New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

[PointOfViewGun]

How about CA officially confirming that it's primarily based on the fantasy novel "romance of the three kingdoms"? No other historical TW game has ever been primarily derived from a fantasy novel.
How about having a "romanticised" mode (which is basically a fictional/fantasy version) as the default campaign?
How about making the historical mode optional instead of the default one?
How about the fact they're advertising their fictional/fantasy version like crazy so far while completely ignoring the classic mode (which is pretty much just an afterthought in their notes)?
How about their trailers which clearly show fictional events from the fantasy novel?
What doesn't? Everything is different, from the floating character icons and the duels to unit recruitment and the character tied formations. Even the unit stats are different.
No, it clearly is a fictional/fantasy game and you clearly are in deep denial about it.

As I said, as historical as any Total War game. You're merely using a level of standard that isn't applied to past games. Call it nostalgia if you want. However, there is nothing in Three Kingdoms that we haven't seen in past games. If this is to be a fantasy game than so is any other Total War game.

By the way, did you mean this?

Total War: THREE KINGDOMS – Working with Romanticised History

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Total War: THREE KINGDOMS is the next major Total War historical game and is set in the titular period of ancient China. It launches in Spring 2019.

Inspired by Luo Guanzhong’s 14th Century historical novel, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, this epic strategy game follows the dramatic lives of near-mythical warring lords and their retainers in 2nd to 3rd century China. But true to the series’ legacy, the game will also feature a Classic Mode that offers a much more grounded recreation of the period for players who prefer a historically authentic Total War experience.

Over to Janos Gaspar, game director for Total War: THREE KINGDOMS.

So first thing’s first: why Three Kingdoms China?

Janos: It’s packed with drama! The period is brimming with tales of brotherhood, rivalry, treachery, civil war, and conquest, and that makes it the perfect setting for a historical Total War game. Plus our community have been asking for a Total War set in China for years, so it’s a natural next step. Ultimately though, the clincher is the individual bravado and personalities of the characters involved in this period. There’s just so much we can do with that from a gameplay perspective, to the point where characters are very much the cornerstone of the game: their interactions, friendships, rivalries and personalities drive the campaign game like never before. We’re supporting this with a host of new campaign systems – but more on that soon.

It’s a thrilling period, and its stories have been endlessly told and retold over the centuries. Those retellings are still going strong today and it’s an important part of modern culture in China and the far east even now. The modern interpretation of the Three Kingdoms period is a far more romanticised version of events than you might find in the history books.

How does this popular or romanticised view of events differ from the history books?

Janos: The popular modern view of these events is formed around Asian media, which largely draws on Luo Guanzhong’s 14th century epic. Although based on history, the events of the period in the Romance are pitched in vivid narrative detail and packed with drama, flavour, and explosive deeds of an almost superhuman nature. For a more realistic view of the period, we look to Chen Shou’s 3rd century text, Records of the Three Kingdoms, which offers a much more down-to-earth account of the period with lists of army compositions, tax levies and such.

As a western studio retelling stories of such cultural importance in much of Asia, we have to be sensitive when handling the source material in Total War: THREE KINGDOMS. In many respects, we have to hold ourselves to as high a standard for cultural authenticity as we do for historical accuracy.

Sounds like a challenge…

Janos: It is, but we want to launch a game that’s both historically accurate and culturally authentic. Total War: THREE KINGDOMS will be based on the romanticised history by default, but there’ll also be a Classic Mode option before you start a campaign that makes the experience closer in execution to past Total War historical titles.

How does Classic Mode differ?

Janos: A big difference is how these iconic heroes behave on the battlefield. By default, we adhere to the romanticised view: these characters can hold their own against hundreds of rank-and-file warriors. They’ll appear as single character units and fight like the heroes from Luo Guanzhong’s epic. In Classic Mode, they’ll appear in battle the way you might expect a classic Total War general to do: they’re only human, and will march into battle at the centre of a bodyguard unit.

In short: by default, characters in Total War: THREE KINGDOMS take centre stage in battle, helping to turn the tide with their flamboyant Wushu martial arts or strategic prowess. But Classic Mode focuses more on historical troop manoeuvres, where victory is defined by superior army composition and battle tactics.

