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

[Intranetusa]

. Generals were sent into Central Asia to wage campaigns and to assert control over the west but after 107 the Western Protectorate was abolished. By the time of the Three Kingdoms control of those areas in the west were only nominal although the city states and tribes that lived in Xinjiang could still pledge allegiance to the Han. For example when Cao Cao defeated the warlords in Liang province this was followed by the eventual request by the cities and tribes of Xinjiang for protection, which lasted until the fall of the Jin Dynasty at the hands of the barbarians.

Before the Wei reconquest, the situation of the Western Regions/central Asian city states could be like Roman Britian before the total collapse of the WRE - they still considered themselves a part of the Roman Empire but was totally cut off from the central government in Rome.

[Dumanthis]

Really excited to see that CA finally chose to a China oriented-total war and even more that it's Three kingdoms period.

Don't really understand all the hate there has been online about it. Many people say they skip and don't buy because of boring chinese setup and would have preferred European setting. Also lots have complained about this being another fantasy title so they have to skip it too because Warhammers are "bad".

I don't know about you, but do you think that some of the Total War fanbase is a bit toxic these days?

[JackDionne]

Really excited to see that CA finally chose to a China oriented-total war and even more that it's Three kingdoms period.

Don't really understand all the hate there has been online about it. Many people say they skip and don't buy because of boring chinese setup and would have preferred European setting. Also lots have complained about this being another fantasy title so they have to skip it too because Warhammers are "bad".

I don't know about you, but do you think that some of the Total War fanbase is a bit toxic these days?

I feel the trailer was misleading, I thought it might have fantasy in it too until I went on CA site to confirm it is going to be historical. Anyone who has been playing this game for a long time will buy it I am guessing. I skipped Warhammer, as did many others but it did bring in a new fan base for CA who probably only want fantasy based TW games.

[SinisterOmen]

I feel the trailer was misleading, I thought it might have fantasy in it too until I went on CA site to confirm it is going to be historical. Anyone who has been playing this game for a long time will buy it I am guessing. I skipped Warhammer, as did many others but it did bring in a new fan base for CA who probably only want fantasy based TW games.

Well, they did say it was going to be a historical title even though they're using a heavily embellished book as base. I think what they meant was a non-fantasy title rather.

I'm not a huge fan of WH either, but it did bring some cool aspects like better skill trees, more detailed campaign map, while failing in others like the terrible siege mechanic and combat pace.

[Dumanthis]

Well, they did say it was going to be a historical title even though they're using a heavily embellished book as base. I think what they meant was a non-fantasy title rather.

I'm not a huge fan of WH either, but it did bring some cool aspects like better skill trees, more detailed campaign map, while failing in others like the terrible siege mechanic and combat pace.

I disagree on that siege mechanic part. In comparison to previous titles, it actually works unlike many other siege mechanics in TW franchise. Of course its not perfect, but the gameplay wise it runs pretty smooth. Also the AI is now able to pose a threat in attacking your walled cities.The AI does not do siege battles well, but despite being stupid it infact ATTACKS and tries to win, which is in itself a huge improvment.

The pace is too fast, but gladly there is Steel Faith to sort that out. Also the custom settlements (even siege maps) work in campaign and modders have made some fantastic job with them.

[JackDionne]

I disagree on that siege mechanic part. In comparison to previous titles, it actually works unlike many other siege mechanics in TW franchise. Of course its not perfect, but the gameplay wise it runs pretty smooth. Also the AI is now able to pose a threat in attacking your walled cities.The AI does not do siege battles well, but despite being stupid it infact ATTACKS and tries to win, which is in itself a huge improvment.

The pace is too fast, but gladly there is Steel Faith to sort that out. Also the custom settlements (even siege maps) work in campaign and modders have made some fantastic job with them.

Are you referring to sieges in Warhammer? Never played it that's why I am asking.

[Dumanthis]

Are you referring to sieges in Warhammer? Never played it that's why I am asking.

Yes, I am referring to Warhammer total wars. The sieges in them are a bit simplified (you can walk down the walls inside the cities almost everywhere, every normal humanoid unit can climb walls with ladders), but they run alot better in general. The AI can and will attack the cities and can actually win siege battles against you.

[NostalgiaFan]

Oh cool both this and TOB have their own sub forum now.

[perifanosEllinas]

Sorry in advance for the wall of text, but I'm replying to several posts here.

Since when did Screaming battalions of women and Battalions of half naked head hurlers exist in reality? Those are straight up fiction, not simply historical inaccuracy.

If it's historically inaccurate to such a large extent then it basically is fiction (or "historical fiction" as you phrased it earlier).

No, they aren't fiction, they are historical reality. You're just ignorant about them.

