The TW series is dead. Everything after Medieval II sucks!

[Daruwind]

This is a good compilation of the toxicity I am talking about :

1) Blame people expressing different opinions and try to make them guilty
2) Denigrate our entire community by suggesting we are a small bunch of worthless people instead of the TW community and fanbase.
3) Advance a "business first argument" to make it sound like our opinions express here are totally irrelevant for TW.

Ironically you make a conclusion to state the recent games are wonderful but you use a CGI trailer instead of actual gaming content. I think our community should spend more time talking about the actual game. (this is especially directed to people happy with the recent titles.

1) Believe me, I´m not trying to make anybody feel guilty. I think, I said many times you dont have to buy everything, love everything. But there is also difference between constructive critique and constant attacking. I have as probably anybody else here in my head ideas about ideal TW, how the perfect TW should looks like, what should be in. Problem is, CA is entitled to have also their vision and honestly I believe they have more experience with designing games. Not saying all their stuff is perfect. But go and watch some videos about games, if I remember correctly at least one rule, it is about not pursuining goals at all cost. What seems like great feature might end up like pile of crap...So from this standpoint I can understand even removing of some features. Especially for ToB. It is not new game, it is guilt upon Attila so for example make sense to cut under utilized stuff to add some possible good features. Will ToB be good game? I don´t know, CA hopes. But I plan to judge it only after playing :-)
2) We are smaller group, you said it yourself. And I never said we are worthless. But let me ask you a question. Why should CA listen to us here? We are of course quite hardcore players here,modders, so we should know the games. Generally we should be above average player in palying and even in knowledge about the games due to our experience with them. But you said it also that there is so much drama,personal attacks, toxicity....what message does it send to CA? Like imagine average PR guy finding our forum...will he have enough will to dig through to get some good hints? I hope they would dig some, but looks like CA stopped coming here at all..
3) I´m also advising people to wait for sales if they are not sure or dont have money, but from many post I have almost feeling of byocotting almost wishing CA to fail.. just because game is not the way we think it should be. For example no money unless new engine. This statement is here for a few years and for example I think WH engine was tweaked enough and is working quite well at least in terms of performance.

BTW: I never said games are perfect! WH is missing naval combat, Rome 2 still can use a lot of features,content....but overall. If you ask me if I enjoy R2,Attila,WH1+2 then my answer is yes! All of them are good. Attila is one of hardest TW so far, R2 the weakest but with best timeperiod,scope. And WH is simply gem for me, child´s dream coming true! But it doesn´t mean ME is without troubles. I haven´t been playing ME campaign because Norsca, yet I´m accepting CA´s reasoning for problems and looking forward to next month to re-release and new content. Seems it will like second Christmas for me.

EDIT: I have probably different standards. Mass effect 3´s ending and especially the response from EA, that´s thing I won´t forgive. They made mistake, they had feedback,they added yet another crappy excuses and ending. The same with Battlefront II and lootboxes and stupid claims about removing them etc...EA simply not caring about anything else than milking players. I played Witcher 1+2+3 and especially 1+2 before Enhanced editions, they sucked somehow. But studio used feedback and now they are fixed. But If we are looking for example at ToB and removal of agents, ambushes. Almost every pesron here has different opinion how agents should be implemented. If I´m fanboy for defending CA´s vision, ok. They have right to try it and if it fails, then I will be loud about it too. That´s all.

I can go on and on about how WH is missing naval combat and that I would really love it to be in. Because it has everything, galleons, ironclads, gunpowder, ballistas, ramming things, monsters, water dragons, vikings, magic, even flying units. However I can completely understand how this mess is hard to implement. It´s still big minus for me yet I´m not pushing it in every post...

I think people here take too many things way too personal. Stop being offended by my posts. I was almost never by anyone here.,, :-) After all I wish you all nice day and enjoy TWs as much as I do currently if possible.

[PikeStance]

1) Blame people expressing different opinions and try to make them guilty
2) Denigrate our entire community by suggesting we are a small bunch of worthless people instead of the TW community and fanbase.
3) Advance a "business first argument" to make it sound like our opinions express here are totally irrelevant for TW.

Ironically you make a conclusion to state the recent games are wonderful but you use a CGI trailer instead of actual gaming content. I think our community should spend more time talking about the actual game. (this is especially directed to people happy with the recent titles.

1. Well, if you want to stop toxicity then stop labeling (e.g. hater, apologist, fanboy, etc...), the ad homs (e.g. morons, idiots, etc...), and the negative tones in posts. I normally do not participate in these sorts of threads because of this nonsense.
I do not care if you like or dislike the game; I am more concern with why you do not like the game. Ultimately, I am not interested in convincing you otherwise.