Any other big changes?

Janos: We’ve put tons of effort into faithfully recreating the major events of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms: these events can and will occur during the course of a campaign. However, as always with the Total War sandbox, we’re giving the player the power to write their own stories. There’s a rich level of narrative detail that draws from the Romance, but how these events play out depends very much on the choices you make and therefore how your individual story unfolds. In Classic Mode, the historical Records of the Three Kingdoms text will form the basis for these narrative events.

Historical authenticity is clearly important for this title – what steps are you taking you ensure you achieve that?

Janos: We’re working with numerous consultants to ensure both historical and cultural authenticity, one of whom is renowned historian Rafe De Crespigny. He’s helping us ensure all the historical aspects of the game are as authentic as we can make them. He’s the author of many of the go-to academic texts that outline the events of the Three Kingdoms period and was our first choice as a historical consultant. We’re delighted with the amount of accuracy and insight he’s brought to the project. His expertise has provided us with as authentic a view of the events of this period as possible.

First games were terribly unrealistic but for the standards of that time it was just ok. For example compare rome and rome 2. The units, and mechanics have clearly evolved. After the first cinematic trailer always come the gameplay trailers and dev diaries and the main new features are generally shown then. But this time is different, there's no realism evolution/improvement announced in the features nor in the video. It's all about romantic version.

The early state 3K gameplay feels much less realistic than, for example, ToB early gameplay which featured realistic shield walls and the dev diaries spoke about the much more detailed map and reworked minor settlements. That's a clear intention to try to make campaign dynamics go further. And there always was in previous titles.

However I find nothing in that direction in gameplay nor in dev diaries. Graphics are unfinished and I won't complain about it (I want realistic art but I am personally not too demanding on graphics, I prefer the best mechanics rather than beautiful graphics), but at this stage most of the new features should be more or less implemented (adding new playable features last 9-6 months is a bug suicide and don't forget that the game was going to be released in 2018 third quarter and a few days ago they announced the delay, so I assume they just have an almost finished product and need a bit more time for late development such as debug, translation, etc).

If the game is going to feature anything interesting on the classic mode appart from the new characters roster building (which isn't anything that improves realism and not much interesting to me as it ads more roleplay value than realism or immersion to me), it must be something very uninteresting as there's no mention in any of the released information, videos, etc.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/to.../1100-6385190/

See the difference? That was the first announcement of R2TW and they talk about new playable features all the time: biggest campaign map, amphibious battles, better cinematic experience when zooming in, bigger amount of troops in battle... not all new features were there, of course. But the general focus was totally clear: improve realism, new mechanics. And if it wasn't because of the ton of bugs, it would have been a welcome new game for most people (or at least a decent one).

But with 3k the focus is anywhere but in realism mecanics or in realistic historical experience. The focus is on the development of romantic features which aren't what many of us want at all. Personally I like TW in Asia, but not a China only TW (as that period was a Chinese war and they hardly could suit any other faction in that background). So lack of faction variety, which is bad news to me (one of the drawbacks that shogun 2 had).

Unit uniforms and animations look quite cartoonish... It's ok to see colourful palette, but not that much. It's China, not Pandaria. In addition in that period many of the armies were simply enormous, and the battle features less troop than in an average R2TW battle, another bad sign, as bigger units look better and are more realistic and are often demanded game after game.

It's early to condemn the game, but there are too many bad signs to ignore them and "precomplaint". Maybe they take our complaints into account for future expansions of the game, as far as it's probably too late to change any important aspect from the game, specially when those aspects are to be implemented at the very initial stage of game development.

I personally don't care that much where the game is settled. Rome? good, Japan? good, China? good. But if the mechanics don't evolve towards realism and historical immersion, don't count on me.

Why was it OK for Rome I to have insanely high unrealistic walls? There have been many things in Total War games that were not tied to any historical accuracy. Yes, it's completely valid to point out inaccuracies and champion for historical elements. I'm all for that. However, to behave as if each new game that comes out is a fantasy game and that any other Total War game is a champion of historical accuracy is just nonsensical.

