Does the age-old TW formula ever get a bit samey for you?

[Luminous Smurf]

Don't get me wrong i'm looking forward to the new Rome very much, but as a fan who has played since the first Medieval TW i feel like i'd welcome something a bit different, i played Crusader Kings 2 recently and although it doesn't have spectacular battles it does have an amazing role-playing side to it, the likes of which i'd really like to see implemented into the TW campaign map.

Do you feel the next game will be fine as it is, as we have always known the series to be or are you wanting something not just different, but truly new?

[BlueSan]

I think it will be an amazing game. The only problem I can forsee which bothers me is the fact that they are changing things which were done great in the past or shown by modders how to improve them.

- Things like more then 1 turn per year, the interface especially the one when building a city, the four seasons on campaign map, the videos of agents and other cutscenes and stuff like that.
When people are happy with something, build on it dont destroy it or change it.

But whatever the case I believe I will enjoy and like this game

[perablenta]

Playing since original Shogun here.

I even dislike some of the changes they make game to game. Let alone any new changes. Maybe it would get old if there was even one more game like it on the market. But even games that look and play like it will never have the EPIC feel of it.

[Arrow2daknee]

They will change lots in Rome 2, that's why there have been so many complaints, people are scared of change and innovation. The only thing I have to complain about is 1 turn a year, maybe mods can make it 2, or 4?

[Lord Tomyris]

Playing Empire, I'd hate how conquering a city in war meant automatically that it was mine forever so long as I could hold onto it. I much prefer the 'warscore' system of Europa Universalis where you'd negotiate which territory you won and which you returned in a peace treaty. I can live without it for this period, but I do think the classic TW formula held back Empire and Napoleon from being realistic to this extent.

[Jester]

no, the series evolves good enough for me and there re always new features and some gameplay changes from title to title. the timeframe switches help too, as well as a new engine after some games (although the release-version of Empires was a catastrophe at first ). also, the series itself is still pretty unique. we have a lot of RTS and TBS games but hardly anything like TW which combines these two worlds :3

[RoyalNobody]

The TW formula still has me playing R1.

If it ain't broke don't fix it. Unless its the endless revolts, in which case mod it.

[Caledoni]

i really dont like role playing in strategy, perfect example was WH40k Dawn of war which was great. i bought the second one and it was one of the worst strategy games that ive ever played as they changed it to a minimal build up, action orientated game.

for me the best thing about total war is building a big empire and fighting big wars and battles. i got a bit bored of napoleon due to the short restrictive campaigns and Shogun for me was much the same. i still liked and played both these but not near as much as i have the rest of the titles especially Rome.

in any case, Rome 2 ticks all the boxes for me. varied and interesting era, massive and seemingly endless campaign finished off with an ever shinier look.

[familyguy1]

I like the way the Total War series has been so far. We do not need all of these other mechanics that are in other games. Ive never really gotten into those types of RTS like CKII or EU3 because they are quite boring to me. I guess Im more an action person and that is what draws me to TW. The amount of management so far in TW games is perfect for me. The battles are what really draw me to the series though.

At times, it feels a bit dull after playing the regular campaign a bit, but that is what mods are for

[ptoss1]

If there is enough historical immersion, then no I don't think I will ever get tired of the formula.

I am fine with the formula so long as there is faction and strategic variety, which is what Rome 2 gives us.

[Anaxamander]

Not for me. I prefer Total War over every other strategy game I've ever played, and I think the formula has to be the reason why.

[BunnyPoopCereal]

I think the new army veteran system is good but I fear we may not be playing huge battles due to limiting armies. So in many ways the game is changing and the formula is being tested with each new tittle.

[DogSoldierSPQR]

I think the new army veteran system is good but I fear we may not be playing huge battles due to limiting armies. So in many ways the game is changing and the formula is being tested with each new tittle.

We'll still have the massive battles, and from the sound of it, the only kind of battles we'll ever have. Hasn't the ability to have a few unit armies fully been taken out now? The limited armies will make them rarer though.

On topic: To be honest, I've never thought about it. I've never felt the formula get boring but I've felt the games themselves get boring though. Terrible campaign AI just puts me off. So my answer is no, it's not the formula, but the individual games that can get boring me for me.

[Toho]

I just hope that fighting Barbarians would be different than fighting Parthia or Macedon.
these armies were vastly different and I want see that, if all factions behave the same way then it is going to be lame...

[Huberto]

Yes it does get repetitive and I'd like to see more changes, but if you think it's bad for us, imagine how samey it must be for CA staff....

[craziii]

I absolutely loath the paradox campaign game system. it is like the campaign version of the running in place gamers. something new or different doesn't = better. I wonder how many understand that. when I order a unit to run it better be running, not moving 10 yards in 1 minute of game time. when I conquered a region I want the game to show it, not have it revolt every damn turn. this is the iron ages, you wanna revolt? fine, I would just wipe your out entirely the 2nd time around, no mercy, it is the iron ages, not 21st century. I don't want to spent the entirety of a campaign trying to conquer 1 or 2 small kingdoms. that isn't epic, that is microscopic.

paradox fans, go play their games n leave tw series alone please. please.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

I like the balance between administration-battles-family affairs. Crusader Kings II is a great game but it's too complex in things it shouldn't be. I mean, who the hell cares whom my 7th brother is going to marry...

[ptoss1]

I like the balance between administration-battles-family affairs. Crusader Kings II is a great game but it's too complex in things it shouldn't be. I mean, who the hell cares whom my 7th brother is going to marry...

Probably your seventh brother. Ofc you shouldn't have 7 brothers in the first place. You're supposed to kill them all.

[ISG01]

I like the formula and it is unique. I also like that they try to do new things with every instalment. I would rather see them try going radically forward and fail, than fall into the Call of Duty trap of slowly decaying into the same thing all the time.

[Engie]

Well considering I've just pre-ordered it on Steam I don't think it has got 'samey' yet!

Can't wait to play it