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

[Nebaki]

I don´t like it - looks more shorter then Thrones of Britannia which is like an Standalone of Standalone (RomeII/Atilla/ToB) - Still waiting for MTW3 or ETW2 and even would welcome an new Shogun III but not this Short things or even Fantasy Hype-Train.

[Lionheart11]

Still the same pathetic unit size which is hardly epic, somehow we have gone back in time and instead of controlling thousands we control hundreds, that's ruins emersion. Is every new game from CA a Attila skin job with 1 or two new features?, we need a game changer, like a whole new game lol. Warscape engine the only engine in computing history to last 20 years?. I can see all the windows XP dinosaur fans coming out in defence.

stop being scrooge CA, spend some ing money out of those dusty pockets and make a new ing engine already.

[druchii7]

That doesn't really explain to me why it makes it worst which indicates comparison. The points you make, while debatable, have always been true for pretty much all Total War titles.

Asuming that hardcore history players want history simulation an progression towards the best simulation experience ever, this is the first game to get away from that tendency to realism that every new game used to bring. Only a miracle would turn that game into an interesting product for those of us that prioritice realism, historical fidelity and immersive simulation experience.

They seem to have changed direction/objectives for the first time and it's disappointing to the big fractions of the old fans that want realism

[Eien]

It always tickles me silly when people expects 'realism' from a Total War game.

[nuclearaddict]

Whoa, didn't know they announced this back in January. I've taken a hiatus from the series since Rome 2 came out and only just heard of Three Kingdoms the other day. Sounds like a lot of fun, I'm glad to see China finally getting the spotlight. We've only been asking for that since, what, the year 2000?

[Chris P. Bacon]

Jesus christ reading the last few pages of posts is depressing, no wonder nobody comes to TWC anymore its like reading Youtube comments. And I'm still excited for the game, the video could have been better but I won't judge until I see more. Hopefully they give as much attention to the classic mode as they do to the Romance one.

[zoner16]

Whoa, didn't know they announced this back in January. I've taken a hiatus from the series since Rome 2 came out and only just heard of Three Kingdoms the other day. Sounds like a lot of fun, I'm glad to see China finally getting the spotlight. We've only been asking for that since, what, the year 2000?

Back when I played my first Rome 1 campaign, I remember thinking, "You know what would be even better? This but with the Romance!"

My tastes have changed, so I'm not as fond of Rome 1 or the Romance anymore, but I've still wanted a Three Kingdoms Total War to be the next one basically every time a new Total War game out.

[eXistenZ]

That doesn't really explain to me why it makes it worst which indicates comparison. The points you make, while debatable, have always been true for pretty much all Total War titles.

Comparison is always something bound to person, but for me, this trailer set off more red flags than anything else, compared to previous TW gameplay trailers (cant speak for the WH games)

I dont see what is debatable about horses cutting throught spearmen from the front. In every historical game that was the best guarantee to get your cavalry to rout. I dont mind some liberties in games for the gameplay, but this is just "anything goes" for the sake of entertainment and not even trying to be historical.

In march theycalled this their "next major historical release". Well it clearly isnt. Rather than keep playing us for fools, CA should rip the bandaid off and say: "we dont make historical titles anymore, goodbye". Rather than having those poor attempts at it like they did with ToB and ED. Either do something with full commitment, or dont do it

[Daruwind]

But this is clearly E3 not playable preview. Point is, all stats are subject to balancing. Horse vs infantry, scaling walls, siege dmg to wall segments, unit mass vs physics even if all horses jump into melee. If all these are in finished game then it is a problem. Right now it is nothing more then showcase for public. Buton other side, CA probably ist rying not to replicate very awesome Carthage trailer leading into R2 .... 3K will probably get only better from this point onward

[perifanosEllinas]

I dont see what is debatable about horses cutting throught spearmen from the front. In every historical game that was the best guarantee to get your cavalry to rout. I dont mind some liberties in games for the gameplay, but this is just "anything goes" for the sake of entertainment and not even trying to be historical.

The cavalry charges into halberdiers in the video, not spearmen. It was the narrator's mistake to call them spearmen.

[JPrice94]

I ing hate the new game play trailer. I'm not buying this title. What the happened CA

[druchii7]

Maybe CA should be countering the criticism with juicy news about the classic campaign. The key is does it feature good enough new elements and they're not ready to show? Or more likely there isn't much of interest in classic mode to change our minds?

