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

[PikeStance]

I like to provide information based on the context of what the post I respond to talk about and address them accordingly. ESRB does indeed have a power over games published in the USA, and CA or Sega would be unable to show a rating of T while having the Blood DLC part of their main game without risking an IP lawsuit. Hence, retailers would indeed have a problem with selling an unrated game contrary to what you suggested earlier. I'm glad this was educative for you.

What lawsuit?
SEGA does not determine the rating, the ESRB does. In the US there isn't a law that prohibits the selling of the games to anyone.
From ESRB's website

Is it illegal to sell or rent M (Mature) or AO (Adults Only) rated games to customers under 17 and 18 years of age respectively?


A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 found that video games are a constitutionally-protected form of expression, and that laws restricting their sale or rental based upon violent content are unconstitutional. That said, ESRB supports retailers' voluntary policies restricting the sale or rental of M (Mature) and AO (Adults Only) computer and video games in the United States and Canada to customers who are at least 17 and 18 years of age, respectively (unless permission from a parent has been obtained). Through efforts such as the ESRB Retail Council (ERC) and a strong commitment on the part of major video game retailers, retail stores have vastly improved the rate at which they comply with their store policies, as measured both by the ERC mystery shopper audits as well as audits conducted by the FTC. More information on federal, state and local regulations in the U.S. is available through the websites of the Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) and Entertainment Software Association (ESA). In Canada, you may contact the Entertainment Software Association of Canada (ESA Canada) or the Retail Council of Canada (RCC).

What I said that retailers would not have a problem with unrated games. They still would not. However, ESRB rates all games, making the entire point moot. Moreover, my original comment dealt with the difference with the FCC which has legal authority to restrict content over the airwaves, but noneoutside of that area. Moreover, the ESRB is not a government agency and therefore cannot enforrce compliance as per USSC decision.

[AHumpierRogue]

I don't know why you guys are still arguing about this, I am telling you as long as they made the blood content a separate download that you had to access separately it would be fine. The reality is CA and SEGA sells us blood because they can get away with it.

[PointOfViewGun]

What lawsuit?
SEGA does not determine the rating, the ESRB does. In the US there isn't a law that prohibits the selling of the games to anyone.
From ESRB's website
What I said that retailers would not have a problem with unrated games. They still would not. However, ESRB rates all games, making the entire point moot. Moreover, my original comment dealt with the difference with the FCC which has legal authority to restrict content over the airwaves, but noneoutside of that area. Moreover, the ESRB is not a government agency and therefore cannot enforrce compliance as per USSC decision.

Sigh... At this point I have to assume that you're reading my posts deliberately falsely to keep on arguing and avoiding admitting the failure of your claims. To respond again I would have to repeat what I said in my previous posts. So, good luck...

I don't know why you guys are still arguing about this, I am telling you as long as they made the blood content a separate download that you had to access separately it would be fine. The reality is CA and SEGA sells us blood because they can get away with it.

Perhaps because you're providing no substance to support why that would be the case.

[PikeStance]

Sigh... At this point I have to assume that you're reading my posts deliberately falsely to keep on arguing and avoiding admitting the failure of your claims. To respond again I would have to repeat what I said in my previous posts. So, good luck...

First, you should strive to a higher level of discourse. For example;

Perhaps because you're providing no substance to support why that would be the case.

This is unnecessarily combative.

Second, let us take a stroll down memory lane...

How did Darren debunk it? What I say is based on the same fact that just because you pay you can watch explicit content on video streaming services. Paid services don't have censoring, non-paid ones do. Even the non-paid services that live off advertising income has to censor. There is absolutely no logic or sense in how they could somehow do it if it was a separate download. The same would have been used by video streaming services as well. I already addressed why they won't charge a cent for it. An other member who wanted it to be free also argued how much the Blood DLC added to the game. Clearly, the value for that package is not one cent. They are selling you blood because they don't want the game to have a +18 rating and they make it cost 3$ because they spent resources on it and you find it valuable.

90% of this is false. Censoring has nothing to do with "paid" vs non-paid services. I do not know exactly what you mean by paid vs non-paid though. I assume you mean free airwaves which come under the FCC regulations. Now, they do have to have advertising, but advertisers choose which shows to sponsor and not sponsor. However, this is not even relevant, because advertising has no control over violent content or nudity. The FCC regulates that.

