Seether's Total War: Three Kingdoms Review, Issues and Suggestions
For those of you who don’t know me, I am the lead designer of the Rise of Three Kingdoms mod for Medieval II and have been a student of the Three Kingdoms period for the majority of my life. Discussion boards, forum-based RPG sites, and purchasing some of Dr. Rafe de Crespigny’s books all furthered my knowledge, understanding and passion of both the fictionalized Romance and the true history of the era. Back when Shogun first came out, I was already a huge fan of Koei’s Romance of the Three Kingdoms series and thought it would be amazing for Three Kingdoms to be a Total War title. When that seemed like it would never happen, I found Gigantus and his beta version of Rise of Three Kingdoms and have been a part of that excellent mod ever since. So when it was announced that Total War: Three Kingdoms would be the next historical title in the Total War series, I was both excited and skeptical. Excited that Three Kingdoms was finally coming to the franchise, but skeptical as to the “historical” aspect that would be put forth by CA. I am actually pleased that CA pushed back the release date, because I feel that they made a bunch of necessary improvements and tweaks that could have, possibly, otherwise sunk the release for Western consumers.
So, with all of that in mind as to my background, and with 50 hours put into Total War: Three Kingdoms thus far, I wanted to give an honest review of this game, as well as some suggestions as to how CA could make improvements to it, although admittedly some critiques only refer to Records mode. Bear in mind that I did not play either Warhammer title or, really, anything after Attila. So, without further ado, here is my review of Total War: Three Kingdoms.
The Good
For me, where Three Kingdoms really shines is in the campaign portion of the game. The campaign map itself is visually appealing and beautifully stylized like a painting by ancient Chinese artists, with exaggerated mountains and terrain props, but it all fits well and meshes with the overall art scheme they were attempting to accomplish. The forests, river, fields, roads and settlement models are similarly well-done, and it was nice to see the Yellow River actually being the yellowish color it should be. The models of characters, specifically the generals leading armies, are easy on the eyes and move across the map flawlessly as they lead their armies across China to engage their enemies. The musical score is also superbly done, as are the voices and sound effects you come across when interacting on the campaign map.
Kingdom management was definitely improved from previous titles, with a faction able to establish a court as it grows in power and the faction leader gains rank. Depending on the position assigned, the character will grant both specific buffs for himself and the faction as a whole. You can also have Administrators, who you assign to govern a commandery and grant specific bonuses to that commandery, while also assigning other characters to perform assignments – like increase commerce income or increase your faction’s replenishment rate – in a commandery for a short period of time. Within a commandery you will have a principle, or capital, city and several “resource settlements,” with the latter specializing in things like food production, commerce, natural resources or armaments. While those can be upgraded, granting greater bonuses and larger garrisons, the city itself can construct buildings, unlocked through the technology tree and some restricted to specific factions, to compliment and create synergy with the resource settlements or just benefit the commandery as a whole. As a city grows larger it must be upgraded, or enlarged, which allows for more buildings to be built in the city and relieves public order penalties from overcrowding, but unfortunately costs a steep amount of food to maintain.
With characters, each belongs to a class that specializes in something, normally battlefield fighting style or unit types that do well as a part of their retinue. It was an excellent touch by CA to be able to give characters “ancillaries” in the form of weapons, armor, horses, followers and accessories which not only affected their core stats and various abilities, but also changes their physical appearance as well. Each character also has three starting personality traits, which affects them, their talents, and what they like/dislike in others. Making them be useful by leading armies or filling court positions, along with promotions and “ancillaries”, affects their level of satisfaction. A lack of satisfaction, along with serving with people they don’t like (including the faction leader), can cause them to leave your force or even instigate a civil war if they are an Administrator. A pretty nice system for the character-centric approach that CA took with Three Kingdoms and one that can easily be tweaked and improved upon. Family trees are back and are much, much better than in previous titles. Characters in your family tree can marry other characters, both within the faction or other factions via diplomacy, and can have numerous children (I’m not sure what the maximum is, but my Sun Jian had five at last count). Another thing to note is that marriage with another faction via diplomacy is not just available to faction leader, heir or adult females, it can be any male or female in the family tree.
