Concern Over TW's Growing Lack of Interest in Historical Accuracy And Bad Battle Animations

[EireEmerald]

I have followed Total War since the sgogun 1 and loved every single one right up until they changed. It is the reason for my interest in history. However, I have noticed the last few games have gone in a direction that is far less concerned with historical realism, to a more arcade, hero based animation on the battle maps. The battle animations are now cartoon like. It does not feel real. And so I have not bought a new game in a long time, since I bought Warhammer actually. I looked at the gameplay for Three Kingdoms and noticed, even though it was supposed to be historical, there were heroes fighting in single combat on the battlefield. This is not realistic. It did not happen historically. There are many other issues with the recent games in terms of realism but I will not point them out in this post.

I love the bronze age, particularly Minoan and Sumerian civilization, and I am excited to see how Pharaoh turns out. But I am worried that Total War will go down this same route with their battle animations. What do you guys think?

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

From what I've seen so far this game seems to be making at least a token effort to be more historical in nature, so I'm cautiously optimistic that it will be an improvement on that front, moving away from single-unit badasses of 3K and the level of antihistoric liberties taken in Troy. If that will be enough to make this game a noteworthy contender remains to be seen, obviously much more goes into it. I wouldn't expect EB2 efforts but I would hope that this title at least sets a bar of authenticity met by titles like Rome 2, Attila, and TOB.

[EireEmerald]

From what I've seen so far this game seems to be making at least a token effort to be more historical in nature, so I'm cautiously optimistic that it will be an improvement on that front, moving away from single-unit badasses of 3K and the level of antihistoric liberties taken in Troy. If that will be enough to make this game a noteworthy contender remains to be seen, obviously much more goes into it. I wouldn't expect EB2 efforts but I would hope that this title at least sets a bar of authenticity met by titles like Rome 2, Attila, and TOB.

I would hope so too. But TW seems to be going in a certain direction. I don't think they care about historical authenticity anymore. This is their first actual attempt at a historical period without elements of mythology sprinkled in since Rome 2. If they fail at this one, I am never buying one of their games again.

It looks like Manor Lords is a more reliable franchise to look for.

[alhoon]

I love the bronze age, particularly Minoan and Sumerian civilization, and I am excited to see how Pharaoh turns out. But I am worried that Total War will go down this same route with their battle animations. What do you guys think?

From what I've seen so far this game seems to be making at least a token effort to be more historical in nature, so I'm cautiously optimistic that it will be an improvement on that front, moving away from single-unit badasses of 3K and the level of antihistoric liberties taken in Troy.

To be honest, while you love that era, it is for me very boring; very little technology, very low populations. At least, there should be some variance between the armies.

[zoner16]

The thing to keep in mind about 3K was that public perception of its era is highly skewed by the Romance of Three Kingdoms novel. Hence, 3K's source material was more the traditions that spawned out of that, including its emphasis on heroic duels between generals (of which a couple happened historically, but not nearly like they do in game) and its inclusion of mysticism. Similarly, Troy was based off the Illiad, with an additional problem in having to use the Warhammer branch of the engine. Both games have modes where you can turn off the heroes and go back to general and bodyguard units if you want.

With Pharaoh, I don't see an analogous "heroic epic" source they could draw on. They're marketing this as the next historical game, and they seem conscious of how smaller fantasy titles can't compete with Warhammer.

It bears worth repeating that every Total War, since the beginning of the series, has sacrificed history for spectacle to varying degrees. This goes back to CA's whole "historical authenticity" mantra, where they aim to make games that feel historical in the broad strokes, but often miss out on the details. Very popular-history. Rome has a cavalcade of anachronisms (including an Egypt that would've fit much better in Pharaoh), Shogun 2's combat is ahistorically obsessed with 1v1 samurai duels, Attila overemphasizes the scale of the Roman collapse for sake of its apocalyptic imagery, etc. Ultimately, there's going to be sacrifices made for the sake of marketing. People like their flashy sword duels that remind them of pop-history movies, and TW is a mainstream franchise now.

[ParthianWarrior]

CA games were never the ones to fully embrace historical accuracy. With the scholarly debates around the Bronze Age, liberties will need to be taken but I don't think this game will be like Troy with any "truth behind the myth" stuff.

