About the Total War Player

[Incendio]

Which kind of people play Total War games? Are they familiar with military history? Before I purchased Empire Total War I had already read two books covering naval warfare in 17th century and 18th century (Four Days Battle of 1666 and Trafalgar campaign of 1805). Before purchasing Napoleon Total War, I had already seen some documentaries about Waterloo, Austerlitz, Borodino and read some articles about Nile Battle and a book of Napoleonic Wars. I admit that I have Shogun 2 but still I have to read some books about the period.

In other strategy games/tactical simulators I know about people with very good knowledge of the military period of the game, just as an example, in Scourge of War Waterloo there are players with outstanding knowledge of Napoleonic Warfare, even some of them knows every single detail of Waterloo battle. Regarding the naval tactical/strategy simulators "Jutland" and "Distant Guns" there are players with good knowledge about the naval warfare of the period, I read some stuff of naval warfare in Russo-Japanese war.

Do you think Total War players, at least those who play historical titles, have a good knowledge of the military history of the periods they are playing?

[Daruwind]

I´m scientist but with,I would say good knowledge about history, warfare and geopolitical, economical connections. It started long time ago with Age of Empires. I was reading wikipedia and books about those factions, units, times. I´m definitely not the most versed in any particular period, however i would say I have better knowledge especially about the last hundred years history than majority of my friends. Which is sad. So the games were at least for something good in my life. Plus I like worldbuilding in fantasy titles, lores of books like Witcher, Elder Scrolls, Tolkien, Warhammer.

I would say that more older players have naturally absorbed some knowledge maybe even actively searched for it so yeah, they are probably little versed in various history periods. :-)

[Steph]

I'm a software engineer, and was good in science, but I was also very good in history and liked it a lot. At some point, I wonder if I should go for history or science. and I decided it was better to have good income as an enginner and have history as a hoby than the opposite.
But my children are happy; they can learn a lot more with me than with their history teacher at school . So they have good marks.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

World War 2 to some extent and an intrigue in Medieval times has pretty much guided my interest in total war, obviously with a huge focus on the Medieval element to latch and carry my interest. I even used it with the original shogun, though it was properly exploited in Medieval and Medieval 2. However, I've never been much of a historian, nor deeply intrigued by military procedure over the ages.

[Hev E Metal]

I think most players have a fondness for history but the level of detail varies. Some guys can tell you when a unit has the wrong helmet, shield, etc. That's not me! I don't have that level of understanding but can easily tell the difference between a hoplite and a hastati and identify the general cultural differences of the different factions and units. The game does inspire me to read up on things I don't know about. Currently, I am all in with the Parthians. Because of that, I have read some on their history and culture due to this game. Love those horse armies!

[AnthoniusII]

The Total War game players can be devided in several categories.
1st Those that play almost any new kind of game. Remember that Age of Empires was already in market. Those players wont bother us in this matter.
2nd Those that interest in :
a) Ancient Battle Simulation. Remember that Shogun I was the 1st game world wide (exept a forgoten game William Wallace or something like that) that could "bring the player in the middle of an actuall battle to the ground level and determine its results by HIS/HERS desisions.
b) Those that were interesting to "repeat" or learn about history but they could also find historical titles with no active action at all.
Shogun I was a brake through and Rome I was a real revolution in battle simulation (as realistic in a game's limitation allows such a feature).
Those can we certainly say that they were the HARDCORE of Total War players.
In the time process 2 more player kinds added.
Those that wanted better automatic battle and campaign results.
Those that focused ONLY in the visual aspect of the game.
These two kinds of players became more in the last years simply because the older kind of players either stoped playing or simply they could not intefear in the game's engine to make it smarter (a basic demand of all HARDCORE old fasioned TW games players).
History is a motive for all those players never the less.
Even that feature/desire though separated the TW players into two major categories.
Those that wished their "nation" to be always victorius.
Those that wished to use the games engines to simulate HISTORY itself inorder to understand better what they read in history books.

