Total War Must Change

[ptoss9]

Get rid of the fake "unit variety." The player should be able to recruit any certain number of troops as long as he has the resources. What that means is that you should be able to recruit 177 men, 98 men, or even 62 men. These will be the player's "basic troops." The player should be able to outfit them with supplies he purchases. So that means armor, weapons, rations, and housing. These troops should perform based on their military training, their commander, and their active service history. The armies need to feel like YOU MADE THEM.

Diplomacy needs to change. There should be more ways to affect the relations between two countries, aside from just waging war on one and not the other. There should be combined arms practices, joint military operations, political deals, marriages, sworn brotherhood banquets, celebrations after defeating a mutual enemy, backstabbings, sale of land, purchases of land, etc. Even the internal administration of the player "empire" should change. It no longer feels personal or realistic for the player to control such a vast empire. I suggest CA take the Crusader King's route. The player will play a "dynasty" of characters, with succession, death, marriage, concubines, the whole shabang. Conquered territories should have to have local rulers when the player's character leaves, if he chooses to even personally lead the army himself. Ministers should grow bold and challenge the player's sovereignty if left unchecked. The player should have advisers, master of coin, master of intrigue, etc. These should all be included.

The map needs to feel compact, but relevant. In Rome 2, CA took out all the gold mines, the farms, the little things on the map that made it relevant. What they added instead were choke points, narrow corridors, and more fake "map." Each part of the map should feel like it matters. The yellow river or the yangtze should play crucial parts in the game to control rice cultivation, essentially blocking access to rations from your enemies the more contorl of it you have. Farms, silver mines, gold mines, tea plantations, silk makers, paper makers, should all be interactive destinations on the map. Most of all, the map should BE ATMOSPHERIC. It should make you feel like you're a part of the setting, and not just an empty, ugly, piece of cardboard.

[Hazzard]

You're asking for something far deeper than Total War will ever provide, but I would love a game like this. The choke points and narrow corridors are necessary in my opinion because it makes it easier for the campaign AI to make decisions. The diplomacy AI is still arse and I don't see why they can't make a better one.

[Earl Dibbles Jr]

The armies need to feel like YOU MADE THEM.

They do, I can make armies that are entirely missile based or just make an all cavalry army. If you're saying we should be able to make units, you can mod the game or just download mods that have units you like.

The map needs to feel compact, but relevant.

Why would you want a smaller map? That just restricts empire building and makes replaying the game a bore.

There should be more ways to affect the relations between two countries, aside from just waging war on one and not the other.

You can....giving money, attacking factions' enemies, trading with factions....all these things affect your relations.


I'm beginning to wonder whether or not you even played the game...

[ptoss9]

You're asking for something far deeper than Total War will ever provide, but I would love a game like this. The choke points and narrow corridors are necessary in my opinion because it makes it easier for the campaign AI to make decisions. The diplomacy AI is still arse and I don't see why they can't make a better one.

I am in dreamland, forgive me. I do not believe it is impossible. Combine Paradox Interactive and Creative Assemly. Make them work on the same game. Hell, remake Rome 2 with PI programming the diplomacy, family tree, politics.

Some rich guy needs to buy these companies.

[SomaaTheLion]

I'm sensing you're a fan of Mount and Blade.

[Tyso3]

I love mount n blade, singleplayer that is.....A clash of kings singleplayer perhaps......Created my own targarian empire perhaps.......


But seriously? What is this guy on, Were currently in the red, we need to fix total war before making up a whole new load of crap.


Reality is however CA will listen to people like you rather then the rest of us

[ptoss9]

I love mount n blade, singleplayer that is.....A clash of kings singleplayer perhaps......Created my own targarian empire perhaps.......


But seriously? What is this guy on, Were currently in the red, we need to fix total war before making up a whole new load of crap.


Reality is however CA will listen to people like you rather then the rest of us

It's exactly because we're in the red that CA needs to go back to basics. New engine. New campaign. New meta. But with all the good old stuff like the Shogun 2 map style and family trees.

[GenTiberius]

You can....giving money, attacking factions' enemies, trading with factions....all these things affect your relations.

I think you did a good job displaying how limited the game is. Trading with factions should almost be a given.

There should be more ways to affect the relations between two countries, aside from just waging war on one and not the other.

You can't list something which he already mentioned. He said there should be more ways to affect relations besides waging war. At the current time diplomacy as a whole is just lacking in terms of sound logic and overall options.

I'm not sure what you mean by fake unit variety, but your idea offers something which could only be described as incredibly fake.

I don't agree that we need to be able to recruit all types of troops. While the unit rosters could be expanded, factions should still have noticable differences in their roster. Beside that, it wouldn't make sense for a state to be able to recruit all of these different types of troops or to change their army makeup so radically. We don't choose fake factions, but actual factions which had their own set style of warfare. I think what you suggest really fits a different game, but not this one. What would make sense is being able to make subtle changes to the army over time.