Screeching women:

"Well, then, the Ambrones became separated by the stream; for they did not all succeed in getting across and forming an array, but upon the foremost of them the Ligurians at once fell with a rush, and the fighting was hand-to‑hand. Then the Romans came to the aid of the Ligurians, and charging down from the heights upon the Barbarians overwhelmed and turned them back. Most of the Ambrones were cut down there in the stream where they were all crowded together, and the river was filled with their blood and their dead bodies; the rest, after the Romans had crossed, did not dare to face about, and the Romans kept slaying them until they came in their flight to their camp and waggons. Here the women met them, swords and axes in their hands, and with hideous shrieks of rage tried to drive back fugitives and pursuers alike, the fugitives as traitors, and the pursuers as foes; they mixed themselves up with the combatants, with bare hands tore away the shields of the Romans or grasped their swords, and endured wounds and mutilations, their fierce spirits unvanquished to the end. So, then, as we are told, the battle at the river was brought on by accident rather than by the intention of the commander."
~ Plutarch, Life of Marius, 19.5 - 19.7

The screeching women are pretty much a historically accurate unit. The only reason I say they can be considered as a historical inaccuracy is because I think they should be a garrison unit only and not recruitable for main armies that go out conquering territoty. But in reality that's just a shortcoming of the game's mechanics, it has nothing to do with the game's general direction, narrative or sources. In any case, it's totally historical, it has nothing to do with fiction.

As for the head hurlers, they are directly derived from the well documented Gallic cult of head hunters. Here is how Diodorus Siculus describes the Gauls:

"It is also their custom, when they are formed for battle, to step out in front of the line and to challenge the most valiant men from among their opponents to single combat, brandishing their weapons in front of them to terrify their adversaries. And when any man accepts the challenge to battle, they then break forth into a song in praise of the valiant deeds of their ancestors and in boast of their own high achievements, reviling all the while and belittling their opponent, and trying, in a word, by such talk to strip him of his bold spirit before the combat. When their enemies fall they cut off their heads and fasten them about the necks of their horses; and turning over to their attendants the arms of their opponents, all covered with blood, they carry them off as booty, singing a paean over them and striking up a song of victory, and these first-fruits of battle they fasten by nails upon their houses, just as men do, in certain kinds of hunting, with the heads of wild beasts they have mastered. The heads of their most distinguished enemies they embalm in cedar-oil and carefully preserve in a chest, and these they exhibit to strangers, gravely maintaining that in exchange for this head some one of their ancestors, or their father, or the man himself, refused the offer of a great sum of money. And some men among them, we are told, boast that they have not accepted an equal weight of gold for the head they show, displaying a barbarous sort of greatness of soul; for not to sell that which constitutes a witness and proof of one's valour is a noble thing, but to continue to fight against one of our own race, after he is dead, is to descend to the level of beasts."
~ Diodorus Siculus, book V, 29.2 - 29.5

The only part that can be considered an inaccuracy is that in vanilla RTW they are portrayed throwing some of these heads to their enemies, which probably didn't happen in reality. But to claim this unit is "straight up fiction" just shows ignorance on your part.

Simply using the name of a historical group of people, and then making them into something completely unrelated what they were in reality goes beyond historical inaccuracy - that is just historical fiction.

Name one historical group of people that vanilla RTW has made into something completely unrelated to what they were in reality.

Historical fiction would be saying Roman spies were actually combat ninjas who had their own elite unit battalions.

You're just slandering RTW here. Once again, there are no ninjas in vanilla RTW. The arcany are historical reality whether you like it or not, they are not fiction. If you insist on perceiving them as ninjas, that's your own issue, not the game's, which nowhere claims they were ninjas. The "elite" part has to do with gameplay, it's about unit stats. A unit's stats being wrong is a historical innaccuracy, it has nothing to do with fiction.

You're just proving here that you're very negatively biased towards RTW and that you just don't understand what fiction is.

Or that Roman firefighters were actually a super unit superior to the Praetorian guards.

Roman firefighters?! What the hell are you talking about? There are no firefighter units in vanilla RTW. That's more slander. Just stop it.

But let's assume all of these elements are not fiction/historical fiction but rather historical inaccuracy as you say. Even still, Rome Total War 1 makes this 3K trailer seem like a well researched historical thesis in comparison.

That's just laughable. RTW is based on historical evidence. And it's generally WAY more historically accurate than the average person thinks, even with all its inaccuracies. TW:TK seems to be based on a fantasy novel. It's like making a "historical" game about the war of the roses and using game of thrones as the main source. It's just laughable to even consider. If you still can't see the difference, then you're just way too biased towards RTW and it's pointless to continue arguing about it.

- - -

And you're providing more evidence here about your very negative bias towards RTW, as you say this

Historically inaccurate would be saying the Romans were wearing lorica segmentata during the days of Julius Caesar.

and this

The 3K's trailer of Lu Bu wearing medieval plated chainmail armor killing 6-7 dudes in a row is far more plausible

but then you also say this

than Egyptians from 2000 BC being transported by a time machine into the days of 200 BC ancient Rome or Roman spies suddenly turning into 16th century Japanese ninjas. The 3K equivalent of RTW1's historical fiction/historical inaccuracy would be giving Lu Bu a musket from the Renaissance era and making him fight in a Ming Dynasty pike and shot formation...while wearing 16th century Gothic plate armor and being a part of a ninja clan.

