Is CA keeping their games low challenging for players intentionally?

[Acroneos]

I have been a Total War player for a long time, since the first Rome and I have played every Total War game since then until Rome 2. After Rome 2, I decided to end my support for the Total War series. Not because the buggy disaster, Rome 2 was at its release. This is something I can understand as this game is huge and SEGA could not afford to keep it longer out of the marketplaces without revenue. The biggest problem of The Creative Assembly is that they are making Singleplayer-games which offer no challenge because of the AI. There is no challenge, neither in Rome 1, Medieval 2, Empire, Shogun 2 or Rome 2 or their add ons. Buying Total War games is like buying a nice sports car with a 10-horsepower-motor inside. While it looks nice and offer you a lot of cool features, its main functionality is almost nonexistent! It is a Singleplayer game, so with no challenging AI, there is no challenge in the whole game! CA, why do you do this? 10+ years and still no challenge in your games. You do so many things right with your nice graphics, mod-support, historical authencity and your publishers low-price-politics after release. Oh and also, I think, your DLCs are reasonable. But nope, all those things do not matter, because a game which does not challenge the player, is a boring game, you know?

Is it possible that CA is keeping their games degree of challenge low intentionally? If so, what could be the reasons for that?

[samoja]

I found M2tw challenging enough, not on the battle side but from economic point of view i was bled dry in a few turns while being able to maintain only a skeleton crew in my cities/castles, heroic victory after heroic victory means nothing if AI simply wears you down by throwing stack after stack(something they seem to be able to do nicely despite having smaller territory then me), and still mustering enough money to develop, while you struggle to make ends meet. And when mongol rape train arrives. Well, let's just say i was destroyed every time if i did not cheat. really the only way of resisting Mongols/Timurids is to throw stack after stack after stack at them because they roflstomp everything even spearmen(that are supposed to be a counter to cavalry). And generally AI seems to have an advantage(if 2 units of the same type are fighting, ai always seems to come out on top despite your unit having better stats and better general and everything). So maybe you are a briliant second comming of Alexander the great but not all of us are so smart.

[IlluminatiRex]

I dunno, Attila has been fairly challenging on the Campaign side. I lost my first campaign as the Saxons in about 12 turns. The Franks have been marginally easier and I'm facing some tough challenges.

[Acroneos]

I dunno, Attila has been fairly challenging on the Campaign side. I lost my first campaign as the Saxons in about 12 turns. The Franks have been marginally easier and I'm facing some tough challenges.

Really? I never lost a single campaign in my whole Total War career. Okay I resigned my first Rome II campaign because I did too much errors in diplomacy and diplomacy was broken, but technically it is not a campaign lose! Anyway, in my opinion, Medieval II with its passive campaign AI is the easiest Total War and Rome I the hardest (which is why I like it most).

[danielrech]

Is it possible that CA is keeping their games degree of challenge low intentionally? If so, what could be the reasons for that?

Yes, it is possible.

The average gamer today has shorter attention span. He will be halfway through a game when a new game becomes trendy and everybody else is playing it, so he leaves for the new game and sometimes never comes back. There are simply too many games available.

CA wants the TW player to have a feeling of progression, but their average gamer will play a few dozen hours at most and never come back (and that time is potentially shared between single player and multiplayer, historical battles, etc). How do you fit a grand strategy campaign into a few hours, ensuring that a feeling of progression happens (like meeting the campaign objectives that usually consist of conquering dozens of provinces, and potentially involving a few hundred battles) for this type of player? By dumbing down the difficulty and making the progression quicker.

Mind you, the twcenter forumer is a hardcore TW player in comparison. We generally dedicate hundreds or thousands of hours into these series. We are not the average.

[Påsan]

Bad timing to post that right after Atilla, the hardest game in the franchise, was released. Go play Western Roman Empire or the Horde factions if you want a challenge.


I've lost campaigns twice. Once in Medieval 1 which could be really hard given the right circumstances, and once in Atilla.


The Medieval 1 loss was interesting as I owned half the world as Denmark, while England, my ally, owned the other half. They had way more resources though, so when they finally declared war they wrecked me on so many fronts.

[Border Patrol]

I had to drop my Ostrogoth campaign to Hard after a few losses on Very Hard. And then I still lost my first run through on the lower difficulty. There's a reason that your first objective is to survive​

[danielrech]

Bad timing to post that right after Atilla, the hardest game in the franchise, was released.

But does one release make a trend? You seem to think so. What about the vanillas RTW, M2TW, ETW, NTW, TWR2 (Cant say about S2TW, did not play that one)? They were all weak on the challenge side (as released by CA). Does releasing a challenging campaign every 13 years make a trend?

[Acroneos]

But does one release make a trend? You seem to think so. What about the vanillas RTW, M2TW, ETW, NTW, TWR2 (Cant say about S2TW, did not play that one)? They were all weak on the challenge side (as released by CA). Does releasing a challenging campaign every 13 years make a trend?

Absolutely true. While M2TW and TWR2 were almost extremely easy, RTW, ETW/NTW and S2TW were not that easy, but still too easy. There is no trend indeed.

Yes, it is possible.

The average gamer today has shorter attention span. He will be halfway through a game when a new game becomes trendy and everybody else is playing it, so he leaves for the new game and sometimes never comes back. There are simply too many games available.

CA wants the TW player to have a feeling of progression, but their average gamer will play a few dozen hours at most and never come back (and that time is potentially shared between single player and multiplayer, historical battles, etc). How do you fit a grand strategy campaign into a few hours, ensuring that a feeling of progression happens (like meeting the campaign objectives that usually consist of conquering dozens of provinces, and potentially involving a few hundred battles) for this type of player? By dumbing down the difficulty and making the progression quicker.

