Total War: Rule Britannia, literally.

[The first Galactic Republic]

I love Empire.

But I wish I could keep a save game going into the late 1700’s without the file crashing constantly.

[Impaled Nazarene]

I love Empire.

But I wish I could keep a save game going into the late 1700’s without the file crashing constantly.

Blame Steam and CA for not optimizing their games when new versions of operating systems are released.

[Andsed]

Nice to see we have a total war thread. I think my favorite of the total war games is Rome 1. I mean I like all of these new games but Rome 1 will always have a special place in my heart as it was the first Total war game I played.

Rome is awesome. My first was empire but I hate how shallow it feels and it only gets worse with time.

Yeah Empire was a bit of a flop which is a shame since the napelonic period had some interesting warfare that could be fun. But I mean Napoleon total war was okay so we have that at least.

[Bloodshade]

As much as I love Rome 1, it hasn't really aged that well.

Still, I'm glad Rome 2 is still getting attention after all these years. They could've easily ignored it and focused completely on fantasy content. They've turned it from a messy buggy disaster into a fun, great and, most importantly, playable game.

Also, OP, might want to change the title to something more Three Kingdoms related! Mr Dong is not pleased!

[The Huskar Social Union]

As much as I love Rome 1, it hasn't really aged that well.

Still, I'm glad Rome 2 is still getting attention after all these years. They could've easily ignored it and focused completely on fantasy content. They've turned it from a messy buggy disaster into a fun, great and, most importantly, playable game.

Also, OP, might want to change the title to something more Three Kingdoms related! Mr Dong is not pleased!

Rome 2 is quite fun now i agree, has an awesome mod scene too though not as good as the warhammer games imo

[Andsed]

As much as I love Rome 1, it hasn't really aged that well.

Still, I'm glad Rome 2 is still getting attention after all these years. They could've easily ignored it and focused completely on fantasy content. They've turned it from a messy buggy disaster into a fun, great and, most importantly, playable game.

Also, OP, might want to change the title to something more Three Kingdoms related! Mr Dong is not pleased!

Kinda disagree there. Rome 1 while simplistic I feel is still a fun and playable game today. But yeah Rome 2 has improved quite bit lately.


Also fuck skirmishing cav. I know random thing to say but I really hate dealing skirmishing cav.

[Impaled Nazarene]

As much as I love Rome 1, it hasn't really aged that well.

Still, I'm glad Rome 2 is still getting attention after all these years. They could've easily ignored it and focused completely on fantasy content. They've turned it from a messy buggy disaster into a fun, great and, most importantly, playable game.

Also, OP, might want to change the title to something more Three Kingdoms related! Mr Dong is not pleased!

Kinda disagree there. Rome 1 while simplistic I feel is still a fun and playable game today. But yeah Rome 2 has improved quite bit lately.


Also fuck skirmishing cav. I know random thing to say but I really hate dealing skirmishing cav.

Skirmishing has been broken for ages. Empire and Napoleon had skirmisher riflemen who were only killable by cavalry charge, artillery, or other riflemen

[Bloodshade]

Rome 2 is quite fun now i agree, has an awesome mod scene too though not as good as the warhammer games imo

Warhammer is on a whole other level. Fantasy is not as restrictive as historical TW games. Plus, I use autoresolve way less since the battles are much more fun.

CA could probably pull off a mythology game! It would be the best fusion of history and fantasy.

Kinda disagree there. Rome 1 while simplistic I feel is still a fun and playable game today. But yeah Rome 2 has improved quite bit lately.


Also fuck skirmishing cav. I know random thing to say but I really hate dealing skirmishing cav.

I think everyone would agree that skirmishing cavalry is awful to deal with, especially when you're playing as a melee focused faction. In Rome 2 at least, I found that artillery seems to melt cavalry...when the projectiles actually hit those speedy bastards!