That's pure double standards. Everything you describe here can pretty much be summed up as anachronism. You can't have your cake and eat it too, meaning you can't have anachronism be historically plausible in TW:TK but fiction in RTW. One anachronism being older than the other doesn't make it fiction either. For you anachronism is either historically plausible or fiction, but you can't have it both ways and go to the way that benefits your claim each time, it doesn't work this way. In reality, anachronism is historical inaccuracy, regardless of the form. And as I am a fair and just person, I say that anachronism in TW:TK is a historical inaccuracy there as well, no double standards from me. We have evidence that this is going to be a historical fiction title, but anachronism is not part of the evidence.

And just one last thing here. Pal, you have a really bad hang up with ninjas, seriously. Just let go, it's unhealthy.

You haven't actually defined the difference between what you consider the line between historical inaccuracy and fiction.

The terms are pretty self explanatory to me, that's why. Granted, I have studied how to professionally write a fantasy novel, but the terms were pretty self explanatory to me even before I took that course. I actually find it quite surprising to see people who don't get these terms. Anyway, here it is in as simple description as possible:

Historical: derived from historical evidence. That evidence can be texts (historical sources), archaelogical findings, columns, tombs etc. Simply put, movies, games, books etc. that are derived from historical evidence and stay in the borders of that historical evidence are described as "historical".

Fiction: made up. That's simply it. Movies, games, books etc. that are derived from made up events, characters, locations, scenarios etc. are described as "fiction".

Historical fiction: you take something historical (derived only from historical evidence) and throw fiction (made up stuff) in the mix. It's pretty much a marriage of history and fiction. The percentage of each one is irrelevant. So a game with 5% history and 95% fiction is historical fiction, but so is a game with 95% history and 5% fiction. An obvious example: if you take the second Persian invasion in Hellas, that's "historical". But if you throw a fictional battle in there, like the Persians besieging the Spartans at Pella, that's "historical fiction". So to get back to TW:TK, both the oath of the peach garden and the battle of Hulao pass are fictional events (totally made up), so if they are included in the game's general narrative, the game would be a historical fiction game.

And finally,

Fantasy: anything with magic and/or supernatural elements, set anywhere up to renaissance. Any more modern setting and it's not fantasy anymore. Obvious example: warhammer stretches the fantasy setting to its limits, as it goes deep into renaissance with the empire and the dwarves. Especially with steam tanks, helicopters, steam trains and all that it really plays with the borders of fantasy.

Anyway, I have to add something here. Defining games with these terms might get a bit trickier than movies or books, because games also have to be defined by their gameplay. But when it comes to TW, things get a bit easier and clearer, as what defines a TW's setting is pretty much what sources it's derived from and if it has magic or fiction included in the core narrative and general direction. Now, keep in mind that TW games are a sandbox, so at some point or another events that would normally be described as fiction, like the Iceni besieging Babylon for example, are bound to happen. But what really determines if a TW is historical or not is how it's set up at the start of the first turn and if it has magic and/or fiction in the core narrative and general direction. For example, if there are fictional battles in the "historical battles" mode, that mode is historical fiction. If there are messages coming up during the campaign which describe fictional events like the battle of Hulao Pass, that makes the main campaign historical fiction too.

If RTW1 is simply historical inaccuracy rather than fiction then under your logic, then nothing in this 3K trailer is fiction either. The 3K trailer is simply historically inaccurate (yet still more plausible and accurate than the stuff in RTW1).

Come on man, same invalid arguments over and over. The TW:TK trailer is full of fictional events from the fantasy novel. We've already been through this, no point repeating ourselves.

All of the characters, weapons, and armor seen in this 3K trailer did exist at some point in time, even if it's portrayed incorrectly in terms of appearance and time-frame.

Yes, but the oath of the peach garden and the battle of Hulao Pass are 100% fictional, they never happened.

Even if the battle as described in the novel didn't exist, there were plenty of battles by the coalition against Dong Zhou.

So what? That particular battle is fictional.

You could just literally substitute Hulao Pass with any of the other numerous battles that they fought.

That's the battle in which the fictional duel of Liu Bei, Guan Yu and Zhang Fei against Lu Bu happened. Since we're talking about the trailer, even if the battle is not that particular one, the duel is still 100% fictional. So this really doesn't help your case.

It's perfectly plausible that Tsao Tsao and Liu Bei fought in the same battle against Dong Zhou, even if it wasn't actually the "battle of Hulao pass."

