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

[Huberto]

But this variety in units/factions and mechanics is also greatly helping to replaybility of the game! Last year I finished the last campaign run in Shogun 2 for achievements. Almost all factions were playing identical. Of course you have some small bonuses here and there but not so significant that the very same army recipe cannot work. For me it is very refreshing to have different tools, unit roster, spells, heroes to play.

Warhammer aside, just inventing units and giving them new special abilities may make some people want to play the game more, but it's the easiest, laziest route to innovation in battles. It also doesn't make the strategy layer of the game deeper or more meaningful. Dinosaurs may be refreshing for you personally, but it is a complete turnoff for many historical fans.

That´s actually good no? With Warhammer we got plenty new people. I have already seen some who have never heard about TWs and are trying it. So trying TW Tolkien, Warcraft...might be good break. To refresh IP. This Warhammer break is actually one of the best ideas they ever have...

If "best ideas" are going to magic buttons and streamlined campaign and fantasy combat, then...no, it's not good for historical titles. Historical titles need...wait for it...deeper historical content, think diplomacy, supply and logistics, economy, attrition, recruitment, realistic movement, army sizes, historical AI, real time campaign) If ThroB is any sign, we're moving towards streamlined campaigns, i.e. more like Warhammer. We're also being boxed in by stupid, anti-historical suggestions that good TW game design requires putting fantasy units (i.e., unit "variety") and fantasy factions with invented traits into historical games (faction DLC), and apparently now we need super-heroes (Romance of the 3K). CA has always put silly units in the historical games, but kept it at the margins. Warhammer fans ("plenty new people") would like to pollute the historical games with fantasy crap when they're not whinging about the fact that CA is still actually making historical games instead of WH faction DLC. So yeah mortal threat.

[Daruwind]

Warhammer aside, just inventing units and giving them new special abilities may make some people want to play the game more, but it's the easiest, laziest route to innovation in battles. It also doesn't make the strategy layer of the game deeper or more meaningful. Dinosaurs may be refreshing for you personally, but it is a complete turnoff for many historical fans.

If "best ideas" are going to magic buttons and streamlined campaign and fantasy combat, then...no, it's not good for historical titles. Historical titles need...wait for it...deeper historical content, think diplomacy, supply and logistics, economy, attrition, recruitment, realistic movement, army sizes, historical AI, real time campaign) If ThroB is any sign, we're moving towards streamlined campaigns, i.e. more like Warhammer. We're also being boxed in by stupid, anti-historical suggestions that good TW game design requires putting fantasy units (i.e., unit "variety") and fantasy factions with invented traits into historical games (faction DLC), and apparently now we need super-heroes (Romance of the 3K). CA has always put silly units in the historical games, but kept it at the margins. Warhammer fans ("plenty new people") would like to pollute the historical games with fantasy crap when they're not whinging about the fact that CA is still actually making historical games instead of WH faction DLC. So yeah mortal threat.

Warhammer is not just about special abilities, fantasy (or sci-fi) setting allows making not traditional combination of stats, having bigger array of possibilities outside the real world. From having glasscannon things up to way tanky things or stealth or speed. That´s how usual sci-fi or fantasy works...Warcraft, Starcraft, Stellaris..Robots with cheap mass production, bio races with evolution or regeneration as Zergs, Tyrranids....What you are probably missing is many years of development, multiple editions being the ground for TW WH. This is important as no faction or race feels just like random group of stats. Every one of them has a soul. :-)

But back to general unit system. I´m also not big fan of clicking to use abilities but having multiple active ones like different formations, fire arrows or throw grenades..different bonuses. Is Wedge formation or Testudo bad? And if you are under impression WH has much more unit abilities, it is not, not more than Shogun 2 in general. Only hero/agent/general with items but even I´m not expecting Emperor in any historical game to kick asses from first line. Back to abilities. In WH It is not about spamming the abilities as many have limited usage per battle or you are limited per slowly reprenishing mana.