Diplomacy is yet another area where the game shines, in that there are a lot of options for every faction on how they want to conduct their business with the other warlords. Along with the typical give and receive money, marriage, non-aggression pacts and alliances, factions can now deal in food and ancillaries, engage in forming coalitions, and even trade territories. Along with this, you can see whether the AI will accept or not (red negative and green positive) and adjust your proposals accordingly. Additionally, some factions (like Dong Zhuo and Cao Cao) can use special faction resources (think of it as “mana”) to affect either the weight of a proposal or faction relations, forcing or influencing that specific proposal or future proposals to go through. Playing as Dong Zhuo and want to bully a neighbor into coughing up a territory you want? Now you can! While some tweaking needs to be done to the values of various aspects of proposals, diplomacy in Three Kingdoms has some great additions and will only get better once it is properly balanced and the small kinks are ironed out.
Random events are another nice touch by CA, in that they add some much needed flavor to the game. Some are not so “random,” in that they are part of the story and driven by event choices, such as Lu Bu assassinating Dong Zhuo or Liu Bei taking over Tao Qian’s lands, while others are entirely random, such as good omens bestowing benefits to your faction or a vassal giving you a new officer. Not only does it add a small RPG element to the game, but also adds some immersion for the player, both for their kingdom as a whole and the characters in their faction, as they plot and plan to unite China.
One thing that has plagued pretty much all Total War titles on release are bugs, whether numerous minor bugs or game-breaking bugs. From my playthroughs, I have not noticed any major bugs or, really, many minor ones either. One very, very, very minor bug is when you hover over a settlement where a battle was fought, it lists the opponent as their duchy/kingdom name, even if it is early game and no one is even a duchy yet. So if you beat Liu Biao's faction, it wouldn't say Liu Biao, it would say Chu. Other than that, the game runs pretty smooth and is fairly well optimized. Few things kill your fun than constant crashes and major bugs, which thankfully Three Kingdoms is not subject to. Really great job on CA getting out a stable, polished product.
The Not-so-Good
Now that we got a bunch of the good aspects of Total War: Three Kingdoms out of the way, now on to the not-so-good things. As has the trend for many iterations of Total War games, the battle AI is still spotty. In one particular battle as Sun Jian, I was severely outnumbered in the field, but was forced to fight after already retreating. Before the battle map loaded, I already figured it was a lost cause and I would lose both my faction leader and heir in this battle. However I won a heroic victory and annihilated the enemy with only fairly light casualties to my forces. What I did was simple: I took my three generals and three cavalry units, went far around the enemy flanks, then lined up behind the enemy formation as they continued to approach my line of infantry. All the while the enemy did absolutely nothing to stop or counter this movement or do anything once I was in position with my cavalry in their undefended rear. Instead they charged into my depleted infantry line, with everything they had, at which point I charged my six cavalry units all along their exposed rear while they were engaged with my infantry. What resulted was a slaughter and mass rout – while my movement took several minutes, the fighting lasted only a matter of seconds. In another instance it was a siege battle for a walled city and I used only one ram. Instead of grappling up the walls, which they had well-defended, with my assault troops, I simply knocked the gate down and rushed into the breach. The AI only used one unit to try to plug the gap, while they kept the majority of their forces on the wall. After taking the gate and flooding into the city, only then did the AI bring their units off the wall to engage… but piecemeal. One or two units at a time came down, and were quickly overwhelmed by my men, then one or two more, rinse and repeat until they were utterly defeated. Many times it seems as though the AI is unsure of where their priority is and how to properly respond to the player. It almost seems as though they get a general idea of where the enemy is and just plod straight forward. In siege defenses, the AI has extreme difficulty defending properly and responding to your movements and attacks, often times shoots itself in the foot and losing a fight it should have won. Sieges are a bit of a let-down as well, as CA opted for wall destroying trebuchets (which did not exist) and grappling hooks, instead of some real unique equipment and tactics used and recorded in this era of Chinese history.