Honestly, it's not that Rome 1 is simplistic. On the contrary, I feel like the Rome 1 campaign has much more depth than in vanilla Rome 2. My main problem is the battle AI but then again, that can be said for every TW game but it feels more severe in Rome 1.

I guess it's not fair to say that about Rome 1 since it's a rather ancient game but that's what I mean by 'not aged well'. It was fantastic at the time but its flaws are clear when I play it now. Still, Rome 1 is in my top 5 TW games!

[Andsed]

Rome 2 is quite fun now i agree, has an awesome mod scene too though not as good as the warhammer games imo

Warhammer is on a whole other level. Fantasy is not as restrictive as historical TW games. Plus, I use autoresolve way less since the battles are much more fun.

CA could probably pull off a mythology game! It would be the best fusion of history and fantasy.

Kinda disagree there. Rome 1 while simplistic I feel is still a fun and playable game today. But yeah Rome 2 has improved quite bit lately.


Also fuck skirmishing cav. I know random thing to say but I really hate dealing skirmishing cav.

I think everyone would agree that skirmishing cavalry is awful to deal with, especially when you're playing as a melee focused faction. In Rome 2 at least, I found that artillery seems to melt cavalry...when the projectiles actually hit those speedy bastards!

Honestly, it's not that Rome 1 is simplistic. On the contrary, I feel like the Rome 1 campaign has much more depth than in vanilla Rome 2. My main problem is the battle AI but then again, that can be said for every TW game but it feels more severe in Rome 1.

I guess it's not fair to say that about Rome 1 since it's a rather ancient game but that's what I mean by 'not aged well'. It was fantastic at the time but its flaws are clear when I play it now. Still, Rome 1 is in my top 5 TW games!

A mythology total war game actually does sound pretty cool. In regards to skirmishing cav I find if you have your own skirmishers your able to ward them off okay but when you don´t it is just a huge pain in the arse.

And yeah Rome 1 definitely has many flaws due to it´s age. I think everyone can agree with that I just really love it for some reason.

[Forsher]

What do you guys mean by depth anyway?

The campaigns are pretty much all the same... build provinces, build economy, steamroll AI.

[Impaled Nazarene]

I think tw warhammer has broken the fanbase. i remember on first announcement through the announcement of 2 that every warhammer post is filled with angry reacts and mad comments. Now whenever historical or in this case "historical" posts are made its filled with angry reacts and comments from warhammer fans. Either historical fans jumped ship or the fanbase broke.

[The Huskar Social Union]

I think tw warhammer has broken the fanbase. i remember on first announcement through the announcement of 2 that every warhammer post is filled with angry reacts and mad comments. Now whenever historical or in this case "historical" posts are made its filled with angry reacts and comments from warhammer fans. Either historical fans jumped ship or the fanbase broke.

Thats a meme for the most part from my experience, with the odd salty twat thrown in because how dare they make other games.

As far as i am concerned the warhammer games are the best ones since shogun 2 and some of the best they have ever made, and i can still enjoy the historical ones too.

[Impaled Nazarene]

I think tw warhammer has broken the fanbase. i remember on first announcement through the announcement of 2 that every warhammer post is filled with angry reacts and mad comments. Now whenever historical or in this case "historical" posts are made its filled with angry reacts and comments from warhammer fans. Either historical fans jumped ship or the fanbase broke.

Thats a meme for the most part from my experience, with the odd salty twat thrown in because how dare they make other games.

As far as i am concerned the warhammer games are the best ones since shogun 2 and some of the best they have ever made, and i can still enjoy the historical ones too.

Well when the historical titles since being: So shit on launch it took years to earn the trust back, A game that should have been released years later, and a disappointing mess released at the franchise's lowest point that felt rushed and half assed.
I don't blame Warhammer 1&2 for being good.
I do blame them for making Chaos shit and making 80% of the game DLC and making 2 right after 1 and selling both for full price.

