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

Some thoughts and suggestion for Three Kingdoms

unicornvalleyunicornvalley Registered Users Posts: 117
I have been a total war fan since Rome and was so thrilled that CA has finally decided to make a Three Kingdom title, which is a kind of perfect set for the total war engine. Judging from the Yuanshao gameplay and the Liubei demo, from a Chinese total war fan point of view, the 3K that CA made is already the best 3K game to date, on top of all the Japanese made titles and some attempts made by Chinese game companies. However, there were some decent Chinese made Three Kingdom mods for Rome and Medieval tw if anybody had cared to try them out.

I actually had this idea of making some suggestion to the game for some time but thought it was unpractical to make any suggestion when da game was ready to launch, but now that CA has granted me three more months to concentrated on my career, and guess what, I am bored!

Well here are some suggestions and thoughts on the Three Kingdoms TW:
1. The reason I began to love total war series was partly because I learned a lot about western cultrure and histories and warfare from it, and I think 3K is good chance for other fans of tw to know a thing or two about Chinese history and culture. Apparently CA have focus mainly on the book (romance mod), well as it should be game-wise. The struggles and life stories of all those legendary heros are worth-knowing, and it is a good idea for the game script to restore them to a certain point. Though I see CA had already did a great job on that through all the missions and dillemmas, but it seemed it might need more 'polishing'. e.g. From a youtuber's gameplay, Liubei was able to defeat CAOCAO and his main army at the first few turns of the game, which should be highly improbable because Liubei started as a commoner though he had royal lineage, and by the time of the alliances ended, he was only a minor lord, while Caocao was a major lord and had estates, money and resources. Even with his two formidable oathsworn brothers, the real dillemma of Liubei was that he has no army to stand against Dongzhuo then Caocao at that time. If he were able, he will not need to eventually retreat to the west of China to start his empire. So my suggestion is instead of let every lord to start with only one commandary and a minor force, maybe giving some major lords such as Yuanshao and Caocao more historical accurate lands or forces while not played by the player, so we could get a better picture of the situation at that period and know that it was a challenge to stay at the center of China if you are not up for it. This was actually depicted well in the 3K mods I mentioned, Liubei had the best characters but no substantial army and had to retreat to a more safer location in the west to grow, while Caocao has better estate soldiers but had to face the conflict of central China.

2. The duel system may need to be rebalanced? It might come to many's attention that a few reviewers who play the Liubei demo believed the heros were a bit OP, but I don't think everyone noticed that in multiple interviews the devs said that the heros were intentionally overshooted to make the demo more enjoyable for non-total war veterians. However in the more recent Yuanshao gameplay( at the start of the first video), a champion(Yanliang) and a sentinel duel to the end of time while all the enemy troops were defeated and the battle outcome had been determined and the whole army had to stand there waiting for them to complete the duel, which seemed both impractical and unrealistic. I didn't know if this is because Yanliang was a bad duellist who was one-shotted by Guanyu in both Romance and the Record of 3K, but it gave me the impression that the heros might be balanced out too much.

3. Zhangliao should be a vanguard! Though Mr. Zhang is a notable but unimpressive character in Romance, he was a fearsome warrior in the Record of Three Kingdoms, and auguably the best general under Caocao. A brief of his deeds can be found at the wiki page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Liao#Battle_of_Xiaoyao_Ford_and_aftermath. So, when I saw both Zhangliao and Xuhuang was bested by Sunren in the ambush showdown a few months ago. Both joy and tears filled my eyes...while I'd love to see a femine legendary hero cutting her way through the crowd like any other man, to down play the legendary general Zhang of Wei empire to such a degree was astonishing. I would think it was because He was categorized to a sentinal hero type, while a vanguard would be more fitting.

4. Again while I enjoyed legendary femine heros leading the armies in light of the romance nature of the game, I would suggest let the heroines confined to the legendary categories only. I had to admit it was a little overwhelming to see so many femine generals and wives of faction leaders fighting in the ranks. It is just very unrealistic, I'll just leave it to that.

It seems my time is running short, so I'll stop this gibberish for now, I'll be back for more updates when more gameplays are out there though:)

Comments

  • IcestrugleIcestrugle Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,251

    I have been a total war fan since Rome and was so thrilled that CA has finally decided to make a Three Kingdom title, which is a kind of perfect set for the total war engine. Judging from the Yuanshao gameplay and the Liubei demo, from a Chinese total war fan point of view, the 3K that CA made is already the best 3K game to date, on top of all the Japanese made titles and some attempts made by Chinese game companies. However, there were some decent Chinese made Three Kingdom mods for Rome and Medieval tw if anybody had cared to try them out.

    I actually had this idea of making some suggestion to the game for some time but thought it was unpractical to make any suggestion when da game was ready to launch, but now that CA has granted me three more months to concentrated on my career, and guess what, I am bored!

    Well here are some suggestions and thoughts on the Three Kingdoms TW:
    1. The reason I began to love total war series was partly because I learned a lot about western cultrure and histories and warfare from it, and I think 3K is good chance for other fans of tw to know a thing or two about Chinese history and culture. Apparently CA have focus mainly on the book (romance mod), well as it should be game-wise. The struggles and life stories of all those legendary heros are worth-knowing, and it is a good idea for the game script to restore them to a certain point. Though I see CA had already did a great job on that through all the missions and dillemmas, but it seemed it might need more 'polishing'. e.g. From a youtuber's gameplay, Liubei was able to defeat CAOCAO and his main army at the first few turns of the game, which should be highly improbable because Liubei started as a commoner though he had royal lineage, and by the time of the alliances ended, he was only a minor lord, while Caocao was a major lord and had estates, money and resources. Even with his two formidable oathsworn brothers, the real dillemma of Liubei was that he has no army to stand against Dongzhuo then Caocao at that time. If he were able, he will not need to eventually retreat to the west of China to start his empire. So my suggestion is instead of let every lord to start with only one commandary and a minor force, maybe giving some major lords such as Yuanshao and Caocao more historical accurate lands or forces while not played by the player, so we could get a better picture of the situation at that period and know that it was a challenge to stay at the center of China if you are not up for it. This was actually depicted well in the 3K mods I mentioned, Liubei had the best characters but no substantial army and had to retreat to a more safer location in the west to grow, while Caocao has better estate soldiers but had to face the conflict of central China.