Moving to faction variety. Look at Shogun 2, very good game yet for example campaing replayability is not great. Playing for all factions feel almost identical. You have like two way in every game. Stay true japan or adopt Christianity? In FotS you can use traditional army or modernize. That´s it. OF course unit variety is not everything but you cannot deny it is nice bonus for replayability. Just one question, how exactly it is different to break infantry ranks with Elephants or with Dinosaurs? In Rome 2 I can streamroll whole campaign map with one army composition. Heavy Roman infantry + artillery. In Warhammer you have to take into thinking what is the enemy race/faction good at. Breaking Dwarfs with infantry? Good luck, not gonna work...So actually even just unit divertity and faction difference is making me to evaluate army composition accordingly to the enemy. It is just enhance situation Roman infantry based vs Huns cavalry based army. Fantasy setting is just allowing more different option as rock-scissor-paper adding magic-dinosaurs-heroes into equaliton. I´m simply not fan of cyclocharges from Med 2, formations, flanking/manouvering yep. But i can simply tailor even WH,R2,Attila battle duration for my taste with a few mods.

My original point was about new people trying TW out. Warhammer is bringing a lot new faces and wait for it, lot of them is as zealous about Warhammer lore as History fans are about things being historical :-) This is not joke but as there are people running forums about history, there are people running forums about proper paintings for tabbletop miniatures. Some can call on you inquisiotion for improper Hoplite armory,weaponry or style of combat while others can call on you withhunters for using wrong colours on Greatswords of Carroburg....

Think whining goes both way. Strictly history crowd is mad with WH while strictly fantasy fans are mad with any history content. I don´t care. I play both, I have fun at expense of both group. Do I feel guilty? I just got a tons of Warhammer content and still i´m dreaming about next R2 DLC, really hope for Alexander. :-) But at first TW must be a good game. Being 100% historical doesn´t mean good game. But I really not udnerstand why we should have Dinosaurs in historical titles?!? Or spells. Or heores. On opposite side having TW base upon a well known legendary character like Napoleon or Attila or Alexander. Do you expect them to be just 100% ordinary generals? And having things like Naval Bombardment in FotS or beach landings in R2, yeah they are not historically accurate but it is damn fun. I can live with instant transports or torches to burn down gates if it is helping AI to actually not struggle.

We can agree to disagree, I can even agree with R2 being streamlined but on other hand they are bringing new features as well. Combined naval/land battles in R2. Province system. For WH that is a lot new things like magic,monters, heores, items...Fair enough you don´t like these and prefer different cookies but many people enjoy them..Just at the very end. MY favourite quote about magic

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws
I don´t care if my magic button is for fireballs, naval bombardment or something else. For me it is a tool. Tool I can use as the commander in right situation for right effect and win the battle. Deciding battles in honorable way in open field pitch battle is a option but historically a lot commanders opted for any possible trick,advantage. I would be curious what Sun Tzu would think about our spells and magic buttons. Probably would have fun with them, because it doesnt matter if you are using for opening a gate a ram, catapult, magic spell of giant or dragon. :-)

[Huberto]

Warhammer is not just about special abilities, fantasy (or sci-fi) setting allows making not traditional combination of stats, having bigger array of possibilities outside the real world. From having glasscannon things up to way tanky things or stealth or speed. That´s how usual sci-fi or fantasy works...Warcraft, Starcraft, Stellaris..Robots with cheap mass production, bio races with evolution or regeneration as Zergs, Tyrranids....What you are probably missing is many years of development, multiple editions being the ground for TW WH. This is important as no faction or race feels just like random group of stats. Every one of them has a soul. :-)

Thanks for the detailed reply. I appreciate your observations, it's possible we are just talking past one another. The essence of what I am saying is that I don't like TW fantasy because the things that count for good gameplay in fantasy just don't make history games better. History doesn't want rat people or other extreme depictions of soldiers or factions unless they belong to an actual army in recorded history. So most fantasy gameplay ideas would make the historical games worse. History is the real draw in a historical game -- players are into playing through the decisive factors of the historical age they are playing. This is the polar opposite of fantasy -- what can I conjur up in order to create decisive factors for a game. Things that would improve a TW history game don't exist or don't matter in Warhammer.

