If you can get past the boring as hell Total War: Troy beginning, the game can quickly get apocalyptic once catastrophe hits the Bronze Age World. The new prosperity system is interesting, putting numbers to collapse. It is a fun to lose, somewhat. The atmosphere is dark. Fighting the sea peoples as the pyramids are rotting in the background and the known world is falling apart can be quite fun.
Not a perfect title, but one that deserves to be given a chance.
 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
If it doesn't have 3K diplomacy it's garbage.
Someone looked at the files and its a Troy DLC
Its a Saga Total war
this, it was clear from the beginning that it will only receive the development time that the saga titles did. They just dropped the saga subtitle because it had negative connotations of being lesser than main titles.
That being said, both saga games are much better gameplay wise than WH3 at a fraction of the development time and costs. so much of the money spent on the warhammer games was just spent on art and animations
>so much of the money spent on the warhammer games was just spent on art and animations
And now it created a whole cohort who only cares about that and whine "it's not a real game" because it only has 7 varieties of spearmanii and they expected 15 even though they are functionally identical anyway.
It's funny how they did that when they went back and slapped a "SAGA" title on FOTS. The equivalent of how people would attempt to justify their right to rule by saying "um acktually I'm the second cousin once removed's nephew to the guy who trimmed Constantine's beard!"
>so much of the money spent on the warhammer games was just spent on art and animations
This could be argued for the first two TWWH games, the third one had so much reused assets and reskins that it's insulting by even CA standards
>Someone looked at the files and its a Troy DLC
Imagine that. Selling a game that is basically just an mod.
Actually tru, they didn't do all that much leg work for Med II, they did add in the new shader models but not much else.
Kingdoms is basically 4 dlcs in one easily purchased expansion.
WE
WUZ
I give it 2 weeks before SEGA cancels this one as well. There's zero interest and zero chance that they will recoup dev cost on this thing.
Hopefully they'll just close CA so this decade long trainwreck can finally stop
>Decade
Decades.
Rome 1 and Medieval 2 are shit and I'm tired of pretending they are not.
you are unironically a fricking moron lmao i bet you like crazy niche strat games and you think youre so quirky and smart for playing them
Attila is good but it's also a glorified expansion for Rome 2.
Not really, I get what you're saying, but Attila has enough depth and basegame changes to it that makes it a truly standalone game.
>but Attila has enough depth and basegame changes to it that makes it a truly standalone game.
Mweh, it's on par with Pharaoh. Though, granted, I would argue it's above, say, Medieval 2 compared to Rome 1.
homie Attila is fundamentally different from Rome 2 and plays completely different.
Is there a torrrent yet?
https://www.pcgamer.com/total-war-pharaoh-review/
>But we should probably spend some time discussing the battles, as this is where Pharaoh’s weakspot lies.
>Ultimately though, there is only so much Creative Assembly can do to spice up the ranks of such an ancient civilisation. There are many faction-specific types of swordsmen, axemen, spearmen, chariots etc. But units are all slight variations on these categories.
PCgamer is sorta wishywashy on liking it.
Terminator gives it a good beat down.
?t=296
>Mechanics fall apart
>Doesn't feel like a "collapse"
>No lasting impact
>Abundant resources
>Outposts are busted
The list goes on but harkens back to what I was thinking while play WH3 is that modern TW is not only too easy but carries little to no risk and no long term reward gameplay that old TWs give.
Welp guess its back to Attila.
Well, I think resources is a cool system, but AI cheats and practicly ignore it, making it useless for diplomacy deals, for example. In 3K at least you could do something with food, you could even buy settlements with it.
I've played total war since RTW1 back in 2004 and the older total wars were not risky in terms of challenges. Barbarian Invasion a little, sure, but overall you didn't even have the initial early campaign "you might get stuck in a quagmire if you don't do it right" that total wars have had more recently.
Simply put, if people think total war is brain dead now shit was literally as sapient as a rock back then. Cavalry from the AI did not flank, AI did not get armies replenished so you'd fight a 'stack' with 7 units, all of which had less than half their men left, the diplomacy game did not exist. Perhaps the solitary area where pre-warscape was better than post warscape is settlement management and character traits.
Don't forget they complain about unit variety and then field nothing but a stack of 17 jade lions or 7 high elf spearmen and 10 high elf bowmen. Not sisters of Avelorn, just literally militia bowmen.
>just literally militia bowmen
Oh yeah, that too. Apparently it's extremely important that every faction has different unit models but everyone just does the meta strat of full stack of tier1 militia bowmen and tarpit with lord/hero. I suppose this does make some twisted sort of sense. If everyone makes functionally identical units than they might at least look different, but it's a shitty type of "unit diversity".
Medieval 2 was ahead of the curve.
With armor upgrades being represented on the models themselves all of those copy pasted militia spearmen or spear seargeants felt like 4 distinct units depending on what level of armor they had. It felt like your forces actually progressed in quality through the game.
Units having visible upgrades is something I'd like to come back. The strict tiering of units and units becoming obsolete is something I dislike about the games now. It just bloats the list with shit you won't use as soon as you get the higher tier production building. Some games have sort of experimented with it. Atiila will straight up replace units once you get the tech, but that just means you end you end up with full stacks of elite armoured sacred chosen noble swordsmen or whatever and no ability to recruit the low tier barbarian warband anymore and that's not good either. It's not the same thing as seeing your sergeants getting better armour to keep up.