The 10% that is correct is bold for you.

Now getting back to the above point you wrote this

You do realize Total War is not sold only in USA? Yet, even in USA, you don't really need a legal regulatory system. Yes, ratings in USA are voluntary but there are various conditions. Many game shops will not sell unrated games. Many, if not all, retailers only stock games that have a ESRB rating. There is a good possibility that your game with gore will have a +17 rating (is it +18 or +17) which will likely stop many moms (likely not the dads though) from buying the game.

Here, you bring up the same point that I never addressed.

Total War games historically go for a Teen rating but the Blood DLC is rated at Mature rating. Basically, if they keep the gore from the Blood DLC in the original game the game in its entirety will get an M rating. CA or SEGA can not simply put a T rating if they wish so.

Last point;

There might be an IP lawsuit somewhere there. If they accept the M rating then that can translate to many parents passing the game for their children between the ages of 13 and 17. If they go for an unrated game launch then that means many retailers in the USA will not stock the game or even sell it. So, maybe there is no government regulatory system for games in USA but there is a non-profit organizational regulatory system that vast majority of the market caters to.

The two bold statements are 100% wrong. It violates the US Constitution to prohibit the sale of a product by age. In this post here, you stated

I did not say it as a point of legality. It's a matter of store policy not to stock unrated games according to ESRB. GameSpot stores, for example, do enforce the ESRB rating system. The legality point was made about CA or SEGA giving their games T rating by themselves which would violate ESRB's intellectual property.

You claimed here you never mentioned legality. but you mentioned (bold) that "there might be an IP lawsuit somewhere."

Stores can seel any publish a game they wish. The law allows them to do so. You are wrong to suggest otherwise.

Bottom line, there is a huge difference between a retailer choosing to sell a game and a store being legally obligated to follow a voluntary rating service. The entire rating system is voluntary. It works because it is what the community wants and businesses want a good relationship with their community.

Now, if I am missing something here then the onus is on you to correct my misunderstanding. I do not get the point of pretending to not understand unless you think I enjoy wasting my time.

[PointOfViewGun]

First, you should strive to a higher level of discourse. For example;
This is unnecessarily combative.
Second, let us take a stroll down memory lane...
90% of this is false. Censoring has nothing to do with "paid" vs non-paid services. I do not know exactly what you mean by paid vs non-paid though. I assume you mean free airwaves which come under the FCC regulations. Now, they do have to have advertising, but advertisers choose which shows to sponsor and not sponsor. However, this is not even relevant, because advertising has no control over violent content or nudity. The FCC regulates that.
The 10% that is correct is bold for you.
Now getting back to the above point you wrote this
Here, you bring up the same point that I never addressed.
Last point;
The two bold statements are 100% wrong. It violates the US Constitution to prohibit the sale of a product by age. In this post here, you stated
You claimed here you never mentioned legality. but you mentioned (bold) that "there might be an IP lawsuit somewhere."
Stores can seel any publish a game they wish. The law allows them to do so. You are wrong to suggest otherwise.
Bottom line, there is a huge difference between a retailer choosing to sell a game and a store being legally obligated to follow a voluntary rating service. The entire rating system is voluntary. It works because it is what the community wants and businesses want a good relationship with their community.
Now, if I am missing something here then the onus is on you to correct my misunderstanding. I do not get the point of pretending to not understand unless you think I enjoy wasting my time.

Oh, wow... This is quite a lot to avoid admitting that you simply made false claims. You start with first throwing what you're doing onto me; unnecessarily combativeness, which is something I demonstrably tried to avoid while you banked on it...

Your trip down memory lane simply shows how falsely you're addressing what I wrote. The part you say is 90% false, the non-bold part, contains a question, an example on how paid and non-paid services like subscription based Netflix or Puhu (in Turkey) censor or not censor, a statement on how just because Blood DLC is a different package it could be given for free, a statement on how another argued that Blood DLC is valuable. Somehow those are all false. Of course, in your response instead of explaining what's false about them you admit that you do not understand the difference between paid vs non-paid services and talk about advertising as a tangent.

On the second lane of your memories, you quote two sections of one of my posts separately for some reason, and you claim that these were comments on a point you never addressed. In fact, they were part of a train of thought to explain to you how the ESRB rating had de facto power over video game sales.

