Why did CA start focusing on shallow fantasy garbage when they finally perfected historical Total War?

Why did CA start focusing on shallow fantasy garbage when they finally perfected historical Total War?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=QLc-2Ro3rv0
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>it's an assmad history fag thread

When will we have superior musket warfare back?

Selling a historical game to total war fans = $

Selling a Warhammer game to total war fans and Warhammer nerds = $$$$$$$

this, they will eventually make a history game and realize it makes a third of what the fantasy ones made then just exclusively make fantasy games

>shallow

Try getting fucked. Also pretty sure it's a different team working on Total Warhammer so stop crying.

Because nobody bought this. They made the exact game that crying historyfags asked for and they didn't buy it.

*pirates game*

wtf why did they not make another historical game!

Because it's more fun.

They can't survive without the history audience. The fantasy $ train will only last for so long. They should remember their audience.

they could milk warhammer for a decade, but the problem is they're aggressive as fuck with dlc.

>Warhammer
>shallow

A single faction in Warhammer has more depth and variety in it's roster than the entirety of Attila's factions combined.

Age of Charlemagne is the epitome of historical total war. If only the AI was better

>shallow
'no'

TW's DLC policy is a scam. Removing base game content such as factions and selling them off to the gullible audience who will pay just to play as a new faction.

>If only the AI was better

that sums up every strategy game made the last decade, all aspects of video games has improved but the AI can kill games

>Removing
citation needed

>They can't survive without the history audience. The fantasy $ train will only last for so long. They should remember their audience.
They are you histfag autist.

they are making a new game set in already explored historical period, though. it won't be a full-fledged title, but they've hesitated to call it a "standalone expansion" like napoleon or attila were.

Yeah, much like AoE2 expansions, fucking jews keeping factions under the lid for decades until they finally sell them
Crafty, patient jews

Well, in the first game there were unit lines refering directly to units later added in DLC.

Second game also has it.

No, they dont have different teams.

That sounds almost like the game is based on an existing, decade old license with tons of content already existing for it

If you are talking about Saga, then its also going to be a more condensed period of time. FotS being the example they used.

What did they mean by this however?

I don't know, warhammer is so fucking simple and boring it puts me to sleep

I literally only play it when a new dlc comes out for 1 or 2 days, meanwhile I can go back to any historical title any time and have fun

all ca games post med 2 have been shallow and soulless. they're just not fun, period. AI cheats are rampant in campaigns and too much focus on a dogshit multiplayer component. building has been made completely autistic and the lack of a population system is a huge negative. med 2 is and always will be the apotheosis of TW design philosophy.

call of warhammer is better than TW warhammer too

oh boy more mini campaigns and milking.

They do.
They have a team in WH and another one focusing in an upcoming historic title.
Also, some small team doing some DLC for Fucking Rome II.
Instead of Attila.
Yeah, fuck them.

adding movement points to campaign maps was one of the worst decisions they've made because it just leads to gaming the system and fucking with engagement zones. original medieval was a sensible improvement over shogun in every way and is still my favorite.

that is evidence only for the plan that there will later be units that are also found in the tabletop,
not that they made them already.
Which is a retarded notion, since making a single faction with custom models, animations, textures, sounds, etc. takes a shitload of time.
They can not reuse almost any assets from other factions, because most warhammer units look completely different not only in gear but also bodyshape, and therefore move differently, so the animation for most units is custom.

The older total war games only had humans, humans with weapon and shield, units with big weapons, units on horse, units with bow, etc. you could animate them once and use them for all the others, they cant do that with warhammer, not even for most of the human and elf units, a wood elf bowman moves differently than a high elf bowman, which both move very different from a human bowman, which might move the same both in bretonnia and the empire, were it not for the fact that bretons use mostly longbows and empire does not.

Re: 394237894
Here's your +1

I've played since Rome 1.

Attila was just okay. It had a problem for every good feature it possessed and it was just as much a dlc hellhole.

Shit it took till Charlemagne to get a good historical title again and even then it's not great.

Warhammer is fun to me. It's campaign mechanics are shallow, but I love accumulating slaves and leading armies of dinosaurs.