[Rob003]

The thing to keep in mind about 3K was that public perception of its era is highly skewed by the Romance of Three Kingdoms novel. Hence, 3K's source material was more the traditions that spawned out of that, including its emphasis on heroic duels between generals (of which a couple happened historically, but not nearly like they do in game) and its inclusion of mysticism. Similarly, Troy was based off the Illiad, with an additional problem in having to use the Warhammer branch of the engine. Both games have modes where you can turn off the heroes and go back to general and bodyguard units if you want.

With Pharaoh, I don't see an analogous "heroic epic" source they could draw on. They're marketing this as the next historical game, and they seem conscious of how smaller fantasy titles can't compete with Warhammer.

It bears worth repeating that every Total War, since the beginning of the series, has sacrificed history for spectacle to varying degrees. This goes back to CA's whole "historical authenticity" mantra, where they aim to make games that feel historical in the broad strokes, but often miss out on the details. Very popular-history. Rome has a cavalcade of anachronisms (including an Egypt that would've fit much better in Pharaoh), Shogun 2's combat is ahistorically obsessed with 1v1 samurai duels, Attila overemphasizes the scale of the Roman collapse for sake of its apocalyptic imagery, etc. Ultimately, there's going to be sacrifices made for the sake of marketing. People like their flashy sword duels that remind them of pop-history movies, and TW is a mainstream franchise now.

Yes, there will always be sacrifice of historical accuracy for gameplay sake, I don't think anyone is denying that. I don't think anyone wants Total War to be a historical simulation that captures all aspects of history with 100% accuracy. But despite the compromises they made with some of the earlier titles you mentioned, Rome, Shogun 2, Attila, etc. That is not at all the same as what they've done with more recent titles, that broad stroke has become exponentially broader.

The over all feel of the titles is much more "arcadey". The concern for me doesn't come from the fact that factions may not be represented 100% accurately, or that a certain character is present that wasn't in history. It's the over all feeling, the soldiers on the battlefield don't have that same weight, the impact of fatigue, terrain incline, morale seem insignificant, the sound engine is weaker and is less immersive. Jump instantly into any of the older titles versus the new, and it's pretty obvious they had a deeper connection with the historical side, despite any concessions.

The title of the entire series is 'Total War' and for the newer releases (with the exception of the WH series), the battles seem like an after thought. One of the main selling points of the original Shogun Total War and what made it different from other RTS games, was this emphasis on realistic battles, I remember the fatigue for example really affected the troops, they could barely move if they were exhausted. Now it's just cut and paste rock, paper, scissors formula sprinkled with a few formations and modifiers.

The 'historical' modes they've released more recently, that's just a token setting they implemented so they have something to say when people complain about it not being as historical. A stripped down version of the game they intended to release, with less features, units, etc. So you're effectively punishing me for wanting to play the more historically accurate mode. Maybe not so much in 3k, but definitely the case in Troy.

Also being a title that focuses on the war aspect, the Bronze Age doesn't seem like a very exciting warfare.

Anyway, my two cents, I'm bitter about this announcement

[ParthianWarrior]

I don't understand why people say the Bronze Age isn't interesting in terms of warfare or diversity. You have so many different groups and empires forming and each approached warfare in different ways. Just because you are limited to certain classes of infantry and chariots doesn't mean CA won't get creative and make sure each faction roster stands out somehow. Personally, I liked the battles in Troy. I don't need flash and pomp to enjoy my Total War battles.

[EireEmerald]

I don't understand why people say the Bronze Age isn't interesting in terms of warfare or diversity. You have so many different groups and empires forming and each approached warfare in different ways. Just because you are limited to certain classes of infantry and chariots doesn't mean CA won't get creative and make sure each faction roster stands out somehow. Personally, I liked the battles in Troy. I don't need flash and pomp to enjoy my Total War battles.

Yup, you are right. If TW actually do their job and research these civilizations properly then the palette is in fact truly immense. The fact is, civilizations were a lot more unique back then, they were still all influenced by one (Sumeria) But there was less cross pollenation(please someone correct me if i am wrong on this by the way). The Hittites for instance, had a very unique look, the Minoans looks truly mad compared to the Mycenaens who were just across the water. There is a huge palette of unusual units and civ traits to pick from here.