Onto third lane, the IP lawsuit idea was explained to you multiple times. You seem to have ignored the explanation I have given you last time as well. So, there isn't much more I can say on that. Good luck basing your position on ignoring what's been said to you. The second part, is based on the ESRB rating website that you yourself used earlier without any problems. The SCOTUS, however, ruled over selling +18 video games to minors, not on how retail joints pick and choose which games they could sell, just like a bookstore can get to pick and choose which books they sell. It's completely legal for Best Buy to not stock a game that has no rating.

On the third lane, you're jumbling up two completely different issues as one to create a arguable position there. My comments on stores picking and choosing which games they will sell has nothing to do with the hypothetical case of the IP lawsuit.

All in all, this was an exercise in your attempts to cherry pick statements from multiple posts to avoid acknowledging that you made false statements. This was certainly a waste of time that you could have avoided wasting if you could simply read my posts carefully. The ironic part is that you do agree with my main assertion which is the bold part you deemed to be correct as being the 10% of my post.

[PikeStance]

Oh, wow... This is quite a lot to avoid admitting that you simply made false claims. You start with first throwing what you're doing onto me; unnecessarily combativeness, which is something I demonstrably tried to avoid while you banked on it...

What false claim did I make?

Your trip down memory lane simply shows how falsely you're addressing what I wrote. The part you say is 90% false, the non-bold part, contains a question, an example on how paid and non-paid services like subscription based Netflix or Puhu (in Turkey) censor or not censor, a statement on how just because Blood DLC is a different package it could be given for free, a statement on how another argued that Blood DLC is valuable. Somehow those are all false. Of course, in your response instead of explaining what's false about them you admit that you do not understand the difference between paid vs non-paid services and talk about advertising as a tangent.

I already explained to you non-airwaves mediums are not subject to regulations. Perhaps in Turkey, there is no differentiation, but in the US, the airwaves are regulated by the FCC. Netflix could, in theory, provide their services free if they allow advertising. It isn't the model they chose. Netflix developed as competition for the video renting industry so it would be strange if they had chosen that route. Some providers (e.g. Hulu) do have advertising. However, they do require a small subscription fee.

On the second lane of your memories, you quote two sections of one of my posts separately for some reason, and you claim that these were comments on a point you never addressed. In fact, they were part of a train of thought to explain to you how the ESRB rating had de facto power over video game sales.

There isn't one point I made that disputed that CA charges for the blood DLC for profit reasons. I actually agree with you.

Onto third lane, the IP lawsuit idea was explained to you multiple times. You seem to have ignored the explanation I have given you last time as well. So, there isn't much more I can say on that. Good luck basing your position on ignoring what's been said to you. The second part, is based on the ESRB rating website that you yourself used earlier without any problems. The SCOTUS, however, ruled over selling +18 video games to minors, not on how retail joints pick and choose which games they could sell, just like a bookstore can get to pick and choose which books they sell. It's completely legal for Best Buy to not stock a game that has no rating.

You made a point if a retailer were to sell an unrated game that a lawsuit would be forthcoming.
It cannot be SEGA because they do not "rate" their content. It cannot be the retailers, because they cannot be sued for selling content. It cannot be the parents because there isn't any law that can prohibit the selling of games because of content. There isn't any possibility of a lawsuit anywhere.

On the third lane, you're jumbling up two completely different issues as one to create a arguable position there. My comments on stores picking and choosing which games they will sell has nothing to do with the hypothetical case of the IP lawsuit.

There isn't a hypertheoretical.

All in all, this was an exercise in your attempts to cherry pick statements from multiple posts to avoid acknowledging that you made false statements. This was certainly a waste of time that you could have avoided wasting if you could simply read my posts carefully. The ironic part is that you do agree with my main assertion which is the bold part you deemed to be correct as being the 10% of my post.

Dude, I only corrected your initial error of conflation a rating organization with the FCC. That was it.
Here is the post

Television is regulated by the FCC. The FCC is the one that enforces the rules. Cable, satellite and the internet does not fall under FCC regulations. HBO and other movie channels like it do follow the rating system. Anyway, it has absolutely nothing to do with advertising or money.

