New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

[Anna_Gein]

OK. Scale is one, though likely the scale they use is the only manageable one. What else?

Nope.

20 units of +300 is not harder to manage than 20 units of 120 men. It is actually easier.

You want an other proposition ? How about combined arms units ?

Don't play dumb. There are many ways CA could improve the battles.

[PointOfViewGun]

Nope.
20 units of +300 is not harder to manage than 20 units of 120 men. It is actually easier.
You want an other proposition ? How about combined arms units ?
Don't play dumb. There are many ways CA could improve the battles.

The maximum we have is not 120 men. The largest unit size in the Twitch stream was 160 and they specifically pointed out that they're not on Ultra size. So, the largest size is likely somewhere at 200 or over. I'm not sure how this would be easier to handle. Sure, looks nice but doesn't really change the battle experience. By combined arms units you mean the Dragon units they showed in the very first ambush gameplay video? Again, nice units but not sure how it substantially change the battle experience.

Why don't you play smart and actually provide with some tangible suggestions that actually changes something?

[Pyres Δt Varanasi]

The Dong Zhou trailer was cool!.

Spoiler alert tho'

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Dong Zhou looses the war

[EireEmerald]

I have been waiting for years for a new historical total war. We were just given the same thing rehashed again and again with Rome 2. But I am sad to say I won't be getting this game.

[Seether]

The maximum we have is not 120 men. The largest unit size in the Twitch stream was 160 and they specifically pointed out that they're not on Ultra size. So, the largest size is likely somewhere at 200 or over. I'm not sure how this would be easier to handle. Sure, looks nice but doesn't really change the battle experience. By combined arms units you mean the Dragon units they showed in the very first ambush gameplay video? Again, nice units but not sure how it substantially change the battle experience.

Why don't you play smart and actually provide with some tangible suggestions that actually changes something?

So having more men involved in battle(s) won’t improve “battle experience”. That is an... interesting position to take. Then why not just have 10-man units for every unit, since apparently size doesn’t affect the battle experience? And combined arms units won’t substantially change the battle experience either? So versatility and tactical flexibility, as well as uniqueness, doesn’t improve battle experience?

And Anna_Gein did offer a tangible suggestion. Two tangible suggestions, actually.

[PointOfViewGun]

So having more men involved in battle(s) won’t improve “battle experience”. That is an... interesting position to take. Then why not just have 10-man units for every unit, since apparently size doesn’t affect the battle experience? And combined arms units won’t substantially change the battle experience either? So versatility and tactical flexibility, as well as uniqueness, doesn’t improve battle experience?

And Anna_Gein did offer a tangible suggestion. Two tangible suggestions, actually.

We're not talking about improvements here. Sure, having larger unit sizes could help improve, though we do have larger unit sizes than what Anna_Gein claimed, and how much of an improvement his suggestion would be is debatable. Sure, having combined arms units would be nice, though that is solely depends on plausibility, and the game already demonstrated to have at least one such unit. What we're talking here is not improvements, but changing the battle gameplay. What I heard so far is quite trivial within that context. Yet, you know all that. Why you chose to ignore all that is beyond me...

[Seether]

You seem to be saying that changing things =/= improving things. Why are those mutually exclusive in your opinion? Can you elaborate on that?

And I don’t believe anything mentioned thus far is trivial at all. Trivial to who, exactly? You? I’m sure some people thought removing the ability to change capitals, have family trees, assign heirs, and put units in guard mode were trivial, but for others they were major issues that really hurt the specific title (and CA “fixed” after community backlash).

[Fredrin]

The thing that frustrates me most about battle gameplay - and its state of near permanent stagnation for over a decade - is that you get the same overall experience regardless of whatever era you're playing in (Empire is a beautiful exception to this rule despite its flaws).

Sure, tons of effort has been put into researching the troops and weaponry of the period, so this could be translated into unit stats and well-balanced army composition. But the general feel for how to command these troops is by and large the same, particularly when you have cheesy and generic magic unit abilities that are simple modifiers and bear very little relation to military strategy of the period.

It all feels so homogeneous by now. Huge amounts could be done with terrain and map design, though this rarely develops into anything unique or exciting. There could be more nuances in the way combat unfolds depending on the era in which battles are being fought - and there are obviously good examples of how the devs have worked to achieve this, but I still feel I'm playing roughly the same game from one time period to the next.

Perhaps it is the scale being stuck at 160 to a unit tops... or the engine being added to iteratively for over a decade... or a built-in cautiousness in design not to stray too far from the sacred formula lest there is a great backlash. But it doesn't feel like there has been a steady improvement - for every innovation there is often a feature stripped or another added that doesn't function all that well, so it's a case of two steps forward, one step backwards.

I guess my feeling in general is that - 15 years on from Rome 1 - I would have deeper attachments to the units that comprised my armies, a finer degree of control over their deployment in the field, a greater sense of immersion in the tactics of the time period and a more visceral engagement with the carnage of a pitched battle. There have been the odd moments but nothing approaching the thrill from one major titles to the next in the early titles in the franchise. Maybe there is simply a limit to how well a RTT/RTS on current hardware can depict these things, but it also seems that a certain safeness... possibly even ennui, has crept into CA's design philosophy that means their games simply lack the dynamism of earlier titles.

