mechanic that works similar to population already in Divide et Impera, Para Bellum etc, it would make manpower a important resource as it was at the time. To quote professor Mary Beard, when speaking about Rome and it`s acension to power on the italian peninsula, it was never about hardware but rather about how many boots you could get on the ground.
    toskyrun said:

    Lotor12 said:

    @toskyrun

    Trojan war based on Iliad is "the backbone" of the game, not Bronze Age Aegean area

    The historical mode is more about bringing classic TW feel like Shogun 2 or Rome 2, without single entities, not to bring "historical modality"

    Lotor12 said:

    @toskyrun

    Trojan war based on Iliad is "the backbone" of the game, not Bronze Age Aegean area

    The historical mode is more about bringing classic TW feel like Shogun 2 or Rome 2, without single entities, not to bring "historical modality"

    the title of the topic is what the historical campaign could have been. well it could have been a simulator of the late Aegean Bronze Age.

    for the rest we are in agreement. there is no point in writing historical campaign, if the protagonist is Achilles the demigod.
  • Toiox43uqToiox43uq Registered Users Posts: 146
    Troy and its history at the time of the Greek invasion is a fact found out by archeologists who are still digging at the site today and have been there for the past 30 years

    Troy had a walled citadel and a timber walls with huge ditches circulating the area where the populace lived ..........between 5 to 8000 people.

    Archeologists have found less that 1 years fighting for the period of the Greek invasion ...........maybe the Iliad 10 years was really 10 months

    Troy made its fortune as a trade city having access to the rich black sea trading cities, something the Greeks wanted to get into to ..................my point is that the Greek wanted troy as a stop over to gain the black sea riches.

    for the game, I do not see or have been explained the aim of the current Historical mode, all I see compared to the previous version is that heroes are far weaker regardless of bodyguards and that battle losses for both sides are far higher.....
    Should historical go down as a trade war ?

    I am not disappointed with the game , but I do seek an explanation of what the aim of the historical game is

    is it to bring in the invasion of the sea peoples.....which occurred just after the fall of Troy 6
    is the historical future to have Aeneas find Rome ....Antenor to arrive near Venice with Trojans and Pala people.....or quests along the black sea , ie jason and his argonauts

    maybe .............................
  • Toiox43uqToiox43uq Registered Users Posts: 146
    One idea which is historical

    armies where part time soldiers, they where usually farmers, herders etc basically militia

    the only true full soldiers where the home guard or body guards ...............IMO, the bodyguards at the start for all factions should be a much higher level
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 915
    @toskyrun

    It is not "historical campaign", but "historical mode" for Trojan War

    We could speculate further, if the bronze age Aegean campaign would be interesting; if we have enough sources to design "historical" setting; if it is, what we want

    In my case, I am happy to play Trojan campaign with homeric characters and storylines in pre-Warhammer"classic TW style" like Shogun 2,

    With the idea of "bronze age historical campaign", I would go with seperate campaign, with map covering Egypt,Mesopotania, and new civilizations - what I opnened on another topic
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 915
    edited September 2021
    Toiox43uq said:

    Troy and its history at the time of the Greek invasion is a fact found out by archeologists who are still digging at the site today and have been there for the past 30 years

    Troy had a walled citadel and a timber walls with huge ditches circulating the area where the populace lived ..........between 5 to 8000 people.

    Archeologists have found less that 1 years fighting for the period of the Greek invasion ...........maybe the Iliad 10 years was really 10 months

    Troy made its fortune as a trade city having access to the rich black sea trading cities, something the Greeks wanted to get into to ..................my point is that the Greek wanted troy as a stop over to gain the black sea riches.

    for the game, I do not see or have been explained the aim of the current Historical mode, all I see compared to the previous version is that heroes are far weaker regardless of bodyguards and that battle losses for both sides are far higher.....
    Should historical go down as a trade war ?

    I am not disappointed with the game , but I do seek an explanation of what the aim of the historical game is

    maybe .............................

    This game is based on Homeric Iliad

    Seriously, The "historical campaign" about Trojan war, which is not recorded, based only on limited archeologist sources would be nonsense 🤔
  • ESKEHLESKEHL Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 518
    edited September 2021
    Lotor12 said:


    This game is based on Homeric Iliad

    Seriously, The "historical campaign" about Trojan war, which is not recorded, based only on limited archeologist sources would be nonsense 🤔

    I agree with that statement in some ways, but in others no. Yes, the Homeric Illiad is not a historic event. It is fiction written in dactylic hexameter.

    And what is historic and not historic depiction in a game is borderline on a pseudo-factual conversation.
    It is rather a matter of what is the game´s way immersing players into the world. Historical fans wants a gameplay-loop that reflects the historical background. I must say CA have done fairly well with historic mode. They have barter economy, which is way more accurate than it would be to have a currency-based economy. It has the trademark combat from previous historic titles with a bronze age twist of differtentiating infantry and basically almost cutting out cavalry.

    What I would like to see however (mainly on the GC-map), is turns per year. It´s only logical given that the game try to depict the Trojan War, a 10 year siege according to the Illiad. Say you have 12 TPY or 24 TPY. Then "historical players" wouldn´t need to ask for things like family trees etc since the game would be to limited in scope for that. Another thing is population. If resources like food, tree, bronze and gold is important, CA left out the most valuable resource for a bronze age warfaring civilization - manpower which now is non-existant. If historic mode had population, it would add a new layer of strategic thinking to the game that would be awesome, and also sort of depict the reality of decisions a bronze age ruler would have to deal with.