Overall, there is a need for unit balancing. Missile units are exceedingly overpowered and will decimate their opponents, with crossbows having an advantage in both range and power over bows. Arrow towers, like missile units, need to also be powered down as they will absolutely wreck approaching enemy units. Retinue recruitment needs some tweaking, in regard to who can recruit what specific units and when. As of now it is apparently too restrictive and also contains still a bit of mystery as to how it actually works. When it comes to soldiers on the battlefield, within the same unit, they are essentially clones of each other – same faces, facial hair, robes, armor, shields, armaments - which really draws away from the otherwise appealing aesthetics of the soldiers and their weaponry. Combat animations and collision detection are, once again, not quite there, as you will see tons of air stabs and soldiers just falling over when nothing strikes them. The same goes for animations in duels, as the combat between duelists gets repetitive quickly and, unfortunately, the AI seems unable to comprehend when to absolutely not duel, which easily results in the player able to abuse the duel system. One last thing to mention is when you select a unit on the battlefield, you will hear the same voices calling out unit types as you did in Rome II and Attila. It’s almost like I can hear the words “Principes” or “Hastati” when selecting particular units during a battle.
While I put them up above as a good for the game, there needs to be more court positions for characters in your faction to fill. Your characters want something to do (otherwise they take a huge hit to satisfaction) and besides, in this time period, everyone in the administration had some role or job to do; they didn’t just sit on their butt collecting a stipend. While I also listed random events in the good category, there needs to be more random events and the events that currently exist need to be less frequent. Apparently my heir likes to get captured, via random event, a good portion of the time he besieges a city-type settlement, costing me money each time to get him back safely. Similarly, more story-driven events won’t be a bad thing, but their limited number really leaves you yearning for some more to flesh out the Three Kingdoms story and situations that may arise.
If you were hoping for Records mode (short for ‘Records of the Three Kingdoms’, the written history of the era) to actually be historical, you will just have to hope for a bit longer. Aside from adding bodyguards for generals, adding fatigue to battle, and removing a few ahistorical characters, the Romance (fictional) and Records (historic) modes are almost exactly the same in faction backstories, events, and everything else. Plus there are totally fictional events from the novel, like Xiahou Dun eating his eye, that are still found in Records mode. Hopefully CA can make Records mode an actual historical mode or, if not, modders will once again be relied upon to do it.
The Verdict
I really liked Three Kingdoms and have enjoyed most of my playthroughs thus far. The campaign map is gorgeous, character models are well done, diplomacy and character management is a huge step up in the Total War franchise, and it tells just enough of the Three Kingdoms story, through either story-driven or random events, to keep you fairly engaged with the time period in which the game takes place. Free of major bugs, the game runs smooth and has given no issues in 50 hours of playtime. however the battle AI is still spotty, particularly in sieges, and there are some serious unit balancing issues that need to take place. There are some other refining, tweaking and balancing issues, but none break the game so bad that it is unplayable or unnecessarily difficult. The lack of a true historical “Records” mode in Total War: Three Kingdoms, what CA called their next historical title, was a total let-down.
Overall: 8/10
Recommend to new and returning Total War players and fans of the Three Kingdoms
With that review done, I am now going to move on to some issues I found with the game. However, I am also going to give suggestions on how to either improve or fix the issue, as opposed to just whining about it. Most of these will relate to Records mode, as that is the supposed historical mode, but some will refer to the game in general.
Issue: State Naming
From what I can tell right now, factions are assigned a “state” name and will always be called that state when becoming a duchy. So Cao Cao always becomes Wei, Sun Jian always becomes Wu, and Liu Bei always becomes Shu-Han. Outside of familiarity of only those three kingdoms, that makes absolutely no sense. Chinese kingdoms were named so because of where they were located, and the names of ancient kingdoms from that area, not from names drawn from a hat. Sun Quan’s state was called Wu because it was centered in the same area as the ancient state of Wu (Warring States period). While Liu Bei’s actual state name was Han, it can realistically be called Shu because his kingdom was based in the same area as the ancient state of Shu, in western Yi province. Cao Cao’s state was called Wei because his primary title and capital was Wei commandery (city of Ye). Then we have the Yuan Clan being called Song, despite being quite a way from where Song actually is (and not controlling that area), and Liu Zhang being called Xun, which is still quite a mystery to me.