    2. The duel system may need to be rebalanced? It might come to many's attention that a few reviewers who play the Liubei demo believed the heros were a bit OP, but I don't think everyone noticed that in multiple interviews the devs said that the heros were intentionally overshooted to make the demo more enjoyable for non-total war veterians. However in the more recent Yuanshao gameplay( at the start of the first video), a champion(Yanliang) and a sentinel duel to the end of time while all the enemy troops were defeated and the battle outcome had been determined and the whole army had to stand there waiting for them to complete the duel, which seemed both impractical and unrealistic. I didn't know if this is because Yanliang was a bad duellist who was one-shotted by Guanyu in both Romance and the Record of 3K, but it gave me the impression that the heros might be balanced out too much.

    3. Zhangliao should be a vanguard! Though Mr. Zhang is a notable but unimpressive character in Romance, he was a fearsome warrior in the Record of Three Kingdoms, and auguably the best general under Caocao. A brief of his deeds can be found at the wiki page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Liao#Battle_of_Xiaoyao_Ford_and_aftermath. So, when I saw both Zhangliao and Xuhuang was bested by Sunren in the ambush showdown a few months ago. Both joy and tears filled my eyes...while I'd love to see a femine legendary hero cutting her way through the crowd like any other man, to down play the legendary general Zhang of Wei empire to such a degree was astonishing. I would think it was because He was categorized to a sentinal hero type, while a vanguard would be more fitting.

    4. Again while I enjoyed legendary femine heros leading the armies in light of the romance nature of the game, I would suggest let the heroines confined to the legendary categories only. I had to admit it was a little overwhelming to see so many femine generals and wives of faction leaders fighting in the ranks. It is just very unrealistic, I'll just leave it to that.

    It seems my time is running short, so I'll stop this gibberish for now, I'll be back for more updates when more gameplays are out there though:)

    We had amazons in Rome 1, but people didn't care. Now people are so touch that are women's in they're video games. It's a sandbox experience, there will be mods to remove all of them for good, and you can mostly do anything you wish about it. Why take other the experience to have only woman's in their armies. Is their wish.
  • YaafmYaafm Registered Users Posts: 1,276
    Do not forget this is also a game. There are some gamification things that must go on to make sure its fun. Gaming culture, has grown to encompass many types of people, they are trying to please a larger target audience then just the historical super fans.

    This game will, fortunatly or unfortunatly, bring Dynasty Warriors fans to the genre (a action game that has been around forever), want to keep it a bit player friendly for them.

    I think the anti-female battle should be given up. This is 2019, inclusion of all gamer types trumps historical accuracy. And how would I build my all woman general harem *cough* army without them? (I dont know, maybe have a slider for for % of generals generated? Still feels a bit mean)
  • chortles81chortles81 Registered Users Posts: 188
    @unicornvalley One explanation I've seen for the duel going so long was a perfect storm of an AI general "able to lock down chokepoints and enemy heroes" (a sentinel whose primary stat Expertise raises melee evasion), a low-level Wen Chou* (a champion whose primary stat Resolve instead raises his health), and neither having much in the way of 'big chunk of health' damage dealing (dunno what abilities the AI general had, while Wen Chou had a Binding Fury attack but it missed the first time)... a situation which may not have been so noticeable in a longer & more even battle, but the advantage in troops was lopsidedly in Yuan Shao's favor.

    * Yan Liang was instead a vanguard.
  • mitthrawnuruodomitthrawnuruodo Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,972
    Point 1 is very true, not just for games but for pop culture. It is good for introducing you to the events and characters, and inspire you do some actual research and learn the full history. It saddens me what so many people on facebook or youtube respond to TW3K posts with variations of "give us medieval, not this chinese ****". Closed minded to say the least.

    Historical China produced more female generals than other historical settings. Look up Fu Hao, Qin Liangyu, Liang Hongyu, Lady Yue, Li Xiu, Hu Lanqi to name a few - these are proper military leaders mind you, not just rulers like Boudicca or Zenobia. I do not think what we have seen can be considered overboard for an ancient Chinese setting.

    And do not forget that only a fraction of the characters are generals. Most will be doing administrative works, assignments or just sitting at court. Just because a female character shows up in the character list, does not mean she is a general. She is just another character that exists in the game.

    I think we probably have seen 20+ male generals for every female one in the gameplay previews so far. And like the others say, there will be all sorts of mods tweaking this ratio, from 100% males to 100% females.
  • unicornvalleyunicornvalley Registered Users Posts: 117

    I have been a total war fan since Rome and was so thrilled that CA has finally decided to make a Three Kingdom title, which is a kind of perfect set for the total war engine. Judging from the Yuanshao gameplay and the Liubei demo, from a Chinese total war fan point of view, the 3K that CA made is already the best 3K game to date, on top of all the Japanese made titles and some attempts made by Chinese game companies. However, there were some decent Chinese made Three Kingdom mods for Rome and Medieval tw if anybody had cared to try them out.

    I actually had this idea of making some suggestion to the game for some time but thought it was unpractical to make any suggestion when da game was ready to launch, but now that CA has granted me three more months to concentrated on my career, and guess what, I am bored! .......

    We had amazons in Rome 1, but people didn't care. Now people are so touch that are women's in they're video games. It's a sandbox experience, there will be mods to remove all of them for good, and you can mostly do anything you wish about it. Why take other the experience to have only woman's in their armies. Is their wish.
    Well you are right it's only a game, one can have an army of women or no woman at all, and there are mods for all that, but as a historical title I would expect the original one to stay as close to history as it could. Again it is a minor issue, I can live with it either way.
  • unicornvalleyunicornvalley Registered Users Posts: 117
    Yaafm said:

    Do not forget this is also a game. There are some gamification things that must go on to make sure its fun. Gaming culture, has grown to encompass many types of people, they are trying to please a larger target audience then just the historical super fans.

    This game will, fortunatly or unfortunatly, bring Dynasty Warriors fans to the genre (a action game that has been around forever), want to keep it a bit player friendly for them.

    I think the anti-female battle should be given up. This is 2019, inclusion of all gamer types trumps historical accuracy. And how would I build my all woman general harem *cough* army without them? (I dont know, maybe have a slider for for % of generals generated? Still feels a bit mean)

    Well I actually love to have some female generals in the game, all the female characters in the Dynasty Warriors are OK, but all the wives of the legendary lords maybe too much. Again, not that important, Iive with it either way
  • unicornvalleyunicornvalley Registered Users Posts: 117

    @unicornvalley One explanation I've seen for the duel going so long was a perfect storm of an AI general "able to lock down chokepoints and enemy heroes" (a sentinel whose primary stat Expertise raises melee evasion), a low-level Wen Chou* (a champion whose primary stat Resolve instead raises his health), and neither having much in the way of 'big chunk of health' damage dealing (dunno what abilities the AI general had, while Wen Chou had a Binding Fury attack but it missed the first time)... a situation which may not have been so noticeable in a longer & more even battle, but the advantage in troops was lopsidedly in Yuan Shao's favor.