[Incendio]

I know you will be dissappointed: I like Attila Total War, but mainly because of the period. Thanks to this game I had been watching documentaries and getting books to read when I have more free time. I am happy with graphics, except the fact that the environment look very grayish to my taste. The only huge drawback I have is that despite I have a decent computer I can't run it smoothly and this is an important disadvantage for me. If you know mods of older Total War games set in this period or other games set in this period as well please let me know. Also I am interested in watching a film focused in Attila.

[Aristarchus]

I am glad to find this thread on my return. Years ago I enjoyed posting illustrated AARs on Rome and Medieval campaigns. Eventually I fell into a groove of playing MTW2 Grand Campaign mod exclusively. The other day I wondered if I should try RTW2 again. I have not liked any of the newer Total War games I’ve played, but wondered if it’s just resistance to change. Searching here brought up an old thread that compared RTW1 vs. RTW2. Glad to see many things I recognized in the lists of differences, in the family tree, city management, and graphics. Decided to play Rome 1 for the first time in ages, as Carthage, and what a treat. The AI battles are really nice. A feature I’d forgotten that I like a lot is the ability to transfer retainer icons from member to member. I think over time our forums and comparisons will endure and propel some killer versions in the future even if the present lot fail to satisfy. Best to all, and thanks for helping me win.

[Aduna]

I'm jumping in late on this thread (sorry) and thus I'm going to aim this replay tot he back and fourth between Huberto and Daurwind. You both are making some excellent points. However...there's a basic assumption I think is somewhat of a problem, and that assumption is there there is such a thing as a "Warhammer" fan vs "historical" fan dichotomy. Of course these two groups do exist, but rather than think of them like than dividing the entire Total War fanbase, I see it more like if you set 10% of the Total War fanbase aside, that 10% might be part of the dichotomy. The other 90% of the fanbase won't care either way, which ultimately means the success of the Total War franchise hardly rests on whether or not the series is fantasy or historical, or some blend.

Why do I say this? I say this because when you look at the reviews of a Total War player, or their Steam libraries, you will often see referenced other strategy games that are not Total War, and these games will be games like Age of Wonders III, Stellaris, Europea Universalis IV, Hearts of Iron, Master of Orion, Endless Legend, Endless Space ...you get the idea. It's pretty rare, I mean very rare, to find that a gamer ONLY plays Total War games, and then ONLY plays either fantasy or historical. Again, it happens, but it's far from the rule.

I also tend to think people that argue historical over fantasy titles are really arguing for depth, complexity and player choice over stream-lining. The assumption is, the "more" historical a title gets, as in more "real", that's also going to inherently make it deeper, more complex, and have more strategic choice. A case in point, the Hearts of Iron IV fanbase recently were told that a deeper fuel mechanic will be added soon to their favorite WWII game. Fuel concerns in WWII are very realistic, but when fans hear it being added as a mechanic, they are thinking attacking fuel depots, creating fuel shortages, stalling divisions, etc ...if the mechanic was implemented in such a way as it trivially impacted the game, and none of that really mattered, say like how food was implemented at the release of mechanic in Thrones of Brittaina ..historically accurate or not, it would be less well received. Basically, for most strategy gamers it doesn't mean as much if the mechanic is precisely historically accurate as it does if the mechanic applies to good risk vs. reward and creates strategic choice.

