/games/ - Games

Yeah, I find myself preferring the older games.

>being able to switch between fantasy and historical is also a very good idea
It is actually an awful idea that shows there is no artistic vision behind any of this. They made Troy with actually interesting "truth behind myth" concept, and then it didnt sold well enough, so they added option to turn it either into a historical title or Warhammer, whatever consumer wants, just please buy our game.

I've heard good things about Total War: Empire

>>40487
Total War died the moment they removed population mechanics…

Rome 2 is unironically one of my favourite games of all time.

This thread made me want to go back and play TW. I've been out of the loop so I haven't even heard of this Britain one. Looks pretty good. No one even mentioned it in this thread either but the reviews I'm seeing online look pretty good.

>Total War Troy
>Sonic Forces
>Sonic Superstars
>Hyenas
SEGA can't keep getting away with this! At least the Yakuza and SMT games are good.

>>40487
>older games, shogun 2, Attila and occasionally Napoleon.
AHAHAHAHAHA you cant be serious. I started playing from Shogun 1 onwards and I still dont understand this bitching and moaning about Total Wars being ruined. I think the problem is user base turning from nerds to normies who love to complain about everything.

>>40552
i like thrones of brittania

>>40487
yean napolean and attila are my favorites, but i actually enjoy three kingdoms and pharoah plenty

>>40924
there are certain mechanics which i simply do not like of modern TW such as hitpoints, though it is more berable in Attila imo

>>40552
shit when it released,decent now,like all the other ones.
seriously,all the base warhammer ones were poop too (now they have mods as a crutch too),and don't get me started on Rome 2

>>40551
tbf rome 2 was the start of the decline

I think the problem with modern total wars is the new engine, the old rome/medieval engine actually had collision. But nowadays units' men just slide off each other

>>43772
The physics floatiness, introduction of HP and replacement of mechanics with numberical modifiers leads to disconnect between what is visually happening and screen and what is actually going on in the game. Like in Warhammer cavalry charges will blow up infantry formation like they got rammed by a train, but do no damage, so everyone just gets up and continues fighting. Or testudo formation in newer games being simple range defense buff, so there is no directionality and unit can shrug off arrows hitting their exposed flanks.

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

>>40487
play dominions 6

Tbh I really liked Thrones of Brittania. Idk why so many people hate it, this was the only time I've had fun with Total War since Rome. Gwynedd (why did they change the name?) was really fun, it was an actual challenge fighting Wessex at least at the beginning until it got to the point where I was just map painting. My only issue was Powys back capping me so hard it was insane and they captured all of my farms so I had a famine, but apart from dealing with them I was maxxed out on food. The siege battles were a highlight though (which if kind of funny considering the time period). It was fun role play but idk how you were meant to unite Cymru diplomatically.

Shogun 2 was good visually but it didn't really keep me playing, and I just don't get why you would play the fantasy ones. Warhammer total war is one of my least favourite strategy games of all time because the infantry doesn't even matter, the big super duper epic dragon units just kill your entire army. What's even the point of having an army if a single hero can kill it all anyway and its only them who actually matter? I don't think the franchise has really improved that much since Rome total war. That game was so perfect and everything since has just been very incremental steps (like Shogun and Thrones of Brittania) or going backwards like Warhammer.

>>43792
maybe 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

>>43792
It does seem like they've only compounded the worst parts of empire since it came out.

I think the biggest issue Total War games all suffer from is too much fighting, which makes individual battles feel meaningless. Soldiers train fast, manpower is conjured out of thin air, money is plentiful, so the result is a neverending stream of soldiers constantly coming your way, grinding the pacing to the halt. The best Total War experience I had was with SSHIP mod for Medieval 2, which severely increases unit wage plus adds bunch of other expenses, unit pool replenishment takes long time, so when I played as Lithuania at the beginning of the game half a stack was a major army, and defeating it actually had an impact on the overall war because neither me nor computer can just shit out another one in a turn.