Mind you, the twcenter forumer is a hardcore TW player in comparison. We generally dedicate hundreds or thousands of hours into these series. We are not the average.

Strong arguments, but in my opinion, thats what we have difficult levels in the games. They are here to serve the different types of Total War gamers out there, but even the highest level cannot statisfy PC strategy fans.

[Xerrop]

I do not own Shogun2 and Rome2 yet, have mostly played STW1, MTW1, Rome1 and Empire. While the last one is way too easy with all the passive AI-factions I can remember losses in all others:

An Uesugi- and a Hojo-campaign (STW1) because I was used to the pathetic Empire-AI and was not aggressive enough from the start. Building up an economy (instead of creating a massive army) is not the best strategy during the Sengoku Jidai-Era.

In MTW1 this was due to not paying attention to my dynasty. My king during a good running Byzanz-campaign died without a matured heir somewhere in the 13th century. And I can also remember a wrong going Civil War (because of a bug). My rival got all land forces and provinces, while my troops consisted only of ships and sea-territories.

And in Rome1 I lost because of massive unbalanced units. Playing as Thracians I did not invade Italy soon enough to destroy Rome. So they rushed me in the late game with superior units I had no chance against in dozens of battles. But they were a non-playable faction so not meant to have good units for the Late-Game I think.

Really? I never lost a single campaign in my whole Total War career. Okay I resigned my first Rome II campaign because I did too much errors in diplomacy and diplomacy was broken, but technically it is not a campaign lose!

And what errors have you done exactly? Just curious, because diplomacy is also part of the games.

[Yayattasa]

Sorry, but the average user in this forum probably played 1000+ Total War battles. It's obviously not challeging anymore: we all are too experienced with the basic mechanics. The thing is, when we all started playing Total War, the very first day, it was challenging. That's the kind of experience the game industry is aiming for, giving a rewarding yet not so long experience, so the player can move on and buy more games,it has been so for more than a decade already.

[Acroneos]

And what errors have you done exactly? Just curious, because diplomacy is also part of the games.

I picked up the wrong enemies to be my enemies. They had too important allies which also declared war on me and I was steamrolled very quick from a too broad frontline. This was in my first R2 campaign as Macedon and I managed to have the whole of Syria, Egypt, Libya and Armenia to declare war on me.

[Border Patrol]

Sounds like a loss to me.

[CantAim]

Hard to say really, I played from Medieval to Attila, I have found that the TW games are challenging for a person who are really new to the TW game-mechanics, But the moment you realise how to balance economy > Military it usually turn into a steam-roll.
I have yet to loose a single campaign when I take my time to take over enemies with few > no allies, and then just grow my armies and take on the next target. I usually quit my campaign once I own 40-50% of the map since I don´t find any more challenge to keep me engaged in my campaign.

I suppose the TW series have a pretty constant difficulty curve across their games when it comes down to it. The only thing that made recent games easier was the removal of necessary politics,family tree etc (less multi-tasking). But when it comes down to actual battle AI, it is pretty much as sucky as alwayes, the AI will usually rush into your shielded formations if you take out their ranged units, and as long as you cover your flanks, you rarely loose.

[Axalon]

Bad timing to post that right after Atilla, the hardest game in the franchise, was released. Go play Western Roman Empire or the Horde factions if you want a challenge.

I have too admit, I find that hard to believe.... I mean, I don't have clue as I have not played any Attila, but it would strike me as an unexpected turn of events... Every TW after STW have been generally easier and more forgiving in battles while the amount of redundant junk have increased with each new title, starting with MTW1 and basically exploding in RTW... Alright, Ill rephrase that... The focus in TW has shifted from battle-simulations to empire-management, logistics and grand strategy (all of which, have little to do with actual battles and tactics, and it shows in the games, as they have became increasingly poorer in those very regards ever since). In short, I would actually be interested in hearing/reading the basis for that statement - if you could oblige? ...?...

- A

[Commissar_G]

If you need a challenge in total war, go play an ikko-ikki campaign in Shogun 2 on legendary, then come back in 6 months once you've beaten it.

[ponasozis]

Really? I never lost a single campaign in my whole Total War career. Okay I resigned my first Rome II campaign because I did too much errors in diplomacy and diplomacy was broken, but technically it is not a campaign lose! Anyway, in my opinion, Medieval II with its passive campaign AI is the easiest Total War and Rome I the hardest (which is why I like it most).

play attila on legendary with western romans
you will lose like 10 times before you figure out how to even survive till attila appears

[koovie]

I have been a Total War player for a long time, since the first Rome and I have played every Total War game since then until Rome 2. After Rome 2, I decided to end my support for the Total War series. Not because the buggy disaster, Rome 2 was at its release. This is something I can understand as this game is huge and SEGA could not afford to keep it longer out of the marketplaces without revenue. The biggest problem of The Creative Assembly is that they are making Singleplayer-games which offer no challenge because of the AI. There is no challenge, neither in Rome 1, Medieval 2, Empire, Shogun 2 or Rome 2 or their add ons. Buying Total War games is like buying a nice sports car with a 10-horsepower-motor inside. While it looks nice and offer you a lot of cool features, its main functionality is almost nonexistent! It is a Singleplayer game, so with no challenging AI, there is no challenge in the whole game! CA, why do you do this? 10+ years and still no challenge in your games. You do so many things right with your nice graphics, mod-support, historical authencity and your publishers low-price-politics after release. Oh and also, I think, your DLCs are reasonable. But nope, all those things do not matter, because a game which does not challenge the player, is a boring game, you know?

Is it possible that CA is keeping their games degree of challenge low intentionally? If so, what could be the reasons for that?

Play Attila Total War as West Rome on legendary. Use TW Chronicles and upload your campaign victory. Earn your bragging rights.