    * Yan Liang was instead a vanguard.

    Oh, my mistake, it was Weichou, not YanLiang, just afraid that the heros were being balanced too much, while duels in the Liubei demo took so little time and the Yuanshao playthrough took so long.
  • unicornvalleyunicornvalley Registered Users Posts: 117
    One thing I had to be clear is I am not anti-female generals. Let's just say as someone who is quite familiar with that part of history and the novel, I think it is fine to put Sunren at the head of an army because it is lore friendly, but it is weired to see Liubei's other wives or Yuanshao's wives leading an army or even fighting in their army because it is not lore friendly. It is like putting Helen of Troy at the commend of an army. Don't you think it is a bit strange? It might be cool but still strange, or maybe it's just me....
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,362
    Total War games don't tend to be very good at representing the real strength of a factions, because most factions start more or less in the same position, even though historically they was not in the same position at all, Crusader Kings 2 does a better job at giving factions a more historically accurate starts. Well duels AKA combat by champion should happen before the big battle starts and not in the middle of a big battle in the in the first place, so ya an duels in a middle of a chaos of a big battles are clearly not realistic, and ya some characters are clearly stronger in Total War than they should be, for the sake of "balance", and the same thing can be said about factions as well. As for Total War: Three Kingdoms having a lot of female commanders, ya it's clearly not realistic, and many Total War fans dislike it, at least Total War: Rome 2 had limited it somewhat, not as much as Crusader Kings 2 but still, but in Total War: Three Kingdoms there is a lot of female characters who want to be on the battlefield, and their husbands don't mind it at all, in real life a Warlord was much more likely to promote a man to a commander than give that task to his wife.

    https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/YMMV/TotalWarThreeKingdoms
  • chortles81chortles81 Registered Users Posts: 188
    edited February 2019

    Oh, my mistake, it was Weichou, not YanLiang, just afraid that the heros were being balanced too much, while duels in the Liubei demo took so little time and the Yuanshao playthrough took so long.

    If you're curious, in that very first turn (harvest 190) Wen Chou was only a rank 2 champion and the AI general a level 1 sentinel; Yuan Shao a level 3 commander. A 'what if it had been Yan Liang or Zhang He' would have been interesting since both are vanguards which is supposed to be the 'strong vs. large groups, weak vs. other heroes' class, with their primary stat (Instinct) raising melee damage. That being said, in that first livestream that was the only duel; the storming of Henei City only had Tian Feng and a Ji Infantry Captain on the AI side, and Tian Feng is a strategist who according to the game rules can't duel at all, while the defense of Henei's farmland had Yan Liang not dueling either Yellow Turban general (Yan Liang and his retinue infantry defeating one in regular combat, then Yan Liang personally running down and killing the other after the battle outcome was decided by all of the remaining Yellow Turban units routing).
  • chortles81chortles81 Registered Users Posts: 188
    edited February 2019

    Oh, my mistake, it was Weichou, not YanLiang, just afraid that the heros were being balanced too much, while duels in the Liubei demo took so little time and the Yuanshao playthrough took so long.

    For what it's worth, in that first turn (harvest season of 190 CE) Wen Chou was 'only' a rank 2 champion with few if any bonuses from his gear, although the AI general was a rank 1 sentinel, and the total battle time according to the victory screen was just over six minutes while of course the battle of units was even shorter -- in contrast, the timer for the summer 191 battle for Henei city was just over nine minutes, and the subsequent harvest 192 defense of said farmland was eight minutes, fifteen seconds, and in the second stream a spring 193 forest battle near Pingyuan's salt mine went ten minutes, fifteen seconds; this duel surely would have looked less out of place had it taken place near the start of one of those battles instead. (For what it's worth, I don't recognize that sentinel's starting skill/ability but in the second stream we see a different rank 1 sentinel who starts with Adamant Resolve, a +50% melee evasion AOE active buff.)

    Additional note: In addition, from watching the second stream, it turns out that Binding Fury was already Wen Chou's biggest 'anti-general' ability -- the Earthen Rampart skill first available at rank 4 grants +10 resolve and a +400% charge resistance AOE active buff which wouldn't have helped kill that rank 1 sentinel any faster, while the Hamstring skill first available at rank 6 grants +10 resolve and an attack which directly only deals a quarter of Binding Fury's splash damage (albeit with half the cooldown, a 50% longer duration, and debuffing the opponent by halving their speed and increasing their abilities' cooldowns by 30 seconds).

    For a contrast, Zhang He's also a vanguard like Yan Liang but a Legendary with the Courageous General background and a different skill tree; Zhang He's starting skill is the Flames of the Phoenix attack (half the splash damage but half the cooldown vs. Binding Fury), first available at rank 4 is Final Rush (if the battle outcome's decided, gain +50% speed and +50% charge speed with which to run down any remaining enemies... this is Yan Liang's starting skill), and first available at rank 6 is the Roar of the Beast skill (-18 morale AOE active debuff).
    Post edited by chortles81 on
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Registered Users Posts: 377
    Yaafm said:

    Do not forget this is also a game. There are some gamification things that must go on to make sure its fun. Gaming culture, has grown to encompass many types of people, they are trying to please a larger target audience then just the historical super fans.

    This game will, fortunatly or unfortunatly, bring Dynasty Warriors fans to the genre (a action game that has been around forever), want to keep it a bit player friendly for them.

    I think the anti-female battle should be given up. This is 2019, inclusion of all gamer types trumps historical accuracy. And how would I build my all woman general harem *cough* army without them? (I dont know, maybe have a slider for for % of generals generated? Still feels a bit mean)

    this is 2019 truly an absurd time.
    first to have a stricter treshhold for female general spawn is not "anti-female".
    second, ur example is cultural appropriation and this is very disrespectful.
    and third, when we make the argument that anything goes in a game, why cant i have my north african warriors?
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!! [moddable + ui-scale]

    CA pls, where is Three Kings start date?