It was the response to this post that you mentioned the lawsuit nonsense.

[PointOfViewGun]

What false claim did I make?
I already explained to you non-airwaves mediums are not subject to regulations. Perhaps in Turkey, there is no differentiation, but in the US, the airwaves are regulated by the FCC. Netflix could, in theory, provide their services free if they allow advertising. It isn't the model they chose. Netflix developed as competition for the video renting industry so it would be strange if they had chosen that route. Some providers (e.g. Hulu) do have advertising. However, they do require a small subscription fee.
There isn't one point I made that disputed that CA charges for the blood DLC for profit reasons. I actually agree with you.
You made a point if a retailer were to sell an unrated game that a lawsuit would be forthcoming.
It cannot be SEGA because they do not "rate" their content. It cannot be the retailers, because they cannot be sued for selling content. It cannot be the parents because there isn't any law that can prohibit the selling of games because of content. There isn't any possibility of a lawsuit anywhere.
There isn't a hypertheoretical.
Dude, I only corrected your initial error of conflation a rating organization with the FCC. That was it.
Here is the post
It was the response to this post that you mentioned the lawsuit nonsense.

Sigh... Thanks for making it obvious once more that you're arguing for the sake of arguing. I will simply correct two of your direct statements about what I said and move on. I did not make a point that if a retailer were to sell an unrated game that a lawsuit would be forthcoming. The hypothetical IP lawsuit and a retailer choosing which game to sell were two distinctively separate issues. I also did not conflate ESRB with FCC. I made no such argument pointing at that. For the rest, I can only assume that you're deliberately diluting the issues (cherry-picking, ignoring responses, conflating different issues, altering what I argued, etc.) to remain arguing. Good luck with that.

[[N2]Kami]

As someone had said above. They sell us blood DLC because they can get away with it. Lots of games have blood and they still manage just fine.

[Anna_Gein]

The game look bad. I can hardly believe a AAA game with this kind of graphics can be released in 2019. Even the venerable Rome Total War (2004) had better animations. What happened ?

[PikeStance]

Sigh... Thanks for making it obvious once more that you're arguing for the sake of arguing. I will simply correct two of your direct statements about what I said and move on. I did not make a point that if a retailer were to sell an unrated game that a lawsuit would be forthcoming. The hypothetical IP lawsuit and a retailer choosing which game to sell were two distinctively separate issues. I also did not conflate ESRB with FCC. I made no such argument pointing at that. For the rest, I can only assume that you're deliberately diluting the issues (cherry-picking, ignoring responses, conflating different issues, altering what I argued, etc.) to remain arguing. Good luck with that.

Indeed!

It's kinda how TV shows can have swearing or nudity if you pay for the service like in Netflix, Hulu or HBO. Game of Thrones is Game of Thrones that is because you, well those that subscribe to HBO, pay for it. Otherwise, you wouldn't get swearing and nudity. Now, what if UK allows it but Germany doesn't? Should they charge in Germany and not in UK. People wouldn't like that either. So, all in all, 3$ is an acceptable compromise.

As I told you already, TV shows on regular networks must follow FCC regulations. It has nothing to do with paying for the service or not. Hulu, Netflix can have certain content prohibited by the FCC because they operate outside of the medium that the FCC regulates.

Your hypothetical was based on a false pretext.

I did not cherry pick, I pointed out where you were in error. Sorry, that offends you. I suggest you move on.

[PointOfViewGun]

Indeed!
As I told you already, TV shows on regular networks must follow FCC regulations. It has nothing to do with paying for the service or not. Hulu, Netflix can have certain content prohibited by the FCC because they operate outside of the medium that the FCC regulates.
Your hypothetical was based on a false pretext.
I did not cherry pick, I pointed out where you were in error. Sorry, that offends you. I suggest you move on.

Sigh... You're projecting your own failures on me... What you highlight there is not conflating. I merely gave an example of principle that I thought would help people understand. At no point did I suggest that they were identical. My hypothetical was not even related to FCC or video streaming services or swearing and nudity. You seem to be hellbent on keeping that distortion of my arguments in your pocket.

[PikeStance]

Sigh... You're projecting your own failures on me... What you highlight here is not conflating. I merely gave an example of a principle that I thought would help people understand. At no point did I suggest that they were identical. My hypothetical was not even related to FCC or video streaming services or swearing and nudity. You seem to be hellbent on keeping that distortion of my arguments in your pocket.