2. This is similar to the argument in sports forums that anything you say doesn't matter since you are not part of the team and the team obviously know better. This shouldn't bother anyone. If that is the best rebuttal they can offer, then ignore and move on.

3. Business decisions is a huge part of game development. Games are expensive to produce and it isn't something that can be ignored. This is similar to players being that game developers/ publishers produce games with altruistic intentions. Game publishers usually need an incredible amount of capital to produce a game and profit is the number concern from a marketing perspective. THis is true regardless how capital is raised. The success or failure of a company is successfully marketing to their target demographic and CA actually have been very successful at doing that, I suspect, however, people tend to use this argument flippantly without any real understanding or knowledge on the decision making from a business perspective of CA. THis is also something to ignore if it is just s flippant comment. A comment without evidence is pure supposition and it is not worth the discussion.

Now back on topic...

When I first played Shogun it blew my mind. I was hooked. I didn't hesitate to buy Medieval at all. Overseas travel led me to miss out on Med II and Rome. It was, in fact, the loss of my Medieval copy. I bought the hard copy of Empire because I loved the time period. I loved the game. I only came to TWC discuss strategy really (a little different since most come for the mods). I have been ever since. Admittedly, my least favorite is Rome II, but the ancient period is not my favorite time period, to begin with. However, I love a bronze age game. I think the games have gradually increased in complexity. Ironically, what I loved most was the battles, but that seems to be the least developed parts of the game. Sadly. It is disheartening to here Lusted talk about how he worked on battle mechanics back in his modding day and this area has not been worked on/improved.

[Totalheadache]

1. Well, if you want to stop toxicity then stop labeling (e.g. hater, apologist, fanboy, etc...), the ad homs (e.g. morons, idiots, etc...), and the negative tones in posts. I normally do not participate in these sorts of threads because of this nonsense.
I do not care if you like or dislike the game; I am more concern with why you do not like the game. Ultimately, I am not interested in convincing you otherwise.

2. This is similar to the argument in sports forums that anything you say doesn't matter since you are not part of the team and the team obviously know better. This shouldn't bother anyone. If that is the best rebuttal they can offer, then ignore and move on.

3. Business decisions is a huge part of game development. Games are expensive to produce and it isn't something that can be ignored. This is similar to players being that game developers/ publishers produce games with altruistic intentions. Game publishers usually need an incredible amount of capital to produce a game and profit is the number concern from a marketing perspective. THis is true regardless how capital is raised. The success or failure of a company is successfully marketing to their target demographic and CA actually have been very successful at doing that, I suspect, however, people tend to use this argument flippantly without any real understanding or knowledge on the decision making from a business perspective of CA. THis is also something to ignore if it is just s flippant comment. A comment without evidence is pure supposition and it is not worth the discussion.

Now back on topic...

When I first played Shogun it blew my mind. I was hooked. I didn't hesitate to buy Medieval at all. Overseas travel led me to miss out on Med II and Rome. It was, in fact, the loss of my Medieval copy. I bought the hard copy of Empire because I loved the time period. I loved the game. I only came to TWC discuss strategy really (a little different since most come for the mods). I have been ever since. Admittedly, my least favorite is Rome II, but the ancient period is not my favorite time period, to begin with. However, I love a bronze age game. I think the games have gradually increased in complexity. Ironically, what I loved most was the battles, but that seems to be the least developed parts of the game. Sadly. It is disheartening to here Lusted talk about how he worked on battle mechanics back in his modding day and this area has not been worked on/improved.

Negative tone in posts? Really you cant handle criticism?

Also you clearly dont know forum rules as you get infractions for calling people idiots and morons. And you talk about people discussing business practices without knowing anything yourself. If people want to assume CA is milking customers with things like cut content thats a completely normal thing to do.

Just take a look at things like "loot boxes" and "microtransactions"...it's a huge problem that needs an official governing body to control it. (in my opinion).

The fact you are concerned about "why someone doesnt like the game" suggest to me something rather weird. Who cares? (at the end of the day). You like others who I wont mention but we know who you are seem to have some kind of personal attachment to the series.

It's a product if you need reminding.

[PikeStance]

Negative tone in posts? Really you cant handle criticism?

I do not understand the question. I did not produce the game. People are free to like and dislike. You also not expected to agree with me.

Just take a look at things like "loot boxes" and "microtransactions"...it's a huge problem that needs an official governing body to control it. (in my opinion).

