#4504415 - 01/21/20 11:41 AM
Re: Total War: Three Kingdoms
[Re: Trooper117]
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,383
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
|
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,383
Miami, FL USA
|
Yep... I have zero interest in the period. So it was a no buy for me Fair enough! I would be very curious to know what percentage of sales of the game have come from Chinese customers. I wouldn't be surprised if it's 50% or more.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
|
|
#4504457 - 01/21/20 05:53 PM
Re: Total War: Three Kingdoms
[Re: Forward Observer]
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,383
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
|
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,383
Miami, FL USA
|
It's hard to believe that I've been playing the TW games for 20 years now. The first Shogun game was released in 2000.
Cheers
Same here even though I skipped on the Medieval TW titles. I was busy playing other types of games when those came out. It's not a total loss though because TW Saga: Britannia is essentially Medieval 3 but with a limited geographic area (British Isles) and there's also the Charlemagne DLC for Attila which is technically early Middle Ages as well.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
|
|
#4504487 - 01/21/20 08:51 PM
Re: Total War: Three Kingdoms
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,802
Forward Observer
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,802
Central Arkansas,US of A
|
It's hard to believe that I've been playing the TW games for 20 years now. The first Shogun game was released in 2000.
Cheers
Same here even though I skipped on the Medieval TW titles. I was busy playing other types of games when those came out. It's not a total loss though because TW Saga: Britannia is essentially Medieval 3 but with a limited geographic area (British Isles) and there's also the Charlemagne DLC for Attila which is technically early Middle Ages as well. Medieval was a fantastic game for its time. It starts with the battle of Hastings in 1066 and goes to the discovery of the new world. Not only did one fight all across Europe, they then went to Africa and the mid-east with the Crusades. You could play as Christian or Muslim. Interspersed in this you had to deal with invasions of Huns and Tamarinds, along with the development of the first gunpowder siege engines and eventually matchlock small arms. Then you get the new world discovered and you get to sail to the Americas and conquer ancient indigenous tribes like the Mayans. For an novel twist on historical alternative fun, one could start the conquest of the new world as the Danes or Russians instead of the Spanish or English. Med II was really the first TW game that attempted a bit of globe-spanning gameplay. Of course, Empire took this much further and even though it had launch issues, it's still pretty popular today just due to the wide global scope. That and the introduction of naval battles. That reminds me, I need to fire up a new campaign in Empire. Cheers
Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl.
|
|
#4505068 - 01/26/20 09:22 PM
Re: Total War: Three Kingdoms
[Re: Nimits]
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 159
Behemoth
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 159
Boston, MA
|
Really, really wish they would do a Total War Empire II . . . ... and not screw it up or dumb it down or break it in any way....
|
|
#4505508 - 01/30/20 07:06 AM
Re: Total War: Three Kingdoms
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
|
USSCheyenne
Unregistered
|
I've been with the franchise since the begining but i have very little interest in the time and place of TK. That's why i skipped it. But lately i tried Warhammer TW and I absolutely love it. It's a huge breath of fresh air after historical titles. The TW formula fits perfectly with the Warhammer Lore. The variety of factions and units, different mechanics, melee, ranged combat, firearms, artillery, cavalary, air units, magic, heroes, RPG elements. The map is beautiful, battlefields even better with giant statues, castles in the background, lava falls, snow, dense woods, underground tunnels in the mountains and more. For me it's the best TW since Empire (i really also hope for Empire 2).
|
|
#4505530 - 01/30/20 01:51 PM
Re: Total War: Three Kingdoms
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,193
DBond
Strategerizer
|
Strategerizer
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,193
NooJoyzee
|
I agree Cheyenne. I'm glad I gave it a go, Warhammer I mean. For me it's the best TW title of them all. I'm glad I set aside my presumptions and historical bias and tried it. I didn't think I would like it, but I quickly changed my mind. I have a long thread about it, I'd be interested in anything you'd care to add to it, you know, which factions you like or don't, how your campaigns are going, which DLC you like, that sort of thing. https://SimHQ.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4428896/tw-warhammer-2#Post4428896As I talked about a lot in that thread, Warhammer has huge appeal to me due to the asymmetry, the factionaltiy that makes each one so different. There is a lot of replay value here, and by this stage I have played virtually all of the factions. Historical TW titles are restrained by the history they are recreating, but Warhammer isn't. I don't feel that playing as France is all that much different than Prussia. But in Warhammer a different faction is a big change, in all respects. Units, tech trees, mechanics, well, everything. It keeps it really fresh and interesting. I read recently that either a patch or a DLC made a huge improvement to the turn resolve times in Mortal Empires, and with even more Skaven DLC having been released recently I should revisit it soon. I liked a lot of the factions, and some not so much. But the Skaven are my favorite.
No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
|
|
#4513020 - 03/27/20 12:47 PM
Re: Total War: Three Kingdoms
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,193
DBond
Strategerizer
|
Strategerizer
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,193
NooJoyzee
|
I have not. This leaves this game, Shogun 1, Medieval 1, Rome 2 and Thrones of Britannia as the only TW titles I have not played. Rome 1 was my entry point. If you'd get around to giving WH2 a go we can talk about that So what sets this game apart in your view? Where does it improve the formula?