[The first Galactic Republic]

I think tw warhammer has broken the fanbase. i remember on first announcement through the announcement of 2 that every warhammer post is filled with angry reacts and mad comments. Now whenever historical or in this case "historical" posts are made its filled with angry reacts and comments from warhammer fans. Either historical fans jumped ship or the fanbase broke.

Personally I did ignore these games because I don’t know Warhammer and I’m a huge fan of the historical nature of the games. I wasn’t angry or anything. I just didn’t buy them.

Given the outrage culture ingrained into gaming communities, I can see some people with a predilection for butthurt being genuinely upset about it.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Thats a meme for the most part from my experience, with the odd salty twat thrown in because how dare they make other games.

As far as i am concerned the warhammer games are the best ones since shogun 2 and some of the best they have ever made, and i can still enjoy the historical ones too.

Well when the historical titles since being: So shit on launch it took years to earn the trust back, A game that should have been released years later, and a disappointing mess released at the franchise's lowest point that felt rushed and half assed.
I don't blame Warhammer 1&2 for being good.
I do blame them for making Chaos shit and making 80% of the game DLC and making 2 right after 1 and selling both for full price.

Well they always were going to make a trilogy of games, they said this from the start iirc

And unlike some of their previous games, the dlc for these has for the most part been worth it in my opinion bar one or two cases (beastmen, chaos)

[Bloodshade]

What do you guys mean by depth anyway?

The campaigns are pretty much all the same... build provinces, build economy, steamroll AI.

Well, newer historical TW games like Rome 2 are missing features like population, late game events, Pope/Senate systems (Replaced with a rather frustrating and unenjoyable political party system imo), Realm Divide and so on.

Obviously, when you boil it down, it's pretty much what you're saying but still..

Well they always were going to make a trilogy of games, they said this from the start iirc

And unlike some of their previous games, the dlc for these has for the most part been worth it in my opinion bar one or two cases (beastmen, chaos)

Agreed, most of CA's Warhammer DLCs are rather 'wholesome' but they should be careful about the factions they exclude and throw into DLCs. I'm hoping Chaos Dwarfs don't suffer that fate because their diverse roster would be great to have from the start. I think they're essential for the next part of Warhammer.

Also, it's rather funny that the TW community was mad about CA releasing too many DLCs for WH1 and now they're mad about CA releasing too little DLC for WH2. Granted, the DLCs of WH1 (Grim and the Grave, King and the Warlord) weren't really all that valuable compared to the WH2 DLCs. I mean, Vampire Coast just blows everything out of the water.

Well, here's hoping the Beastmen and Chaos get a massive overhaul in WH3 because they need it desperately!

[Forsher]

What do you guys mean by depth anyway?

The campaigns are pretty much all the same... build provinces, build economy, steamroll AI.

Well, newer historical TW games like Rome 2 are missing features like population, late game events, Pope/Senate systems (Replaced with a rather frustrating and unenjoyable political party system imo), Realm Divide and so on.

Obviously, when you boil it down, it's pretty much what you're saying but still..

Are you sure Rome II doesn't have population? I always have terrible trouble with the slave population percentage because I want money so I sack new settlements instead of razing or occupying them. (Can't remember the terminology exactly.)

I can definitely understand the frustration that Rome II quite severely impedes the ability to build cities and so forth but at the same time I question whether or not this reduces game depth. I mean, when you look at, say, MTW where eventually every single province consists of exactly the same things and there's absolutely nothing left to build and compare it with Rome II where the game's design forces decisions to be made about what goes on in them... I'd say Rome II is deeper.

I haven't played Empire as much as I have MTW or either Rome but I think it might have a better balance between providing "choice" depth (a la Rome II) and "option" depth (a la MTW). The way there's the main province and buildings and then those villages or whatever they're called which offer opportunities to be developed in different directions. In the context of Rome II this could have been implemented based on what has been put into the actual province. For example, if you haven't built roads (which annoyingly we don't get to do) or aqueducts then it might not be possible to develop emerging villages that are far from the province capital (I mean whatever the smaller one is... regions?). Villages with this problem would develop into something automatically... not "slums" but something, probably something that reflects the interests of the faction in control of that area (or if governors were brought back, the governor). Or if there isn't enough food surplus it might not be possible to build anything other than a farm type.