You are not alone.

The fact you are concerned about "why someone doesnt like the game" suggest to me something rather weird. Who cares? (at the end of the day). You like others who I wont mention but we know who you are seem to have some kind of personal attachment to the series.
It's a product if you need reminding.

Concerned? You are being presumptuous. I know the ToS and I know something about business. It is ok, you are welcome to think otherwise. This is a forum. It is bit naive to believe people will agree with you.

[Totalheadache]

I do not understand the question. I did not produce the game. People are free to like and dislike. You also not expected to agree with me.


You are not alone.


Concerned? You are being presumptuous. I know the ToS and I know something about business. It is ok, you are welcome to think otherwise. This is a forum. It is bit naive to believe people will agree with you.

Eh? You said you were and I quote "concerned"...you might want to remember what it is you wrote. And I am "naive" for thinking people agree with me? Eh I dont care either way...I speak the truth as it see it based on facts. If I am guessing something I say so...

People can read what I write and make up their own minds. You seen to have some strange problem with people critcising something and labelling it as "toxic" or they themselves are "toxic". Makes absolutely no sense at all to me.

If people come here and start bashing away with comments like "I hate the game blah blah blah" I'll be the first to call them out if it's just mindless drivel. Otherwise the rest is fair game.

[Incendio]

I like Rome II and Attila Total War. The problem I am having is that they require an insane computer that not everyone can afford to have. Well, I can run Rome II Total War with everything on extreme but shadows on ultra with decent fps (average of 46.9 fps) but I cannot say the same with Attila Total War. Since I can't have a desktop computer, I am forced to buy a very expensive gaming laptop to enjoy it. The current gaming laptop I have cost me around 2000$ and I can't play it in more than quality settings with an average of 39.6 fps which is very poor to enjoy the game considering quality settings. Hopefully one day I will save money for a more powerful gaming laptop and I will enjoy Attila Total War but I feel that gaming laptops requires more time to be developed in order to run "newer" Total War games effectively. That means that for a 2015 game I will need to buy a computer currently (2018) to enjoy it as I would do with a gaming dektop computer of 2016. And I am thinking seriously about that, if it worths or would be better to wait because if I purchase a gaming laptop now, I know that I will not be able to play Three Kingdoms as I guess this one will require a computer that far exceed requirements of any current gaming laptop in the market. However I enjoy watching videos made by Attila fans on youtube, hoping I can play it in the same conditions one day, that means about 3 or 4 years later than them.

My favourites right now are: Napoleon Total War and Shogun 2 Total War because both runs very well on my computer, Empire usually runs well but I noticed is less stable than Napoleon. Sadly, I have some issues with Medieval II Total War even exceeding recommended requirements even 4-6 times.

Can you play all Total War games that you own in max. settings or is there anybody out there like me that have to conform playing Total War games with worse quality? If you are in this case, do you enjoy playing them anyway?

[Daruwind]

And I am thinking seriously about that, if it worths or would be better to wait because if I purchase a gaming laptop now, I know that I will not be able to play Three Kingdoms as I guess this one will require a computer that far exceed requirements of any current gaming laptop in the market.
....
Can you play all Total War games that you own in max. settings or is there anybody out there like me that have to conform playing Total War games with worse quality? If you are in this case, do you enjoy playing them anyway?

I might have good news for you. :-) I have two years old quite good pc (gtx1080ti + i7-6700K, both little overclocked). I have up to date problems only in two games:

-In Empire I still have FPS drops in protracted siege battles. Problem is with AI doing movement around walls,especially damaged ones. But it actually force me to not try super cheesy tactics with one mortar and trying to kill passive AI. Once I know how to prevent it or limit the lag,I can play around..using massive arty only for short barrage and then storm the breaches,walls.

-In Attila I´m force to experiment with setting however in the end i was able to achieve quite good setup. Good graphics, good FPS, basically losing only shadows,some particles. Game still looks pretty awesome.

-But WH1+2, completely different story. 64bits + great optimalization, the games are running at max with no problems. Honestly it is quite crazy that more recent game with better graphics is running better. So because of that I think 3K will run as well. Maybe not at full details but I expect it to run still better than Attila. :-)

I would maybe add question. What is important? Have you heard of Mortal Empire campaign for Wh1+2? It is almost combination of both games with more factions,regions than any previous campaign/TW. Because of that it is quite slow with end turns. For me that´s not problem, I can enjoy games even with slower turns. And same is with battle loading, Shogun2/WH can take quite long for me but if the actual battle is running smoothly. For example I would not be happy with low number of models per units or low textures for units. :-) Yet with different TWs I found out that some setting are like minor graphical boost for great performance impact..especially shadows,particles... I can easily live without such. And even if games is unable to run faster time is not much problem, I usually use slower times anyway. Probably for each one of us different aspect is important.