    Gavespawn Fan Club________dont forget about the beastmen! beastmen content is long overdue!!1!
    Fan Club Cao Wei__________.*(Cao 190-start lacks sentinel assignment)
    Lobby Group Black Achilleez __Troy Saga in a nutshell

    dear CA,
    - pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded.
    - as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route)
    - kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games

    feature requests / suggestions / wishlist

    this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell


    judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process;
    beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them);
    judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso.
    all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket
    (which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature)
    which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition
    so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!

    anyways,
    i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples.
    in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well
    that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.

    but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either
    (as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions)
    but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination)
    with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched
    [update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)

    the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially
    (for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference)
    but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily

    obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features)
    i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.

    someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting



    campaign

    * replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it
    * attila unit progression was nice
    * keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate
    * limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions
    * keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all);
    .........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad
    ......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks)
    .........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps)
    ............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system
    * further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer,
    ......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills
    ......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings
    * keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga)
    * tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces)
    ............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions
    * further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!



    tactical/3d skirmish

    * imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw;
    ......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player
    .........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist
    .........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)

    * tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after ((
    ......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure
    .........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition
    .........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units)
    .........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of
    .........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf])
    .........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina
    .........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines;
    .........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-),
    .........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block)
    .........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about
    .........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage
    .........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage
    .........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating
    .........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband)
    .........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat)
    .........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank
    ............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective;
    ............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)

    ......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below
    .........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones),
    .........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat)
    .........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects)
    .........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments
    .........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS
    .........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits
    .........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw)
    .........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls
    ...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess

    * keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player
    ......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation
    .........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness)
    .........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain

    * make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff])
    ......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof)
    .........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis
    .........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c.
    .........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics
    .........war cry, suebian charge et c.
    .........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot
    .........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained
    .........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash
    .........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged
    .........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation
    .........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order
    .........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance)
    .........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging)
    .........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command

    * re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system;
    ..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size
    ......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades,
    ......* dug-ins,
    ......* bamboo-walls
    ........and other deployables,
    ......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon),
    ......* inside/behind dense vegetation
    ......* along river banks) et c

    * restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode)
    .........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point,
    .........decisive and rewarding
    .........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places.
    .........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!

    * pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise
    ..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment

    ......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units
    .........and heres why

    .........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp)
    .........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful
    .........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups!
    .........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and
    .........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles
    .........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty
    .........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience
    .........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons)
    .........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup
    .........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable
    .........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle

    .........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced
    .........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry)
    .........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain
    .........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation,
    .........veteran spears should be able to push offensively
    .........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective
    .........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it
    .........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway
    .........different period as well require distinction obviously
    .........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall
    .........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length
    .........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen
    .........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement
    .........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units
    .........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii,
    .........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro)
    .........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized
    .........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation)
    .........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys
    .........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas
    .........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen
    .........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category
    .........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese
    .........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator
    .........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp
    .........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2
    .........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav
    .........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them
    .........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin
    .........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre

    ......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish
    .........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break)
    .........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation
    .........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)

    * add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did)
    ......* more strict and developed
    .........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units
    .........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer
    ............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel
    .........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^
    .........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units
    .........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel
    .........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is
    .........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable)
    .........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction
    .........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.;
    .........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve
    .........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS
    .........example of diversionist maneuvre
    .........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer
    .........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken,
    .........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity
    .........another example
    .........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there
    .........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank
    .........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess)
    .........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement
    .........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed
    .........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers

    ......* instead:
    .........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges
    .........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning
    .........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error
    .........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception

    ......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel
    .........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules?
    ......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason!
    .........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces
    .........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy
    .........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though)
    .........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide
    .........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium;
    .........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing
    .........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)

    - i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity
  • YaafmYaafm Registered Users Posts: 1,276

    Yaafm said:

    Do not forget this is also a game. There are some gamification things that must go on to make sure its fun. Gaming culture, has grown to encompass many types of people, they are trying to please a larger target audience then just the historical super fans.

    This game will, fortunatly or unfortunatly, bring Dynasty Warriors fans to the genre (a action game that has been around forever), want to keep it a bit player friendly for them.

    I think the anti-female battle should be given up. This is 2019, inclusion of all gamer types trumps historical accuracy. And how would I build my all woman general harem *cough* army without them? (I dont know, maybe have a slider for for % of generals generated? Still feels a bit mean)

    this is 2019 truly an absurd time.
    first to have a stricter treshhold for female general spawn is not "anti-female".
    second, ur example is cultural appropriation and this is very disrespectful.
    and third, when we make the argument that anything goes in a game, why cant i have my north african warriors?
    Are you supposed to be making sense? If your denying some people the option without even a slider like I suggested, then yes it is.

    Cultural....are you serious? You will have to explain that one to me.

    Not even going to bother with the last one. It's a false argument your making to over emphasize your point using extreams.
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,362

    One thing I had to be clear is I am not anti-female generals. Let's just say as someone who is quite familiar with that part of history and the novel, I think it is fine to put Sunren at the head of an army because it is lore friendly, but it is weired to see Liubei's other wives or Yuanshao's wives leading an army or even fighting in their army because it is not lore friendly. It is like putting Helen of Troy at the commend of an army. Don't you think it is a bit strange? It might be cool but still strange, or maybe it's just me....

    It's not just you and CA had clearly gave a 'Xenafication' to a lot of female characters in this game.
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Registered Users Posts: 377
    edited February 2019
    @Yaafm

    #1 my objection is in reference to the post u were replying to. how is a bid not to morph tw into dynasty warriors to keep an air / a semblance of historic plausibility "anti-female". to have women not allowed to have / attain a driver licence - that is anti-female.
    ive also played a couple DW titles and other than the likes of u would likely reflexively suspect, i didnt mind. yet i would not like three kings to lean too much into DW - by ur definition, how does that make me anti-female?
    Yaafm said:

    Are you supposed to be making sense? If your denying some people the option without even a slider like I suggested, then yes it is.

    denial of what? mbe u should stop handling the matter of female inclusion in games as some sort of humanitarian / institutional right. u make a mockery of the womens cause by ur over-acting and by throwing such labels around. guess if women inclusion in games were such a minor thing, baizuo like u wouldnt mind so quickly to accuse other forumers with a slightly different viewpoint of an "anti-female" attitude!

    in regards to ur slider, im not opposed to such a solution. as its just an idea that never gets realized and neither is related to my objection, i didnt address it.

    #2 u clearly mocked other cultures customs. how is that not disrespectful?

    #3 disagree. its perfectly valid. with this example i intended to showcase that at some point even u draw the line of where the games plausibility for the sake of "inclusion" has been overbreeched. i think one should b able to acknowledge that other forumers just draw this line differently without the need to reflexively resort to the 'misogynist' or whatever accusation.
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!! [moddable + ui-scale]

    CA pls, where is Three Kings start date?