As to the Senate/Pope versus party politics... I, again, think there's much more depth to the current system than the old thing. I mean, balancing the senate concerns was really easy whereas the newer one is more complex with more meaningful trade-offs. As to realm divide... I refer to my previous point about how Rome used to have an easy to manage political system: never had one in my big game (as opposed to the games I played as Carthage where I sucked so much I quit them to play another... as yet unresumed... game as a Roman faction).

[Bloodshade]

Are you sure Rome II doesn't have population? I always have terrible trouble with the slave population percentage because I want money so I sack new settlements instead of razing or occupying them. (Can't remember the terminology exactly.)

I can definitely understand the frustration that Rome II quite severely impedes the ability to build cities and so forth but at the same time I question whether or not this reduces game depth. I mean, when you look at, say, MTW where eventually every single province consists of exactly the same things and there's absolutely nothing left to build and compare it with Rome II where the game's design forces decisions to be made about what goes on in them... I'd say Rome II is deeper.

I haven't played Empire as much as I have MTW or either Rome but I think it might have a better balance between providing "choice" depth (a la Rome II) and "option" depth (a la MTW). The way there's the main province and buildings and then those villages or whatever they're called which offer opportunities to be developed in different directions. In the context of Rome II this could have been implemented based on what has been put into the actual province. For example, if you haven't built roads (which annoyingly we don't get to do) or aqueducts then it might not be possible to develop emerging villages that are far from the province capital (I mean whatever the smaller one is... regions?). Villages with this problem would develop into something automatically... not "slums" but something, probably something that reflects the interests of the faction in control of that area (or if governors were brought back, the governor). Or if there isn't enough food surplus it might not be possible to build anything other than a farm type.

As to the Senate/Pope versus party politics... I, again, think there's much more depth to the current system than the old thing. I mean, balancing the senate concerns was really easy whereas the newer one is more complex with more meaningful trade-offs. As to realm divide... I refer to my previous point about how Rome used to have an easy to manage political system: never had one in my big game (as opposed to the games I played as Carthage where I sucked so much I quit them to play another... as yet unresumed... game as a Roman faction).

I meant about the population in Rome 1 which affected recruitment, happiness, squalor and so on. Slavery is still a thing but I've never really had much trouble with it. Occupying is usually your best bet. You'll almost never get a slave rebellion and it eventually pays off. You just need to get to that snowballing point and you're good to go. I do wish razing or sacking did not end up giving you ownership like in Warhammer. It'd definitely make things easier but I guess it's not fair for the AI since they need the handicap against a human player.

The population mechanic is coming back in Three Kingdoms and we're even getting the supply system so all is well. I guess I can just download DEI but I can't stand the battles. It's too realistic to the point where its too much like a simulator.

Anyways, with the way Rome 1 works out, I find that it's not easy to build every building possible in a single city so you'd have to build up a city in a certain way like turning it into either an economy or military based city. I don't know about you but I usually end the game while still not reaching a settlements full potential, unless if its the capital or important regions but from my experience, maxing out settlements is much quicker in Rome 2.

As for the political system, it seems like a matter of taste. I just feel like the Rome 2 system gets in the way more often than not. It's just feels like a thorn in my side when I play the game, even though it does feel realistic but the historical Total War games have to be careful about the realism aspect. I lean more on the arcade aspect though which is probably why I despise most overhaul mods but I know I'm part of a minority.

Personally, I preferred the Rome 1 system where it gave you the power to revolt whenever you were ready and comfortable. In Rome 1, I wouldn't say its easy to satisfy the Senate. It definitely is at the beginning of the game as you have little to no direction of what to do but once you shape up your empire, the Senate missions are rather detrimental to your own efforts. Like, senators, for the 100th time, I'm not going to blockade that stupid port on the other side of the map just because you said so.