[Star_destroyer]

The Total War game players can be devided in several categories.
1st Those that play almost any new kind of game. Remember that Age of Empires was already in market. Those players wont bother us in this matter.
2nd Those that interest in :
a) Ancient Battle Simulation. Remember that Shogun I was the 1st game world wide (exept a forgoten game William Wallace or something like that) that could "bring the player in the middle of an actuall battle to the ground level and determine its results by HIS/HERS desisions.
b) Those that were interesting to "repeat" or learn about history but they could also find historical titles with no active action at all.
Shogun I was a brake through and Rome I was a real revolution in battle simulation (as realistic in a game's limitation allows such a feature).
Those can we certainly say that they were the HARDCORE of Total War players.
In the time process 2 more player kinds added.
Those that wanted better automatic battle and campaign results.
Those that focused ONLY in the visual aspect of the game.
These two kinds of players became more in the last years simply because the older kind of players either stoped playing or simply they could not intefear in the game's engine to make it smarter (a basic demand of all HARDCORE old fasioned TW games players).
History is a motive for all those players never the less.
Even that feature/desire though separated the TW players into two major categories.
Those that wished their "nation" to be always victorius.
Those that wished to use the games engines to simulate HISTORY itself inorder to understand better what they read in history books.

Or to role play


I mean what if you were in the shoes of a ancient Egyptian pharaoh? How cool would that be right?

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

Or to role play


I mean what if you were in the shoes of a ancient Egyptian pharaoh? How cool would that be right?

This absolutely. I won't expand deep here unless asked (not quite the thread's question), but my primary motivation for Total War gameplay is characters, immersing into a context that is both left vague for the imagination to fill in and fairly well described to provide structure. It's not quite the same as pretending I am in the shoes, as I look at it as a character and worldbuilding sort of game, but there is absolutely an angle here going beyond raw mechanics that I feel should never be ignored. It is hardly the focus of the community or devs, but it exists.

[Daruwind]

Yup, immersion is also crucial part. Not to confuse with graphics, I know a lot old immersive games. For example the AoE with its Music, Color Palette and Graphics, very pleasant for me. Rome II immersive with its feeling of Middleterranean. Game should be realistic as possible but never at expense of gameplay and fun. After all TW is video game not encyklopedia. So beach landings Rome 2 style is not problem, some simplification also not problem. :-)

[Star_destroyer]

Game should be realistic as possible but never at expense of gameplay and fun. After all TW is video game not encyklopedia.

Druwind that is what eventually turned me away from DEI and europa barborum they went overboard with the educational factor I want to play a game not a college thesis


RTRVII and Roma surrectum 2 still provide some vanilla game play elements which also somehow boost the immersion factor anyway.


The key to a successful mod in my mind is to not completely reinvent the wheel.

[Hev E Metal]

Druwind that is what eventually turned me away from DEI and europa barborum they went overboard with the educational factor I want to play a game not a college thesis


RTRVII and Roma surrectum 2 still provide some vanilla game play elements which also somehow boost the immersion factor anyway.


The key to a successful mod in my mind is to not completely reinvent the wheel.

I'm glad I'm not the only only one who thinks DEI is no fun! LOL

[HigoChumbo]

Well I started playing the series in the year 2000 with Shogun: Total War (I was 13 back then). To provide context, I had also started getting into historical strategy gaming with Age of Empires 1 (1997) and Age of Empires 2 (1999) and you had "historical" movies released around those years such as Braveheart (1995) or Saving Private Ryan (1998) and books like Valerio Massimo Manfredi's novel on the life of Alexander the Great, "Alexandros" (1998).

What I want to say is that before I had played, watched or read any of that, I had no idea about Sumerians, Sarracens, D-Day, companion cavalry or what the hell a Daimyo was, and it was through those games that I developed an interest in history. For instance, I got so much into Shogun TW that I ended up reading Sun Tzu's "The Art of War". Some of them (for instance, AoE2) had some sort of in-game wiki that provided expanded info on the historical events and characters featured in the game, which helped with getting started, and from that point came Wikipedia, docummentaries, forums, books and so on.



Nowdays I go into historical games being fairly familiar with the events, military strategies or characters involved (games like TW:Three Kingdoms or UG:Gettysburg being some exceptions), but that knowledge came after and due to playing those games and watching those movies (also reading some books or travelling to certain locations).

So one can become a Total War player being a complete ignorant who thinks William Wallace was a hippie freedom fighter who might have been able to shoot "fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse" and turn into a history geek who complains in forums about an Iberian warrior not being displayed with the proper type of sword his specific tribe used back in the day.

[The Wandering Storyteller]

It simply brings history alive that no other medium of entertainment can do really.

Assassins Creed thank the Gods, is becoming more historical than ever before. So to play these games, you are seeing how people lived thousands of years ago. The mods add a lot more depth, but its just a virtual time machine if it was one.

That's what other strategy games are failing to do. They can't even emulate or do something similar to Total War. The reason total war is successful is not that of campaign yeah sure it's essential. It's the battles. The screenshots. That's what always sells the total war.

