Total War: Rule Britannia, literally.

[Impaled Nazarene]

To be fair, playing as ANY of the Romes is freaking easy, lol, cuz they're so big and they start with already substantial armies/economies. More or less the same thing happened while I'm playing as Zenobia on Legendary as it did playing as Octavian. Marc Antony got sandwiched by myself and Pompey in that campaign; whomever the historical leader is got sandwiched in my Zenobia campaign. In both campaigns, they were pushovers; the final Rome then declared war on me, but by then I'd already gotten so huge that it's too late for them to stop me and my doomstacks/economy

Well as weak as Pompey's starting position is I figured it would be a challenge. The only challenge was the weak economy forcing me to rely on the spear infantry early in the game.

[Great Houses of Xie]

Rely on Vigiles? wat. Admittedly, they are only 200, vs the 660 of legionaries, but legionaries are SO GOOD for their price. Like, hermagerd, OP plz nerf efficiency, carving their way through hordes of AI Vigiles.

It helps that freaking Pompey has +15% on army/navy movement. That's....so stronk. It let's you take Carthage in....3 turns max, giving you a big boost to income and, more importantly, taking its "free" barracks. That's about 2 turns of force sailing your navies with their total of 3 artillery pieces between them, 1 turn of training vigiles to bulk up your army, then just straight attacking Carthage at the start of the 3rd turn. ez, lel. From there, it's a one-way push to take the rest of the province and get the economy ball rolling.

On the matter of Pompey's "poor" economy. Sure, he starts with 2k income, but that income is RAPIDLY built up via putting up economic buildings with his readily upgraded buildings and 3 empty building slots at game start. And HOLY BALLZ SARDINIA IS RICH. 2.1k at the start? Give it the 15% edict and get that economy ball rolling.

Sure, all the Romes start allied; wutevs, lol. Marc Antony has a hard time reaching; Octavian's army also has a long way and may bugger off north in the first couple turns, making it a longer turnaround time. By the time anyone can react, it's already too late

I played Stainless Steel; it was meh. There's still a world of difference, fluctuating between whatever number and, say, a poor economy of 3000 and my trolltastic economy of 20k. Sure, mebbe I might get a bad turn of income, but it doesn't matter in the long run, hah. The game definitely doesn't get any harder; it got even easier because the AI got big and then didn't know what to do with the random economy, whereas I can handle the random far better. iirc, I stared at a number of attriting enemy armies because it had produced far too much than it could handle and the big bad for that campaign folded like a wet house of cards. The Black Plague was the worst end-game boss I ever encountered, lol

Don't even get me started on how the AI was supposed to be better.

[Impaled Nazarene]

Rely on Vigiles? wat. Admittedly, they are only 200, vs the 660 of legionaries, but legionaries are SO GOOD for their price. Like, hermagerd, OP plz nerf efficiency, carving their way through hordes of AI Vigiles.

It helps that freaking Pompey has +15% on army/navy movement. That's....so stronk. It let's you take Carthage in....3 turns max, giving you a big boost to income and, more importantly, taking its "free" barracks. That's about 2 turns of force sailing your navies with their total of 3 artillery pieces between them, 1 turn of training vigiles to bulk up your army, then just straight attacking Carthage at the start of the 3rd turn. ez, lel. From there, it's a one-way push to take the rest of the province and get the economy ball rolling.

I used Vigiles because I had no idea if my economy was going to hold up. Upkeep in prior total war games was brutal. But yes I pretty much did what you said. Once I was comfortable with my income and such I replaced them with legion.

[The Two Jerseys]

Yeah, fuck you pirates! Your galleons can't handle my swarm of frigates!

[Impaled Nazarene]

Just a heads up, Warhammer games are on sale on Steam. You can pick up Dawn of War complete edition for $10 as opposed to $40. Total War 40k I want it now or I shall park a Tower of Skulls outside Paradox HQ and lay siege to it with Bolt Throwers.

[The Huskar Social Union]

So the new patch and dlc for warhammer 2 is up, and im seeing nothing but Surtha Ek memes again.

THE ETERNAL CHARIOT STACK HAS RETURNED

[Genivaria]

Trailer for Three Kingdoms.
https://www.facebook.com/TotalWar/video ... 972167460/

[The Huskar Social Union]

Trailer for Three Kingdoms.
https://www.facebook.com/TotalWar/video ... 972167460/

Saw it, was pretty neat.

Apparently they will also have two game modes for 3K, one historical where generals and heroes are in units of soldiers like the other historical games, and one for romanticised version where the lords and heroes are similar to warhammers and can fight on their own.

[The Huskar Social Union]

TW: Three Kingdoms siege screenshot

Taken from this PC Gamer Article

[Great Houses of Xie]

THREE KINGDOMS HYYYYYYYYYPE

Also, finished Palmyra on Legendary in 109 turns just to get the female faction leader victory achievement. The system with growing Zenobia's son is pretty interesting, letting me influence his stats before he comes of age; it'd be nice to incorporate that into moar TWs, considering it's a similar system to Crusader Kings 2. That said, I did get a bug that hilariously gave me two Vaballathuses XD.