    Gavespawn Fan Club________dont forget about the beastmen! beastmen content is long overdue!!1!
    Fan Club Cao Wei__________.*(Cao 190-start lacks sentinel assignment)
    Lobby Group Black Achilleez __Troy Saga in a nutshell

    dear CA,
    - pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded.
    - as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route)
    - kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games

    feature requests / suggestions / wishlist

    this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell


    judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process;
    beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them);
    judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso.
    all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket
    (which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature)
    which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition
    so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!

    anyways,
    i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples.
    in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well
    that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.

    but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either
    (as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions)
    but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination)
    with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched
    [update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)

    the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially
    (for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference)
    but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily

    obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features)
    i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.

    someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting



    campaign

    * replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it
    * attila unit progression was nice
    * keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate
    * limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions
    * keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all);
    .........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad
    ......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks)
    .........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps)
    ............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system
    * further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer,
    ......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills
    ......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings
    * keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga)
    * tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces)
    ............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions
    * further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!



    tactical/3d skirmish

    * imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw;
    ......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player
    .........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist
    .........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)

    * tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after ((
    ......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure
    .........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition
    .........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units)
    .........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of
    .........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf])
    .........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina
    .........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines;
    .........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-),
    .........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block)
    .........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about
    .........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage
    .........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage
    .........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating
    .........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband)
    .........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat)
    .........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank
    ............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective;
    ............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)

    ......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below
    .........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones),
    .........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat)
    .........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects)
    .........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments
    .........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS
    .........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits
    .........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw)
    .........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls
    ...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess

    * keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player
    ......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation
    .........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness)
    .........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain

    * make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff])
    ......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof)
    .........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis
    .........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c.
    .........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics
    .........war cry, suebian charge et c.
    .........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot
    .........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained
    .........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash
    .........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged
    .........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation
    .........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order
    .........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance)
    .........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging)
    .........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command

    * re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system;
    ..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size
    ......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades,
    ......* dug-ins,
    ......* bamboo-walls
    ........and other deployables,
    ......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon),
    ......* inside/behind dense vegetation
    ......* along river banks) et c

    * restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode)
    .........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point,
    .........decisive and rewarding
    .........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places.
    .........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!

    * pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise
    ..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment

    ......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units
    .........and heres why

    .........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp)
    .........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful
    .........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups!
    .........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and
    .........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles
    .........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty
    .........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience
    .........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons)
    .........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup
    .........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable
    .........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle

    .........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced
    .........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry)
    .........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain
    .........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation,
    .........veteran spears should be able to push offensively
    .........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective
    .........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it
    .........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway
    .........different period as well require distinction obviously
    .........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall
    .........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length
    .........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen
    .........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement
    .........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units
    .........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii,
    .........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro)
    .........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized
    .........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation)
    .........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys
    .........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas
    .........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen
    .........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category
    .........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese
    .........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator
    .........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp
    .........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2
    .........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav
    .........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them
    .........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin
    .........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre

    ......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish
    .........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break)
    .........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation
    .........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)

    * add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did)
    ......* more strict and developed
    .........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units
    .........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer
    ............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel
    .........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^
    .........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units
    .........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel
    .........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is
    .........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable)
    .........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction
    .........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.;
    .........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve
    .........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS
    .........example of diversionist maneuvre
    .........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer
    .........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken,
    .........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity
    .........another example
    .........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there
    .........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank
    .........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess)
    .........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement
    .........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed
    .........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers

    ......* instead:
    .........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges
    .........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning
    .........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error
    .........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception

    ......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel
    .........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules?
    ......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason!
    .........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces
    .........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy
    .........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though)
    .........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide
    .........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium;
    .........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing
    .........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)

    - i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity
  • YaafmYaafm Registered Users Posts: 1,276

    @Yaafm


    #1 my objection is in reference to the post u were replying to. how is a bid not to morph tw into dynasty warriors to keep an air / a semblance of historic plausibility "anti-female". to have women not allowed to have / attain a driver licence - that is anti-female.
    ive also played a couple DW titles and other than the likes of u would likely reflexively suspect, i didnt mind. yet i would not like three kings to lean too much into DW - by ur definition, how does that make me anti-female?
    Yaafm said:

    Are you supposed to be making sense? If your denying some people the option without even a slider like I suggested, then yes it is.

    denial of what? mbe u should stop handling the matter of female inclusion in games as some sort of humanitarian / institutional right. u make a mockery of the womens cause by ur over-acting and by throwing such labels around. guess if women inclusion in games were such a minor thing, baizuo like u wouldnt mind so quickly to accuse other forumers with a slightly different viewpoint of an "anti-female" attitude!

    in regards to ur slider, im not opposed to such a solution. as its just an idea that never gets realized and neither is related to my objection, i didnt address it.

    #2 u clearly mocked other cultures customs. how is that not disrespectful?

    #3 disagree. its perfectly valid. with this example i intended to showcase that at some point even u draw the line of where the games plausibility for the sake of "inclusion" has been overbreeched. i think one should b able to acknowledge that other forumers just draw this line differently without the need to reflexively resort to the 'misogynist' or whatever accusation.
    Your really good at this, twisting what I said to suit your argument. I'm not going to bother to re-explain my stance. If you wish to blow it out of porportion and extrapolate claims I did not make, that's your choice.

    The game does not and should not be as hardline to historical accuracy as some of you want it.

    You have yet to explain your cultral appropriation at all. Your making completey no sense in that regard and pretty sure your making stuff up to try and make your stance more palatable.
    Or you have assumed something somewhere and do not wish to admit the mistake.
  • KrunchKrunch Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,991

    I have been a total war fan since Rome and was so thrilled that CA has finally decided to make a Three Kingdom title, which is a kind of perfect set for the total war engine. Judging from the Yuanshao gameplay and the Liubei demo, from a Chinese total war fan point of view, the 3K that CA made is already the best 3K game to date, on top of all the Japanese made titles and some attempts made by Chinese game companies. However, there were some decent Chinese made Three Kingdom mods for Rome and Medieval tw if anybody had cared to try them out.

    I actually had this idea of making some suggestion to the game for some time but thought it was unpractical to make any suggestion when da game was ready to launch, but now that CA has granted me three more months to concentrated on my career, and guess what, I am bored!