You are clearly making the contents of that link more than what it is. The only notable thing to mention in that link is perhaps the naval invasion part. With Three Kingdoms the setting itself is an important change. However, what is there to add like naval invasions? Not much. They can only build up on what they have. This is like complaining why all phones are rectangular. It's naturally a stable point. The points about color is also another sign of arguing against the game for the sake of arguing.

[Evan MF]

It always tickles me silly when people expects 'realism' from a Total War game.

Many of us hoped the trajectory would be towards realism with the franchise. CA are going the opposite way, down from a peak of historicity around Empire/Napoleon, now around a decade old. We also hoped for better physics simulation and better combatant collision over time, the peak for which was Rome 1/Medieval 2, around 15 years old. CA have gone the other way since and recent melee titles have been particularly terrible in this regard.

I think a lot of us are beyond 'expectation', I gave up on CA with Rome 2 and haven't spent a dime on their content since. The only reason I even pay attention to Total War is because it's pretty much the only game in its genre with anything close to a triple A budget and so it's the historical battle simulator fans' ONLY hope right now. If another dev came along with money and a vision in line with what many old fans of Total War want I'd be right outta here and wouldn't care to look back at CA.

By the looks of things Total War: 3K is not bucking these trends.

[eXistenZ]

@Setekh: lol no, sorry you're denying the light of the sun here. You can not say "as with previous TW's and then provide zero examples. Previous historical Total Wars didnt have the fantasy mode as "default", nor trailers with content based on fictional works (unless there was a fall of the samurai trailer which had footage of the last samurai I somehow missed), or even the claim they were based on fictional works. That is not a nostalgia thing.


And if you want to play words:

there’ll also be a Classic Mode option before you start a campaign that makes the experience closer in execution to past Total War historical titles.

The use of the word "closer" rather than "similar" or "the same", should be another major red flag

[PointOfViewGun]

@Setekh: lol no, sorry you're denying the light of the sun here. You can not say "as with previous TW's and then provide zero examples. Previous historical Total Wars didnt have the fantasy mode as "default", nor trailers with content based on fictional works (unless there was a fall of the samurai trailer which had footage of the last samurai I somehow missed), or even the claim they were based on fictional works. That is not a nostalgia thing.
And if you want to play words:
The use of the word "closer" rather than "similar" or "the same", should be another major red flag

I actually did point at very specific examples, connected to points you made earlier. Interestingly, you failed to address them the slightest, instead, resorted to throwing insults. But, do say I'm denying the sun here. In the end, you're making claims about a game you know little about, a game you apparently research little about, and then use a standard that you only apply selectively. That is pretty much baseless criticism for me.

[eXistenZ]

I actually did point at very specific examples, connected to points you made earlier. Interestingly, you failed to address them the slightest, instead, resorted to throwing insults. But, do say I'm denying the sun here. In the end, you're making claims about a game you know little about, a game you apparently research little about, and then use a standard that you only apply selectively. That is pretty much baseless criticism for me.

then repeat those examples. they obviously didnt make a lasting impression. But neither do you adress the point raised by perifanos, or my argument about the interview you posted, that the historical mode will be "close", but not similar to previous TW's


And at the moment you dont know more about the game than I do, or is there much to research, we have only what CA gives us. Unless you have some supersecret first class acces to CA files. So please get off your high horse and get your head out of the clouds.

I base myself on the information CA has given us, both the trailers and dev diaries. combined with hwhat CA has done the past few years. Is it foulproof? No, and I hope I'm wrong. So you can say a lot about my criticism, but calling it baseless is as empty as your expectation that this will be a standard historical total war game. If my criticism is baseless, so is your argumenation that "all will be normal", as it is based on the same.

But by all means, please keep ignoring the "turn back" signs and drive straight in the canyon that is called "deceiving historical fans that 3K is not 90% a fantasy title"

[Theramines]

The use of the word "closer" rather than "similar" or "the same", should be another major red flag

There it is. Good observation.