On politics, Greek Families are freaking awesome; I don't think their loyalty ever dropped below, like, 50, and careful management kept their influence in check. Roman families are a bunch of traitorous scum who were wiped out and replaced (BUT WHY THOUGH) with the Persian families, who sucked almost as hard; super obnoxiously, the Persian families stole my best admiral to be their faction leader, cuz of freaking course.

[Great Houses of Xie]

For shizz and giggles, I decided to start a Legendary Syracuse campaign. Turn 1, both Rome and Carthage declare war on me; whelp, fack 'em, too, lol

[The Empire of Pretantia]

For shizz and giggles, I decided to start a Legendary Syracuse campaign. Turn 1, both Rome and Carthage declare war on me; whelp, fack 'em, too, lol

I believe in you.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Three Kingdoms looks bold. It's like Total War and Dynasty Warriors fucked.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Three Kingdoms looks bold. It's like Total War and Dynasty Warriors fucked.

That duel looked fucking awesome. I want to play it on the historical version first, but that video is changing my mind.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Three Kingdoms looks bold. It's like Total War and Dynasty Warriors fucked.

I really don't like the look of it. Looks way too arcadey.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Three Kingdoms looks bold. It's like Total War and Dynasty Warriors fucked.

I really don't like the look of it. Looks way too arcadey.

Which is fitting, since Total War isn't a simulator. This installment is looking to be maximum A E S T H E T I C. Not even Shogun or Rome can match the A E S T H E T I C.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I really don't like the look of it. Looks way too arcadey.

Which is fitting, since Total War isn't a simulator. This installment is looking to be maximum A E S T H E T I C. Not even Shogun or Rome can match the A E S T H E T I C.

Fair, but I at least like the illusion of historicity (outside of the fantasy games; if they just say that this is a fantasy game, I'd be fine with it).

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Which is fitting, since Total War isn't a simulator. This installment is looking to be maximum A E S T H E T I C. Not even Shogun or Rome can match the A E S T H E T I C.

Fair, but I at least like the illusion of historicity (outside of the fantasy games; if they just say that this is a fantasy game, I'd be fine with it).

TBH I am pretty sure Three Kingdoms is taking notes from the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which both explains a lot and is unsurprising.

Kinda makes me wanna read it now.

[Absolon-7]

https://www.totalwar.com/blog/three-kingdoms-romanticised-history

Looks like 3K is going to have to two modes. The default dynasty-warriors-esque mode and a Classic mode that's more historical. In their words:

A big difference is how these iconic heroes behave on the battlefield. By default, we adhere to the romanticised view: these characters can hold their own against hundreds of rank-and-file warriors. They’ll appear as single character units and fight like the heroes from Luo Guanzhong’s epic. In Classic Mode, they’ll appear in battle the way you might expect a classic Total War general to do: they’re only human, and will march into battle at the centre of a bodyguard unit.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Yeah there is a classic mode and a romance mode, which i think is a great idea.

[Great Houses of Xie]

I dont care much for heroic duels, so I'll prolly do classic mode before seeing how heroes play out

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I dont care much for heroic duels, so I'll prolly do classic mode before seeing how heroes play out

Straight to romance mode for me!

[Forsher]

Another reason why we need Stainless Steel to be like Darthmod in that one is made for every Total War

Game gets harder as you get larger and the economy fluctuates instead of just accumulating money

Two interesting features of the original (and superior) MTW... firstly, you couldn't trade with yourself so your trade income would eventually nose-dive. Secondly, because every province had a governor (ish, you did have to allocate them) and because by the late game you had everyone getting crazy corruption traits (the trait reports I'd get were sooo long) you did actually feel the bite. (Man, I wish the Steam version worked on my computer.)

Frankly, I feel like the more recent Total Wars I've played (Attila's Charlemagne version and R2) have basically just made the early game more expensive, you ride out those problems and eventually you can actually afford stuff and then eventually you're just crazy wealthy.

[Great Houses of Xie]

Oh my lawdy, the nostalgia goggles are hilariously stronk with this one. In vanilla M1, I had somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% to 75% more full stacks than any other TW since. Admittedly, army caps have increased to 20, compared to m1's.....16? But, for example, I had 10 full armies and fleets at the end of my R2 zenobia campaign, having conquered almost the entire map, so 200 units with approx 10k income with trade. By comparison, I'd have 17 field armies in M1 with approx 270ish units, with a 10k income, owning most of the map, excluding trade income since I was eternally at war. Hell, never mind endgame. I had in excess of 20 full stacks to oppose the mongols the moment they entered the board edge, for entertaining battles that would be several hours long, due to the old style of reinforcements trickling onto the field as units died/routed.

Yeah, looking at the buildings again, sooooooo many boosts to income by 100% or other big percentages. Plus, reading through old info, apparently you could generate income via trade goods if there were no trade partners to be had. Just gotta build ports and merchant buildings, then ships to connect the ports.

And for real, if you were dumb enough to keep corrupt characters as governors, that has nothing to do with having superior mechanics and everything to do with bad play.

The only tw that I could achieve similar economy is FOTS, with its hilariously huge late-game economic numbers

I find it hilarious that you think early game got harder, when it's the mid/lategame that has been constantly hit. They got rid of economic growth in r2 and later titles, in favor of flat economic values. They introduced more mechanics, such as sanitation, food, and buildings that affect public order negatively; said mechanics dont terribly impact early game, but in order to generate more income via higher tier buildings, the mechanics must be carefully bslanced. Also, the bigger the realm, the more corruption and less income generated if provinces arent geared towards econony, added in r2, methinks. Wh went a step further and drastically increased army upkeep with more armies, in addition to reducing the number of possible economic buildings and making threats capable of randomly appearing anywhere in the realm, thus necessitating building slots be used for defense. Wh, by far and away, has the absolute worst income of the tws

Tl;dr: m1 had an amazing economy that would take deliberate bungling to prevent growth

[Forsher]

Oh my lawdy, the nostalgia goggles are hilariously stronk with this one. In vanilla M1, I had somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% to 75% more full stacks than any other TW since.

That's just bad army building. There's really no reason you could not have had similarly enormous armies in any of Med 2, either Rome or Empire beyond artificial restrictions on the number of stacks. Example.

Although, of course, it would help if you actually read what I wrote. Have fun trying to find the bit where I suggested anything more than "two interesting features". This extended rant on a continual march to economic success? Not what I was arguing. This is, after all, a game that would let you go a 100 turns with negative incomes.

Admittedly, army caps have increased to 20, compared to m1's.....16? But, for example, I had 10 full armies and fleets at the end of my R2 zenobia campaign, having conquered almost the entire map, so 200 units with approx 10k income with trade. By comparison, I'd have 17 field armies in M1 with approx 270ish units, with a 10k income, owning most of the map, excluding trade income since I was eternally at war. Hell, never mind endgame. I had in excess of 20 full stacks to oppose the mongols the moment they entered the board edge, for entertaining battles that would be several hours long, due to the old style of reinforcements trickling onto the field as units died/routed.

To be fair, the AI in general would often develop very large forces. Here's a post with a screen shot... enemy forces 13,466... and that was an ordinary faction, not the Horde.

Yeah, looking at the buildings again, sooooooo many boosts to income by 100% or other big percentages. Plus, reading through old info, apparently you could generate income via trade goods if there were no trade partners to be had. Just gotta build ports and merchant buildings, then ships to connect the ports.

I assure you, you could only trade via sea and you could only do so with parties that weren't you. This is problematic if you play the game logically because seaward expansion was just so easy.

And for real, if you were dumb enough to keep corrupt characters as governors, that has nothing to do with having superior mechanics and everything to do with bad play.

Did you even appoint governors? Do you even remember how difficult it was to identify characters? In any given turn, you could have dozens of characters gain negative traits... hundreds potentially... and you'd have to go through this list, entirely, every. single. turn.

Hell, if you were paying attention to everything that you wrote, you'd have noticed that losing a lot of money to corruption doesn't incentivise fiddling with highly manual

The only tw that I could achieve similar economy is FOTS, with its hilariously huge late-game economic numbers

I find it hilarious that you think early game got harder, when it's the mid/lategame that has been constantly hit. They got rid of economic growth in r2 and later titles, in favor of flat economic values. They introduced more mechanics, such as sanitation, food, and buildings that affect public order negatively; said mechanics dont terribly impact early game, but in order to generate more income via higher tier buildings, the mechanics must be carefully bslanced.

Not really.

The early loyalty and food issues that arise are fare more problematic than santitation later on. It's annoying, but once you get to a certain point, there's just really not much to worry about. Indeed, if you were doing things properly early on... to escape the problems of the early game... you have already solved these other ones. You can even start to afford playing the game alternatively, i.e. training and using agents.

Insofar as there are complications it's just because of restrictions on what can be built. The late game is really boring in Rome II because you've built everything. This did happen in MTW because of the crazy incomes but there was so much more to build... not just in terms of building slots but also depth. There were, as I recall, six or eight levels of castle, which sounds absurdly high so maybe I am misremembering.

Also, the bigger the realm, the more corruption and less income generated if provinces arent geared towards econony, added in r2, methinks.

This has been a feature since at least MTW... as we have just been discussing.

Wh went a step further and drastically increased army upkeep with more armies, in addition to reducing the number of possible economic buildings and making threats capable of randomly appearing anywhere in the realm, thus necessitating building slots be used for defense. Wh, by far and away, has the absolute worst income of the tws

Tl;dr: m1 had an amazing economy that would take deliberate bungling to prevent growth

tl;dr -- maybe respond to words as written, not arguments not made.