[D E C]

ptoss9 has mentioned this "fake unit variety" several times already across different threads. Except for the copy-pasted Celtic factions all over Europe, I think that unit variety in Rome 2 is pretty good. It could be expanded but to say it's lacking would be ridiculous. Also, it is to be expected that factions within a culture would have similar units and I'd rather prefer having a limited rooster of what actually existed instead of inventing units just for the sake of variety. You can't have 7 units of bodyguard for Egypt and say there's no variety because the Seleucids also have pikemen. Well they're all successor kingdoms, that's why they share the same heritage and Greco-Macedonian style army.

[iceteazz]

_ We just need deep BATTLE AI, it's something made TW series very special, much more different than other kind of other strategy games like EU, CIV. With TW, you can control your army, on the battlefield, and fight for your life, other than just one report after battle. Ofcourse you can choose auto resolve for small battle, but imo, big battle should be played by yourself, it's epic. All kinds of changing, must be around that special characteristic.

_ With campaign map and other features, just borrow some good ones from EU, CIV, its more than enough to please ppl. But battle AI, omg we need much more smarter AI !

[Barbarian Nobility]

Total war doesn't need to change, it needs the basic total war ingredients that have for some reason been omitted f.rom rome 2, ie, gifting regions, family trees, an army needing a navy to transport them etc.

[ptoss9]

Total war doesn't need to change, it needs the basic total war ingredients that have for some reason been omitted f.rom rome 2, ie, gifting regions, family trees, an army needing a navy to transport them etc.

Nah, sorry. I've come to the realization that that is no longer enough to capture the magic that was Rome 2.

The game has gone so backwards from what it was, CA would need to completely revitalize the franchise with features that I've come to realize are needed for this game.

I don't like the way units work anymore. It's stupid and isn't what war is supposed to feel like. I don't want to recruit some elite Carthaginian infantry just because I researched a stupid tech.

I want my choices to ing matter now.

Rome 1 will always be a masterpiece, but this is 2014. THIS IS 2014. Don't people understand that?

That's why Rome 2 sucks. Not only does it not have Rome 1 had it has taken features away. I wanted more.

It's too late. Rome 1 was a revolution. Just because CA eventually "fixes" this game it's still over. The formula is outdated no matter what people say.

Total War fatigue man.

[GenTiberius]

You hardly replied to any of the comments posted on this thread. Frankly, if total war is done I'm not quite sure what the point of posting changes is.

[Barbarian Nobility]

Maybe play something else?

[ptoss9]

Frankly, you hardly replied to any of the comments posted on this thread.

What everybody wants is just more of the same. Not only has Rome 2 showed me how bad the formula can be when broken, it has shown me that it's not even enough when it's good.

The current state of game as to how it works is that you tech up, get better units that cost more, and conquer cities, but this doesn't have enough pull for me anymore.

I can't be the only player who wants more from Total War now.

Rome came out in 2004. It's 2014. CA can't even get a formula they perfected 10 years ago correctly, what hope do they have now?

This franchise needs new blood. Not just more battles or larger battles, but how the game fundamentally works, which means how the player interacts and changes their armies, which let's face it, is one of the most unique parts of Total War.

You get to personalize your troops, watch them slaughter other people in real time, and feel the visceral battle in your blood.

It just doesn't feel good anymore. I don't have enough say into how my armies work, there aren't enough options, and I don't want to do the boring click on tech 1, then get tech 2, in such a linear fashion.

I want to recruit men and outfit them weapons and armor and all sorts of gear.

I want to feed them with grain I grow in a farm or something.

The commander needs to be personal and feel like a living breathing ing person.

The campaign map needs to work properly for once, and not have stupid stutter lag. Like come on CA, is that so much to ask these days?

The game needs change, and people won't admit it. Fans are getting bored of Total War and Rome 2 is the last straw.

CA needs to fire the workers and get new management.

This needs to start a new era.

[Evan MF]

I totally agree that the Total War experience is stale, however I think your idea is a little too much change of focus. Mount and Blade already satisfies that level of personal involvement with one's armies, Bannerlord being on the horizon should guarantee that in the long term as well.

What Total War needs is deeper engagement with dynasties in a way that directly ties to armies. Family tree would be the start. It also needs a major scale-up in army size with a lot more emphasis on formational tactics, this would give armies their uniqueness and specialities, rather than the cookie-cutter slinger armies we have often in Rome 2.

There are a lot more radical ideas too, which would probably serve their own thread..

[Goudvinger]

In short, you are asking CA to increase its budget to OVER 9000!!! times.

[Zhayedan]

They do, I can make armies that are entirely missile based or just make an all cavalry army. If you're saying we should be able to make units, you can mod the game or just download mods that have units you like.



Why would you want a smaller map? That just restricts empire building and makes replaying the game a bore.