I remember being quite dissapointed in the past with how the celts were represented, particularly the Irish. I noticed a lot of inaccuracies(obviously, what was I expecting) But if the team had done a little more research they would have known how strange the Irish Gaels actually looked, even compared to the mainland celts. I understand this takes a lot of time but my point is, the information is there to make a truly unique unit roster and civilization palette, they just need to look deep and ask the right people.

[zoner16]

Yes, there will always be sacrifice of historical accuracy for gameplay sake, I don't think anyone is denying that. I don't think anyone wants Total War to be a historical simulation that captures all aspects of history with 100% accuracy. But despite the compromises they made with some of the earlier titles you mentioned, Rome, Shogun 2, Attila, etc. That is not at all the same as what they've done with more recent titles, that broad stroke has become exponentially broader.

The over all feel of the titles is much more "arcadey". The concern for me doesn't come from the fact that factions may not be represented 100% accurately, or that a certain character is present that wasn't in history. It's the over all feeling, the soldiers on the battlefield don't have that same weight, the impact of fatigue, terrain incline, morale seem insignificant, the sound engine is weaker and is less immersive. Jump instantly into any of the older titles versus the new, and it's pretty obvious they had a deeper connection with the historical side, despite any concessions.

The title of the entire series is 'Total War' and for the newer releases (with the exception of the WH series), the battles seem like an after thought. One of the main selling points of the original Shogun Total War and what made it different from other RTS games, was this emphasis on realistic battles, I remember the fatigue for example really affected the troops, they could barely move if they were exhausted. Now it's just cut and paste rock, paper, scissors formula sprinkled with a few formations and modifiers.

The 'historical' modes they've released more recently, that's just a token setting they implemented so they have something to say when people complain about it not being as historical. A stripped down version of the game they intended to release, with less features, units, etc. So you're effectively punishing me for wanting to play the more historically accurate mode. Maybe not so much in 3k, but definitely the case in Troy.

Also being a title that focuses on the war aspect, the Bronze Age doesn't seem like a very exciting warfare.

Anyway, my two cents, I'm bitter about this announcement

Troy is honestly the only one of the non-WH games where I feel the combat got too "arcadey," but that's likely a consequence of a new studio trying to use the Warhammer tech for things it wasn't designed for.

3K has most of what I want out of battles. Deep formations, variety of unit roles, crunchy combat, use of terrain (fire attacks are the best). It misses out on a couple things, and heroes are really annoying, but switching to Records mode doesn't lose you much. If they follow the Records mode style of combat, then there's only a few things that they'd need to change to make it pretty immersive for the time period. Namely just make assault infantry actually useful and cut down on the buff bloat.

I don't see why the Bronze Age can't have exciting warfare. The only thing it wouldn't have compared to other TW is heavy cavalry, but you just replace that with chariots, which don't get as much exposure outside this era.

[EmperorJulian]

I really haven't followed Total War much for quite a while. Once they went down the Warhammer path I mostly lost interest. Now I did buy Warhammer I and II, and i even completed a campaign in Mortal Empires. They aren't bad products, and I had a good time with the experience but it's just not my cup of tea. The whole fantasy thing just doesn't do it for me. In a certain sense I'm still stuck in the Days of Rome, Medieval 2 and Empire. I'm actually going to go back and try Attila again and maybe even Thrones of Britannia. I'm mostly indifferent to Pharaoh since I have no interest in the Bronze Age, but I'm willing to take a good look and play it if I'm interested. I skipped Troy entirely.

Oh and I actually liked Rome: Remastered. I know most people didn't care for it and didn't play it but I guess I'm an outlier. Hell, they fixed bugs in the Remastered edition that have been in the game since it came out! All that said, I do hope Pharaoh does well. A failed product doesn't do any of us any good. If there's any hope for a Medieval 3 or an Empire 2 it's better if what we do have succeeds.