    Well here are some suggestions and thoughts on the Three Kingdoms TW:
    1. The reason I began to love total war series was partly because I learned a lot about western cultrure and histories and warfare from it, and I think 3K is good chance for other fans of tw to know a thing or two about Chinese history and culture. Apparently CA have focus mainly on the book (romance mod), well as it should be game-wise. The struggles and life stories of all those legendary heros are worth-knowing, and it is a good idea for the game script to restore them to a certain point. Though I see CA had already did a great job on that through all the missions and dillemmas, but it seemed it might need more 'polishing'. e.g. From a youtuber's gameplay, Liubei was able to defeat CAOCAO and his main army at the first few turns of the game, which should be highly improbable because Liubei started as a commoner though he had royal lineage, and by the time of the alliances ended, he was only a minor lord, while Caocao was a major lord and had estates, money and resources. Even with his two formidable oathsworn brothers, the real dillemma of Liubei was that he has no army to stand against Dongzhuo then Caocao at that time. If he were able, he will not need to eventually retreat to the west of China to start his empire. So my suggestion is instead of let every lord to start with only one commandary and a minor force, maybe giving some major lords such as Yuanshao and Caocao more historical accurate lands or forces while not played by the player, so we could get a better picture of the situation at that period and know that it was a challenge to stay at the center of China if you are not up for it. This was actually depicted well in the 3K mods I mentioned, Liubei had the best characters but no substantial army and had to retreat to a more safer location in the west to grow, while Caocao has better estate soldiers but had to face the conflict of central China.

    2. The duel system may need to be rebalanced? It might come to many's attention that a few reviewers who play the Liubei demo believed the heros were a bit OP, but I don't think everyone noticed that in multiple interviews the devs said that the heros were intentionally overshooted to make the demo more enjoyable for non-total war veterians. However in the more recent Yuanshao gameplay( at the start of the first video), a champion(Yanliang) and a sentinel duel to the end of time while all the enemy troops were defeated and the battle outcome had been determined and the whole army had to stand there waiting for them to complete the duel, which seemed both impractical and unrealistic. I didn't know if this is because Yanliang was a bad duellist who was one-shotted by Guanyu in both Romance and the Record of 3K, but it gave me the impression that the heros might be balanced out too much.

    3. Zhangliao should be a vanguard! Though Mr. Zhang is a notable but unimpressive character in Romance, he was a fearsome warrior in the Record of Three Kingdoms, and auguably the best general under Caocao. A brief of his deeds can be found at the wiki page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Liao#Battle_of_Xiaoyao_Ford_and_aftermath. So, when I saw both Zhangliao and Xuhuang was bested by Sunren in the ambush showdown a few months ago. Both joy and tears filled my eyes...while I'd love to see a femine legendary hero cutting her way through the crowd like any other man, to down play the legendary general Zhang of Wei empire to such a degree was astonishing. I would think it was because He was categorized to a sentinal hero type, while a vanguard would be more fitting.

    4. Again while I enjoyed legendary femine heros leading the armies in light of the romance nature of the game, I would suggest let the heroines confined to the legendary categories only. I had to admit it was a little overwhelming to see so many femine generals and wives of faction leaders fighting in the ranks. It is just very unrealistic, I'll just leave it to that.

    It seems my time is running short, so I'll stop this gibberish for now, I'll be back for more updates when more gameplays are out there though:)

    We had amazons in Rome 1, but people didn't care. Now people are so touch that are women's in they're video games. It's a sandbox experience, there will be mods to remove all of them for good, and you can mostly do anything you wish about it. Why take other the experience to have only woman's in their armies. Is their wish.
    Because Amazons were an Easter egg unit that frankly I didn't even know about until last year. While yeah there are some **** out there who hate all women and don't want them in video games, but for many people it's simply a matter of authenticity. Women during this era of Chinese history were not particularly liberated. No better than Rome in Rome 2's era, which likewise did not let you use Women. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the ability of female characters to fight or take up leadership positions should be a rare trait. Very few women, such as Sun Ren, should have it. Maybe they can also make it so outlaw factions and the Yellow Turban Rebellion can also use female characters at will to represent the more rebellious nature of the factions and how they are not so bound by polite society, and perhaps also their desperation.
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Registered Users Posts: 377
    Yaafm said:

    @Yaafm


    #1 my objection is in reference to the post u were replying to. how is a bid not to morph tw into dynasty warriors to keep an air / a semblance of historic plausibility "anti-female". to have women not allowed to have / attain a driver licence - that is anti-female.
    ive also played a couple DW titles and other than the likes of u would likely reflexively suspect, i didnt mind. yet i would not like three kings to lean too much into DW - by ur definition, how does that make me anti-female?
    Yaafm said:

    Are you supposed to be making sense? If your denying some people the option without even a slider like I suggested, then yes it is.

    denial of what? mbe u should stop handling the matter of female inclusion in games as some sort of humanitarian / institutional right. u make a mockery of the womens cause by ur over-acting and by throwing such labels around. guess if women inclusion in games were such a minor thing, baizuo like u wouldnt mind so quickly to accuse other forumers with a slightly different viewpoint of an "anti-female" attitude!

    in regards to ur slider, im not opposed to such a solution. as its just an idea that never gets realized and neither is related to my objection, i didnt address it.

    #2 u clearly mocked other cultures customs. how is that not disrespectful?

    #3 disagree. its perfectly valid. with this example i intended to showcase that at some point even u draw the line of where the games plausibility for the sake of "inclusion" has been overbreeched. i think one should b able to acknowledge that other forumers just draw this line differently without the need to reflexively resort to the 'misogynist' or whatever accusation.
    Your really good at this, twisting what I said to suit your argument. I'm not going to bother to re-explain my stance. If you wish to blow it out of porportion and extrapolate claims I did not make, that's your choice.
    nothing but empty platitudes. it is u who did put things out of proportion to begin with. i just called u out for that and now u wont even bother to explain how i got ur argument wrong. its ur choice.
    to avoid such dickmeasuring forum contests for the future, ive got a suggestion though. dont so generously put such indignant insinuations for such trivial disagreements and nobody will call u out next time. i know its obvious but none the less i wanted to point this out.
    Yaafm said:

    The game does not and should not be as hardline to historical accuracy as some of you want it.

    "hardline" by ur definition. what should or should not is up to debate of c. i obviously have a different viewpoint.