A classic example that is both historical and good risk vs reward is forming square vs. line in Napolean. Forming square should be effective formation against cavalry, but weak against artillery and infantry. Forming line should be effective against infantry and minimize artillery damage, while being vulnerable to cavalry. Having to chose between these two formations in the heat of the moment means A LOT MORE than say, going into combat with orcs who are slightly better infantry and have shields vs. Breton peasant infantry that are much worse, but have better cavalry to back them. It means more because actively choosing to form square are the right time, is a tactical choice by the player at the time of combat, and is part of a fluid decision making process through out the fight where as choosing which faction to play is one choice made at the beginning of the game. I'm not throwing shade on diverse factions, rather, I'm pointing out, had you ALSO had the option of forming square or forming line with your orc infantry, the fact that they were "fantasy" orcs wouldn't make them worse than their historical counterparts. Technically, both are game representations of something in abstract, like in chess there's a King ...that's not technically, a real king. It doesn't matter. What matters is if the mechanics of the game ultimately convey a lot player choice.

Another example, the card game Magic the Gathering, one time selected by Mensa in 2010 or one of their top brainiy games, has many spells that can be cast, with many other spells to counter them and deal with it. Total War: Warhammer COULD have layered spells such that casting and countering them could be a whole meta-game in and of itself, adding a total second strategic game with in a game. It could have spells in battle and on the campaign map. One game that comes to mind that does well is Age of Wonders III. There's no reason a fantasy Total War couldn't do this. Instead, Total War: Warhammer has spells you pretty much default cast all the time, in pretty much the same way, every fight...with only a few spells like Net of Amyntok that allow for more strategic choice, but not with any real strong counters, and not enough divergence in choice, etc.

Basically, what I'm getting at with all this is that I agree, Total War is dying. However, I disagree it has ANYTHING to do with fantasy vs historical, or faction variety, etc. It has EVERYTHING to do with "stream-lining" and a loss player choice in favor of reducing the complexity of Total War to broaden it's audience and assist the struggling Total War AI. What hurt Thrones of Brittaina wasn't that it wasn't Warhammer, what hurt it was that it was a an iteration of Attila, which in turn was an iteration of Rome II, which was the the start of the really downward spiral of Total War. For example, had Creative Assembly taken Medieval II: Total War, updated it's graphics, it's UI, added multiplayer, fixed some pathing...and then made it Warhammer ..historical fans of Medieval II would be all over it that game. It would still be moddable, the campaign map could still be modded, it would still have general speeches, little guys carrying ladders to the walls, a game engine with solid unit clipping, and the hundreds of other little things that make Medieval II so immersive, I simply cannot imagine any fan of Total War, historical or fantasy, eschewing that game. Even if they hated the game, it would be modded at some point to something they love, given the solid foundation. Instead, you have a pure historical game "Thrones of Brittaina" sitting at 59% in the Steam reviews. Clearly, a hisotical context alone is not enough. On the other side of that, Total War: Warhammer II sold half as well as the first game...so the Warhammer setting is also not enough alone.

[Destin Faroda]

I have to agree. The new Total War are not as good as Medieval II which doesn't surprise me. After Medieval II, CA Australia was disbanded and the new team from CA UK took over.
- The Warscape engine is just horrible. In 2018, its still stuck in the 32 bit past. Nowadays, we have 64 bit machines and eight cores with 16 threads that could be put to good use.
- Warscape battle mechanics became better over time (Empire, Napoleon and Shougun II didn't even have damage values!) and I'm very happy about the line of sight system, but mass and collision is still not working. Not to mention the forced 1vs1 duels.
- Modding capabilities greatly suffered. In Medieval II, you could even mod the AI (ReallyBadAI). In Warscape games, you're severely limited. Since Rome II with its lacking region system, you can't even make new maps for total conversion mods.
- Since Rome II, I have lost interest in the campaigns. The building chains are horrible and more limited than before, the trading system is inferior to that of Victoria I or II, the region system feels weird and there's still only one settlement type: cities.
- Another bad feature is the abundance of fantasy abilities for your units. I don't mind switching formations or tactics, but magical buffs are not really plausible.

[herne_the _hunter]

If i told you Rome 2 would not have Navies 15 years ago you would have laughed at me. They been cutting there own throats long ago trying to be like other studios with less is more bs and i dont feel sorry for them.

err because Rome 2 has navies as in proper naval ships. More suitable naval transports for armies rather than them using top of the naval ships were added in the Wrath of Sparta patch.