No, it isn't. Liu Bei, Guan Yu and Zhang Fei were not active in the campaign against Dong Zhuo. Instead, they were fighting remnants of the Yellow Turban rebels in the north and thus did not duel with Lü Bu, who, historically, was defeated by Sun Jian in battle.

The Oath of Peach Garden may not have happened as the novel portrays, but Liu Bei, Guan Yu, and Zhang Fei were historically described as being as close as brothers. As oaths DID exist during the time period, the Oath of Brotherhood is not a big stretch in imagination.

An oath is not that far fetched, but the oath of the peach garden (as clearly portrayed in the trailer) is straight up fiction, as we have decisive evidence from the historical record that they didn't die the same year, so this event definitely has no place in a game that claims to be historical. If this event had really happened, after Guan Yu's assassination the other two would have commited suicide.

A fraternal oath that may have taken place among the 3 in a garden is far MORE plausible than Egyptians from 2000 BC being transported to 100 BC in RTW1.

You just had to bash RTW again, didn't you? Once again, just no. The first is straight up fiction, the second is an anachronism, which is a historical inaccuracy. You're way too biased towards RTW and you're proving it once again.

The weapons are not fictional. Guan Yu's weapon is a more ornate version of the Guan dao or Pu Dao, which are real weapons that existed in the ancient and medieval era. Liu Bei's swords are obviously not fictional. Zhang Fei's serpent spear is based on actual designs of wavy-spears in reality with an alteration near the tip. Lu Bu's halberd is just a fancier version of the double crescent halberd commonly used during the Song Dynasty. It's not a fictional weapon although it is portrayed a bit incorrectly.

None of these weapons are "fictional" - the author used real-life weapons during the Yuan-Ming Dynasty as inspiration and they're more ornate than the commonly used versions.

The weapons are not fictional, we agree on that. They are anachronistic however, but that's a historical inaccuracy, not fiction. Their designs however are fictional as these weapons never looked like that in real history. These are modern and highly stylized designs of the weapons described in the fantasy novel by the way, not of historical weapons. There is no historical evidence of real guandao weapons with repousse dragons on them. And no, the guandao weapon didn't exist in the ancient era. According to most historians and historical evidence this weapon didn't exist until the 11th century CE, which is as medieval as medieval gets. Guan Yu's Green Dragon Crescent Blade is a 100% fantasy weapon, it never existed in reality and his real weapon was definitely not made from the body of a dead green dragon and it was definitely not a magic weapon. If he ends up having this weapon in the game then this is pure fantasy.

So the weapons are really just anachronistic. It's no different than medieval Byzantine pikemen or explosive onagers in Attilla TW...and it's not remotely as bad as 2000 BC Egyptians or Roman ninjas in RTW1.

More bashing of RTW. More double standards and bias towards RTW. OK, this is getting really distasteful now. Again, you can't selectively have anachronism be acceptable or unacceptable to you depending on your case. And stop with the slandering of RTW already, it has no ninjas, period.

Furthermore, some of the historical fiction in ROTK is simply "filling in the blanks"

What is the author filling in the blanks with? Fictional stuff. That's not how history works.

and is less fiction than the stuff in RTW1.

So you insist on slandering RTW? OK, name one fictional event in vanilla RTW. Remember, fictional means totally made up. As I have already proved above with real historical sources what you named before as "fiction" in RTW is in fact history, so don't repeat yourself. Name one really fictional event. Go ahead.

There is no evidence some of these ROTK events existed because there is no historical record of it, but at the same time, we cannot say for 100% certainty that they could never have happened because they are not outside the realm of plausibility (eg. taking an oath of brotherhood in a garden).

First of all, guys don't use this "ROTK" shortcut, as it can mean both Records Of the Three Kingdoms and Romance Of the Three Kingdoms and it's really confusing. I have seen this used often in this thread and it's not helping.

Anyway, I interpret you're referring to the romance version. Again, we have decisive evidence that this event is totally fictional as the three characters didn't die the same year.

On the other hand, we can say for basically 100% certainty that the Egyptians from 2000 BC did not exist in 100 BC timeframe of RTW1, and that Urban Cohorts were not elite soldiers superior to Praetorians - because that simply contradicts evidence and is not plausible. Just like we can say for certain that Lu Bu was not a Samurai warrior equipped with a katana and musket.

You're just repeating yourself here. I have already replied to both points (the Egyptians and the unit stats).

If what reddit says is correct, it'll be essentially the literary version without magic.

I strongly agree with you on that. It's my impression as well that it'll be exactly that: the fantasy novel with magic removed, which basically makes it historical fiction.

So about as historical as Shogun 2 or Rome 2, which might not be everybody's cup of tea. Not the most historical with fictional events but not fantasy either.

Sigh, you spoiled it there. I haven't studied Shogun 2's setting so I won't comment on that. But Rome 2 is historical, not historical fiction as the TW:TK seems to be. They are not the same. Having inaccuracies doesn't make it fiction.