They're still great games - best in their genre, yada yada - but to suppose they couldn't be any better or even different seems amazingly unimaginative. I wish there was more pressure from the TW community to push CA to be a bit bolder in their battle design. It seems to have paid off on the campaign side, as we're seeing some pretty cool new features there.

[legate]

The thing that frustrates me most about battle gameplay - and its state of near permanent stagnation for over a decade - is that you get the same overall experience regardless of whatever era you're playing in (Empire is a beautiful exception to this rule despite its flaws).

Sure, tons of effort has been put into researching the troops and weaponry of the, so this could be translated into unit stats and well-balanced army composition. But the general feel for how to command these troops is by and large the same, particularly when you have cheesy and generic magic unit abilities that are simple modifiers and bear very little relation to military strategy of the period.

It all feels so homogeneous by now. Huge amounts could be done with terrain and map design, though this rarely develops into anything unique or exciting. There could be more nuances in the way combat unfolds depending on the era in which battles are being fought - and there are obviously good examples of how the devs have worked to achieve this, but I still feel I'm playing roughly the same game.

Perhaps it is the scale being stuck at 160 to a unit tops... or the engine being added to iteratively for over a decade... or a built-in cautiousness in design not to stray too far from the sacred formula lest there is a great backlash. But it doesn't feel like there has been a steady improvement - for every innovation there is often a feature stripped or another added that doesn't function all that well, so it's a case of two steps forward, one step backwards.

I guess my feeling in general is that - 15 years on from Rome 1 - I would have deeper attachments to the units that comprised my armies, a finer degree of control over their deployment in the field, a greater sense of immersion in the tactics of the time period and a more visceral engagement with the carnage of a pitched battle. There have been the odd moments but nothing approaching the thrill from one major titles to the next in the early titles in the franchise. Maybe there is simply a limit to how well a RTT/RTS on current hardware can depict these things, but it also seems that safeness... possibly even ennui, has crept into CA's design philosophy that means their games simply lack the dynamism of earlier titles.

They're still great games - best in their genre, yada yada - but to suppose they couldn't be any better or even different seems amazingly unimaginative. I wish there was more pressure from the TW community to push CA to be a bit bolder in their battle design. It seems to have paid off on the campaign side, as we're seeing some pretty cool new features there.

I remember when Medieval 2 was announced, in an interview the developers stated that weather and battlefield conditions would have an impact on how they were fought. They mentioned muddy fields effecting cavalry and infantry movement etc. They showed the battlemap of Agincourt with the ploughed, muddy field. Of course this was either removed prior to release or not even put in.

[PikeStance]

The size of the units has an effect on AI behavior. I discovered this out when modding battle mechanics for ETW. (Back story) I was trying to get the AI to shoot a few volleys and then charge. I wasn't exactly getting the result I wanted, so on a whim, I reduce the size of the units. Something odd happened. The unit didn't stop and shoot, they charged right into my men. I changed the size back and the unit behavior went back to what it was. I have a hypothesis on how to mod, but the magic formula is still elusive. Anyway, the experience of the battle would be different. In the same game, I played with super large forces. The AI had a very difficult time maneuvering the units. My guess is that CA units sizes are determined by what is optimally best for the AI can handle. This is my issue with sieges. The units are really too small to defend or realistically attack the settlement. Think about the option to "encircle" and compare that to when you fight the siege. Can you really encircle? While the cities are nicely done now, the size and scope of the cities far exceed what you can actually field to defend or attack it. The armies are scaled, but now the cities are not (relative to the army size).

For me, the issue of battles is simply more realism. I would prefer a system of communication and armies under commanders. 3k set up is close to what I am talking about. In miniature wargaming, you have to keep everyone under command. CA can easily implement this system given they already have a radius of influence for the commander. They only need to include the ability to give orders. The better the commanders, the larger the radius. This will prevent abnormally wide fronts and more realistic experience.

In sieges now, they have key capture points. CA needs to adopt this concept in battles. It isn't difficult to place a key point along an armies LoC.

[PointOfViewGun]

You seem to be saying that changing things =/= improving things. Why are those mutually exclusive in your opinion? Can you elaborate on that?

And I don’t believe anything mentioned thus far is trivial at all. Trivial to who, exactly? You? I’m sure some people thought removing the ability to change capitals, have family trees, assign heirs, and put units in guard mode were trivial, but for others they were major issues that really hurt the specific title (and CA “fixed” after community backlash).

A change is a leap, an improvement is incremental though you can classify change as a major improvement as well, but we started from a change. Rome I presented a change with 3D models. Empire Total War presented a change with naval battles. Rome II presented a change with naval assaults. We're talking about changing the battle experience. So, it has to be something more than what we've seen so far.