[Daruwind]

- The Warscape engine is just horrible. In 2018, its still stuck in the 32 bit past. Nowadays, we have 64 bit machines and eight cores with 16 threads that could be put to good use.
- Since Rome II, I have lost interest in the campaigns. The building chains are horrible and more limited than before, the trading system is inferior to that of Victoria I or II, the region system feels weird and there's still only one settlement type: cities.

-WHs and 3K are finally running 64 bits and according to CA they are barely scratching all possibilities. Performance of WHs is whole new level in comparison with previous titles.
-Buildings slots, I´m not 100% sure it will work but...http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...building-slots and if I can slowly crack this one...I mean with little work it could lead to things like http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post14162411 and actually resoursce system even in Rome2 could be more complex. Foundation is in the game already. And when you look what magic they are doing with resources in Whs...item crafting, unit recruitment... Even cities can have special regional buildings (Whs), different building patterns (Ancient Empire mod for Attila)

Point is, even R2 could be modded more than people usually think. It is just more complex...and looking at WH mods. There are many with additional features ( my post http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15593778)

[Daruwind]

We have some news on 3K and for people fearing magic buttons and magic and heores... :

One comment by Grace on reddit:

Total War: THREE KINGDOMS will be based on the romanticised history by default, but there’ll also be a Classic Mode option before you start a campaign that makes the experience closer in execution to past Total War historical titles.

https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/8p0tsq/total_war_three_kingdoms_cao_cao_inengine_trailer/e07jif4/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=user&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=frontpage

[klesh]

I haven't purchased anything Total War since Napoleon. The entire series is dead to me; it was fun while it lasted.

[Sir Sesshaku]

M2TW is waaaaay overated. Probably because for many it was the first TW they played.
At the time of release the game was an overpriced RTW mod, bugged as hell, had poor hardware perfomance, almost no historical accuracy, and was completely broken game-wise. It was only saved by mods and better hardware.
It was only a great game if you hadn't already dedicated hundreds of hours to RTW.
I liked the changes made in SH2 and Attila. That being said, CA needs to completely rework the campaign mechanics, the current formula is full of limitations, and all TW games feel the same.

[Jurand of Cracow]

True that M2TW was overrated at the beginning, but with the mods it became the best TW game until now. ETW was so bad that no mod could save it.
From what some people say I guess the ThrB has a quite decent engine and many campaign mechanics have been changed. To be seen what the modder will be able to make out of it.

[Lionheart11]

I have to agree. The new Total War are not as good as Medieval II which doesn't surprise me. After Medieval II, CA Australia was disbanded and the new team from CA UK took over.
- The Warscape engine is just horrible. In 2018, its still stuck in the 32 bit past. Nowadays, we have 64 bit machines and eight cores with 16 threads that could be put to good use.
- Warscape battle mechanics became better over time (Empire, Napoleon and Shougun II didn't even have damage values!) and I'm very happy about the line of sight system, but mass and collision is still not working. Not to mention the forced 1vs1 duels.
- Modding capabilities greatly suffered. In Medieval II, you could even mod the AI (ReallyBadAI). In Warscape games, you're severely limited. Since Rome II with its lacking region system, you can't even make new maps for total conversion mods.
- Since Rome II, I have lost interest in the campaigns. The building chains are horrible and more limited than before, the trading system is inferior to that of Victoria I or II, the region system feels weird and there's still only one settlement type: cities.
- Another bad feature is the abundance of fantasy abilities for your units. I don't mind switching formations or tactics, but magical buffs are not really plausible.

And there you have it , CA Australia was the golden age of TW. Ever since its been sucky. Only CA UK could milk a engine(probably made by CA Australia) for 15 years. Keep you skin jobs I'm sick of Warscape. First they say we are all dumb and need streamlining , now there on the mirco manage thing again like that never happened. Why would anyone want to take away game features?.