Suggestion: Either as a part of Records mode, or a toggleable game option, to have something called “Historic titles”. What this would entail is that “state” names, starting at Duchy, to be dependent upon what commanderies the faction controls, not being static and tied to a specific faction. When it comes time that you are now a Duke, you will get a selection box that lists the possible state names for you to choose – these state names are directly tied to the commanderies where you control the city (Ye Commandery allows state name of Wei, Chen Commandery allows state name of Chen or Cai, Beihai Commandery allows state name of Qi, Taishan allows state name of Lu, Jianye Commandery allows state name of Wu, etc.). So if you control Jianye Salt Mine, but not Jianye City, selecting Wu as your state will not be an option – you must control the city. After the state is chosen, you are then given a free capital change to the City of that commandery.
So the process would go:
- Become Duchy
- Pop-up to select state name, with capital commandery listed with it (Wei – Ye Commandery)
- Select state
- Confirm
- Get free capital location changed to city of the capital commandery
Issue: Inconsistent Commandery Naming
I saw a suggestion that the commandery + resource location (Luoyang Lumber Yard, etc.) should be named to actual city and/or county names. Not a bad suggestion, however I am more concerned with the current commanderies having absolutely no consistency in their naming. While in most cases CA has commanderies using actual commandery names (Yingchuan, Dong, Pengcheng, Chen, Nanhai, Jincheng, Baxi, etc.) they for some reason also use city, and even province, names for commanderies, which is an odd decision. For example, Chang’an was not a commandery, it was a city – commandery should be called Jingzhao. Jianye was not a commandery, it was a city – commandery should be called Danyang. Luoyang was not a commandery, it was a city – commandery should be called Henan. Yangzhou was not a commandery, it was a province (which consists of numerous commanderies) – commandery should be called Jiujiang (or later Huainan). Ye was not a commandery, it was a city - the commandery should be called Wei (Cao Cao’s state was called Wei because of this, as his primary title and capital was Wei commandery). There are many others, but these are just a few examples.
Suggestion: Name all commanderies by commandery names, not a mix of commanderies, cities and provinces. I would even go so far as to suggest an extra entry box to the location on the campaign map that includes the location’s name, in addition to the current showing of the commandery name and settlement type. As an example, when you see Luoyang it would show:
Issue: Starting LocationsCode:Henan Commandery Luoyang City
While most warlords (even non-playable ones) are in fairly correct locations with the 190 start date, there are quite a few that are just simply in the wrong spot. One prime example is that Cao Cao should not be starting in Chen, which is in Yu province – he should be starting quite a bit further north in Chenliu, which is in Yan province. Chen was the domain of Liu Chong, an Imperial clansman, who was King of Chen until his death 197. Meanwhile, Chenliu was the stronghold of Cao Cao in the time immediately before and after the Coalition.
Suggestion: While most appear fine, having more accurate starting locations for all factions seems fairly easy and common sense to me. I would also suggest making the current Chen Commandery quite a bit smaller, breaking off the northern half and making that Chenliu Commandery and sticking Cao Cao there. I doubt CA would take the time to put every faction in roughly the correct spot, so perhaps this is something modders will have to take care of.
Issue: Lack of Historical Characters
While I can appreciate that there are quite a lot of historical characters already in the game, there is also literally hundreds are absent. Too soon into the game do you start seeing generic characters and, within 50 turns, the vast majority of characters are generics. I understand the need for generics and do not think they should be removed, or anything like that, but there is a wealth of source material to add hundreds of real, actual people as characters into the game.
Suggestion: Add more historic characters, as there is a wealth of source material as the game is so character-driven, so there is less reliance upon random generics.
Issue: Lack of Faction Characters at Game Start
Many factions simply don’t have faction characters that need to be there at campaign start. And I’m not talking about a dozen character per faction, but honestly only 1-2 per faction. As examples, Cao Cao doesn’t have Chen Gong or Cao Chun (the commander of the Tiger and Leopard Cavalry) at the start of the game? Dong Zhuo doesn’t have Fan Chou, who is arguably his best general? Sun Jian doesn’t have Sun Ben, Jian’s nephew who (unlike Sun Ce) fought against Dong Zhuo with his uncle and, after Sun Jian’s death, took control of the army, succeeded his uncle as Inspector of Yu Province, and returned to Yuan Shu? Part of an issue with having more characters is higher total salaries but, considering this game is so character-centric and character-driven, why not allow for factions to start off with more characters (that should be there) and maintain more throughout the course of the game? Reducing salaries and the cost of promotions could go a long way.
Suggestion: Reduce the salary and promotion cost of characters (by 1/3 to ½) and added more characters, who absolutely should be there (some mentioned above), to the playable factions at game start.
Issue: Female General and Leader Frequency
I’m probably going to get some flak for this, however the current rate and frequency of female generals and faction leaders is simply too high. In two Records mode playthroughs, as Sun Jian and Dong Zhuo, in the early game I was seeing a female general in about 10% of the armies. Not a problem. However, the faction leaders and regents were about 25% female. In late game (100+ turns), a little less than 50% of the factions were led by women and nearly every army had at least one female general, with quite a few armies being commanded by women. In Records mode at least, since it is supposed to be the historical mode of the game, female generals and faction leaders should be the exception, not the norm. A good example that sticks in my mind is that when Huangfu Song (Han Empire leader) dies, a female character always takes his place as leader. Not Wang Yun or Wang Hong or Zhu Jun or Lu Zhi or Yang Biao or Shisun Rui or any members of the Imperial Han court. When a faction leader dies and the heir isn’t of age, it doesn’t need to be a requirement that the deceased faction leader’s wife (heir’s mother) becomes regent. There isn’t much precedence for such, as the case was almost always that leading influential court figures served as regents, with the mothers on rare occasion serving in such a capacity.
Suggestion: If Romance mode wants to keep the current frequency of female generals and faction leaders, that’s fine. But in Records mode this rate should be significantly dropped – no more than 5%. Also, for Records mode, regency shouldn’t default to the heir’s mother on every occasion.
Issue: Faction Leader Title Names
For the most part this is done well and I don’t have issue with its progression, however Second Marquis and Marquis could use some work. Specifically, altering their names and using Imperial Protector of [Province] for one of the titles. Imperial Protector was a commandary-level bureaucratic rank (like Governor or Inspector) and could be held by multiple people, of different factions, simultaneously.
Suggestion: Rename current Second Marquis to Marquis and current Marquis to Imperial Protector of [Province]. Specifically, with the latter, give them the province name of wherever their capital commandery is located. So if the faction has their capital at Changsha, the faction leader would become Imperial Protector of Jingzhou. If capital is Yingchuan, faction leader would be Imperial Protector of Yuzhou. If capital is Changan, faction leader would be Imperial Protector of Yongzhou.
Issue: Names and Number of Court Positions
There are just too few positions in the faction’s court and the actual titles/positions don’t make much sense, considering the Eastern Han and Jin governments. Right now there is Prime Minister, Chancellor, Grand Commandant, Grand Excellency, Grand Director and Grand Tutor. Grand Excellency and Grand Director, specifically, aren’t actual positions and need to be renamed, while Chancellor and Prime Minister are two variations of the exact same position. With reduced salaries, and therefore being able to have more characters in a faction, more court positions would also do wonders to combat satisfaction penalties from a character feeling as though they are not serving a purpose and want an increase in rank.
Suggestion: In conjunction with reducing character salaries, thus being able to have more characters in a faction, it can pretty easy to include most, if not all, of the Nine Ministers, the Three Excellencies, and the Chancellor/Prime Minister. Instead of the Nine Minister titles, noble titles such as Bearer of the Gilded Mace, Director of Retainers, Director of Dependent States, Court Architect, and others could be used. So it doesn’t need to be exactly as I have below or 13 total positions, but certainly more than the current 6, as this is just a rough idea of what I’m referring to:
Noble: 1 of the Nine Ministers - Minister Steward (Privy Treasurer)
Second Marquis: Add 4 of the Nine Ministers - Minister of the Guards (Commandant of the Guards), Minister Herald (Grand Herald), Minister of Finance (Grand Minister of Agriculture), Minister of Ceremonies (Grand Master of Ceremonies)
Marquis: Add 4 of the Nine Ministers - Minister of Justice (Commandant of Justice), Minister of the Household (Superintendent of the Household), Minister of the Imperial Clan (Director of the Imperial Clan), Minister Coachman (Grand Coachman)
Duke/King: Add all of the Three Excellencies - Grand Commandant, Excellency over the Masses, Excellency of Works
Emperor: Add Chancellor/Prime Minister
Issue: Indistinguishable Romance and Records Mode