You can....giving money, attacking factions' enemies, trading with factions....all these things affect your relations.


I'm beginning to wonder whether or not you even played the game...

Playing as Parthia, around turn 250, I offered my satrapi 24,000,000 coins just to have trade agreement with me and they reject it. Do you find it realistic?
AI factions can be worse than mules.

[ptoss9]

I totally agree that the Total War experience is stale, however I think your idea is a little too much change of focus. Mount and Blade already satisfies that level of personal involvement with one's armies, Bannerlord being on the horizon should guarantee that in the long term as well.

What Total War needs is deeper engagement with dynasties in a way that directly ties to armies. Family tree would be the start. It also needs a major scale-up in army size with a lot more emphasis on formational tactics, this would give armies their uniqueness and specialities, rather than the cookie-cutter slinger armies we have often in Rome 2.

There are a lot more radical ideas too, which would probably serve their own thread..

Yes, absolutely.

I think I am just starved of "new things" when it comes to Total War. The series hasn't changed in... how long?

I'm not talking about naval battles, or how big the battles are, but how you interact with the game world.

We all know the Warscape Engine sucks, but beyond that, why is the politics part of Rome 2 so as well?

It's like they don't even care.

Why is the campaign map all pop in textures and stutter lag?

Is that the Warscape engine as well?

What a load of bs. Even if the Warscape engine is crap, CA has missed the mark on so many aspects of the game besides.

Shogun 2 and its expansions weren't , so where's the Warscape argument there?

I don't believe it. CA needs to bust its balls and come up with a new setting with a totally new franchise in the TW series so I know it isn't hitching off the popularity of its past games.

You are absolutely that dynasties need to tie into the armies.

This has been what I have been arguing all along. The game needs to have more focus on formations and how war in real history worked, not just a bunch of units with minor stat and visual differences.

Like really, so this guy has a feather on his helmet and maybe +5 Weapon Damage. Who. The. Fook. Cares?

If Medieval 3 comes out, I will not be buying it. Not this time. CA can't ride the free money train forever and it needs to stop now.

[Spajjder]

I agree almost 100 %
This game had a much larger budget than any total war game before it.
Many of the features you bring up has already been in total war games before. Or exist in games that have a much smaller budget than this.
The political system is influenced by games like ck2 but lacks feeling to it because you dont really have any family or personal relations with the generals.

Things missing from this game but which was present in different games starting from shogun 1 includes but is not limited to:

Any sort of family interaction, that is marriages, developing traits, conflicts and civil wars about the line of succession, stripping unliked sons of retinues the like.
The ability to sell and purchase land and techs
siege rams
sappers
clear tech trees "as in shogun 2, napoleon and empire"
videos for agent actions, faction intros, not sure but are there videos for factions destroyed and victory of the campaign?
Historical battle campaigns, more historical battles generally with a narrative voice telling the background context

guard mode
ability to throw pila standing still
working hoplites
working formations in general
reasonable balance of troop stats
morale for units which lasts more than one second

immersive tech trees for agents. That is, 2 plus in sabotage instead of 1 more authority for my spy countering authority of a enemy agent.... what?
pre battle speeches based on the generals traits and attributes and who you are facing, as well as the environment of the battlefield.
Is it possible to have two generals in one army? if not. that.

Things that were supposedly cool in rome 2 are amphibious attacks, the landing of troops, but its bugged.
Unique cities, but they are not epic
Political intrigues, famous characters and cold blooded betrayal.... is this the political screen? uhhh
The building system... building effects dont make much sense, but i like it being regions instead of provinces.
The new recruting system... Always using free generals to reinforce my armies.

Things that are definiatly not cool
Flaming arrows for horse archers, flaming javelins...
The super fast pace of battles
The new battlefield AI
Armies moving over sea without a navy

There are very few things from rome 2 that i miss except the time era and the scale if i were to play shogun 2. There are tons of things i miss from earlier games when i play rome 2. There many new things I find annoying in rome 2.

This game feels to me to be an example of getting a too large budget being spent on flashy expensive things instead of core gameplay mechanics. it seems they have spent most of the budget on hirering expensive consultants telling them how to make it more casual or like lol.

If they had simply used the shogun 2 engine, changed the map, new units music etc, essentially a huge mod for the original or an expansion, set in roman times, this game would have been so much better. Shogun 2 was more concentrated, but it worked really well in most aspects. Units were varied, and had unique purposes. Naval combat kind of worked. There was a sence of choice and risk in the campaign on how to expand, meaningful choices on what to build, and what techs to research, and a minimal but effective way of handeling family members loyalty and traits.

When CA tries to go big like in empire and rome 2 it seems to fail miserably, filling the game with lots of useless things. When they take a more concentrated approah, as in napoleon and shogun 2, the games turn out much better yet a bit repetitive because of the small scale, but they essentially work.