[legate]

The size of the units has an effect on AI behavior. I discovered this out when modding battle mechanics for ETW. (Back story) I was trying to get the AI to shoot a few volleys and then charge. I wasn't exactly getting the result I wanted, so on a whim, I reduce the size of the units. Something odd happened. The unit didn't stop and shoot, they charged right into my men. I changed the size back and the unit behavior went back to what it was. I have a hypothesis on how to mod, but the magic formula is still elusive. Anyway, the experience of the battle would be different. In the same game, I played with super large forces. The AI had a very difficult time maneuvering the units. My guess is that CA units sizes are determined by what is optimally best for the AI can handle. This is my issue with sieges. The units are really too small to defend or realistically attack the settlement. Think about the option to "encircle" and compare that to when you fight the siege. Can you really encircle? While the cities are nicely done now, the size and scope of the cities far exceed what you can actually field to defend or attack it. The armies are scaled, but now the cities are not (relative to the army size).

For me, the issue of battles is simply more realism. I would prefer a system of communication and armies under commanders. 3k set up is close to what I am talking about. In miniature wargaming, you have to keep everyone under command. CA can easily implement this system given they already have a radius of influence for the commander. They only need to include the ability to give orders. The better the commanders, the larger the radius. This will prevent abnormally wide fronts and more realistic experience.

In sieges now, they have key capture points. CA needs to adopt this concept in battles. It isn't difficult to place a key point along an armies LoC.

There was a backlash against capture points in battles when they were planned for Rome 2.

I personally like the idea of having baggage trains and army camps that could be attacked during battle, affecting morale etc.

[Fredrin]

For me, the issue of battles is simply more realism. I would prefer a system of communication and armies under commanders. 3k set up is close to what I am talking about. In miniature wargaming, you have to keep everyone under command. CA can easily implement this system given they already have a radius of influence for the commander. They only need to include the ability to give orders. The better the commanders, the larger the radius. This will prevent abnormally wide fronts and more realistic experience.

In sieges now, they have key capture points. CA needs to adopt this concept in battles. It isn't difficult to place a key point along an armies LoC.

Ditto Legate's point re capture points - they have been attempted before (albeit very clumsily) and met with outcry. I agree with the critics on this - capture points always come across as gimmicky or arbitrary in pitched battles, whereas you can imagine them being relevant in city sieges as commanding certain structures or chokepoints is the name of the game.

I do very much agree with your earlier point about a new system of command, relaying orders to units and a radius of influence being a good way to represent this. I like the idea of a better commander having more control over units (as a way of simulating discipline or the general's charisma etc). This would mean that if you command battles as an inexperienced general, units outside your influence would be less responsive (i.e AI would give them other ideas).

This is perhaps a bit too revolutionary for the TW player base as I can imagine a lot of people kicking off if they didn't have total control of all their units, but it's the kind of thing I would like to see CA explore as they have pretty much exhausted the current Rock/Paper/Scissors combat mechanics we've had for ages now.

[Seether]

A change is a leap, an improvement is incremental though you can classify change as a major improvement as well, but we started from a change. Rome I presented a change with 3D models. Empire Total War presented a change with naval battles. Rome II presented a change with naval assaults. We're talking about changing the battle experience. So, it has to be something more than what we've seen so far.

Ok, now I understand your distinction. I agree to an extent, as I feel it ultimately depends on what it is that is being affected and to what degree it’s being changed/improved. At some point(s) it is just semantics as to whether it is a change or an improvement; they can be the same in some instances.

Unfortunately some of those changes made in the series have not stuck around. As an example, both naval battles and naval assaults are not in 3K, which I feel is a travesty. I also see it as a total lack of vision by CA, a “dumbing down” of the series, and a complete show of ignorance of Three Kingdoms era warfare, strategy, tactics and pivotal/important battles.

[Odinarius]

I like the naval invasion battles in Atilla. Catapults on the ships are overdone, but having troops unload from ships in the middle of the settlements is a good tactical option to have. Too bad.

[legate]

It might be too much micromanagement for some but I personally would like to see more done on individual army units and the captains leading them. It would be good to see them develop over each battle and have the captains gaining rank etc. In Medieval 1 the after battle report would list all the units and the name of their captains. It was simple but immersive. I am not really a fan of having to have generals leading every force you raise.

[PointOfViewGun]

Ok, now I understand your distinction. I agree to an extent, as I feel it ultimately depends on what it is that is being affected and to what degree it’s being changed/improved. At some point(s) it is just semantics as to whether it is a change or an improvement; they can be the same in some instances.

Unfortunately some of those changes made in the series have not stuck around. As an example, both naval battles and naval assaults are not in 3K, which I feel is a travesty. I also see it as a total lack of vision by CA, a “dumbing down” of the series, and a complete show of ignorance of Three Kingdoms era warfare, strategy, tactics and pivotal/important battles.

The starting point was post #815 where the battle gameplay barely changing in 15 years. Within that context the difference between change and improvement is not really semantics...

[Mayer]

There are lots of ways to improve the battles, but CA has decided to keep them a small and quick affair.

[PointOfViewGun]

There are lots of ways to improve the battles, but CA has decided to keep them a small and quick affair.

Such as?

[Seether]

The starting point was post #815 where the battle gameplay barely changing in 15 years. Within that context the difference between change and improvement is not really semantics...

Maybe to you, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree.