/games/ - Games

>>43467
I just started playing Britannia for the first time after not playing any TWs since Shogun 2 came out. The campaign seems a little simplistic IMO coming back after playing Paradox games. I know that's not the focus but they could do more. Thinking about CK3, the wars take forever because when you win a battle, the enemy manages to retreat with a substantial force, and face you again and they do a lot of avoidance of you as well when they know you're going to stomp them. In this game, the AI charged me with an army half my size. Maybe a few units, and the general manage to escape, then I easily just chase them down again and finish them off.

So total war was a legend for doing the simulated sword battles, which really no one else has done since, but they could try and put some more effort into the campaign I think.

>>43468
>they could try and put some more effort into the campaign I think.

3 Kingdoms and Pharoah have the best campaign mechanics in the series imo. the issue imo is that in medieval & empire/napolean you at least had more dynamic non-combat units to move around on the map in a more boardgame like way. the simplification to just spy/diplomat they did in rome/attila/britannia flattened the game and was already lagging behind the dynamics of other strategy games. 3 kingdoms/pharoah adds a much more "paradox like" campaign, with more diplomatic depth, different map modes, etc.

pharoah is actually really good now btw, the free update they put out was fantastic. as much as CA's neglect of the historical entries is obvious and sucks and come with all the predatory DLC bullshit, i feel like im in the minority of the longer term TW players that actually really likes the new historical entries. my favorite entry is probably napolean though, that eras combat just makes for such satisfying tactical gameplay

i tried sometimes to get into total war but my normal rts bias kinda throws me off, is there a "gateway" game of sorts

>>43470
eh not really, its one of those things where you get it right away or its not your thing, more or less

https://www.moddb.com/mods/total-fots-series/downloads
Shogun 2 mods, one is a very WIP Carlist Wars one and the other is an alt hist where European colonial powers directly conquer Japan

>>43469
You know what would be cool? Instead of just aping Paradox. What if they focused more on you have to manage your troops off the battlefield and you had more of a relationship with them as a whole? Definitely at least do something like the knight system in CK3. That would make the battles more fun if you were watching more characters you know the name of on the battlefield.

>>44129
>the knights system in ck3
not a single person actually like the accolade system,it's tedious micromanagement

I’ve only played the napoleon one which is fun but after a while i just end up creating “meat grinders” (positioning troops in a line and waiting) and picking off generals with my cannons

Anybody have any advice on how to play the game properly?

>>44131
I used to play this realism mod with my friend online. I remember it was hard as shit. You'll find your troops getting wasted potentially in a few volleys.

I think it was Darthmod and I played it a few times with the creator. You got to be good or you get stomped in online.

>>44131
>>44132
Oh, but they still had to have a "no general sniping" rule in MP because it's so easy to cheese the game like that.

>>44130
It's would be fun without the shit UI

>>44129
this is what i posted in the other TW thread

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