Honestly, the history titles became liquid shit. They had shitty animation, melee, and unit diversity issues. Most of Attila was fucking germans with like one or two unique units (seriously?). Even then all those melee infantry sorta function the same way (which is a problem Shogun 2 avoided). Not only that but each title kicked away parts of the love of Shogun and gamefied more mechanics. The fucking loss of the population system still bugs me into Warhammer. Which just makes the history titles even worse because they have fucking growth, and three character traits, and like just none of the rp-aspects from Medieval and Rome 1.

I know they're making a new historical title, but to me they're going to have to knock it out of the park with the perfect blend of Grand Strat/ Total War mechanics to make me interested.

At least Warhammer has the Warhammer setting which makes for a really off the wall video game where T-Rexes duel dragons and a medieval motherfucker with a sword-and-shield has to stand up to hydras and abominations.

These are the kinds of games I will just never pay for, for some reason.

Like some games just scream "pirate" at me and even if I enjoy them I will never, ever buy them.

Probably because this company is so Jew with DLC its unreal

i can see that thinking, but honestly, i think the decision to limit building slots in empire was one of the most malignant ideas they've ever had

Attila is good, and modded Rome 2 actually captures some of the Rome 1 feeling.
The AI cheating in Attila with constantly being just outside your movement range is very annoying though

Why can't I enjoy any game past Rome 1
Something's just off

I've never been able to play Call of Warhammer without it either crashing 50 turns in or reminding me why I hate stack spams.

Thing is, I think I'd really like it in a "wow they pulled a Hyrule Total War and somehow got this working in Medieval 2" way.

In what way? That DLC is a fucking joke. You got 5 unit rosters for everyone (fucking danes dont even have horses for fuck's sake). Also the dialogue is a joke. I can't even confederate with my blood brothers. The only way I can unite Spain is to backstab them and take their lands.

I would buy if they actually put together GOTY editions like they used, but no. Now it's just nickel and diming people with overpriced individual DLC.

It was fine in Empire, and made sense.

As you got more and more population, more and more towns would emerge and you could build whatever you wanted. Promoting growth early on in the game would have huge benefits later.

It wasn't until Shogun 2 they fucked up with the building slots and you had to compromise.

Then rome 2 happened, lol

Empire is the best total war game, a lot of people don't realize this.

That's part of the issue. But I think I liked Empire's system a lot better than the current growth system. I hate both though. There was just something more immersive about seeing a population and planning out each settlement on how it fits your grand strategy a hundred turns from now.

I like mini-campaigns. It's just a matter of pricing and you know SEGA will fuck that up.

For me nothing makes me pirate faster and with no remorse more than a game releasing with 5+ pieces of expensive DLC on launch day.

>every faction must be individually purchased

lol nope, ill just take it

rome 2 gives me ptsd and attila has no variety, has most of the issues from rome 2 just with a bandaid put on some of the more salient ones. also, still doesn't fix my gripe with the building system and no population. i would fucking murder somebody to get a TW game that is inspired by med 2's gameplay systems

i am excited for ancient empires though

>Empire is the best total war
>*PBSD flashbacks of moving lines and listening to shit music while wondering what happened to all the cool units in Medieval 2.

There has never been a game that ran like such dog-dick on my hardware.

the reason why people hate those shitty mini campaigns is because they FORCE you to pay for it. you can't just decide you want the beastmen only, you HAVE to buy that crappy campaign too. that's why they're so fucking expensive

Probably since they had released five historical games in six year in addition to one major expac (Fall of Samurai) and eight DLC campaigns. And with two epic blunders, one forgotten game and two successes, the team could use some time to figure out what works and start a new engine developement.

I mean, there still is a history team. I'd expect one game from them near the end of 2018 with Warhammer 3 in Q2 19.

>it has no unit variety! its just line infantry: the game!

>dragoons
>light infantry
>howitzers
>elephants
>rangers
>pikes
>grenadiers

TW: Atilla is probably one of the least-well optimised games in history

it runs like shit on every system
GTX 1080 Ti, i7 4790k and it still runs like dog

med2
>pikes are outright broken
>guns are broken
>xbows and javs don't fire down walls
>if you give an attack order to a ranged unit it can react completely unpredicatably, like turning around and running away or just getting stuck in animation
>retreating to the inner keep completely breaks the siege AI, it just stands under the arrows and dies
>the only tactic the AI knows is full frontal bumrush
>a single unit glitching out during cavalry charge stops the charge dead in its tracks
>campaign improvements from kingdoms never even made it over in to the main campaign
>turn times greatly increased by one billion diplomats trying to bribe you and playing their long ass animation
>traits are so frequently assigned that every princess is a hideous, lesbian with an annoying dog and every general has at least 2 lovers (one male and one female)

genocide of nostalgia fags when?