I think the problem with Rome 2's political system is that there's a lack of direction to it. I feel like Rome 2's base game would've benefited a lot more if it had been more story driven, similar to Atilla, Shogun 2, Warhammer 2 and probably Three Kingdoms?

[Impaled Nazarene]

Total War sale going on right now. Was going to drop $30 on the rest of Rome II's DLC but I'm not sure as i need to save up some money for my Gaming PC.

[NeuPolska]

Total War sale going on right now. Was going to drop $30 on the rest of Rome II's DLC but I'm not sure as i need to save up some money for my Gaming PC.

$30 really isn’t that much though?

[Impaled Nazarene]

Total War sale going on right now. Was going to drop $30 on the rest of Rome II's DLC but I'm not sure as i need to save up some money for my Gaming PC.

$30 really isn’t that much though?

it is if you're an impulse buyer because $30 = $300

[Impaled Nazarene]

Honestly I'm sick of Rome 2's spammy diplomatic AI. It's almost as bad as empire's. If only garrison's weren't bs or else I'd declare war on every barbarian OPM that tried shaking me down. "Non aggression pact/trade agreement/defensive alliance for 3000 and I make a mean comment." Uh huh. My counter offer: Fucking die or gift me money.

[Forsher]

Honestly I'm sick of Rome 2's spammy diplomatic AI. It's almost as bad as empire's. If only garrison's weren't bs or else I'd declare war on every barbarian OPM that tried shaking me down. "Non aggression pact/trade agreement/defensive alliance for 3000 and I make a mean comment." Uh huh. My counter offer: Fucking die or gift me money.

A trade-agreement is almost always going to be worth a non-aggression pact. The game also makes it easy to see how long it'd take for a monetary deal to pay off. Really, I can only see this being a problem if you play extremely aggressively. And that's a bad thing... the absence of features like this basically force players into aggressive play. Just think about how dumb the AI is about diplomacy... refusing deals obviously in the best interest of the faction.

I mean, I know the games are called Total War but the second game in the series was very explicitly designed to be played two ways... by conquest or glorious achievements. (STW might have had this feature too, I don't know.)

[Impaled Nazarene]

Honestly I'm sick of Rome 2's spammy diplomatic AI. It's almost as bad as empire's. If only garrison's weren't bs or else I'd declare war on every barbarian OPM that tried shaking me down. "Non aggression pact/trade agreement/defensive alliance for 3000 and I make a mean comment." Uh huh. My counter offer: Fucking die or gift me money.

A trade-agreement is almost always going to be worth a non-aggression pact. The game also makes it easy to see how long it'd take for a monetary deal to pay off. Really, I can only see this being a problem if you play extremely aggressively. And that's a bad thing... the absence of features like this basically force players into aggressive play. Just think about how dumb the AI is about diplomacy... refusing deals obviously in the best interest of the faction.

I mean, I know the games are called Total War but the second game in the series was very explicitly designed to be played two ways... by conquest or glorious achievements. (STW might have had this feature too, I don't know.)

I'm not paying a neighboring opm for a useless treaty.

[Redemption-America]

A trade-agreement is almost always going to be worth a non-aggression pact. The game also makes it easy to see how long it'd take for a monetary deal to pay off. Really, I can only see this being a problem if you play extremely aggressively. And that's a bad thing... the absence of features like this basically force players into aggressive play. Just think about how dumb the AI is about diplomacy... refusing deals obviously in the best interest of the faction.

I mean, I know the games are called Total War but the second game in the series was very explicitly designed to be played two ways... by conquest or glorious achievements. (STW might have had this feature too, I don't know.)

I'm not paying a neighboring opm for a useless treaty.

Exactly. Just peacefully annex them by besieging and taking their one city. Peacefully lol.