I have to agree that the novel is not any less historically accurate than Total War games but the massive bias in the novel is something that would not benefit gameplay.

Specifically the belittling of Zhou Yu and the supervillian Sima Yi.

Em, the novel has fictional events, magic weapons, magic and flying horses. No TW game (except warhammer obviously) had one of these in their core narrative.

It will be historical according to CA web site.
https://www.creative-assembly.com/bl...doms-announced

But according to their trailer and the reddit post (which is supposed to be officially approved by CA, meaning accurate) it won't. Hence the controversy.

Anybody else remember how Shougn 2's trailer wonderfully depicted the dueling mechanic in the game?

Or how Rome 2's Carthage trailer beautifully depicted actual in game siege combat?

Shogun 2's trailer was much more representative of the game than most people claim, as the battle animations are based on duels and not on the older system which was based on formation and circumstance.

Rome 2's pre-release marketing was full of lies, fake screenshots and even fake videos on youtube. It was straight up false advertisement all the way through. So nothing surprising about that.

If the SAGA Thrones of Britannia YouTube.com videos just posted are any indication -- be prepared for a very different game product coming down the pike. No agents, more focus on the leader development and perhaps smaller battles as you gear up your campaigns. Take a look in the other threads -- also the SAGA comes out fairly quick and that may tell more about what the 3K will be than our complaining here on the ether ware.

I was thinking exactly the same thing when I saw the Brittania info. All the features look like something that could be ported over to 3K, almost as if the Saga game is a trial run or something.

In my opinion, this would have more ground in reality if the two projects were being developed by the same team. We've seen so far that games developed by different teams often disregard successful elements of the directly previous project. For example, it took CA about 3,5 years (about 1,5 year of constant patching + 2 years of pre-release development and supposedly testing) to get the battle pace right in Rome 2, and as soon as they did they released Attila with totally arcade battles and the awful pace of Rome 2's battles at release. This was clearly because of different teams working on each project.

Wow, the level of logic jumps you had to go through to respond was just incredible. Some of your points were mind bogglingly stupid that I'm not sure on how to come with a response.

Look at that, more compliments from you! Thanks again!

You could station urban cohorts in cities to act like a police force so that makes it accurate? Really? How does that change the fact that you were able to use them as an army unit on the battle field or in sieges of enemy cities? It doesn't.

Who said it's accurate? I just pointed out that you can use them accurately too, if you so choose. But I agree they shouldn't be recruitable for armies that go out conquering territotry. But, as I said above in this post, this is a shortcoming of the game's mechanics (that there's no mechanic to differenciate conquering armies from garrisons, like in Rome 2) and it's a historical inaccuracy, not fiction, as the urban cohorts are not fictional, they existed in real life, they were just not used as portrayed in vanilla RTW. Remember, we're talking about fictional elements here.

The Roman division into 3 parts at the time of the game is fiction. It never happened. Period.

No, it isn't. Vanilla RTW divides Rome in 4 parts by the way, not 3: Julii, Brutii, Scipii and Senate. The game's campaign spans from 270 BCE to 14 CE. So this portrayal deals with events that happened up to 14 CE. And none of them are fictional.

Julii: Gaius Julius Caesar defied the Senate at 49 BCE, crossed the Rubicon with the 13th legion and marched against Rome, which resulted in a civil war that he won. So giving the player the chance to turn on the senate and the other Roman families as the family of the Julii is historical.

Brutii: Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus betrayed his cousin's trust in 45 BCE, Gaius Julius Caesar, who loved him as a son, when he joined a conspiracy against him. In 44 BCE, Gaius Julius Caesar even made him a Praetor Peregrinus and yet he and the rest conspirators assassinated Gaius Julius Caesar that year, who was Rome's dictator at the time, so they essentially turned on Rome for their own benefit. Again, the game giving the player the chance to turn on the senate and the other Roman families as the family of the Brutii is historical.

Scipii: The most characteristic case of Roman betrayal and ingratitude in the Scipii family is of course Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus. He is the Roman who conquered the Carthaginian allies in Hispania and finally defeated Hannibal Barca, Rome's worst nightmare, in the battle of Zama in 202 BCE and established Rome as the dominant and unchallenged power of the western Mediterranean. In this case, on the contrary with the two previous ones, it was the senate that betrayed and turned on him and not the other way around. Thanks to his achievements in the name or Rome, he was considered a hero by the general Roman populace, primarily for his contributions in the struggle against the Carthaginians, but he was reviled by other patricians of his day. In his later years, he was tried for bribery and treason on false (constructed) charges that were only meant to discredit him before the public. He disproved the first charges, but despite the popular support he commanded, there were constantly renewed attempts to bring him to trial by other senators. Disillusioned by the ingratitude of his peers, Scipio left Rome and withdrew from public life. He retired to his country seat at Liternum on the coast of Campania, where he spent the rest of his life. His death some years later is said to have taken place under quite suspicious circumstances, some people speculate that even an assassination might have taken place. He is said to have demanded that his body be buried away from his ungrateful city and that he ordered an inscription on his tomb: "Ingrata patria, ne ossa quidem habebis" (= ungrateful fatherland, you will not even have my bones). So giving the player of the Scipii family the chance to be betrayed by the senate, or to take revenge by marching on the senate and other Roman families is historical.