>AI cheats are rampant in campaigns
do you think AI didn't cheat in med2 campaign really? you never noticed them getting extremely high tier knights early on and having insane pop growth?

They need to implement a lot of the systems from the pre-Empire games that they dropped. The old trait system, stuff like archers having more range when on hills, removing the stupid fucking hitpoints and a much less rock/paper/scissors based combat system would go a long way to improving the series.

>traits are so frequently assigned that every princess is a hideous, lesbian with an annoying dog and every general has at least 2 lovers (one male and one female)
more characterization than in any recent total war. it isn't a bad thing, either.

>Dragoons
One unit I get to do cool stuff with.
>Light infantry
Another line to move between two big lines
>Howitzers
Artillery
>Elephants
Have to play an otherwise boring faction to use,
>rangers
A line to move around
>Pikes
Melee units are pretty shit in Empire, the charges are bad and the animations are way too canned.
>Grenadiers
Grenades are buggy, have shit range, and its better to charge them in half the time anyways.

Also the basic combat is really slow and boring and you don't get armstrong guns or ironclads
so its automatically less cool than FoTS. I get to charge samurai into imperial dogs. Empire just lets me move lines of queers around who volunteered to stand in a line and get shot at.

>campaign improvements from kingdoms never even made it over in to the main campaign
Retrofit mate

>Most of Attila was fucking germans with like one or two unique units (seriously?).
why are you lying? especially brining up S2 when talking about unit diversity, or are you implying that med2 had diverse units? at least units across different culture groups are different in attila, in med2 they were all exactly the same

In it's defense, Stainless Steel fixes guns and formations. They properly fire by rank and its pretty cool.

still though, the game is very unwieldly and clunky compared to rome 1

Attila has hundreds of traits, the game is a bit too conservative in assigning them, but the system itself is pretty good, much better than rome2 in which you get to fucking choose the traits

>Total War: Spearmanii
>perfected

because its clashes of civilization and civilization vs savages that produce total war material
>hence there wont be sub Saharan total war game

they probably felt pressure to move away from Europe, mid east and japan, and probably were to reluctant to make a total war based on chine (which would be great)

i blame diversity in games vs trying to make historically accurate or inspired games

Med2 is my favorite game. I like a lot of its systems (traits are literally the best thing CA simplified into boring-tier).

But like Rome 1, I probably would sooner play a modded version than vanilla, since like every total war there's some sort of annoying bug bear that just fucks with my fun.

eh, it doesn't matter if you have all those traits if you don't use them. also, i want titles back. it was hilarious having my king be called "the cuckold" and he has max authority.

Medieval 1 is still hands down the most atmospheric TW game ever. From the UI and the campaign map to the soundtrack it just paints this dirty, grimdark you generally associate with the middle ages. Also, is anyone really triggered that they don't keep the menus stylistically consistent? They did it with the first four games, kinda did it with napeoleon and empire, stopped with shogun 2 and rome 2, and then did it again in atilla only to stop again with warhammer.

>Stainless Steel fixes guns and formations
well first of all I thought we were talking pure vanilla here, and also it only partially fixes guns, they still react unpredictably to attack orders and are best used by just turning them towards the enemy and letting fire on their own, but admittedly they DO actually fire in stainless steel so its a huge improvement. My main gripe with stainless steel is however the fact that the cavalry is too strong (the AI is garbage at using cavalry, so it gives a huge advantage to the player)

don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed med2, I played a lot of Stainless Steel and Bellum Crucis, and even Europa Barbarorum 2 its fucking shit though, but people seriously need to stop pretending that the game was some flawless pinnacle of strategy games, it was/is incredibly broken and had a ton of issues of its own

the thing is nobody is saying the game is perfect when it comes to strategy games in general. they're saying it's the best TW game and the best representation of what TW games are supposed to be about.