[Anna_Gein]

1. Well, if you want to stop toxicity then stop labeling (e.g. hater, apologist, fanboy, etc...), the ad homs (e.g. morons, idiots, etc...), and the negative tones in posts. I normally do not participate in these sorts of threads because of this nonsense.
I do not care if you like or dislike the game; I am more concern with why you do not like the game. Ultimately, I am not interested in convincing you otherwise.

Where did I label some people as "haters" "apologists" or "fanboys" ? You quote me and took the time to copy my post layout but it feels you are not really responding to me.

I am not sure how we are supposed to critic the game without being negative about it.

2) We are smaller group, you said it yourself. And I never said we are worthless. But let me ask you a question. Why should CA listen to us here?

Actually I said the opposite. I think we are the TW fanbase. CA should naturally listen to our community as we form their core audience.

[Daruwind]

Actually I said the opposite. I think we are the TW fanbase. CA should naturally listen to our community as we form their core audience.

Sorry, looks like I misread that sentence. We are TW fanbase, even hardcore base. But I was more concern about overall message from here. If the forum was somewhat usefull for any PR or feedback, then why would CA stop coming here? We probably agree that TWC is not in top state, so it is here less people yet TWs are selling more and more copies. WH1+2 breaking records. R2 with all the negativity still very active player base. That´s why I´m saying we are here just minority from all players.

[Cope]

In my view Total War lost its edge following the release of Rome II. There hasn't been enough successful innovation over the past five years to keep me particularly interested. With the emergence of Paradox titles like CK II and EU IV, Total War has been increasingly forced to rely on its unique real time battles to maintain its appeal. Unfortunately the modernization simply hasn't been there: its the same old hat we've been getting since 2013 spiced up with deviations in theme. The same old bugs and weakness remain and CA seem content to try and pass off the reintroduction of basic features such as guard mode as genuine innovation.

When I look at Thrones of Britannia, for instance, I see little more than a rehashed version of a mediocre three-year-old game (Attila). And unlike Rome II, I doubt it'll even be propped up by a dedicated modding community.

[PikeStance]

Eh? You said you were and I quote "concerned"...you might want to remember what it is you wrote. And I am "naive" for thinking people agree with me? Eh I dont care either way...I speak the truth as it see it based on facts. If I am guessing something I say so...
People can read what I write and make up their own minds. You seen to have some strange problem with people critcising something and labelling it as "toxic" or they themselves are "toxic". Makes absolutely no sense at all to me.
If people come here and start bashing away with comments like "I hate the game blah blah blah" I'll be the first to call them out if it's just mindless drivel. Otherwise the rest is fair game.

You are taking the term, "concern" out of context. I was referring to the fact that I don't care if a person likes or dislike the game only their rationale.
I have no idea what you are going to in the second part. If someone post mindless drivel, then I ignore it.

I like Rome II and Attila Total War. The problem I am having is that they require an insane computer that not everyone can afford to have. Well, I can run Rome II Total War with everything on extreme but shadows on ultra with decent fps (average of 46.9 fps) but I cannot say the same with Attila Total War. Since I can't have a desktop computer, I am forced to buy a very expensive gaming laptop to enjoy it. The current gaming laptop I have cost me around 2000$ and I can't play it in more than quality settings with an average of 39.6 fps which is very poor to enjoy the game considering quality settings. Hopefully one day I will save money for a more powerful gaming laptop and I will enjoy Attila Total War but I feel that gaming laptops requires more time to be developed in order to run "newer" Total War games effectively. That means that for a 2015 game I will need to buy a computer currently (2018) to enjoy it as I would do with a gaming dektop computer of 2016. And I am thinking seriously about that, if it worths or would be better to wait because if I purchase a gaming laptop now, I know that I will not be able to play Three Kingdoms as I guess this one will require a computer that far exceed requirements of any current gaming laptop in the market. However I enjoy watching videos made by Attila fans on youtube, hoping I can play it in the same conditions one day, that means about 3 or 4 years later than them.

My favourites right now are: Napoleon Total War and Shogun 2 Total War because both runs very well on my computer, Empire usually runs well but I noticed is less stable than Napoleon. Sadly, I have some issues with Medieval II Total War even exceeding recommended requirements even 4-6 times.