__________________________________________

Now back to the Three Kingdoms discussion shall we?

[zoner16]

Records Mode Gameplay and Battles AMA Summary:
Maps:

• Reinforcement directions in battle will correspond to the relative direction of the armies on the campaign map. (Why do people waste questions on the obvious?)
• "Slow Crossing" (I'm guessing ford) battles are in the game. However, other chokepoint battles are not.
• Some city maps have satellite districts that extend beyond the walls and "other features."
• Each building you build in a city will be visible and targetable in its battle map. City map size is still determined by city level.

Generals:

• Character models have more health than their respective bodyguard models.
• The general class changes how the general is arranged in their bodyguard formation. Commanders and strategists are in the middle of their bodygaurds, while the other three are at the front.
• Resolve will increase retinue size.
• Generals will only die if a certain percentage of their bodyguards are already dead.
• Generals won't have actionable abilities in Records mode. They will have passive abilities gained through the skill tree.
• Bodygaurd unit type is decided by class. You can't manually choose what kind of unit it is.
• Characters and bodyguards will always start a battle mounted. You can dismount them at any time (i.e. to man a wall) and remount them later.

Combat:

• Fatigue affects attack rate and movement speed, among other things.
• There are 8-10 different unit formations in the game. Most are unlocked through leveling up strategists and picking strategist skills. Others can be gained through ancillaries.

Units:

• There are no differences between the unit rosters of Records mode and Romance mode. The exception is Diaochan. She's Romance only.
• Armor upgrades will not visibly change unit models, just stats.
• You can't move unit cards around manually (i.e. drag and drop), but you can group unit cards.

Characters:

• Characters will die of old age in both modes. The life expectancy is higher in Romance mode. Chance of death greatly increases after 65.
• Your wife can become discontent and betray you.
• Family members who leave your faction will still be visible on the family tree.
• There's a chance that a randomly generated character will receive a "Legendary" distinction (indicated by a gold name), which increases their experience rate and reduces their chance to die.
• Each character will have six skills from their element, four from their supporting element, and one from their opposing element (the math for this doesn't check out). Additionally, there are also three skills dedicated to the general's active abilities in Romance, which are changed to have "bespoke powerful effects" in Records.

Han Empire:

• Taking the emperor makes you Prime Minister. The Prime Minister can annex Han Empire territory peacefully for a price.
• The Prime Minister will usually be viewed as a tyrant by the other factions, who will be more inclined to attack it.
• The Han Empire AI is supposed to be passive and focused on holding its own territory.
• Emperor Xian will abdicate if his prime minister reaches the required prestige, but also if any three other emperors are declared or if captured by a rival emperor (if his prime minister has low prestige).

Campaign:

• Destroying settlements (i.e. razing) is unique to Dong Zhuo's faction.
• Population growth is increased by buildings, administrators, or reforms. It's decreased by enemy armies, sieges, and famine.
• Attrition is entirely based around supplies. Environmental attrition no longer directly affects armies, but rather increases the rate they consume supplies.
• Some events are different in Records mode compared to Romance mode to remove definitely fictional elements. Additionally, Romance mode has some supernatural themed events (I'm guessing things like Zuo Ci and Gan Ji).

Settings:

• AI will get damage and defense bonuses on higher difficulties.
• Arrow trails can be turned off in the settings.
• They are looking into disabling character banter in battle.
• Confirmed Historical Battles are: Xiapi, Changban, and Chibi.

[Mantis42]

The reinforcement question probably stems from the Warhammer glitch.

[Daruwind]

We got new Blogpost about "what teams are working on Feb 2019"
https://www.totalwar.com/blog/what-t...TEz7nomFamDMgY

Sadly except small note about reworked autoresolver and adding a few more items from "wanted" list there is no new info...

Historical Team – THREE KINGDOMS



As you know, we’ve bought ourselves a little more time for THREE KINGDOMS by shifting the launch date to May 23rd, and it’s been gratifying to hear many of the responses from players who’d rather wait a little longer and get a more finely-honed game – because that’s absolutely the plan. Alongside the usual debugging and polishing business, we’re seeing what else we can fit in and there are definitely a few plum items on the list we’ve wanted to do, as well as a number that players are asking for. More on these as they bed in!