i liked warhammer, though i would love another historical total war. Just think of the possibilites
>medieval 3
>maybe empire 2
>a dedicated game in the boshin war, not a dlc(albeit a really good one)
>religious wars era(with reformation/counter-reformation mechanics kinda like religion in shogun, or corruption in warhammer)
>french revolution
there's probably way more and better options, but these were first that came to mind

>tfw my potato can't run DeI at an acceptable level

eh, well I disagree, I prefer Attila, though I do wish it had replenishment system like in M2. When it comes to provinces and building systems the best one is empire in my opinion, for several reasons: for one thing new towns emerging was cool even simply on the aesthetic merit alone, but it also meant that you had to actually defend the territory and not just the castle/city itself, if an army went around razing all your towns, ports and farms spread around the province you would take huge economic damage. In fact many of the empires features were really cool, even if barely functional, its a shame they were completely abandoned

>Not wanting "Pike And Shot Campaigns - Total War Edition" based around the 15th, 16th and 17th century
I know I'd buy it in an instant.

theres no reason the town emergence mechanic couldn't be applied to med 2's building system, though. you could even have it be a form of population control where you force people to settle somewhere else and create new towns.

There has to be some historical element to it, and in the Dark Ages everyone WAS centered around cities and villages and no one really lived far away from from a town.

I'm not lying, most of Attila's content was german factions or factions that had reskinned german units (like the Alans, which the literally needed to rebuild the entire roster), Even the Longbeards had renamed german units that had the exact same statline as a Germannic warrior.

Also these melee infantry units played similarly. Axes were fundamentally shit in all the Attila patches. Swords were all anti-spear. Spears were all useless till Charlesmagna. Heavy cav dominated everything. Light cav was useless unless it had a bow. A lot of this can be blamed on the Tier system where a T1 sword unit was just the shittiest version of a T3 sword with no unique fluff to them. Like seriously, it's a boring ascendant tier where old units got kicked out for T3 once you can afford them. It's a problem with total war that Attila just magnified.

This is compared to Shogun 2 where each individual melee unit had purpose and a place in the balance. Both the Samurai and Ashiguru varieties were important into the end game (high rank Ashiguru could beat Samurai and Ashiguru had numbers) and each clan's bonuses were enough to make their focused units dominate in that field, allowing them to specialize and succeed at the cost of other parts in their army. There's no dead weight or tier system and each clan's starting location involves a different list of considerations and different end-game units. A Germannic warrior in Attila is the same for everyone that has them, which is a majority of the factions and its endemic problem that fucks with their rosters (Germannic horses are another example). In fact the only real faction diversity is campaign mechanics and what Attila brought later (which was too little too late for me).

And I didn't bring up the rosters of Medieval 2. Only the other systems, which I find superior to Attila.

Victorian for me.

But I know for a fact I won't be allowed to be an exploitative bastard of any race darker than me.

Why is victorian history both so awful and so fucking comfy

>endgame rome
>own half the map
>squalor is at insane levels
>have to retake a bunch of my cities every turn

>get handgunners in warhammer
>expect them to do ridiculous amounts of damage like the matchlocks did in shogun 2 but only the front row fires so you have to stretch the formation into a thin two rank line to maximize effectiveness plus slow reload times
>all rows fire actually fire
>they're completely underwhelming and do less damage than crossbowmen but they have more pierce damage so they're basically just an anti-armour range unit
>they don't even have a reload animation

Feel the same way about giant monsters, they just feel so underwhelming and "balanced".

This fucked with me so much. It's like I was running some bizarre cyclic sacrifice of blood to some insane god.

>This is compared to Shogun 2 where each individual melee unit had purpose and a place in the balance

Can you speak more on this and give some more examples?

Because you live in a nation that benefited from it, while also knowing what the perfidious Dutch did in the Congo.

post your top3 TW games
>Attila
>Med2
>Empire

on that note EMPIRE 2 FUCKING WHEN?!