Britannia experimented with that where militia and elite units had separate upgrade paths and recruitment pools so you still had the feeling of your crappy guys upgrading and reason to make them alongside the good units rather than just everyone being the top tier variant.
I do like how some mods help to counteract this with population tiers that generate much slower for higher tier eg. you can only have a couple of full stacks of professional barbarian rapists so you have to deploy them where you think it will help most or maintain the doom stack but have reservists elsewhere.
>Britannia experimented with that where militia and elite units had separate upgrade paths and recruitment pools so you still had the feeling of your crappy guys upgrading and reason to make them alongside the good units rather than just everyone being the top tier variant.
That's actually not a bad solution. Is Britannia worth a go or is it clearly unfinished?
It's definitely finished. It just never got any traction on release because the setting is too close to Attila. It's a decent game.
>The strict tiering of units and units becoming obsolete
thing that was inherited from Med 1(for a reason and the reason was three periods which make sense) but in Rome 1 it was connected to tier of the barracks(and so city) but in any case it lead to more problems that it bring benefits
I think some units from older games would benefit from the tier upgrade system from Attila like, for instance, in Medieval 2, you had the main line of Mailed Knights - Feudal Knights - Chivalric Knights.
But I agree with you, this can make all troops elite whatevers and that's not fun. Seems like Britannia had the right idea
I hated how they did the Romans in Attila. Just this incoherent mess where a legio would become auxilia palatina and back again. The Warriors of Chaos upgrade system is really a fantastic option for historicals. If someone is unfamiliar with it, then:
>You can recruit marauders. Sometimes if you are lucky chaos warriors or aspiring champions
>You level the marauders up into any of the mainline units. In some cases an upgrade locks them out of other roles. If they become forsaken they can only become mutant spawns, they can't become cavalry. You can de-upgrade in some cases, not all. Or maybe you can't de-upgrade, I forget.
The base unit you can recruit would variously be by social class (Town militia, peasants, squires/knights) or by ethnicity (Almoravids having Andalusians, Christian, Moorish, Black). Buildings would increase the chances of not always guaranteed unit types (knights) appearing, or could be linked to automatic upgrading (now instead of T0 Peasants your feudal troops start off at T1 yeomen, or an armory means your T2 padded aketon sergeants now start of with mail).
Course the dipshits who watch and simp for doomstack e-celebs would have connipitions at how dare you stop them from fielding a 19 unit doomstack of teutonic plate clad gigaknights.
>I've played total war since RTW1 back in 2004 and the older total wars were not risky in terms of challenges. Barbarian Invasion a little, sure, but overall you didn't even have the initial early campaign "you might get stuck in a quagmire if you don't do it right" that total wars have had more recently
You could get stalemated in M2 if you played something like HRE and did not knock out your neighbours one by one early on. But then again I was 12 when I learned that lesson and I never let it happen to me again. I suppose if you played Byzantium or Rus and didn't know how Memegols work you were in for a bad time as well. Papacy alone was such a punishing mechanic the only thing that surpassed it since was Realm Divide.
>Cavalry from the AI did not flank, AI did not get armies replenished so you'd fight a 'stack' with 7 units, all of which had less than half their men left, the diplomacy game did not exist. Perhaps the solitary area where pre-warscape was better than post warscape is settlement management and character traits.
and guess what, AI is still braindead and utterly useless and thats WITH them dumbing down mechanics so they could try to make the AI cope. how about instead of applauding CA removing the ability to have more than one army and led by a captain, you demand AI that is capable of doing so? its inexcusable that the AI is still so bad despite CA handicapping the game to try and make it not braindead moronic.
It's just not a big fricking deal. It's a minor inconvienience and there are bigger fish to fry and bigger things to complain about. I have realistic expectations for a shitty developer like CA and am not expecting them to pull off masterpieces. In certain areas the game has regressed, in other areas the game has progressed. But you'd never believe it when you hear what R1/M2 fart-huffers think. I swear they have more pipul than a talmudic scholar when it comes to people saying with a straight face that sieges pre-warscape were better than they were post warscape.
B team studio made a Saga game of We Wuz Kangs and charged full price….it’s dead in the water
>220 reviews on steam
it's dead jim
I never played Troy. Is Pharaoh good if you ignore that its a copy/paste of Troy?
hope you enjoy horde factions
>still 20 unit cap
>instead of different factions having different cap
Why do they persist?
Potato computers.
Even your 1050ti potato is much more powerful than any 2009 computer, let alone the mean of 1080ti. Therefore we should have higher unit caps than we've had in 2009 when Empire came out (or whatever Total War game introduced the 20 unit limit per army I forget).
And yes I know it's got more to do with CP U than GPU but I'm just using it as a shorthand for computer performance classes, all in accordance with Moore's law.
>Not a perfect title, but one that deserves to be given a chance.
Giving CA another chance is like trusting your ex when she says that you're the only man she's ever loved, the other guy was a mistake and she just wants things to go back to the way they were.
>Troy runs poorly on my toaster
>Pharaoh runs just fine
what gives
Atilla and ToB patch situation? Again?
Seemed decent when I tried it but tbh I don't want to give them 60 for a new game when TW3 is still so mid
You certainly are challenged yourself. So games for special needs do suit you
If only a modern TW game explained traits better...
you actually get to fight iron age people in it? kinda cool tbh
still not buying lmao