[PointOfViewGun]

Asuming that hardcore history players want history simulation an progression towards the best simulation experience ever, this is the first game to get away from that tendency to realism that every new game used to bring. Only a miracle would turn that game into an interesting product for those of us that prioritice realism, historical fidelity and immersive simulation experience.

They seem to have changed direction/objectives for the first time and it's disappointing to the big fractions of the old fans that want realism

We haven't exactly seen much but so far there is nothing that suggests that the game will not be as historical as most, if not all, Total War games. What exactly makes what we see in this trailer tell us that they're taking a new direction?

Comparison is always something bound to person, but for me, this trailer set off more red flags than anything else, compared to previous TW gameplay trailers (cant speak for the WH games)

I dont see what is debatable about horses cutting throught spearmen from the front. In every historical game that was the best guarantee to get your cavalry to rout. I dont mind some liberties in games for the gameplay, but this is just "anything goes" for the sake of entertainment and not even trying to be historical.

In march theycalled this their "next major historical release". Well it clearly isnt. Rather than keep playing us for fools, CA should rip the bandaid off and say: "we dont make historical titles anymore, goodbye". Rather than having those poor attempts at it like they did with ToB and ED. Either do something with full commitment, or dont do it

What we're discussing here is not subjective. It's an objective matter whether walls crumble to dust or not. They always have in all Total War games. As it was already pointed out, the horses run into halberdiers, and the attacked unit is not even in formation. Any cavalry would run that down like butter, especially heavy cavalry.

It clearly is the next major historical release. Fortunately, they can continue making such games and not give into such baseless criticism.

[perifanosEllinas]

We haven't exactly seen much but so far there is nothing that suggests that the game will not be as historical as most, if not all, Total War games.

How about CA officially confirming that it's primarily based on the fantasy novel "romance of the three kingdoms"? No other historical TW game has ever been primarily derived from a fantasy novel.

How about having a "romanticised" mode (which is basically a fictional/fantasy version) as the default campaign?

How about making the historical mode optional instead of the default one?

How about the fact they're advertising their fictional/fantasy version like crazy so far while completely ignoring the classic mode (which is pretty much just an afterthought in their notes)?

How about their trailers which clearly show fictional events from the fantasy novel?

What exactly makes what we see in this trailer tell us that they're taking a new direction?

What doesn't? Everything is different, from the floating character icons and the duels to unit recruitment and the character tied formations. Even the unit stats are different.

It clearly is the next major historical release.

No, it clearly is a fictional/fantasy game and you clearly are in deep denial about it.

[druchii7]

We haven't exactly seen much but so far there is nothing that suggests that the game will not be as historical as most, if not all, Total War games. What exactly makes what we see in this trailer tell us that they're taking a new direction?

First games were terribly unrealistic but for the standards of that time it was just ok. For example compare rome and rome 2. The units, and mechanics have clearly evolved. After the first cinematic trailer always come the gameplay trailers and dev diaries and the main new features are generally shown then. But this time is different, there's no realism evolution/improvement announced in the features nor in the video. It's all about romantic version.

The early state 3K gameplay feels much less realistic than, for example, ToB early gameplay which featured realistic shield walls and the dev diaries spoke about the much more detailed map and reworked minor settlements. That's a clear intention to try to make campaign dynamics go further. And there always was in previous titles.

However I find nothing in that direction in gameplay nor in dev diaries. Graphics are unfinished and I won't complain about it (I want realistic art but I am personally not too demanding on graphics, I prefer the best mechanics rather than beautiful graphics), but at this stage most of the new features should be more or less implemented (adding new playable features last 9-6 months is a bug suicide and don't forget that the game was going to be released in 2018 third quarter and a few days ago they announced the delay, so I assume they just have an almost finished product and need a bit more time for late development such as debug, translation, etc).

If the game is going to feature anything interesting on the classic mode appart from the new characters roster building (which isn't anything that improves realism and not much interesting to me as it ads more roleplay value than realism or immersion to me), it must be something very uninteresting as there's no mention in any of the released information, videos, etc.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/to.../1100-6385190/

See the difference? That was the first announcement of R2TW and they talk about new playable features all the time: biggest campaign map, amphibious battles, better cinematic experience when zooming in, bigger amount of troops in battle... not all new features were there, of course. But the general focus was totally clear: improve realism, new mechanics. And if it wasn't because of the ton of bugs, it would have been a welcome new game for most people (or at least a decent one).

