It and every game after it. Tying armies to a limited number of generals just because they couldn't fix a pathfinding bug was the dumbest fricking move they ever made.
It's fine, but meh. I played it a lot. Wasted potential and bad design choices like mentioned. Not a big fan of the province system as is and of the big ass cities on the campaign map.
It's fine, but meh. I played it a lot. Wasted potential and bad design choices like mentioned. Not a big fan of the province system as is and of the big ass cities on the campaign map.
>armies moving without leaders is good game design
most historically literate r1 and mw2 players, bet the population system was peak strategy for you aswell lmao
Troll post but I will bite, TW trolls like this always invoke historical accuracy when it helps them and then say these games were never very accurate when its beneficial as well.
>bet the population system was peak strategy for you
None of these systems in these games were ever perfect, and no one claims as much. But these earlier games had systems like that to try and blend the world map, empire management, and real time battles together, for better or worse. They would choose the battle map relative to where on the game map you were, armor upgrades showed on troops, a town heavily used for military recruitment would have stagnant population. These things are very immersive for people who enjoy playing these games but more importantly it made these games cohesive. Modern TW couldnt be more disconnected from the battle to the maps, they hardly connect and interact in any interesting way, and often feel like playing 2 separate games.
its not realistic but a good abstraction to the issue of needing to train troops in your homelands and then send them to the frontlines. compare that to the nu TWs where you can simply auto regenerate your best troops a whole continent away from your homelands. i wish they could have gone for a more realistic system in the later titles and expanded on the pop system but alas, they took it away and replaced it with something even worse.
That has always been like 90% made up issue. The army limits were never that restrictive to begin with, you couldn't afford to maintain that many stacks anyway, and nor did running around with single units actually did anything useful.
One bad thing about it was recruitment armies, but this was more of an issue of tying recruitment bonuses to armies and characters than the armies by themselves.
Yes. I actually like going through the Total War games from time to time, since they all have their own personality and I enjoy variety, but it isn't really that good. The AI is just as moronic as it is in the rest of these, but not being able to move units individually is so limiting that it hurts. Can't do proper logistics (actually, logistics don't exist anymore, just capture a settlement with a barracks LOL), can't summon regional units to wherever your army is sitting, can't garrison settlements, can't reinforce depleted armies and so on.
My personal pet peeve with Creative Assembly is their insane obsession with tiered unit progression which they have been doing since Rome I. (I haven't played Medieval 1 and Shogun 1) Every single faction has units which just make what came before them obsolete and Medieval II's manpower system was easily its best idea, but that was made by the side team so mainline Creative Assembly just went back to lol here's 3 tiers of pikemen or whatever and half of your roster is completely useless after ~50 turns. Same shit in Attila and Total Warhammer.
>tiered unit progression
I would like it for slight benefits in stats and cosmetic reasons. In Empire TW we would start with longsleeved troops with tricorns and end the game with infantry from the French Revolutionary wars with bicorns, newer muskets or neoclassical helmets
I might have enjoyed it and the tw games that came after it if I hadnt played shogun beforehand, the complete lack of weight the units have in the new games, whether its archers cavalry or gunpowder, ruins any potential enjoyment I get out of them
Yeah exactly, the game is not set up for fun battles and auto resolve telling you the exact results of a fight is a little too much info for the player is what I was getting at. Man im starting to understand why other strategy bases think the TW fanbase is fricking moronic lmao.
Empire was the first major misstep for Total War, introduction of the new engine for both battle and campaign was a downgrade from what came before and the scope was too ambitious as no aspect of the game was where it needed to be. From there we got Napoleon and Shogun 2 which improved on the mechanics from empire, however the foundation was flawed and so they inherited the issues from Empire. The silver lining for this era of total war was they kept some of the good design principals from rome and med2 (terrain advantages, moral shocks, mass routes, units moving individually on campaign map, etc) and were still at least decent because of it. Then came Rome 2 which continued to inherent the issue of the new engine, but also more importantly abandoned the design principals that made total war what it was, in battles moral and tactics matter far less than unit quality, and player freedom was taken away on campaign map with the providence system and general only led armies (among many other changes). This is why Rome 2 is so bad even compared to the flawed games that came before it, and why the series has declined so severely to the point where it is dead (Pharaoh). For Total War to make a comeback it will need to not only remembrance the original design and conceit of the series, it will also need and engine that can simulate all of these things, and AI that is competent, also not woke. In other words, it needs to actually improve on what we already had in rome and medieval 2 and expand from said improvement in ways that actually make sense for the series and aren't just padding or gimmicks.
>can't move units without generals >"slave" revolt in Cathage - full stack of Carthaginian Hoplites
i gave it a change many times but i just can't handle it's moronation.
According to Ganker every TW except S2 is bad
I think it is very good.
It and every game after it. Tying armies to a limited number of generals just because they couldn't fix a pathfinding bug was the dumbest fricking move they ever made.