[Evan MF]

It's unlikely that there'll ever be a return to historicity at the level we saw in, say, Empire or Napoleon, or attention to simulation as we saw in Rome or Medieval 2. We've had 7 years of fantasy Total War since Warhammer I came out. Since then, CA's been on hiring sprees and grown massively. It's very unlikely anyone who worked on Empire or Napoleon is still working at the company. Those still working there likely have very little influence over the direction of the franchise's gameplay and aesthetic. Moreover, the annoyingly uninspired and unimmersive features such as hero units, magical abilities and capture points have now become deeply-set in their design philosophy. There is simply no going back with CA, their current business is too lucrative and appealing to wider audiences, so being a true corporate outfit why would they change course? We're going to have to look elsewhere for our historical battle simulator fix I'm afraid.

[Rob003]

Troy is honestly the only one of the non-WH games where I feel the combat got too "arcadey," but that's likely a consequence of a new studio trying to use the Warhammer tech for things it wasn't designed for.

3K has most of what I want out of battles. Deep formations, variety of unit roles, crunchy combat, use of terrain (fire attacks are the best). It misses out on a couple things, and heroes are really annoying, but switching to Records mode doesn't lose you much. If they follow the Records mode style of combat, then there's only a few things that they'd need to change to make it pretty immersive for the time period. Namely just make assault infantry actually useful and cut down on the buff bloat.

I don't see why the Bronze Age can't have exciting warfare. The only thing it wouldn't have compared to other TW is heavy cavalry, but you just replace that with chariots, which don't get as much exposure outside this era.

Yeah I agree about 3K, overall that combat wasn't bad, especially with some mods I reasonably enjoyed that title. However, I definitely feel Medieval type combat gives you a much more diverse range of tactics, maybe I'm just ignorant of what Bronze Age combat really consisted off, but especially when we just had Troy, which is already Bronze Age, this will just feel like more of the same.

When I think about Medieval, there's light, med and heavy cav, horse archers, long bows, crossbows, so many different armor types, siege warfare (which CA could really flesh out), etc. Plus you have the opportunity to hit late Medieval Age and start getting into gunpowder, notwithstanding naval combat which we haven't seen for a while.

At the very least, can we get a Medieval 2 remaster?! Pretty please!

I suppose I'll reserve final judgement until it's out though and I can see some gameplay\reviews.

[EmperorJulian]

I got into 3K when it first came out. Honestly, I thought it was pretty good. I played it a bit and then held off for expansions and updates. I -was- going to go back to 3K however when CA jumped ship, I learned that the game had been left with a plethora of game breaking bugs that would now never be fixed - so naturally I never returned. What's the point at this stage? As you'll recall they then announted 3K: 2, a followup that has since been effectively forgotten. Despite the fact that besides Pharaoh it is the -only- other announced product in the pipeline.

Looking at Pharaoh's preorder options, I find them to be quite absurd. I'm not totally opposed to preorders as other people are. I evaluate such things on a case-by-case basis. But if you take a look at what's on offer, one of the options is to prepay for a bunch of DLC packs (cosmetics and factions if I recall) and I'm quite confused as to how anyone can justify the expense at this stage? We've had no gameplay, I don't think they've shown the campaign map and since it's a new Era how can anyone be certain that they want all the extras? Who knows? Maybe they'll still make a lot of money on sales even at this stage but I'm not buying. I just don't know enough to pull the trigger.

One of my big concerns for Pharaoh is that it will become fixated entirely on "hero" units; and this will happen even if it's not the intended outcome. We're already seeing a pretty strong focus on leaders thus far and I'm definitely worried the leaders, like Ramesses II will end up being far more important than they should be - even if they don't include Warhammer-like buffs and "magic." Again, I don't hate Warhammer - I actually liked the Wood Elf campaign I got into a while back. It was enjoyable. But history-based titles require a different touch and blending the two isn't really a great idea. Troy's middle-ground (Truth behind the myth) didn't seem to really appeal to anyone. And again I'm fearful they will try to thread that needle again here, fail (again) and create a product that doesn't appeal to anyone. A game that is neither true enough to history, nor solidly fantasy-based to make anyone happy. I guess we will see.

Also the last time I posted here was like 9 years ago. Boy oh boy has it been a while!

[Alexzav]

I'm sceptical like the most of us about how historical the title is going to be. I definitely agree that if this is going to be another Troy, I'm very unlikely to buy it.

I love to see historical accuracy but the game balance is a thing too. The battles have been left behind a long time ago and CA has to fix it. The physics of the battle itself would be a huge improvement even with the lack of factions diversity

[EireEmerald]

It sounds cheesy but to me it feels like Total War games have lost their soul. And from what I am reading here from other people, I agree, they are on a trajectory and are probably not going to stray from that.

Have you guys seen the cosmetic packs for pre-order? Lol

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Lucius Verenus]

I have followed Total War since the sgogun 1 and loved every single one right up until they changed. It is the reason for my interest in history. However, I have noticed the last few games have gone in a direction that is far less concerned with historical realism, to a more arcade, hero based animation on the battle maps. The battle animations are now cartoon like. It does not feel real.
And so I have not bought a new game in a long time, since I bought Warhammer actually.

I have gone down very much the same route as you, but the last I bought was ToB and being Irish/English was the draw. But it was meh really.

I looked at the gameplay for Three Kingdoms and noticed, even though it was supposed to be historical, there were heroes fighting in single combat on the battlefield. This is not realistic. It did not happen historically.

Actually that is not true, Heroic Combat features at certain points in many histories, including the Gaels/Celts (well known in Eirann), David and Goliath is another example and, of course, the famous Brad Pitt v the other guy

But the 'magical'' stuff getting in along with that is pretty off putting, I liked something that was fairly close to the reality of a given time period/place and opportunity to sandbox my way to victory, I watched the mighty Lionheartx10 play TW Troy and though the story has always been highly interesting to me, I was unmoved by the unreality of it all.
All I was really hoping for was Empire 2 - done as Empire should have been and maybe even more expanded, covering off the period from, say, the merger of Guns and ship tech launching the age of Exploration, then through the Empire and Pax Britannica period maybe ending in 1900. They did that, did it well and I would pay a big chunk for it. As it is I doubt I will ever buy from CA again - (sounds dramatic but my Life expectancy is 2 years so... )

Regards

Lucius

[PointOfViewGun]

Is there any other game that does the opposite? One that focuses on historical accuracy and detail much more?

[EireEmerald]

Actually that is not true, Heroic Combat features at certain points in many histories, including the Gaels/Celts (well known in Eirann), David and Goliath is another example and, of course, the famous Brad Pitt v the other guy


Lucius

I am well aware of these practices historically but if you expect me to believe that TWs recent arcade style cartoon like animations, where heroes pair off in the middle of a melee of hundreds of men and they just make space for it, is historically accurate of these customs, then i am going to have to strongly disagree. 'Heroes' or distinguished warriors in any culture were part of the line of combat, his comrade was to his left and right, the foe was in front. They were fighting and defending against all men to their front, there was no heroic pairing off in a melee. This is hollywood.

[William the Silent]

The historical accuracy in TW has always been brought by the great modders of TW games.
They actually made TW a great game. Without them there would not be this great community of gamers/buyers for TW.
Who plays just the vanilla games? Not the people on this forum.

The company is about making money and attracting more gamers. Since most gamers want beautiful graphics, explosions, super hero action, etc (and are trained to want that) and get their history lessons frm TicToc, they don't care about historical accuracy anymore.
TW has fallen to that level sadly.
It's all about the profit for investors like all big companies. Investors rule the world.

The modders and gamers that made TW great are the losers at the moment. I love history. I love the old TW mods. We'll become dinosaurs.
Keep an old computer to be able to run the old TW games.

Maybe start a "MAKE TW GREAT AGAIN" movement.

My greatest sadness comes from the fact that you cannot play the old games on the new Windows versions anymore.
That means all the old great mods are going to waiste.
RTW + all its great mods are gone. I new reverbished RTW version WILL NOT BRING THEM BACK.
Don't they get it: WE WANT TO PLAY OUR MODS.

I cannot play battles on MTW1 anymore. No siege battles on MTW2 under Windows 11.

I'll just restart my old laptops to play RTW/MTW mods.