>Public order simulator is the "finally perfected historical Total War"

is atilla any good?

the only unit that had purpose in s2 was pike ashigaru and bow ashigaru, the AI was broken and didn't use the ashigaru special formation, so your levy would always beat AI levy

Warhammer II is selling worse than Attila, and Rome 2 sold more than Warhammer I

>have kitted stacks in worst cities
>move them out of town right before rebellion hits
>move back in next turn
I'd usually just autocomplete, but sometimes I enjoyed wrecking those peasant fucking shits with my cretan archer spartan hoplites stacks

Also all my generals were utter degenerate corrupt fuckwits, I had endless amounts of cash stacked in my bank and the whole officer corps would apparently have rave orgies 24/7

1. MTW2 Stainless Steel
2. Shogun
3. Warhammer

I really wanted to like Attila but I honestly don't want to hold on to the crumbling ERE/WRE. I just want to start from OPM with latin tech.

No its not and no shit rome 2 was hyped more

>Light infantry
>Another line to move between two big lines

Welp, you clearly have never played the game. I'm going to stop posting now. Have fun in your strange little bubble.

Ashiguru

Spears- An absolutely incredible unit in the early game. Without spear wall they get dominated by samurai, but with it they can hold a line and outlast other ashiguru and give a good fight to samurai.

bows- numbers = damage and with fire arrows they can throw out some fucked up volley.

handguns- numbers= damage and a cheap, strong counter against samurai.

Samurai

Swords- an extremely good killy unit that gets better with each rank and is a perfect standard counter to most units in the game.

No-diachi- A charge rape train that can punch a hole in just about any line. With Banzai you can make them fight to the death to ensure a hole is broken in the line.

Naginatas- The toughest line unit you have. Great armor, leadership, and an okay killing potential allows them to hold a line to the end. However Ashiguru spears can be more cost-effective at this role depending on what's hitting the line.

Yari- A more armored spear unit that loses the wall and gains rapid advance. Considered the weakest samurai but can still be used to hammer cavalry trying to escape a charge. Also better leadership than Ashiguru.

Monks- Much like the Samurai but trading armor for faster movement, attack, and a war-cry ability. Essentially squisher variants of the units for when you want flanking units or a quick unit to turn the tide in an even fight. In some cases they lose to samurai, in others they win. One faction specializes in them, which is really good for them.

These are just a few of the core choices. But each faction also has special units too that are all pretty kick-ass at something (dunderbuss cav). But this pattern is pretty similar for the cavalry too.

Only exceptions to useless units are the artillery. They are simply too inaccurate to return on the investment. Fire-rockets are a big, big exception though.

Maybe if the game forced me to figure out their use they wouldn't be just another line to move around.

Like just about everything in that game. All played to the most boring soundtrack in total war history. Without any genocide available. Where everyone wears powdered wigs and politely shoots natives.

Attila is dumpster tier tw and it’s sales show. No one likes the over complicated poorly optimized disaster it was.

Rome 2 with all its support is vastly superior now. If they had done the same for Attila things might be different. They didn’t and abandoned it.

> give a good fight to samurai.

You mean beat the samurai

thanks. Shogun 2 is my favourite and I always thought there was something very well balanced about it that I just couldn't put my finger on

>the most boring soundtrack in total war history

>youtube.com/watch?v=QLc-2Ro3rv0 plays as your damaged, but highly experienced prussian regiments are surrounded by THREE russian armies full of conscripts and cossacks, outnumbered 6 to 1

Depends on rank and terrain. Higher rank samurai will beat the wall convincingly enough. But if we're talking campaign, unless you're running higher difficulties you'll be rolling over the ai because they don't understand the wall.

Still, any core unit has a use in Shogun 2 and its made replaying it a hell of a lot more engaging than returning to Attila after completing WRE, ERE, and Huns.

>high rank Ashiguru could beat Samurai
Even unvetted yari ashigaru could beat katana samurai if they were in yari wall because the AI never flanks.
As long as you deal with his archers your yari walls will run over everything with minimal losses.
Well, the game basically has three classes of units; the ashigaru who are cheap to recruit, have high numbers but have shit morale and offensive stats, the samurai who make mince meat out of ashigaru as long as they don't run headlong into a yari wall, have higher morale and are resistant to morale shocks but have low numbers and finally monks who have insane melee stats( superior range and accuracy if they're archers) but really low numbers and no armor meaning they absolutely get raped by missile infantry. All of these units usually have bow/spear/katana/naginata/matchlock variants that can be useful as long as you don't game the AI with yari wall spam.

...sometime tastes are different between people. I'm not going to insult yours anymore, because, well, at least you see something in it.