In what way were older total war games better than modern ones, and in what way are modern ones better?

In what way were older total war games better than modern ones, and in what way are modern ones better?
Also, what is really just nostalgia goggles? Graphics obviously dont apply.

For example, i hear people say that older Total War campaigns didnt drag on for so long and were less tedious (near the end)

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What was his problem, Ganker?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Who? Total war players?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    PRÖÖÖH :DD

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >For example, i hear people say that older Total War campaigns didnt drag on for so long and were less tedious (near the end)
    Whoever says this is fucked in the head. If anything, older TW games suffered from it more, especially Rome with the godawful squalor mechanic that cant be modded out.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm currently banned but I will never not bump elephant posts
    Blame jannies for me not posting one myself
    I'm too tired to evade on my pc

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How can you post if you are banned?

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Main things were battles being slower, more in depth city building and being able to have armies with captains now just generals. The whole generals system just turned it into doomstack vs doomstack shit.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The baby elephant would knock out a heavyweight with one of those jabs

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Buy Rome Total War, all factions included
    Buy Rome Total War 2, each faction sold seperately

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thats more the business side of the game, not so much the content

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >what way were older total war games better
    Battles are infinitely better in the older games. Positioning and tactics are their core while new games muddy that to the point it isn't even the same genre. The biggest offender to this is healthbars which makes every unit take longer to deal with when you encirlced them or are fighting at a much better position. This causes infantry to take much more of a toll in what should be decisive engagements making much worse then in previous games even if you use them masterfully. You can't beat massive armies with a regular army and instead have to rely on spamming spell units and ranged units that can take out an army without getting in costly melee, which are so much shallower to use then infantry. It's just a slog to play compared to the older games, don't know why they are so popular
    >what way are modern ones better?
    Much more ambitious mechanics, warhammer is full of shit that sounds awesome but unfortunately due to the battle being worse it mostly falls flat. Waagh! and skaven spawning units out of the ground would be really fun in a proper total war game

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What the old TW does better:
    >Breaking new ground at time of release
    >Attempting to simulate warfare, not a mobile game
    >Different units are actually different, not just stats
    >Every decision has multiple costs: opportunity costs, resource costs and time costs
    >Focus was on battles; campaigns are there to provide reasons and lasting consequences for battles
    >Shogun 1 AI surrender = AI organises units to orderly walk them to the edge of the map to leave, with units providing cover as needed. Replaced since with a mechanic that forces a unit to run to the nearest edge and ignore what else happens
    >Tim Ansell would rather CA shutdown than release a bad game
    >Every new game was clearly an improvement on what came before, eventually the worst problems with the series would surely be solved if loyal fans just supported it
    What new TW does better:
    >Camera controls
    >UI responsiveness
    >Graphics only look 5 years out of date rather than 10
    >Rome 2 introduces LoS-FoW in battles so terrain geometry can hide units
    >Since Rome 2's disastrous launch the games have tended to be less bugged on release
    Old TW issues:
    >Old
    >One step back for every two forward
    >Bugs
    >AI actually seemed to get worse
    New TW issues:
    >CA deliberately targeting a broader audience of dimwits: one play-tester on Troy went an hour without figuring out they how or why they needed to end-turn. CA wants these people as their players.
    >Units no longer differentiated mechanically; CA adopting Paradox design philosophy that makes spreadsheets pretending to be games
    >Feature-stripping has become worse
    >Five steps back for every one step forward
    >CA seem incapable of explaining any of their decisions
    >Battles are heavily dumbed-down, games now focus on campaigns using auto-resolve
    >Campaign objectives seem to necessitate map-painting, another dumb idea borrowed from Paradox. Attila has a strong following almost purely on the strength of it ignoring this.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Also: CA would rather shutdown a very high-selling game like 3K because the DLC flopped, rather than make a good game. Tim Ansell's legacy is ruined.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I haven't touched total war since warhammer 1 really. I don't like the change that Rome 2 did to armies and generals. I like regions and edicts but making armies to centralized is annoying and limiting. I was tempted to get 3K but it was abandoned and everybody just says wait if they do a followup.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    city development in older games was unironically better even if it just ended up being building everything in every city, I did feel like they were going in a proper direction with empire through shoguns system were you can still mostly build everything but shit like towns wanted some sort of specialization which can also vary on the region which could have opened the way to something more unique, but them Rome 2 came and its current system might seem neat on paper where you only have limtied slot but in practice it pretty much shallow since due to the way the game works you have to put at least one of the following in your settlements
    >a military building since you can't make your own garrisions anymore
    >a food building since if you don't chances of hunger go up
    >a public order building since the food one causes public disorder
    >then a money making building, leaving at best just a few extra slots

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think they were more defined and explicit. But that's because there weren't as many variables. Not so many small stats. no fucking hero units.
    You can say that it's a lot of subjective taste but even still, to this day, there's a reason shogun 2 gets so many players every month. More than a lot of modern titles. It also speaks to a different series that experienced a similar thing. Age of Empires.

    Simplicity is all we want or need.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      how much a month?

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Does noone have anything nice to say about the new games? Warhammer fans, don't you have anything to say?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ganker in general doesnt like games

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Far more variety within factions and between factions
      >Map-mechanics have far more variety as well
      I'd say those two cover most of it. Most of the older games just ended up being spearmanii vs spearmanii and i honestly dont get why people jack off over the "depth of combat" when you could win almost any campaign with hammer and anvil tactics.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *