Total War: THREE KINGDOMS E3 Gameplay

[Nizam]

It’s time for a first look at THREE KINGDOMS gameplay! The crucible fizzes. Allegiances shift. The fires of conflict stoke opportunity. Cao Cao has weakened Lü Bu during a siege, and now he’s pushing his advantage at Xiapi. Let's see how this plays out…

[druchii7]

Meh. That doesn't make me wanna buy. Maybe if they recycle it giving it a respectful and serious treatment (for example khan total war) I'd give it a chance.

It would have been great 3-5 years ago, but it looks and sounds cartoonish

[zoner16]

Posted this in the other thread, but while I love the UI and the art and atmosphere, those animations on the regular soldiers need a lot of work. The physics on them is really inconsistent as well. You can see most guys getting staggered the usual distance when attacked, and then one dude goes flying fifteen feet for no reason.

Fortunately they have time to fix this.

On the gameplay side, I like the retinue system, the formations look great, and the conversations that pop up are a great punctuation to the battle. However, I share the concerns others had about the grappling hooks making things too unmanagable for the defender unless some major tradeoffs are made clear.

[Evan MF]

Fortunately they have time to fix this.

They will not fix it.

[druchii7]

Posted this in the other thread, but while I love the UI and the art and atmosphere, those animations on the regular soldiers need a lot of work. The physics on them is really inconsistent as well. You can see most guys getting staggered the usual distance when attacked, and then one dude goes flying fifteen feet for no reason.

Fortunately they have time to fix this.

On the gameplay side, I like the retinue system, the formations look great, and the conversations that pop up are a great punctuation to the battle. However, I share the concerns others had about the grappling hooks making things too unmanagable for the defender unless some major tradeoffs are made clear.

Only technically. If they don't think those features are important or a priority, they won't and they seem too focused in new mechanics of characters. I personally don't dislike the retinue system, and the formation is nothing new (AKA testudo) but not a powerful enough feature so that I want to but it.

[roarer]

The animation hardly concerns me, not because they are good, but because I focus much more on the game mechanics aspect.

Historically, the battle of Xiapi was a battle where the city is flooded for over a month before the final push. The flood destroyed the supplies in the city and plummet Lu Bu's forces morale. This led to Lu Bu's generals switched side, and captured Lu Bu's most capable commanders, handed them to Cao Cao's camp as a gift.

Lu Bu's final defeat is a combination of poor tactical choices (allowing the city to be flooded); long unsurfaced loyalty problems; collapsed morale.

In the gameplay video, the above 3 important factors were not shown at all. That actually is quite disappointing for me. For I have long hoped the total war series will include these aspects in the battle. Hopefully, the next reveal will show us how the social dynamics and loyalty problem work. This at least is easier to implement than the flooding mechanics.

On the other hand, I loved how units are now under command of individual generals / characters. That is a wish I had for a long time. This is the first step to introduce a lot more dynamic in army composition and battlefield potentials. See if Creative Assembly can build on this system in their future titles.

[zoner16]

The animation hardly concerns me, not because they are good, but because I focus much more on the game mechanics aspect.

Historically, the battle of Xiapi was a battle where the city is flooded for over a month before the final push. The flood destroyed the supplies in the city and plummet Lu Bu's forces morale. This led to Lu Bu's generals switched side, and captured Lu Bu's most capable commanders, handed them to Cao Cao's camp as a gift.

Lu Bu's final defeat is a combination of poor tactical choices (allowing the city to be flooded); long unsurfaced loyalty problems; collapsed morale.

In the gameplay video, the above 3 important factors were not shown at all. That actually is quite disappointing for me. For I have long hoped the total war series will include these aspects in the battle for a long time. Hopefully, the next reveal will show us how the social dynamics and loyalty problem work. This at least is easier to implement than the flooding mechanics.

On the other hand, I loved how units are now under command of individual generals / characters. That is a wish I had for a long time. This is the first step to introduce a lot more dynamic in army composition and battlefield potentials. See if Creative Assembly can build on this system in their future titles.

I really want flooding to be a game mechanic, but I realize it's a pretty big undertaking to either create two sets of maps for settlements that can be flooded, or create a dynamic flooding system. Even if it can't be put on the battlefield, I'd like it to be a campaign mechanic and an option for very long sieges in certain locations to jack siege escalation up at the very least.

I'm waiting with baited breath on the loyalty mechanics, which are probably the thing that's going to either impress or disappoint me the most.

Since I believe siege escalation was confirmed to be in the game, the morale effects of that should technically exist. Just for some reason, despite the narrator saying the siege had been going on for months, the siege in terms of the game was clearly just started.

[ptoss1]

Disappointed that there's no flooding in the actual battle map.

[Ngazi]

LOL flooding is going way too far guys. Look at that super tiny "city". It's on big building with surround by some tiny buildings.

[JPrice94]

"...using our general to tank..." "...charge our cavalry onto these spearmen..."



what have we become

[Seether]

I like that each general appears to have their own army. Fits well with both the lore of ‘Romance’ and historical usage of buqus. Interested to see where CA takes that.

[KamenLily]

"...using our general to tank..." "...charge our cavalry onto these spearmen..."



what have we become

Hey! I have charged my Cataphracts into spearmen! It's a valid military tactic! It's called you puny sticks are nothing compared to my mighty tank cavalry.

Now, on using a general to tank... I remember my general dead after a charge, the only casualty in the whole unit...
Not tanking material at all.

[Titan Kronos]

If we are free to put units under certain commander is good.
But I would definitely would not like to recruit only generals with pre-load limited units ! I like to have freedom in recruiting units and specialized armies as I see fit. This only general recruitment with pre load units is taking that ability.

Unless I hope I am mistaken.

[Destraex]

This guy has no respect for total war - Basically calls history fans geeky snotty nosed book worm nigels.
This guy has no respect for total war. 2 week siege... total war battle, what can you do has to be 20mins, sorry but we do not actually introduce or innovate for realistic or new mechanics to enable this. Refers to Historical half moo.n spectacle geeks mode? He obviously regards the historical mode as both secondary and for the boring geek types. Not impressed at all and not impressed the next historical total war had been turned into a fantasy setting with no new or innovative battle mechanics or modes. There are a tonne of things I can think of to make the historical series more realistic and interesting. But they seem to want to stagnate and play with arty fatty features like stats and hero’s, magic and art styles than real mechanics. Get the marketing department out of the dev cycle!!!!!!!!
History should be the primary goal of the historical wargame everybody was waiting for THAT DID NOT WANT to play warhammer fantasy. Now we essentially have warhammer fantasy inserted into a historical setting. Good work CA. You still are not really delivering on the promised historical game. You are no longer innovating. You are grabbing money with stagnated old battle mechanics and map systems. Warscape sux anyways except in tech demo situations for your marketing where close up shots are virtually the only thing shown.

[KamenLily]

This guy has no respect for total war - Basically calls history fans geeky snotty nosed book worm nigels.
This guy has no respect for total war. 2 week siege... total war battle, what can you do has to be 20mins, sorry but we do not actually introduce or innovate for realistic or new mechanics to enable this. Refers to Historical half moo.n spectacle geeks mode? He obviously regards the historical mode as both secondary and for the boring geek types. Not impressed at all and not impressed the next historical total war had been turned into a fantasy setting with no new or innovative battle mechanics or modes. There are a tonne of things I can think of to make the historical series more realistic and interesting. But they seem to want to stagnate and play with arty fatty features like stats and hero’s, magic and art styles than real mechanics. Get the marketing department out of the dev cycle!!!!!!!!
History should be the primary goal of the historical wargame everybody was waiting for THAT DID NOT WANT to play warhammer fantasy. Now we essentially have warhammer fantasy inserted into a historical setting. Good work CA. You still are not really delivering on the promised historical game. You are no longer innovating. You are grabbing money with stagnated old battle mechanics and map systems. Warscape sux anyways except in tech demo situations for your marketing where close up shots are virtually the only thing shown.

Uh? Which guy?

And it's a game first and foremost. The primary goal it's being fun and playable. Historical accuracy is fine, as long as don't get in the way of the fun.

And about the innovation, if CA innovate, people complains, if CA do not innovate, people complains, people leave everything as it is, people complain, if CA change things, people complain. Sometimes you can't win. And you can't please everybody.
Of course, sometimes, like with Rome 2 launch, CA just mess it badly. And all complain, but that's another issue entirely.

[Huberto]

Uh? Which guy?And it's a game first and foremost. The primary goal it's being fun and playable. Historical accuracy is fine, as long as don't get in the way of the fun.And about the innovation, if CA innovate, people complains, if CA do not innovate, people complains, people leave everything as it is, people complain, if CA change things, people complain. Sometimes you can't win. And you can't please everybody.Of course, sometimes, like with Rome 2 launch, CA just mess it badly. And all complain, but that's another issue entirely.

So what he’s saying is watching Dynasty Warriors duels in Total War isn’t fun - flipping what you said on its head. Fantasy is getting in the way of fun. CA hasn’t innovated in years except on the margins (eg stances!) or graphics or bringing in fantasy and trying to appeal to those audiences. That’s the problem. “you can’t please everyone” is just an excuse for doing nothing.

[KamenLily]

So what he’s saying is watching Dynasty Warriors duels in Total War isn’t fun - flipping what you said on its head. Fantasy is getting in the way of fun. CA hasn’t innovated in years except on the margins (eg stances!) or graphics or bringing in fantasy and trying to appeal to those audiences. That’s the problem. “you can’t please everyone” is just an excuse for doing nothing.

That's the thing! Different people find different things fun! CA needs to please all their fanbase. Not an easy task if you ask me. Particularly when the fanbase has opposite stances of what they want.

And you can't tell me that CA didn't innovate.
Look to Rome 1 and 2. A lot of changes. (Of course, not all people like all the changes... RIP my beloved family tree and funny traits and descriptions).
Of course, people can not like what they change. But some people surely will love it. What makes one people opinion more valuable that another people opinion?

[Huberto]

All true except 3k was supposed to be a historical title - that’s how it was marketed for years while we sat thru Snorehammer 1 and 2. As far as “innovations” go I liked the horde mechanic for Attila but face it, TW battles are virtually the same as RTW - 14 years later! And all the streamlining too.

[Destraex]

That's the thing! Different people find different things fun! CA needs to please all their fanbase. Not an easy task if you ask me. Particularly when the fanbase has opposite stances of what they want.

And you can't tell me that CA didn't innovate.
Look to Rome 1 and 2. A lot of changes. (Of course, not all people like all the changes... RIP my beloved family tree and funny traits and descriptions).
Of course, people can not like what they change. But some people surely will love it. What makes one people opinion more valuable that another people opinion?

Well. For the first 5 or so titles they improved in leaps and bounds and were games for history lovers. The direction was very clear, they were trying to do history better and we all loved it.
That CA marketing guy always gets my goat. I don't know, he just seems arrogant and when things like what I mentioned come out of his mouth they sound 10 times as bad.

What innovations or improvements have you seen lately to the tactical battlefield in a total war game apart from graphics and more troops? We have a worse engine for tactical battles and all the same re-enforcement limitations and set piece map dimension limitations as well as better sieges and siege pathfinding for more complex fortresses and fortress customisation wall by wall. This plus another zoomed out tactical layer to control ambushes properly over large distances etc... there are a tonne of things I could suggest. But if you play rome 1. It has not changed much... in fact the formations and interface are probably more designed to make sure you cannot control your troops in order to force the AI to work.

I would not complain if the historical team gave us the historical game we have been waiting for after we waited out the warhammer scourge.

What was the first total war game you played? Total War does not have to be everything to everybody. It just needs to keep fantasy with the fantasy team. Improve on the historical experience for the historical games. Everybody is then happy.

[Huberto]

Well. That CA marketing guy always gets my goat. I don't know, he just seems arrogant and when things like what I mentioned come out of his mouth they sound 10 times as bad.Total War does not have to be everything to everybody. It just needs to keep fantasy with the fantasy team. Improve on the historical experience for the historical games.

+1Like how he says “those stories are retold in movies comics and cartoons...” So yeah, we have no choice our hands are tied, gotta roll with the cartoon versions, ammiright?