[Clint_Eastwood]

It simply brings history alive that no other medium of entertainment can do really.

Simply have to disagree with you as Tabletop Gaming is totally immersive, I know its time consuming having to paint the miniatures, but it is the same as making units in Rome 2 using PFM and Assembly Kit. If you get into a good club you can meet some cool people with the same mindset and talk history all day long!!

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Simply have to disagree with you as Tabletop Gaming is totally immersive, I know its time consuming having to paint the miniatures, but it is the same as making units in Rome 2 using PFM and Assembly Kit. If you get into a good club you can meet some cool people with the same mindset and talk history all day long!!

Ha, ironically I could never get into table-top gaming.

I say that because I write AARs, and the screenshots were taken just give me a visual representation of what it was like.

[Sirlion]

A mostly healthy (?) obsession with Napoleonic warfare and 18th century gallantry made me purchase Empire and Napoleon and I couldnt be happier with the latter, a little less with the former but I'm doing my best to transform it into what I desire. Despite them being approximations of what I've read, I'm thrilled just to be able to see troops moving around and send them where they are needed to do battle. I'd say passion for this period came first and foremost from my love for History as a whole, and then from the romanticized vision of the period found in poems and biographies. I'm still planning on getting back into university at some point and get a degree in history and maybe change jobs. Who knows. Life has multiple hidden paths.

[EmmaOlivia]

What is the best Total War game?There is currently a sale on steam on Total War games. I was wondering which game is the most fun for a friend and I to play.

[Daruwind]

That is quite hard question actually. Each game offers something little different..

Can you enjoy older games? (graphics is not the priority)
Is price issue?
Do you prefer historical or more fantasy setting? And same question about gun powder era vs more classical melee oriented one?
Are you TW begginer or do you prefer more hardcore title?
And what about size of game? Would you like to start with something smaller in scale or get as big as possible?
Vanilla or mods?

Older games - especially Med 2/Rome - Great Mods
Empire - Gunpowder era, big scale, a lot for replaybility, sometimes buggy
Napoleon - Small scale, more polished gunpowder era,
Shogun 2 - great artistic feeeling, immersive, inspiration by Last Samurai style. Faction way too much similar, FotS great gunpowder DLC
Rome 2 - easiest, simplified, great scale, great Antica feeling, immersive. Great for causal playing + great DeI mod for harder playing
Attila - probably hardest vanilla, grim, dark feeling, bad performance, great challange except performance, it is better Rome 2 Buuuuuuut not everybody can appreciate that.
ToB - Smaller, no additional content but could be great introduction into series, based on Attila, great performance. Overall great game, only problem, for that price you can get whole R2/Attila or others...
Warhammer 1/2 - Newest, Fantasy, characters matter in both campaign/battles. Skill trees, Items, magic. People dislike simplified sieges but games offer the best variety in units,factions. Wh1 completed, Wh2 even better but expensive to get all content (but you don´t need it to play actually.)

[Huberto]

History has always been a thing for me, since early childhood. Computer games looked like crap until the early 2000s, whereas board games didn't. So that's how I got my historical fixes until the mid aughts.

[Abdülmecid I]

What is the best Total War game?There is currently a sale on steam on Total War games. I was wondering which game is the most fun for a friend and I to play.

Well, it depends on your personal preferences. If you are a fan of chaotic engagements and spectacular visual effects, then Warhammer is the best option, where you can deploy giants, mammoths, kamikaze goblins and dinosaurs riding... dinosaurs. If you like something more relaxed, basically a long series of battles briefly interrupted with meaningless campaign breaks, then you should choose everything from Empire to Attila. Keep in mind that Rome II still suffers from a variety of bugs, but Empire, even if you adore the period, is practically unplayable, unless you install a mod. Last but not least, Medieval II and Rome I are not only by far the most moddable games, but are also very feature-rich, in what concerns immersive mechanics. For example, the late-game challenge is provided by the "distance-to-capital" mechanic, which forbids irrational expansion, due to low public order and lack of profitability. Granted, it's not as cartoon-fun as suddenly everyone declaring war against you for no apparent reason in Shogun or the Huns indefinitely spamming hordes, until you kill their king thrice or more. In my opinion, the older games are much more satisfying, from a more realistic trait-system and more coherent family tree to more atmospheric UI and cleverly integrated logistics, but I recognize the fact that, for example, the lack of auto-replenishment, albeit objectively more immersive, can pose difficulties to excited video-game players.