Quote Originally Posted by Huberto View Post
All true except 3k was supposed to be a historical title - that’s how it was marketed for years while we sat thru Snorehammer 1 and 2. As far as “innovations” go I liked the horde mechanic for Attila but face it, TW battles are virtually the same as RTW - 14 years later! And all the streamlining too.
It's an historical title. The setting is real, the factions are real, the people are real.
But it's like if they make a Bronze Age or Troy Total War. You would go the realistic approach or the homeric approach?
Here CA gonna do both. And I think that it's cool.

Quote Originally Posted by Destraex View Post
Well. For the first 5 or so titles they improved in leaps and bounds and were games for history lovers. The direction was very clear, they were trying to do history better and we all loved it.
That CA marketing guy always gets my goat. I don't know, he just seems arrogant and when things like what I mentioned come out of his mouth they sound 10 times as bad.

What innovations or improvements have you seen lately to the tactical battlefield in a total war game apart from graphics and more troops? We have a worse engine for tactical battles and all the same re-enforcement limitations and set piece map dimension limitations as well as better sieges and siege pathfinding for more complex fortresses and fortress customisation wall by wall. This plus another zoomed out tactical layer to control ambushes properly over large distances etc... there are a tonne of things I could suggest. But if you play rome 1. It has not changed much... in fact the formations and interface are probably more designed to make sure you cannot control your troops in order to force the AI to work.

I would not complain if the historical team gave us the historical game we have been waiting for after we waited out the warhammer scourge.

What was the first total war game you played? Total War does not have to be everything to everybody. It just needs to keep fantasy with the fantasy team. Improve on the historical experience for the historical games. Everybody is then happy.
The thing that improving the first Total War games was... different. Particularly the jump from 2D to 3D and the change from Risk board to the current map.
Those are big and very noticeable changes.
But beside those big changes, they are always make changes to the formula. Not always they hit the spot. But they're doing it.
Maybe not very much in the tactical aspect, that's true. But still, they changed things, like the matched combat.

And regarding maintaining the fantasy and reality apart, well, sometimes it's just hard to do. Like here with the historical and Romance of 3K. Or an hypothetical Bronze Age o Troy TW, like I said above. And to be honest, I like when they spice the historical things with a bit of fantasy.
The Sunset Invasion of CK2 comes to my mind.


About my Total War history, I started with Shogun and played a bit of Medieval. But to be honest I didn't play that much. Not a fan of the risk style board.
When I fell in love with the games was with Rome 1. I still love and occasionally play it until today.
Played Medieval 2, but I liked Rome more. I skipped Empire and played Napoleon, but didn't really clicked with me.
Then I played Rome 2, Attila and Warhammer. But I waited until Rome 2 was in good shape, avoided like hell the disastrous release.