    If these things were remedied in the historic and somewhat in the other two campaigns, then CA would have an everlasting masterpiece, that could attract player both from fantasy and historical titles.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    Why would court dynamics and other such things be exclusive to any "historical" title or mode?

    For me it reads like you are saying that fantasy means "lowbrow, unsophisticated and simplistic" which I can't agree with. Total War Warhammer might be dumbed down as hell that but that's not because the setting demands it but because CA wants to bait casual players almost exclusively. Warhammer could have easily deep mechanics without sacrificing any fantasy aspect and while keeping within its lore.
  • ESKEHLESKEHL Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 518

    Why would court dynamics and other such things be exclusive to any "historical" title or mode?

    For me it reads like you are saying that fantasy means "lowbrow, unsophisticated and simplistic" which I can't agree with. Total War Warhammer might be dumbed down as hell that but that's not because the setting demands it but because CA wants to bait casual players almost exclusively. Warhammer could have easily deep mechanics without sacrificing any fantasy aspect and while keeping within its lore.

    I think most changes that we discuss hete could fit into in all three modes, but perhaps a bit tweaked for TBTM and Historical mode, to better fit into the setting. Court mechanics I think is one of them. Population and manpower another. And seasons and years would also be appreciated.
  • DariosDarios Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 571
    I know I'm coming off like a broken record, but historical mode was always going to come off as a stripped down version of the original game. There's really no way around that. The Iliad without larger than life heroes dueling each other wouldn't be worth reading.

    Mythological mode would have been better portrayed, as Mr. Toskyrun stated, as a kind of "Rise of Rome" DLC, centered around the exploits of Heracles, Jason, Perseus, etc. a generation before the Trojan War. It would have provided a beautiful and unique experience where mythological beasts and god powers would not have felt out of place. It would have been well worth the price of a major expansion.

    Once you play that - then one could play the classic Troy campaign as we've had since Day 1 - again providing a unique and beautiful experience in itself. A step or two closer to historical reality, but an acknowledgement that we're still in the age of Greek myth.

    Injecting mythological beasts into the Trojan War feels like lazy work, and historical mode isn't really needed at all.
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 915
    edited September 2021
    ESKEHL said:

    Then "historical players" wouldn´t need to ask for things like family trees etc...

    The "historical players" do not do it,
    You are asking for it

    I do not want be rude, but I noticed You in another topic here on forum, in this discussion, You do not speak for "historical players", but for Yourself
    ESKEHL said:


    If these things were remedied in the historic and somewhat in the other two campaigns, then CA would have an everlasting masterpiece, that could attract player both from fantasy and historical titles.

    It is not that polarized between "fantasy" (Warhammer?) and "historical" (non-warhammer?) titles

    With all these mechanics, what You would like to put in, there is high chance, that conclusion will be overcomplicated game for smaller amount of hardcore players

    EDIT: there is population mechanic already in Troy
    Post edited by Lotor12 on
  • ESKEHLESKEHL Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 518
    @Lotor12 true, I have been asking for it. But playing a bit more, I think it´s not necessary with family trees.

    No it probably is not that polarized. I am mainly talking about potential.

    I don´t know. Take TPY and seasons, that could just amplify that some units in Mythos is superantural and others are human by giving mythos units immunity to certain types attrition etc. I am just specualting, I haven´t touched the Mythos campaign yet.

    Yes there is a population mechanic, but there is not a manpower mechanic, which should be central to any game about bronze age warfare, and could also, once again be used in all three modes.
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 915
    edited September 2021
    @ESKEHL

    With the family trees mechanic connected with diplomacy, I think, for Shogun (Sengoku Jidai period) would be perfect, if You could create functional and trustworthy alliances through marriage and character interactions etc, these things do not work in Shogun 2

    But for Trojan War is unnecessary in my view

    There is even a manpower mechanic, it is represent by recruitment and resources - in regions with lot of manpower You can hire more units faster EDIT: - it is "Unit Replenishment" , this mechanic represents manpower

    many things are abstract, it is game
    there are no rules about "games set in bronze age" , only thing is, that PC game should provide fun
  • Ulfhedinn_Ulfhedinn_ Registered Users Posts: 254
    edited September 2021
    Lotor12 said:

    @toskyrun
    It is not "historical campaign", but "historical mode" for Trojan War

    +1

    Well said.
  • ESKEHLESKEHL Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 518
    Lotor12 said:

    @ESKEHL

    There is even a manpower mechanic, it is represent by recruitment and resources - in regions with lot of manpower You can hire more units faster EDIT: - it is "Unit Replenishment" , this mechanic represents manpower

    many things are abstract, it is game
    there are no rules about "games set in bronze age" , only thing is, that PC game should provide fun

    Both growth and replenishment is the same mechanics that has been around since Rome II. I´m talking about a manpower mechanic as in Rome 1 where both the town development and armies relies on population (i.e manpower in metric terms). And I don´t need family tree interactions and stuff like that. But what would have been nice is a court and a council function for characters and turn per year thing with seasons. That plus manpower and it would have been a great game.

    It is a game, true. But my objection is, if it is a game that have barter economy that observes the true economic system of the day, but fails to include the most precious of resources of that system (i.e manpower), then I´ll point it out..

Sign In or Register to comment.