One little overhaul we haven’t talked about yet is the new autoresolver in THREE KINGDOMS. We’ve completely redesigned the system that calculates and displays the battle prediction in the pre-battle panel to be entirely deterministic. This means that when you choose to delegate a battle and you’re predicted, say, a pyrrhic victory, that’s exactly what you’ll get.

You can also get a capsule view of the balance of power simply by selecting your army and mousing over another. This works for both friendly and enemy armies, so you don’t need to declare war and burn up action points approaching and attacking an army to get optics on the outcome. As you can imagine, this all of this takes a lot of guesswork (not to mention a measure of save scumming) out of autoresolved battles.

一会儿见!
THREE KINGDOMS – New Content Team



With excellent progress having been made on the Yellow Turban Rebellion DLC (and help lent to the main Total War: THREE KINGDOMS team where possible following the release date move), the THREE KINGDOMS New Content Team has now set their sights on their next endeavour: further post-launch content.


We’ll be releasing more information about this in a dedicated blog post soon, so keep an eye out!

[zoner16]

Well I guess the answer is to bombard them with feature requests for the next few weeks and see if they rise to the top.

On another note, ooph that autoresolve. Romance heroes are worth a lot.

[PikeStance]

One thing I am finding difficult to understand is the inclusion of women "generals." Specifically the wives of certain leaders. I can not find any information about women leading armies during this period. Women definitely played a part in political intrigue.
It seems within the Romance women played a larger role, but historically they did so more indirectly. Going from fantasy to historical, you do not actually get historical "records." mods.

[zoner16]

One thing I am finding difficult to understand is the inclusion of women "generals." Specifically the wives of certain leaders. I can not find any information about women leading armies during this period. Women definitely played a part in political intrigue.
It seems within the Romance women played a larger role, but historically they did so more indirectly. Going from fantasy to historical, you do not actually get historical "records." mods.

There's a few instances of women fighting, but aside from some non Chinese examples (Ba Trieu, Zhiyuandao) none of them were leading armies.

Of course, some of this comes from the Romance, but I think there's another aspect which comes from the limits of Total War's systems. If you want a character to be important and memorable, you have to regularly interact with them. In Total War, that means they have to be able to fight. Otherwise, they usually just end up as window dressing, since there's very little interactivity in most of the other activities characters can engage in. CA really want the female characters to be important, so they're pushing the woman warrior angle, which, to be fair, isn't anything new as far as popular portrayals of the era go, which explains why a lot of the Chinese audience (on Teiba at least) seems fairly ambivalent about it.

I guess the issue I have is how incessant it is. It's not just warlords' wives and clan matriarchs. There's generic women generals absolutely everywhere on the streams. Sure, it was an age of chaos and some rather radical philosophies began circulating around during it, but going from state Confucianism to full gender equality in the space of a couple years is rather ridiculous. Yes, it's a sandbox where we make our own history, but it's important that exceptions to the rule of the era feel as such. It's why I felt Rome 2's system worked in principle (the numbers could use tweaking). It's really damaging to the immersion when every other enemy retinue is led by (from what I can tell) some random peasant woman. It also makes it a lot less special to actually have an army under more meaningful picks like Sun Ren or Lady Wu, and Wang Yi's story stops being so heroic when taking up arms against Ma Chao no longer makes her any different than any other woman in China. It basically makes all the extraordinary women of the age ordinary.

Mods will fix it to some extent, but I really wish there was just a slider to toggle the spawn rate to whatever your tolerance level was. It seems like the best way to make the most people happy in a way that barely impacts gameplay and doesn't seem like a huge amount of work. Something to ask the devs since they're in "feed the crowd" mode with their remaining time.

[PikeStance]

As in Rome II, it can and has been modded. There are other ways to interact with the characters other than appointing them "generals." Women intrigue should be part of the game. It is history. I guess it illustrates that CA is really just developing the fantasy mode and the historical mode is an afterthought.

[Seether]

The announcement of the “footnote of a footnote” Zheng Jiang as a “legendary warlord,” and CA’s defense of such, should’ve been the first indicator that CA was going to continue their agenda that began in Rome II. I called it back in December.