Now of course, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this portrayal is accurate, no, it's historically inaccurate, that's for sure. But it isn't fictional. Again, this is a shortcoming of the game's mechanics, a lazy workaround basically for having no secession or civil war mechanics like in Rome 2, which is closer to how it should be. If you read my comments above for the three families without bias, you can see that what RTW did with the Roman families is pretty much three cases of Roman betrayal that happened much later being anachronistically and inaccurately portrayed in 270 BCE.

To claim that the colossal walls that Rome I towns could have is historical is just incredible. No town ever had a wall that was that high. The final tier was stupendously tall.

We have no way of accurately measuring the game's walls, but even if they're higher than real walls of the era, so what? Having the walls portrayed higher makes a game fiction? Are you serious? You're just grasping at straws here. By this logic, all TW games are fantasy because we have giants walking on the campaign map. That's a really stupid argument.

Just because you're jumping through bunch of logic jumps here

Like what?

doesn't mean nobody introduced successful examples.

Actually, nobody has.

Then you accuse people of not understanding what fictional elements mean which is quite ironic.

Dude, you're trying to convince us that a game based on a fantasy novel is a historical title and on top of that that it's more historical than a game which is actually based on historical evidence. And you don't even realize how laughable this argument sounds. Oh yeah, keep telling us about stupidity and irony. And saying that someone doesn't seem to understand something is not an accusation, but whatever.

You stressed magic couple of times. So, yeah, you did claim there will be magic in the game.

No, I never did. You're just slandering me here. In fact, I have already said that there will probably not be magic in this game in at least 3 different posts by now.

Otherwise, it was senseless to argue about how the game would be a fantasy game if it had magic.

Which part of "if" did you not understand? Don't you know what "if" means?

I never said that the game won't contain fictional elements.

And that pretty much concludes the discussion. If it has fictional elements (this means totally made up stuff) in its core narrative and design then it's by definition not a historical TW game, so CA is lying to us. Case closed.

My entire premise is that all Total War games to date had such elements. So, asking me about where in the trailer it says that it's not going to be based on fictional elements is a silly question.

And again, no, RTW doesn't have fiction in it. You're just wrong about this. You keep throwing historical inaccuracies at me which you just label as fiction, but which clearly aren't. And even if all TW games had fiction in them, so what? Because CA has already been lying to us in the past, does this magically give them a free pass to continue lying to us? This doesn't make sense.

[Ngazi]

Wow that post was long. Dude it's just a trailer (others have already explained much about what this means) and TW games are not scripted, so you don't need to be so worried about everything that happens in a novel. You wrote all of that about units and we barely see any units in the trailer.

You give CA way too much credit, and I'm not talking about past games. I think you will find the new game much more empty than you are imagining. Most of the stuff argued over in this thread will simply not be in the game especially without DLC.

Like you obviously have experience with Total War games. Just ask yourself do you see much of a Total War game in the trailer? No it's just a trailer.

[Intranetusa]

No, they aren't fiction, they are historical reality.

No, they are not historical reality. Your quotes further support what I said about how these units as portrayed in RTW are inaccurate or straight up fictional.
Your first quote clearly suggests the screaming women were not actually a fighting unit - they were at camp and picked up weapons to defend themselves when their camp was attacked by the Romans. To suggest they were used on the battlefield as some sort of standard fighting unit is totally incorrect.

Furthermore, your head hunter quote proves the head hurlers in RTW are COMPLETE fiction. Head hunters are not head hurlers. There is a huge difference between "hunting for heads" and "throwing heads at your enemies." The Mesoamericans had head hunters too but they didn't throw heads at their enemies like grenades.
Your quote clearly implies hunted heads were valuable and used as some sort of commodity - so they obviously would not have been thrown at an enemy.

But to claim this unit is "straight up fiction" just shows ignorance on your part...

It shows rather poor reading comprehension on your part if you don't understand the difference between head hunting and keeping heads as a commodity VS throwing heads at your enemies like grenades.

Name one historical group of people that vanilla RTW has made into something completely unrelated to what they were in reality.

All of us have been doing that for quite some time already.
Urban Cohort are just firefighters and police officers, not elite units superior to Praetorians.
Arcani were spies and scouts - not battlefield units dual wielding swords and looking like ninjas.
Head hurlers are straight up fiction - some tribes did head hunt but nobody threw heads like grenades
Bull Warriors are straight up fiction - there is no evidence whatsoever in both name or nature that these units exist.
German berserkers didn't exist until the Viking era.
Egyptians are using old dynasty units off by 2000 years.