As of now, the differences between Romance and Records mode are not so much so that you can call one fictional and the other historical. While in Records mode there are bodyguard units for characters, fatigue plays a role in battle, and some fictional characters and events are removed, there is still much that can be done to make Records mode an actual historical mode and separate it from Romance mode. I have listed a number of things above in regard to making Records mode more historical, but some things I haven’t mentioned yet refer to character events and backstories. One instance, in the very beginning of Liu Bei’s campaign, has Liu Bei refer to Emperor Xian as “my nephew” – referencing Liu Bei as Imperial Uncle. Liu Bei was the only once referred to as Imperial Uncle (and he received it after a meeting with the Emperor, not becoming his protector), however the only mention of this is in Sanguo Yanyi (the novel) and not any historical sources (meaning it was made up by Luo Guanzhong). Another instance is Ma Teng having the backstory of a Han loyalist and protector which, in history, he certain was not. He was Qiang-aligned rebel against the Han dynasty who, along with Han Sui, was placated with Han titles after Huangfu Song gave them both a thorough beat down. If him receiving titles is an argument for him being a Han loyalist (which it isn’t), remember that Zhang Yan (leader of the Black Mountain) was similarly given Han titles and autonomous control of a large swathe of Bing province. Another instance is Xiahou Dun eating his eye. While he is recorded as being one-eyed, no historical text makes any mention of how he lost it, let alone eating it. All of the above are in Records mode, but certainly don’t belong there are they are only found or referenced in the Romance novel.
Suggestion: Greater story, background and event differences between Romance and Records. The source material is there to easily make such distinctions.
Issue: Ancillary Variety
I really like the current system of ancillaries (generic term I’m using) and I think it is an excellent aspect of the character-centric game we see in Three Kingdoms. However, right now there is a lack in variety of followers and accessories. Accessories, for the most part, consist almost exclusively of statuettes and scrolls. While there is quality levels for items in both the followers and accessories categories, more types are needed.
Suggestion: For accessories specifically, the inclusion of more books and scrolls, clothing, jewelry, decorative armor and weapons, and treasures would do well to add more variety and flavor to the game.
Issue: Character Clones
The different types of characters (Champion, Vanguard, Strategist, etc.) are pretty much clones of each other. A lot of times, even in my own faction, I have characters that look exactly the same, or at least very similar. Same portrait, same pose, same face, same facial hair, same hair style, same headgear, same clothing, same color scheme… more variety is needed in this regard. CA really emphasizes the character-driven aspect of this game, with the different types, stats, personality traits, likes and dislikes, and ancillary customization, yet has characters of the same type being essentially clones of each other. And so many characters wear yellow, making most of China look like Yellow Turban rebels.
Suggestion: More variations and variety (portrait, pose, face, facial hair, hair style, clothing, color scheme, etc.) for characters of the same type. With most characters seemingly wearing yellow, add more color variety (blues, greens, reds, black, etc.) to characters.
Issue: Soldier Clones
The soldiers in Three Kingdoms are beautifully made, but soldiers in the same unit are just clones, which is a huge disappointment and visual unappealing. When you look at a unit, they will have the exact same robes, body armor, shield, weapon, and face – with faces, they may or may not have facial hair, but with the latter it is the same moustache. So, essentially, 2-3 faces and, depending on the unit, either the exact same headgear or 2 different variations. A literal clone army.
Suggestion: More variations in the faces, facial hair, robes (color hues, length of sleeves, direction wrapped, etc.), armor (plate/scale hue, pattern, covered areas, etc.), shield patterns, and types of helmets and headgear would do much to diversify the current clone armies.
Issue: Trebuchets and Sieges
Battles, in particular sieges, are the weak point of Three Kingdoms. In regard to sieges, CA could've done quite a lot to make sieges more dynamic, interesting, and tactical, while not going the ahistoric route by having trebuchets that can destroy walls. There were not any counter-weight trebuchets or traction catapults used during Three Kingdoms period – it would be like adding canons to Republican-era Roman armies. The trebuchets that were available and used were not at all even remotely powerful enough to destroy stone structures, specifically the thick stone walls of cities. Trebuchets honestly have no realistic place in the game and should be removed. In general, sieges lack imagination or any sort of tactical interest to the player.
Suggestion: To improve sieges, trebuchets need to go or at least be unable to take down walls. Ladders need to be brought back and grappling hooks need to go. Ladders were, by far, the most common method for Three Kingdoms era armies to storm the walls of fortifications, yet they are missing entirely. Another way to improve sieges, would be that armies besieging settlements (with a general with specific traits/skills) near rivers could spend time to divert the river in order to flood the settlement and destroy sections of walls; one very famous siege, Xiapi, made use of diverting nearby rivers to flood the city, undermining its walls. Reintroducing sappers to tunnel was a nice touch, however adding a counter-sappers event (via general with specific traits/skills) during sieges would be interesting; Zhuge Liang's siege of Chencang involved his army tunneling under the walls in an attempt to bring down the city's walls. But Hao Zhao also used tunnels, from inside, to intercept Zhuge's tunnels, kill the miners, and then collapse the tunnels. The Chinese of this era also used movable archer towers to rain arrows down upon the defenders on the ramparts, such as at Guandu; Cao Cao countered this with catapults that destroyed the towers. The same happened at Chencang between Zhuge Liang and Hao Zhao.
Issue: Overpowered Missile Units
Missile units are overpowered. An army that is heavy in missile units can, and will, decimate opposing armies because of both the kill power of their arrows/bolts and their accuracy in shooting over allies engaged with enemies. This has been a complaint seen across the community. Similarly, crossbows outrange bow units, which leaves bow units with pretty much no advantage to crossbows.
Suggestion: Missile units (in general) need their ranged attack power and accuracy nerfed, but still relatively deadly to lightly armored and non-shielded units. Also, reduce the range of crossbows, but keep them more powerful than bows.
Issue: Overpowered Arrow Towers
Arrow towers, like missile units, are extremely overpowered. When attacking a settlement, they wreck havoc with their killing power. A lot of times they kill many times more soldiers than the actual garrison.
Suggestion: Reduce the fire rate of arrow towers to half its current value.
Issue: Reversed Champion and Sentinel Retinues
(Per Dakier) : Champions and Sentinels need their units swapped around. Sentinels are defensive and should have defensive school of units and vice-versa for champions.
Issue: Various Issues
zoner16 had quite a few suggestions that I agreed with, so I wanted to get them some more exposure:
- You should not be allowed to retreat if attacked in Forced March stance. Perhaps go even further and force an ambush battle if that happens. This will greatly reduce the frustration of having multiple depleted stacks running around your interior, causing a mess for public order, but not being able to do anything about it.
- Remove the strategist requirement for unit formations. They should be unlocked by having high enough level commanders who would have the experience and acumen to drill their troops. The kinds of formations that strategists might be required for are army and army group level formations, not regimental ones.
- Create more non-council bureaucratic positions. Have them unlocked with reforms or noble rank, but let people who are just out on assignment all the time have a day job too to relieve the pressure on their satisfaction.
- Change the population public order debuff to only apply if the commandery in question is over capacity.
- Either decrease stamina loss rate from fighting in Records mode or increase its regeneration rate. As it stands, you can't really cycle units because units in combat lose stamina way faster than units out of combat regain it.
- Let me open the character panel for the administrator of a commandery from the commandery info bar.
- Create a better way of viewing the details of all the characters in your faction other than the tiny scroll panel on the side. Perhaps another panel in the court/family screen.
- Give access to more non-militia units outside a general's class after reforms. Honestly, the rules for regular non-militia units and the elite dragon units should be switched. It's bizarre that a character who has been fighting as a general with distinction for years can't train regular Ji Infantry and yet can somehow train "Azure Dragons."
- Make attacking a moving target better. It takes forever to run down routing units because the attack rate is so slow if the target is moving, even if the units that is chasing them is literally on top of them.
- Give repeating crossbows poisoned bolts. It's the only way to make them viable.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Seether
Pillaging and Plundering since 2006
+rep
I'm not sure why CA decided to go this route - it could be an attempt to cover-up the bad AI in sieges or it could be simply laziness on their part - either way, sieges are definitely the weakest aspect of this game and hold this title back from being truly "great". Your comments, in conjunction with my suggestions up above, would be a good place for CA to start in reassessing how sieges are conducted, the tactical options available, and finally attempting to fix their BAI in sieges.