    Yaafm said:

    You have yet to explain your cultral appropriation at all. Your making completey no sense in that regard and pretty sure your making stuff up to try and make your stance more palatable.
    Or you have assumed something somewhere and do not wish to admit the mistake.

    not sure whether ure acting or due to loss of communication over the webs my joke has gone completely over ur head.

    however, it is rly telling imo that u bother to waste so much text (of ur counter argument) on such an obvious joke. it only makes it seem like u cant find a true attack surface on my valid objection which would only further validate my point. also it is no use "to make stuff up" for the purpose of "making my stance more palatable" - if the made up stuff is not related to my previous point at all! hence ur suspicion is baseless and only serves a weak distraction.

    when i playfully replied to ur harem quote, i explicitely had used a baizuo term for reference, so by that it rly should have been obvious that i was mocking around. u dont need to admit it on the forums but if ure being honest with urself and reflect just a bit, dont u think i was basically mirroring u a little bit with my mock argument? just take a harmless comment and blow it out of proportion as u and a couple others did with the anti-feminism thing because somebody wanted the numbers to b notched a bit more historically plausible. how is that not a parallel. mbe ure one who just casually throws labels around but how do i (or any of the forumers respectively) know. if u insist to keep such a mode of communication u will have to just accept that similar folks like me will object just the same.


    remember, only a sith deals in extremes.
    p.s. apparently also no love for my spear jugging africa boiis T_T
    Krunch said:

    I have been a total war fan since Rome and was so thrilled that CA has finally decided to make a Three Kingdom title, which is a kind of perfect set for the total war engine. Judging from the Yuanshao gameplay and the Liubei demo, from a Chinese total war fan point of view, the 3K that CA made is already the best 3K game to date, on top of all the Japanese made titles and some attempts made by Chinese game companies. However, there were some decent Chinese made Three Kingdom mods for Rome and Medieval tw if anybody had cared to try them out.

    I actually had this idea of making some suggestion to the game for some time but thought it was unpractical to make any suggestion when da game was ready to launch, but now that CA has granted me three more months to concentrated on my career, and guess what, I am bored!

    Well here are some suggestions and thoughts on the Three Kingdoms TW:
    1. The reason I began to love total war series was partly because I learned a lot about western cultrure and histories and warfare from it, and I think 3K is good chance for other fans of tw to know a thing or two about Chinese history and culture. Apparently CA have focus mainly on the book (romance mod), well as it should be game-wise. The struggles and life stories of all those legendary heros are worth-knowing, and it is a good idea for the game script to restore them to a certain point. Though I see CA had already did a great job on that through all the missions and dillemmas, but it seemed it might need more 'polishing'. e.g. From a youtuber's gameplay, Liubei was able to defeat CAOCAO and his main army at the first few turns of the game, which should be highly improbable because Liubei started as a commoner though he had royal lineage, and by the time of the alliances ended, he was only a minor lord, while Caocao was a major lord and had estates, money and resources. Even with his two formidable oathsworn brothers, the real dillemma of Liubei was that he has no army to stand against Dongzhuo then Caocao at that time. If he were able, he will not need to eventually retreat to the west of China to start his empire. So my suggestion is instead of let every lord to start with only one commandary and a minor force, maybe giving some major lords such as Yuanshao and Caocao more historical accurate lands or forces while not played by the player, so we could get a better picture of the situation at that period and know that it was a challenge to stay at the center of China if you are not up for it. This was actually depicted well in the 3K mods I mentioned, Liubei had the best characters but no substantial army and had to retreat to a more safer location in the west to grow, while Caocao has better estate soldiers but had to face the conflict of central China.

    2. The duel system may need to be rebalanced? It might come to many's attention that a few reviewers who play the Liubei demo believed the heros were a bit OP, but I don't think everyone noticed that in multiple interviews the devs said that the heros were intentionally overshooted to make the demo more enjoyable for non-total war veterians. However in the more recent Yuanshao gameplay( at the start of the first video), a champion(Yanliang) and a sentinel duel to the end of time while all the enemy troops were defeated and the battle outcome had been determined and the whole army had to stand there waiting for them to complete the duel, which seemed both impractical and unrealistic. I didn't know if this is because Yanliang was a bad duellist who was one-shotted by Guanyu in both Romance and the Record of 3K, but it gave me the impression that the heros might be balanced out too much.

    3. Zhangliao should be a vanguard! Though Mr. Zhang is a notable but unimpressive character in Romance, he was a fearsome warrior in the Record of Three Kingdoms, and auguably the best general under Caocao. A brief of his deeds can be found at the wiki page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Liao#Battle_of_Xiaoyao_Ford_and_aftermath. So, when I saw both Zhangliao and Xuhuang was bested by Sunren in the ambush showdown a few months ago. Both joy and tears filled my eyes...while I'd love to see a femine legendary hero cutting her way through the crowd like any other man, to down play the legendary general Zhang of Wei empire to such a degree was astonishing. I would think it was because He was categorized to a sentinal hero type, while a vanguard would be more fitting.

    4. Again while I enjoyed legendary femine heros leading the armies in light of the romance nature of the game, I would suggest let the heroines confined to the legendary categories only. I had to admit it was a little overwhelming to see so many femine generals and wives of faction leaders fighting in the ranks. It is just very unrealistic, I'll just leave it to that.

    It seems my time is running short, so I'll stop this gibberish for now, I'll be back for more updates when more gameplays are out there though:)

    We had amazons in Rome 1, but people didn't care. Now people are so touch that are women's in they're video games. It's a sandbox experience, there will be mods to remove all of them for good, and you can mostly do anything you wish about it. Why take other the experience to have only woman's in their armies. Is their wish.
    Because Amazons were an Easter egg unit that frankly I didn't even know about until last year. While yeah there are some **** out there who hate all women and don't want them in video games, but for many people it's simply a matter of authenticity. Women during this era of Chinese history were not particularly liberated. No better than Rome in Rome 2's era, which likewise did not let you use Women. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the ability of female characters to fight or take up leadership positions should be a rare trait. Very few women, such as Sun Ren, should have it. Maybe they can also make it so outlaw factions and the Yellow Turban Rebellion can also use female characters at will to represent the more rebellious nature of the factions and how they are not so bound by polite society, and perhaps also their desperation.
    @topic
    for the sake of topic, ill say that im not explicitly against female generals but based on the previews, the likelihood of a woman (of a ruling family mind u) serving in the field seems a bit high.
    the fact that the ai will not bother with historic roleplay as well as an initial scarcity of male contenders could effect the game to the point where most or many factions will have factionleader's spouses employed in the field. to what extent truly will have to b seen but it could potentially b off putting. while im no ancient chinese history expert, to some degree it would certainly break immersion for me. societal exceptions r a different kind of off than the wrong era type of armour, wrong breed of horses and such.

    also somehow i dont buy into this **** of some frustrated incel nurturing his grudge and envy to the point where he turns suddenly gay and henceforth does not wish females to b portrait in media. somehow i dont buy into that. nobody minded that daughters of mars dlc or whatever its called. also most did not rly mind the rome ii female leaders expansion except mod users who had to hope they get their mods updated. its only 10 months later when a certain official source made a strange reply and the ensuing uproar that spawned the legend of the neck bearded women hating basement nerds.

    most disagreements revolve around the degree which to put females into an unconventional settings. the provisory use of the misogyny argument (until somebody else openly admitted) is bs!
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!! [moddable + ui-scale]

    CA pls, where is Three Kings start date?