But with 3k the focus is anywhere but in realism mecanics or in realistic historical experience. The focus is on the development of romantic features which aren't what many of us want at all. Personally I like TW in Asia, but not a China only TW (as that period was a Chinese war and they hardly could suit any other faction in that background). So lack of faction variety, which is bad news to me (one of the drawbacks that shogun 2 had).

Unit uniforms and animations look quite cartoonish... It's ok to see colourful palette, but not that much. It's China, not Pandaria. In addition in that period many of the armies were simply enormous, and the battle features less troop than in an average R2TW battle, another bad sign, as bigger units look better and are more realistic and are often demanded game after game.

It's early to condemn the game, but there are too many bad signs to ignore them and "precomplaint". Maybe they take our complaints into account for future expansions of the game, as far as it's probably too late to change any important aspect from the game, specially when those aspects are to be implemented at the very initial stage of game development.

I personally don't care that much where the game is settled. Rome? good, Japan? good, China? good. But if the mechanics don't evolve towards realism and historical immersion, don't count on me.

[ptoss1]

I'm disappointed by the gameplay reveal, not because of the animations or most of the nonsense people are complaining about, but the fact that the battle was nothing like how it historically or ROMANTICALLY happened. The flooding isn't apparent on the battle map at all and Liu Bei is completely missing. It's like they didn't bother to consult either the history or the romance version of events.

[Eien]

but the fact that the battle was nothing like how it historically or ROMANTICALLY happened. The flooding isn't apparent on the battle map at all and Liu Bei is completely missing. It's like they didn't bother to consult either the history or the romance version of events.

Speaking of which, I'm wondering about that too. I do hope that they make certain key battles akin to quest battles so that the scene either historically or romantically can be re-enacted.

[zoner16]

Speaking of which, I'm wondering about that too. I do hope that they make certain key battles akin to quest battles so that the scene either historically or romantically can be re-enacted.

I'd rather not be railroaded into particular battles during campaign. They already confirmed that quests aren't a thing, so I don't think this will happen.

Just put them under the historical battles mode like normal.

[Sir Sesshaku]

Yes, that's likely. However, we're judging what we're actually seeing, not what we hope we're seeing. At least I do. So I'm judging what the video actually shows us, which is the wall going down after only one hit.

Although I agree on that in terms of gameplay mechanics, I wouldn't with the OP trebuchets thing, basically because there's not a single TW that haver artillery breaking the walls in just one shot. It's never more than 6-15 shots either. Also it's clearly a very edited video. So again, I wouldn't worry about OP artillery, in the sense that I doubt they're gonna change it from the current standard.

I know Paradox fans will freak out and probably chase me with torches to burn me alive for what I'm about to say, but Paradox games are pointless to me, because they have no real time realistic battles of massive scale, which is what really made me fall in love with TW in the first place.

Not at all mate, Paradox lack tactical battles, and frankly, I don't know why, the engine of the new roman empire game clearly shows they already are big enough to try them, but whatever. What I like about those is that the campaign is so much more interesting than the TW one. Diplomacy and war mechanics works far more better. But not all is gold though, they have a TERRIBLE dlc policy.

Thanks for the other one though, looks interesting. I'll keep an eye on it. It's about time TW has some serious competition, the franchise has grown complacent and lazy.

The game is made by a new indie studio, but it has interesting people working on it. It will feature battles and campaign. It will basically be a more optimized and useful version of The Seven Years War. I don't think they will compete with Total War just yet. However, if they succeed on this one, and then another one...then may be we'll get what we want.

[eXistenZ]

We haven't exactly seen much but so far there is nothing that suggests that the game will not be as historical as most, if not all, Total War games. What exactly makes what we see in this trailer tell us that they're taking a new direction?




What we're discussing here is not subjective. It's an objective matter whether walls crumble to dust or not. They always have in all Total War games. As it was already pointed out, the horses run into halberdiers, and the attacked unit is not even in formation. Any cavalry would run that down like butter, especially heavy cavalry.

It clearly is the next major historical release. Fortunately, they can continue making such games and not give into such baseless criticism.

perifanosEllinas .


worded it perfectly, and I can only agree. You're in deep denial and ignorant of the numerous red flags. It amazes me how the same brain calls it baseless criticism, but apparently doesnt notice that nothing in the video is close to historical


If you think 3K is gonna be anything historical, I can tell you to save your money, because it isnt going to be, even though that is what CA says.