As NostalgiaFan mentioned below: RTW also has totally fictional units like Amazon warrior chariots and RTW BI has graal knights.

In case you don't know, Amazonian women are myths the Greeks made up after hearing stories about female Scythian warriors (Scythian female warriors are already in the game), and Graal knights are fictional units based on the King Arthur fantasy myths.

None of these units are remotely close to what they resembled in reality. These are all either totally inaccurate, extreme anachronism, or straight up fiction.

You're just slandering RTW here. Once again, there are no ninjas in vanilla RTW. The arcany are historical reality whether you like it or not, they are not fiction. If you insist on perceiving them as ninjas, that's your own issue, not the game's, which nowhere claims they were ninjas. The "elite" part has to do with gameplay, it's about unit stats. A unit's stats being wrong is a historical innaccuracy, it has nothing to do with fiction. You're just proving here that you're very negatively biased towards RTW and that you just don't understand what fiction is.

This shows ignorance on your part. The Arcani were just scouts and spies. They were not some elite fighting unit. And they certainly weren't dual wielding two swords while looking like ninjas as they are portrayed in RTW.

And I have a negative bias to RTW? That's funny. RTW is one of my favorite TW games and I've played RTW1 for thousands of hours since the game first came out. That's why I know how most of these units are fiction in the first place.

There is a reason why historical modifications for RTW like Europa Barbarorum and Rome Total Realism removes these fictional units.

Roman firefighters?! What the hell are you talking about? There are no firefighter units in vanilla RTW. That's more slander. Just stop it.

Again, this just shows incredible ignorance on your part. Urban Cohorts were Roman firefighters and policemen in reality. Did you really not know that?

That's just laughable. RTW is based on historical evidence. And it's generally WAY more historically accurate than the average person thinks, even with all its inaccuracies. TW:TK seems to be based on a fantasy novel. It's like making a "historical" game about the war of the roses and using game of thrones as the main source. It's just laughable to even consider. If you still can't see the difference, then you're just way too biased towards RTW and it's pointless to continue arguing about it.

1) Rome Total War is historical fiction. Some of it is historical while other parts of it is fictional. Besides the fictional, anachronistic, and historically inaccurate units we've all mentioned, the division of the Roman Republic & Empire into Julii, Brutii, and Scipii + Senate factions where each of them controls their own territory is fiction on the level of fictional battles in the Romance-TK novel. Rome had powerful families but Roman territories were NEVER divided up into separate factions ruled by each family like that.

2) Romance of the Three Kingdoms is not a fantasy novel. The writer based it off the actual historical Records of the Three Kingdoms. The novel itself can be considered historical ficiton where it's mostly based in history but with fictional additions and dramatic exaggerations. The same goes for most works about Julius Caesar today. Most of the TV shows and movies about Julius Caesar contains heavily fictionalized stuff made up by Shakespeare.


3) We have no idea what TW:TK is going to be based on. Just because it has some parts from the ROTK novel doesn't mean it will be fantasy. And even if they base if off of the ROTK novel, it's still going to be historical fictional like RTW because the fictional stuff are still plausible
That's pure double standards. Everything you describe here can pretty much be summed up as anachronism. You can't have your cake and eat it too, meaning you can't have anachronism be historically plausible in TW:TK but fiction in RTW. One anachronism being older than the other doesn't make it fiction either. For you anachronism is either historically plausible or fiction, but you can't have it both ways and go to the way that benefits your claim each time, it doesn't work this way. In reality, anachronism is historical inaccuracy, regardless of the form. And as I am a fair and just person, I say that anachronism in TW:TK is a historical inaccuracy there as well, no double standards from me. We have evidence that this is going to be a historical fiction title, but anachronism is not part of the evidence.

That's pure double standards. Everything you describe here can pretty much be summed up as anachronism. You can't have your cake and eat it too, meaning you can't have anachronism be historically plausible in TW:TK but fiction in RTW. One anachronism being older than the other doesn't make it fiction either. ..

You're the one with the double standard here since you claim TW 3K is fictional while RTW1 is historically accurate.
I'm the one with the consistent standards since I'm saying they ALL have some fictional elements. Both RTW and 3K are historical fiction. My point about anachronism was simply arguing for the other side to show they're all fictional to some degree. Anachronism is still fiction.
Otherwise we can claim Roman legions with tanks and machine guns is "not fiction" but rather just anachronism.

For you anachronism is either historically plausible or fiction, but you can't have it both ways and go to the way that benefits your claim each time, it doesn't work this way. ..In reality, anachronism is historical inaccuracy, regardless of the form. ..

You should really apply that same logic to your own claim that RTW has no fiction while 3K is fiction. RTW, 3K are both going to be historical fiction. Almost every TW game has been historical fiction.

