Total War has deteriorated to such an absurd fucking degree they make good ideas shitty in practice every new game. i entered the TW fanbase quite late (2016) but despite that i find myself playing mostly older games, shogun 2, Attila and occasionally Napoleon. i LOVE the ideas Troy put foward having more resources has always been an obvious expansion for TW, being able to switch between fantasy and historical is also a very good idea considering the many mythical creatures they could've/havd added. and yet despite all of this Troy is fucking shit because the core fundamentals of TW have degraded to such an extent it's just a worse game. Morale is utterly useless and broken, units can survive until they have 5 men in them, literally what's the point of tactics? why flank? battles are now only decided on who has the better men. Shogun 2 and Napoleon have by far the best morale system, despite Attila using the Rome 2 system i still find it quite good (at least for the early game). shit even fantasy TW should be awesome and instead all units feel the exact same, how do you even do that? you have limitless opportunies yet 90 percent of the roaster serves the same function. i have lost all hopes on those faggots.
13 posts and 1 image reply omitted.i actually really like 3 kingdoms and pharoah for the diplomatic systems/maps. Pharoah's economy is neat as well, and the bronze age era is an easy draw for me. but yeah as another relative latecomer (~2013ish) Napolean is my favorite, and i also really like Attila. also surprisingly really loved Thrones of Brittania, the more limited scope made the art direction & themes feel more well developed. never even touched the fantasy games.
idk i always come back to TW but it never holds my attention for too long. the problem for me hasnt ever necessarily been the particular problems title to title but the overall gameplay loop. the strategic campaign/tactical combat is a massive draw and has so much potential, but it always ends up feeling kind of clunky and unsatisfying. like its strangely rare to actually feel like the tactical combat is a hig stakes, pivotal battle. if youre playing the campaign right youre moving around with a couple big stacks and not overextending yourself, and then the most challenging battles are playing as a garrison fighting off a small enemy army that snuck behind your borders. even if its a fun combat, it ends up feeling tedious. ultimately everything is just about managing a very linear economy to maintain enough garrisons to go on the offensive. which doesnt sound terrible in theory, but in practice youre constantly jumping between relatively inconsequential economic decisions (upgrade building now or later) and relatively inconsequential battles (need to spend 30 minutes defending a location peripheral to the main action). and halfway optimal play means you need to micromanage all of it, which means spending a few hours jumping between decisions that rarely feel like they tie together and payoff.
then they add in this half-baked dynastic politics that isnt important enough to be satisfying but is too important to ignore completely.
i think Total War might benefit from leaning in to the more focused premises, and adjusting the priorities of campaign strategy so that attrition/training of your armies is more of a priority than managing country economy. in Napolean youre either trying to defeat Napolean or conquer Europe as Napolean. in Attila youre either trying to survive the hordes or you are the hordes. even with the other flaws present, at least when the campaign has this clear context it feels like what youre doing has some stakes and narrative so that its easier to enjoy the process
>>43792maybe it's because I played pretty much only with SFO,but the ebin dragons get absolutely murdered by like two units of halberd stopping them from flying away.
also guns in general melt single entities,and being a big monster is terrible to not get hit.
Only talking about warhammer 3 tho,never played the first one and I don't remember 2