    Gavespawn Fan Club________dont forget about the beastmen! beastmen content is long overdue!!1!
    Fan Club Cao Wei__________.*(Cao 190-start lacks sentinel assignment)
    Lobby Group Black Achilleez __Troy Saga in a nutshell

    dear CA,
    - pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded.
    - as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route)
    - kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games

    feature requests / suggestions / wishlist

    this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell


    judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process;
    beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them);
    judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso.
    all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket
    (which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature)
    which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition
    so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!

    anyways,
    i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples.
    in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well
    that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.

    but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either
    (as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions)
    but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination)
    with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched
    [update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)

    the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially
    (for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference)
    but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily

    obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features)
    i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.

    someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting



    campaign

    * replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it
    * attila unit progression was nice
    * keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate
    * limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions
    * keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all);
    .........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad
    ......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks)
    .........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps)
    ............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system
    * further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer,
    ......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills
    ......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings
    * keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga)
    * tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces)
    ............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions
    * further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!



    tactical/3d skirmish

    * imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw;
    ......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player
    .........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist
    .........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)

    * tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after ((
    ......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure
    .........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition
    .........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units)
    .........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of
    .........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf])
    .........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina
    .........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines;
    .........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-),
    .........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block)
    .........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about
    .........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage
    .........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage
    .........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating
    .........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband)
    .........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat)
    .........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank
    ............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective;
    ............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)

    ......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below
    .........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones),
    .........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat)
    .........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects)
    .........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments
    .........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS
    .........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits
    .........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw)
    .........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls
    ...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess

    * keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player
    ......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation
    .........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness)
    .........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain

    * make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff])
    ......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof)
    .........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis
    .........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c.
    .........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics
    .........war cry, suebian charge et c.
    .........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot
    .........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained
    .........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash
    .........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged
    .........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation
    .........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order
    .........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance)
    .........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging)
    .........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command

    * re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system;
    ..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size
    ......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades,
    ......* dug-ins,
    ......* bamboo-walls
    ........and other deployables,
    ......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon),
    ......* inside/behind dense vegetation
    ......* along river banks) et c

    * restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode)
    .........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point,
    .........decisive and rewarding
    .........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places.
    .........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!

    * pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise
    ..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment

    ......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units
    .........and heres why

    .........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp)
    .........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful
    .........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups!
    .........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and
    .........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles
    .........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty
    .........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience
    .........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons)
    .........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup
    .........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable
    .........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle

    .........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced
    .........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry)
    .........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain
    .........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation,
    .........veteran spears should be able to push offensively
    .........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective
    .........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it
    .........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway
    .........different period as well require distinction obviously
    .........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall
    .........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length
    .........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen
    .........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement
    .........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units
    .........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii,
    .........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro)
    .........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized
    .........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation)
    .........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys
    .........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas
    .........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen
    .........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category
    .........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese
    .........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator
    .........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp
    .........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2
    .........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav
    .........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them
    .........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin
    .........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre

    ......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish
    .........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break)
    .........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation
    .........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)

    * add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did)
    ......* more strict and developed
    .........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units
    .........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer
    ............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel
    .........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^
    .........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units
    .........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel
    .........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is
    .........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable)
    .........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction
    .........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.;
    .........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve
    .........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS
    .........example of diversionist maneuvre
    .........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer
    .........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken,
    .........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity
    .........another example
    .........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there
    .........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank
    .........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess)
    .........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement
    .........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed
    .........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers

    ......* instead:
    .........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges
    .........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning
    .........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error
    .........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception

    ......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel
    .........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules?
    ......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason!
    .........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces
    .........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy
    .........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though)
    .........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide
    .........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium;
    .........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing
    .........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)

    - i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 22,298
    Let's all stop the personal bickering comments, and focus on the thread's OP's topic.
    "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.

  • epic_160958136309KAWlGXMepic_160958136309KAWlGXM Registered Users Posts: 1


    Hi there,

    I am a long term totalwar fans started to play your series from Totalwar Rome until today. I am very excited on totalwar threekingdom and purchase it immediately after the release date because i was dream on it since day one i play totalwar.

    Just wish to let you know I am a Malaysian who can read Mandarin and loves Chinese history a lot. I do quite a numbers of research on China history , especially on their political system and therefore i would like to give some self opinion and hope I can help the next totalwar 3k become better.

    Battlefield

    As totalwar has a very good and detailed battlefield design and is improving all the time. Therefore I just comment on those can be improved in the coming game.

    City siege

    Three Kingdom era did not use siege tower like Europe country. They use ladders (like Rome 2) which is light for them to move faster to the wall. Or they have those base under the ladder like in the picture.








    And also has the siege engine call jinglan (井阑)






    General will put archers in it to shoot those soldiers on the wall.


    I would like to suggest the number of soldiers or quality can adjust the speed of constructing the siege weapon like ROME 2. Other siege weapon is good enough and not much changes has to make.

    The defense side is good enough. May add boiling oil like ROME. However the soldier shouldnt be devastating if there is no negative factor in the city or general even being surrounded by enemy force since it really happen in the history.

    In the meantime i think there are some city defense is surrounded by river example like Xia Pi (下邳), might be an option to hold the river back at the upper reach when besiege the city, then release it to flow the city with water. This tactic used by Cao Cao defeated Lu Bu in 3 kingdom.

    These are the suggestions on the battlefield. Meanwhile, I have some ideas on the campaign and political system. Please give me some time to write it while playing the game.

    Hopefully CA can make another good 3k game or even more China history totalwar game.

    All the best

    Yours’ faithfully

    Ming Yoong





Sign In or Register to comment.