Can you play all Total War games that you own in max. settings or is there anybody out there like me that have to conform playing Total War games with worse quality? If you are in this case, do you enjoy playing them anyway?

I have a laptop as well since I live overseas and I am never at one place for very long, I have a big laptop. I use an HP 17 inch Envy. It is pretty good for gaming mostly. The game defaults to lesser settings which I sometimes alter. The graphics are fine for me, but I grew up playing Pong, so my demands may be less than yours.

Where did I label some people as "haters" "apologists" or "fanboys" ? You quote me and took the time to copy my post layout but it feels you are not really responding to me.
I am not sure how we are supposed to critic the game without being negative about it.

I was responding to your list, thus the numbering.

[TheRomanRuler]

I want to say that Total Wars have always been evolving - sometimes they just have taken steps backwards too. From Shogun to Medieval 2, there was constant progress. Then Empire... stumbled on it's feet. But from Empire to Shogun 2, there was again constant progress - until Rome 2... And from Rome 2, there has always been constant progress with expection being optimization of Attila.

[Welsh Dragon]

I enjoy each game on its own merits, and don't worry too much about comparing them.

There are things I like in older games and things I like in modern ones.

There are things I don't like in older games and things I don't like in modern ones.

Ultimately, I play the games I'm having fun with, which in recent years has mostly been Rome 2. Because after all, that's what games are for. Fun!

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Diocle]

In my opinion TWC series is technically dead until they won't dismiss the infamous Warscape engine and all its poisonous mutations.

[Totalheadache]

In my opinion TWC series is technically dead until they won't dismiss the infamous Warscape engine and all its poisonous mutations.

Agreed! But I have a feeling they wont see sense due to monetary reasons.

[Dekhatres]

this is an exploit not a failure of the AI

simple oversight from devs who didnt consider this particular situation when they decided what the range of the canon towers should be

[AnthoniusII]

Shogun 2 was a fantastic game, very well done and with great replayability.

Napoleon TW as well, so was Attila TW.

Yes, M2 was very well done and an amazing game overall, but the TW series had produced very good games after too!

I agree about Shogun II (exept those aufull horses that spoil the great unit and enviroment graphics).
M2TW lacked serius features made for RTW like multiple AI attack with simple siege equipment like ladders and siege towers unless the 2nd army has artilery.
In RTW1 if 2 or more armies besieged a city EACH ONE created its own siege equipment (rams, ladders etc).
What was a great loss in M2TW was the extinged of tunnels.
But....The games after Shogun II focused MAINLY on the visual part (graphics) and not the AI -even in the primitive levels of RTW1 or M2TW!
If M2TW lacked RTW1's abillity to have multiple armies ussing siege equipment what we must say about Rome II that units try to burn the gates with torches or Attila that AI wait the walls to melt by the rain?
Units that fight on the field (bounding sphears of the models) are unknown features for Rome II and Attila that inorder to enjoy a battle from the ground level YOU must reduse speed to half!
M2TW/Kingdoms had many flaws but I can see hundreds even thousands of units fighting and enjoy see them from ground feeling that I AM PARTICIPATING in that battle!
I prefer to see this with animations made 12 years ago and their evolution by ammatures and feel the chaos of a battle!


These models have ONLY 1% cliping (parts that get inside other parts of the model).
I wonder....proffesional modelers and animators how they can not achieve such realistic animations and cliping less than 50%???
EDIT: Do you know that the lance banners in this pic actually wave according to lance's position?

Why proffesional animators can not create such simple animations?

[PikeStance]

In my opinion TWC series is technically dead until they won't dismiss the infamous Warscape engine and all its poisonous mutations.

Agreed! But I have a feeling they wont see sense due to monetary reasons.

CA has been using the TW3 32 GB Warscape graphics engine until Warhammer. With wWarhammer, they expanded to 64 GB. My undertanding is they barely scratch the surface of what they are capable of doing with the expansion. I fully expect that they will take increase space and develop it further. It has nothing to monetary concerns that is preventing a new engine development. They haven't fully explored all of the possibilities the expanded size allows.

[izzi]

I don't care that much how the game is made (while 64 bit system will be great) As long there are modding tools, i don't mind

[Sandraker]

I'll just repeat myself again and say that TW needs some competition. I don't care if it's an indie game that looks like R1, somebody else needs to take the basic concept of "historical warfare game with pretty big real time battles" and take it in a new direction. The first game to do a decent job would probably sell like hotcakes.

TW is a stale franchise wrought with problems that won't be fixed without some... motivation.