[druchii7]

Why was it OK for Rome I to have insanely high unrealistic walls? There have been many things in Total War games that were not tied to any historical accuracy. Yes, it's completely valid to point out inaccuracies and champion for historical elements. I'm all for that. However, to behave as if each new game that comes out is a fantasy game and that any other Total War game is a champion of historical accuracy is just nonsensical.

You are clearly making the contents of that link more than what it is. The only notable thing to mention in that link is perhaps the naval invasion part. With Three Kingdoms the setting itself is an important change. However, what is there to add like naval invasions? Not much. They can only build up on what they have. This is like complaining why all phones are rectangular. It's naturally a stable point. The points about color is also another sign of arguing against the game for the sake of arguing.

Rome 1 was undeniably am enormous advance compared to shogun or medieval TW. One of the biggest revolutions in the franchise.

I demand no perfection, I demand improvement. For example, in a period of 10 years I'd like to see battles with a realistic amount of soldiers, but of course I'd only ask a gradual rise in the sizes. I wouldn't expect that units in 3k are 400 soldiers, but I'd be disappointed if the units had less members than before.

I never talked about setting, that's secondary to me. I clearly taled about mechanics and realism and immersion. If the new settings are enough for you that's ok, but that means nothing at all to me, as I find the three kingdoms quite uninteresting as it only implies Chinese. Mongol conquest would be much more welcome to me.

Arguing about the colour isn't for the sake of arguing. Aesthetics is one of the aspects that they better control. If they choose a realistic palette it's likely that they want to create a realistic atmosphere. If they choose a colorful non realistic palette, it might be astonishing but clearly they're not trying to create a realistic atmosphere and probably mechanics won't be too focused on realism either.

For example aesthetics in shogun 2 are less realistic than medieval 2 or empire, but luckily shogun 2 brought interesting new features that made it worth playing to me.

[perifanosEllinas]

I'm disappointed by the gameplay reveal, not because of the animations or most of the nonsense people are complaining about, but the fact that the battle was nothing like how it historically or ROMANTICALLY happened. The flooding isn't apparent on the battle map at all and Liu Bei is completely missing. It's like they didn't bother to consult either the history or the romance version of events.

We don't know if this is a battle from the historical battles mode or from the sandbox campaign. While playing a campaign I don't want scripted events like that happening out of the blue, they feel like forced narrative and out of place for a sandbox experience. But having said that, there should be an option to do something like that while having the city surrounded by your army on the campaign map (while waiting to build siege engines). But there should be limitations to its use (like a cooldown period after its use during which it can't be used again by anyone) and a high percent chance of failure (like 50%), plus a smaller chance (like 10%) to hurt your own forces if it doesn't work, otherwise it would be very overpowered. And it should also take several turns to complete, to give the defender the chance to bring reinforcements and lift the siege. And of course if it succeeds there should be a cinematic showing the flooding and the city should be captured. But in battles, from a gameplay point of view the flooding would be extremely overpowered and it would make manually fighting the battle pointless (especially as the defender), even in the historical battles mode. I think it should just be in a cinematic, not in the actual battle. Unless of course they completely revolutionize battle gameplay, but come on, we all know that ain't happening any time soon.

I'd rather not be railroaded into particular battles during campaign. They already confirmed that quests aren't a thing, so I don't think this will happen.

Just put them under the historical battles mode like normal.

Agreed.

Although I agree on that in terms of gameplay mechanics, I wouldn't with the OP trebuchets thing, basically because there's not a single TW that haver artillery breaking the walls in just one shot. It's never more than 6-15 shots either. Also it's clearly a very edited video. So again, I wouldn't worry about OP artillery, in the sense that I doubt they're gonna change it from the current standard.

Well if it can be modded I wouldn't worry about it anyway, even if it is overpowered in the end.

Not at all mate, Paradox lack tactical battles, and frankly, I don't know why, the engine of the new roman empire game clearly shows they already are big enough to try them, but whatever. What I like about those is that the campaign is so much more interesting than the TW one. Diplomacy and war mechanics works far more better. But not all is gold though, they have a TERRIBLE dlc policy.