[druchii7]

I feel very disappointed. Has made very little progression on realistic mechanics, immersive campaign mechanics, challenging AI... I see a nice work on graphics and sometimes on aesthetics, but what I want is a challenging and realistic experience. As realistic and detailed as possible. I want solid games on which mods are made to add variety/personal insights, not to fix it.

Rome 2 was a very poor game, too easy, too simplistic, uninnovative (provinces was a good idea, but they just copied some mods and didn't implement it in interesting ways). Attila was a bit better, at least it felt difficult and managed to bring in a feeling of dread and devastation, but the DLC are terrible. Thrones of britania is much worse than many mods in TWC, empire divided is not any better, but at least it has a reasonable price.

And three kingdoms is terrible news. The're warhammerizing it, making a double campaign game a fantasy one with people with superpowers (and which will probably have magic-ish effects such) and another realistic ones. But to be honest, CA does a poor performance on realism even when they try their best. If they plan a game of superheroes and then make a non superhero version, I bet all my money that it will be disappointing and lacking realism. Not forgetting the overload of products, no company can release 10 good iterations in 2 years: the consequence is a very poor catalog with very little inovation and serious flaws. Attila (which I actually enjoyed to a certain extent) is in fact a mod/dlc of rome and they pretend it to be a totally new product. They recycled most of the game mechanics.

I know that they'll sell a lot, lots of Jackie Chan action films will be preparing their wallets, but title after title lots of us prefer to spend money on Paradox (which have abussive DLC policies but at least try to release realistic and immersive games without millions of bugs).

I never bought Warhammer titles (not interested a priori, not interesting at all after seeing those cartoonish gameplay videos), I got refund for Thrones of Britannia after checking that it wasn't any better than attila, and what I see and read from three kingdoms are all alarming signs of the loss of the good way to realism.

Shogun 2 was fun but terribly unrealistic (ninjas in battle, hero samurais, etc). BUT, they released the rise of the samurai and the fall of samurai with a much better focus on realism (RotS was a bit disappoing, but FotS was possibly the best release ever achieved by CA). I fear that we won't get any decent historical TW product for 4 or 5 years and that game recycling will be the main strategy, which will make the games less innovative time after time.

[Slaytaninc]

Bigbossbalrog,

So there's no reason to disagree with CA's design decisions? We just need to accept them because that's business?

[Jurand of Cracow]

I feel very disappointed. Has made very little progression on realistic mechanics, immersive campaign mechanics, challenging AI... I see a nice work on graphics and sometimes on aesthetics, but what I want is a challenging and realistic experience. As realistic and detailed as possible. I want solid games on which mods are made to add variety/personal insights, not to fix it.

Rome 2 was a very poor game, too easy, too simplistic, uninnovative (provinces was a good idea, but they just copied some mods and didn't implement it in interesting ways). Attila was a bit better, at least it felt difficult and managed to bring in a feeling of dread and devastation, but the DLC are terrible. Thrones of britania is much worse than many mods in TWC, empire divided is not any better, but at least it has a reasonable price.

And three kingdoms is terrible news. The're warhammerizing it, making a double campaign game a fantasy one with people with superpowers (and which will probably have magic-ish effects such) and another realistic ones. But to be honest, CA does a poor performance on realism even when they try their best. If they plan a game of superheroes and then make a non superhero version, I bet all my money that it will be disappointing and lacking realism. Not forgetting the overload of products, no company can release 10 good iterations in 2 years: the consequence is a very poor catalog with very little inovation and serious flaws. Attila (which I actually enjoyed to a certain extent) is in fact a mod/dlc of rome and they pretend it to be a totally new product. They recycled most of the game mechanics.

I know that they'll sell a lot, lots of Jackie Chan action films will be preparing their wallets, but title after title lots of us prefer to spend money on Paradox (which have abussive DLC policies but at least try to release realistic and immersive games without millions of bugs).

I never bought Warhammer titles (not interested a priori, not interesting at all after seeing those cartoonish gameplay videos), I got refund for Thrones of Britannia after checking that it wasn't any better than attila, and what I see and read from three kingdoms are all alarming signs of the loss of the good way to realism.