No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
|
|
#4513032 - 03/27/20 01:06 PM
Re: Total War: Three Kingdoms
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,193
DBond
Strategerizer
|
Strategerizer
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,193
NooJoyzee
|
Great post man. Good points and well said. Which is your favorite title?
No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
|
|
#4513035 - 03/27/20 01:17 PM
Re: Total War: Three Kingdoms
[Re: DBond]
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,383
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
|
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,383
Miami, FL USA
|
So what sets this game apart in your view? Where does it improve the formula?
As Vaderini mentioned, the focus on individual historical characters in the campaigns adds a lot to the immersion and while I do enjoy the "Romance" mode, I still prefer the "Records" mode which is more of the traditional TW formula for generals and their retinues. The 3D battle combat mechanics are improved with greater variety of unit formations, siege weapons and deployable defenses. Plus the graphics just look gorgeous!
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
|
|
#4513045 - 03/27/20 01:59 PM
Re: Total War: Three Kingdoms
[Re: Vaderini]
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,383
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
|
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,383
Miami, FL USA
|
I think I'll go with Attila: The unit balance is miles off, it's buggy as hell and the Campaign AI doesn't play the same game you do, The AI even on "normal" difficulty get cheats/buffs in all TW titles but it's even more obvious in Attila. For example, I recently played a campaign as the Huns and even with frequent sacking, it took me a long time (about 50 turns) to build up enough money to sustain 3 full armies. By comparison, when the AI plays the Huns, it already has about 7-8 full armies a few turns into the campaign and it will then have the elite Hun units like the Nokkors and the Bosphoran infantry a few turns after that.
Last edited by PanzerMeyer; 03/27/20 02:01 PM.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
|
|
#4513048 - 03/27/20 02:26 PM
Re: Total War: Three Kingdoms
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 430
Vaderini
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 430
|
Yeah, I don't mind the AI getting buffs but in Attila it's just crazy that it is better to NOT wipe out the Huns, and leave them alive so they will hire mercenaries and NOT respawn as deathstacks. Legendoftotalwar did a good overview of further nuisances: https://youtu.be/3BTIuxjT7LU?t=469I also forgot to say in my post about 3K: What extremely irked me about Three Kingdoms to the point of frustration was that units are 'invincible'. If you defeat an enemy unit and wipe it out completely, it will respawn a couple of turns later. Not only does this hamper tactical and strategic options (grinding the enemy force down over several turns and battles, or chasing units post-battle until they're wiped out), but it also causes the strange situation that the enemy respawns in 4 turns, and is up to full strength in ~7 turns, while YOU, the victor, need to go back to your own land (which takes turns), and then also have a much lower replenishment rate than the destroyed units. 'Winning being a bad thing' is what annoyed me most about Attila, and that they copied it to Three Kingdoms is baffling.
Last edited by Vaderini; 03/27/20 02:28 PM.
|
|
#4513066 - 03/27/20 04:51 PM
Re: Total War: Three Kingdoms
[Re: Vaderini]
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,193
DBond
Strategerizer
|
Strategerizer
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,193
NooJoyzee
|
By the way, after you've know played WH2 for some time, how do you feel about the "bonusses-only" cities? Does it feel dumbed-down?
Atilla's a good shout. I really liked the campaign play. The WRE run I did was probably the most strategic TW campaign I've played. I really liked the assymetrical styles of the various factions. Playing the Ostrogoths I think it was, migrating across Europe to settle in Iberia was a lot of fun. I should get back to that game As to the quoted question, the short answer is yes. I'd rather say simplified than dumbed-down, but there is no doubt that the lack of things like a squalor mechanic is easier to deal with. There are some unique buildings that DO give a malus, and you also have to consider the corruption mechanic, which is really like squalor in a sense but faction-wide and dynamic, in a sense also a weapon that can be used against you by a different race. It's the factionality that appeals to me especially, each and every faction is unique in ways no other TW title is. Like they took that idea from Atilla and injected it with cocaine. Every tech tree is unique, and well, everything is. As a result it has a replayability I didn't get out of other TW aside from Medieval 2. Like you I played that religiously, thousands of hours easy. Mostly with Stainless Steel. Two things I miss from Med 2. One, the trait system. Equally maddening and fabulous, I miss watching my characters rise to rule with chivalry and grace while others fall in to drunken madness and leachery, lol. The second thing I miss is the whole notion of having cities be military or civic. The strategical play here, deciding where to put your recruitment centers or your economic bases was fun. Add to that you could only replenish lost troops in cities actually able to produce them made army composition and deployment deeper than in later titles. These days, as a much older and lazier gamer, I find that the replenish-and-recruit-anywhere systems we see now are more than fine with me. Provincial and global recruitment didn't exist in the Med 2 days Thanks PM, is there gunpowder in that game? Shows how much I know about it. The thing Vaderini is describing with respawning formations would bother me too I think. No way to win a war of attrition with it working that way if I understand it. And when you're in foreign lands unable to recruit yourself, this could be difficult. Assuming of course you cannot recruit in foreign lands in that game. It's like you're playing on Legendary from the off
No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
|
|
|
|