No, it isn't. Liu Bei, Guan Yu and Zhang Fei were not active in the campaign against Dong Zhuo. Instead, they were fighting remnants of the Yellow Turban rebels in the north and thus did not duel with Lü Bu, who, historically, was defeated by Sun Jian in battle..

And the Romans did not divide their territories into 4 factions ruled by the Senate and 3 powerful families as portrayed in RTW1. Why do you think Rome 2 got rid of that silly division? The Roman families were powerful but they were never independent warlords as portrayed in RTW1 - they did not carve out a third of the Roman territory to rule as their personal fiefdom.

An oath is not that far fetched, but the oath of the peach garden (as clearly portrayed in the trailer) is straight up fiction, as we have decisive evidence from the historical record that they didn't die the same year, so this event definitely has no place in a game that claims to be historical. If this event had really happened, after Guan Yu's assassination the other two would have commited suicide..

The fact they didn't commit suicide is really not a good argument there was no oath. They didn't commit suicide in the ROTK novel either and they died on separate dates. They could've simply delayed/made excuses/ignored the oath so they didn't have to immediately kill themselves.

[NostalgiaFan]

Oh and just to add on to Intranetusa's point, Rome TW had Amazon Warriors in northern Russia and King Arthur(with his equally fictional Graal knights) in Barbarian invasion. So to act like it had no fictional elements is to be in denial.

[Frunk]

As a general rule, all members please refrain from using personal references. Respond to the other members arguments; not to their "personality traits". Thanks.

[SinisterOmen]

I disagree on that siege mechanic part. In comparison to previous titles, it actually works unlike many other siege mechanics in TW franchise. Of course its not perfect, but the gameplay wise it runs pretty smooth. Also the AI is now able to pose a threat in attacking your walled cities.The AI does not do siege battles well, but despite being stupid it infact ATTACKS and tries to win, which is in itself a huge improvment.

The pace is too fast, but gladly there is Steel Faith to sort that out. Also the custom settlements (even siege maps) work in campaign and modders have made some fantastic job with them.

Yeah that's true. Although the mechanic it's pretty dumbed down, now it actually works. But it feels like going one step forward and then one step backwards again.
They really need to figure out a way of making the AI more competent.

I have the feeling that the combat pace goes faster and faster with every new title. I wish they knocked down the pace like 3 notches, not going to the extremes of Medieval 2, but something slower so the player can enjoy the battle more while fighting.

[Dumanthis]

Yeah that's true. Although the mechanic it's pretty dumbed down, now it actually works. But it feels like going one step forward and then one step backwards again.
They really need to figure out a way of making the AI more competent.

I have the feeling that the combat pace goes faster and faster with every new title. I wish they knocked down the pace like 3 notches, not going to the extremes of Medieval 2, but something slower so the player can enjoy the battle more while fighting.

The speeding up of the game is certainly a way to make it harder, while it being slower makes it harder for the AI to compete, eventhough it can play decently with flanks and monsters it is not a master mind that can outsmart human player equally. I think it must be in fact, really hard to make an AI for a wargame like this to match human decision making. The game is not exactly like Starcraft either.

But I think that gameplay has to come first, and with Warhammer CA has shown that unlike many previous games, they wanted to make a change to dead-on-arrival sieges and such, which is very welcome. I think Warhammer is at the moment, and with the expansions to come, perhaps the best total war game as a whole made so far.

[Sir. Cunningham]

It's a definite pass for me. I have no interest in ancient Chinese wars what so ever.

I'll check back in with TW once they announce another gunpowder title, until then farewell CA.

[Intranetusa]

It's a definite pass for me. I have no interest in ancient Chinese wars what so ever.

I'll check back in with TW once they announce another gunpowder title, until then farewell CA.

The next title is pike and shot gunpowder warfare in medieval China, Ming Dynasty.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Here is a cool battle scene from the Chinese film Last Supper. It depicts the Battle of Gaixia between Han Xin and Xiang Yu. The armour is actually pretty accurate too.

[JackDionne]

Here is a cool battle scene from the Chinese film Last Supper. It depicts the Battle of Gaixia between Han Xin and Xiang Yu. The armour is actually pretty accurate too.

Thanks for posting that. I am just wondering about that huge two handed sword, is that a anti-cavalry sword?

[Intranetusa]

Here is a cool battle scene from the Chinese film Last Supper. It depicts the Battle of Gaixia between Han Xin and Xiang Yu. The armour is actually pretty accurate too.

Great clip of the Chu-Han War. The weapons and armor and tactics are decently represented (everybody needs more crossbows as always). It's refreshing to see a movie that doesn't involve 1 hero fighting a hundred enemies at a time. Hopefully stuff like this should find its way into the 3K era too.

Is there an actual battle scene in this movie? The clip seems to be about an army mopping up straggling opponents/general's last stand after their army was routed.