Shogun 2 was fun but terribly unrealistic (ninjas in battle, hero samurais, etc). BUT, they released the rise of the samurai and the fall of samurai with a much better focus on realism (RotS was a bit disappoing, but FotS was possibly the best release ever achieved by CA). I fear that we won't get any decent historical TW product for 4 or 5 years and that game recycling will be the main strategy, which will make the games less innovative time after time.

I agree with most of this opinion (except for the part that the battles are perfect - I think much can be done here as well, as DarthVader with his Ultimate General shows). Indeed, the Three Kingdoms set-up looks terrible at first glance. Another pure fantasy with the related mechanics. And yes - Attila was much better than R2TW, and Paradox games are extremely pricey (however, I'll probably spend some money it when the Imperator is published ;-).

My conclusion is: we need to play the big mods developed on the older engines. I've just returned to the mods for RTW and R2TW (Somnioum Apostate Iuliani and Divide et Impera, respectively) and I found that the former is much more immersive on the gameplay. The R2TW engine has simply such bad set of mechanics that it gives me much more fun to play with worse graphics but better mechanics. So just revert to the old good mods and appreciate the modders who still develop them - on the RTW there's a new RTR version of the mod (RTR8) published recently and also a new version of the IB has been just announced.
JoC

[Slaytaninc]

The newer games aren't all bad and have some good design decisions even if the lack of "easy" modding is heartbreaking. There's more strategic choice in building in something like Rome2 or Warhammer, as you can't just build whatever is available and you have money for. However in both games there's a lot of incentive to build military infrastructure in your starting regions until they're no longer on the frontier and then you just change them over to economy buildings. So even then you can optimize fairly easily.

My ideal Total War game would be Medieval 2 with upgraded AI, pathfinding, and battle fixes, as well as raised hard-coded limits. It's just not something that's likely to ever happen. CA/SEGA will never abandon the rights to the older games so modders can play around with the .exe. I also believe that many of the values encoded within cannot really be edited with the way the game is constructed.

What would be a welcome change is some map modding tools, even if it's just something that allows them to be opened in the first place. That would, I believe, breath new life into the Total War modding scene and this website. It's unlikely any modders will figure it out on their own, certainly not if we're all stuck in the past on Medieval 2.

In the meantime we just need to adjust our expectations and if you like playing Medieval 2 mods but find the game too easy just play some house rules or something. If you prefer the newer games just accept that you have to stick to the setting CA provides with only limited ability to change it. That being said, someone up-thread mentioned an ambitious Warhammer 2 mod. There's a limit to what can be done but they're trying their best within it. Daruwind has taken things even further with Rome 2 by finding ways to change the available building slots and even to expand the amount of resources and buildings requiring them.

I guess the last option is that a group of dedicated Total War fans give up their free time to create a competitor to the Total War series that can be modified in ways conducive to total conversion mods. Good luck to any accursed souls who take that idea seriously, but if you're the Marty Stu or Mary Sue who can do it you have my support.

[druchii7]

I agree with most of this opinion (except for the part that the battles are perfect - I think much can be done here as well, as DarthVader with his Ultimate General shows). Indeed, the Three Kingdoms set-up looks terrible at first glance. Another pure fantasy with the related mechanics. And yes - Attila was much better than R2TW, and Paradox games are extremely pricey (however, I'll probably spend some money it when the Imperator is published ;-).

My conclusion is: we need to play the big mods developed on the older engines. I've just returned to the mods for RTW and R2TW (Somnioum Apostate Iuliani and Divide et Impera, respectively) and I found that the former is much more immersive on the gameplay. The R2TW engine has simply such bad set of mechanics that it gives me much more fun to play with worse graphics but better mechanics. So just revert to the old good mods and appreciate the modders who still develop them - on the RTW there's a new RTR version of the mod (RTR8) published recently and also a new version of the IB has been just announced.
JoC

Modders are superheroes, but the games are very difficult to mod in key aspects. Overhauling the campaign to bring it closer to true grand strategy games is just impossible. AI is almost impossible to mod, maps are almost impossible to mod (appart from graphics) and many other mechanics. Many modders have to "waste" time on mending the flaws, in stead of implementing the ideas.