It's fine, but meh. I played it a lot. Wasted potential and bad design choices like mentioned. Not a big fan of the province system as is and of the big ass cities on the campaign map.
>armies moving without leaders is good game design
most historically literate r1 and mw2 players, bet the population system was peak strategy for you aswell lmao
>without leaders
Come on now
Troll post but I will bite, TW trolls like this always invoke historical accuracy when it helps them and then say these games were never very accurate when its beneficial as well.
>bet the population system was peak strategy for you
None of these systems in these games were ever perfect, and no one claims as much. But these earlier games had systems like that to try and blend the world map, empire management, and real time battles together, for better or worse. They would choose the battle map relative to where on the game map you were, armor upgrades showed on troops, a town heavily used for military recruitment would have stagnant population. These things are very immersive for people who enjoy playing these games but more importantly it made these games cohesive. Modern TW couldnt be more disconnected from the battle to the maps, they hardly connect and interact in any interesting way, and often feel like playing 2 separate games.
its not realistic but a good abstraction to the issue of needing to train troops in your homelands and then send them to the frontlines. compare that to the nu TWs where you can simply auto regenerate your best troops a whole continent away from your homelands. i wish they could have gone for a more realistic system in the later titles and expanded on the pop system but alas, they took it away and replaced it with something even worse.
That has always been like 90% made up issue. The army limits were never that restrictive to begin with, you couldn't afford to maintain that many stacks anyway, and nor did running around with single units actually did anything useful.
One bad thing about it was recruitment armies, but this was more of an issue of tying recruitment bonuses to armies and characters than the armies by themselves.
Ok so most "people" according to
guy are people who havent even played the games they are shitting on great.
Yeah this was the first game to really modernize the TW formula, and its been shit ever since, for that reason and many others.
>being able to garrison where you want is bad game design
one of the worst.
Yes. I actually like going through the Total War games from time to time, since they all have their own personality and I enjoy variety, but it isn't really that good. The AI is just as moronic as it is in the rest of these, but not being able to move units individually is so limiting that it hurts. Can't do proper logistics (actually, logistics don't exist anymore, just capture a settlement with a barracks LOL), can't summon regional units to wherever your army is sitting, can't garrison settlements, can't reinforce depleted armies and so on.
My personal pet peeve with Creative Assembly is their insane obsession with tiered unit progression which they have been doing since Rome I. (I haven't played Medieval 1 and Shogun 1) Every single faction has units which just make what came before them obsolete and Medieval II's manpower system was easily its best idea, but that was made by the side team so mainline Creative Assembly just went back to lol here's 3 tiers of pikemen or whatever and half of your roster is completely useless after ~50 turns. Same shit in Attila and Total Warhammer.
>tiered unit progression
I would like it for slight benefits in stats and cosmetic reasons. In Empire TW we would start with longsleeved troops with tricorns and end the game with infantry from the French Revolutionary wars with bicorns, newer muskets or neoclassical helmets
I might have enjoyed it and the tw games that came after it if I hadnt played shogun beforehand, the complete lack of weight the units have in the new games, whether its archers cavalry or gunpowder, ruins any potential enjoyment I get out of them
When I conquered half the map, realizing I have autoresolved battles for the last 70 turns or so was when I realized I wasnt having fun.
The whole point of TW are the battles. Go play Civ
Yeah exactly, the game is not set up for fun battles and auto resolve telling you the exact results of a fight is a little too much info for the player is what I was getting at. Man im starting to understand why other strategy bases think the TW fanbase is fricking moronic lmao.
On release yeah, now though I'd call it mediocre or mid
Empire was the first major misstep for Total War, introduction of the new engine for both battle and campaign was a downgrade from what came before and the scope was too ambitious as no aspect of the game was where it needed to be. From there we got Napoleon and Shogun 2 which improved on the mechanics from empire, however the foundation was flawed and so they inherited the issues from Empire. The silver lining for this era of total war was they kept some of the good design principals from rome and med2 (terrain advantages, moral shocks, mass routes, units moving individually on campaign map, etc) and were still at least decent because of it. Then came Rome 2 which continued to inherent the issue of the new engine, but also more importantly abandoned the design principals that made total war what it was, in battles moral and tactics matter far less than unit quality, and player freedom was taken away on campaign map with the providence system and general only led armies (among many other changes). This is why Rome 2 is so bad even compared to the flawed games that came before it, and why the series has declined so severely to the point where it is dead (Pharaoh). For Total War to make a comeback it will need to not only remembrance the original design and conceit of the series, it will also need and engine that can simulate all of these things, and AI that is competent, also not woke. In other words, it needs to actually improve on what we already had in rome and medieval 2 and expand from said improvement in ways that actually make sense for the series and aren't just padding or gimmicks.
>can't move units without generals
>"slave" revolt in Cathage - full stack of Carthaginian Hoplites
i gave it a change many times but i just can't handle it's moronation.
The battles just feel shitty for every game after sh2