Originally Posted by
Destraex
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.