Quality of the core game sets a limit of quality for the mods and better overhauls take years to be ready

[druchii7]

But back to general unit system. I´m also not big fan of clicking to use abilities but having multiple active ones like different formations, fire arrows or throw grenades..different bonuses. Is Wedge formation or Testudo bad? And if you are under impression WH has much more unit abilities, it is not, not more than Shogun 2 in general. Only hero/agent/general with items but even I´m not expecting Emperor in any historical game to kick asses from first line. Back to abilities. In WH It is not about spamming the abilities as many have limited usage per battle or you are limited per slowly reprenishing mana.

C'mon dude, Shogun 2 is 7 years old. It was very nice at it's time, but lots have improved since that. Warhammer want to bring an RPG experience. That makes the overall strategy experience get worse.

Moving to faction variety. Look at Shogun 2, very good game yet for example campaing replayability is not great. Playing for all factions feel almost identical. You have like two way in every game. Stay true japan or adopt Christianity? In FotS you can use traditional army or modernize. That´s it. OF course unit variety is not everything but you cannot deny it is nice bonus for replayability. Just one question, how exactly it is different to break infantry ranks with Elephants or with Dinosaurs? In Rome 2 I can streamroll whole campaign map with one army composition. Heavy Roman infantry + artillery. In Warhammer you have to take into thinking what is the enemy race/faction good at. Breaking Dwarfs with infantry? Good luck, not gonna work...So actually even just unit divertity and faction difference is making me to evaluate army composition accordingly to the enemy. It is just enhance situation Roman infantry based vs Huns cavalry based army. Fantasy setting is just allowing more different option as rock-scissor-paper adding magic-dinosaurs-heroes into equaliton. I´m simply not fan of cyclocharges from Med 2, formations, flanking/manouvering yep. But i can simply tailor even WH,R2,Attila battle duration for my taste with a few mods.

Why no magic then? Why not a chinese dragons in a three kingdmos DLC? bring back gladiators? Valkyre units as germanic heavy cavalry. Infantry + artillery with the romans? Not cool enough. Why not give them elephants? That's what clients want. And maybe you can ask Jupiter to throw a lightning just like Age of Mitologies style.

My original point was about new people trying TW out. Warhammer is bringing a lot new faces and wait for it, lot of them is as zealous about Warhammer lore as History fans are about things being historical :-) This is not joke but as there are people running forums about history, there are people running forums about proper paintings for tabbletop miniatures. Some can call on you inquisiotion for improper Hoplite armory,weaponry or style of combat while others can call on you withhunters for using wrong colours on Greatswords of Carroburg...

So we bait RPG players with something which is unlike total war, and then surprise if they dislike the other games because there are no magic nukes.

I don´t care if my magic button is for fireballs, naval bombardment or something else. For me it is a tool. Tool I can use as the commander in right situation for right effect and win the battle. Deciding battles in honorable way in open field pitch battle is a option but historically a lot commanders opted for any possible trick,advantage. I would be curious what Sun Tzu would think about our spells and magic buttons. Probably would have fun with them, because it doesnt matter if you are using for opening a gate a ram, catapult, magic spell of giant or dragon. :-)

Naval support almost runied the game. At first it was fun, a salvo of 5-10 cannon balls, a minor damage or disruption. Later you can disband half of the enemies even before engaging. Pick a dumbening down idea and bring in to make warhammer easy enough. But at least that was to counter the last civil war, in which you had to face a tremendous civil war and loosing a single battle could ruin you, so you had to play every single battle very carfully. See that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofz0nisIzPA&t=1958s

One single character killed more than 2 thousand enemies just by spell grinding. Tipically warhammer.