I've never played a Paradox game before, but after the announcement of the new Imperator Rome I got interested to see what they're all about, especially because I see alot of strategy games fans praising them all the time. But after watching some gameplay of an older game with Rome, I quickly found some extremely stupid things which turned me off immediately, like the entire Italia having no horses resource, so you can't recruit cavalry at all even if you possess the entire peninsula. What the hell? That's very stupid. Or the battles being decided primarily on chance, without any mechanics, formations, deployment, strategy and tactics to determine the outcome on a more calculated basis. That's not how strategy games are supposed to work. Plus, coming in from the point of view of a long time TW fan who's never played a Paradox game before, I just don't like the idea of real time campaign, sorry. As a player, I want to take my time and play games in my own pace. Real time campaign forces you to adapt to the pace of the other factions, or you're left behind. I don't like that at all. I don't want my strategy game to feel like I'm racing with the other factions, I want it to feel more strategic than that. And of course, I just can't overlook the "no playable battles" thing, it's a big deal to me in a historical strategy game. Plus, the terrible DLC policy. When even the fans admit it, you know it's just awful.

One thing I lked though was the population management. Especially how a prolonged civil war can really deplete your population. Population management is something CA should bring back to TW.

The game is made by a new indie studio, but it has interesting people working on it. It will feature battles and campaign. It will basically be a more optimized and useful version of The Seven Years War. I don't think they will compete with Total War just yet. However, if they succeed on this one, and then another one...then may be we'll get what we want.

Yes, maybe. We'll see.

As I said, as historical as any Total War game.

And as I said, no other historical TW game has ever been primarily derived from a fantasy novel or had a default fictional/fantasy campaign mode.

You're merely using a level of standard that isn't applied to past games. Call it nostalgia if you want.

Of course I have different standards for different TW games and it has nothing to do with nostalgia. If 3K was being developed back in 2004 and was only the third installment of the franchise I would hold it to the same standards I held RTW at the time. But since it's being developed to be released in 2019 (15 years later!), of course I hold it to different standards. And I find it very hypocritical on your part to suggest that it should be held at the same standards with a 14 year old game.

However, there is nothing in Three Kingdoms that we haven't seen in past games. If this is to be a fantasy game than so is any other Total War game.

This is simply not true. We have NEVER seen a dedicated fictional/fantasy campaign mode before, let alone as the default campaign. And just to demonstrate how flawed your logic is, here is an obvious example: if CA for whatever reason suddenly decides to throw a "classic mode" in warhammer (with heros having bodyguard units), will that make warhammer a historical game? Of course not. You can be in denial about it all you want, but the facts are the facts.

By the way, did you mean this?

Total War: THREE KINGDOMS – Working with Romanticised History

Yes, that's part of what I'm talking about. So you already know the basic facts and still won't admit it. Thank you for confirming once again how strongly you are in denial about it.

Why was it OK for Rome I to have insanely high unrealistic walls?

For the same reason it's OK to have giants walking around on the campaign map. At the end of the day it's still a game and certain trade offs are not only OK, but necessary. Stop playing dumb. You're the only person I've ever seen complain about the hight of the walls in RTW. You're just grasping at straws here.

However, to behave as if each new game that comes out is a fantasy game and that any other Total War game is a champion of historical accuracy is just nonsensical.

Again, you're the only one bringing this up. Nobody said older titles are champions of historical accuracy. And speaking of "nonsensical" stuff, you're basically trying to convince us that a game which is about 95% derived from a fantasy novel and has a fictional/fantasy mode as the default campaign is a historical game. Oh yeah, keep telling us about nonsense.

I actually did point at very specific examples

Like what? The hight of walls?

Interestingly, you failed to address them the slightest

Interestingly, you're the one who keeps avoiding to address the points about the fictional/fantasy default campaign mode and the game being primarily derived from a fantasy novel.

[druchii7]

I've never played a Paradox game before, but after the announcement of the new Imperator Rome I got interested to see what they're all about, especially because I see alot of strategy games fans praising them all the time. But after watching some gameplay of an older game with Rome, I quickly found some extremely stupid things which turned me off immediately, like the entire Italia having no horses resource, so you can't recruit cavalry at all even if you possess the entire peninsula. What the hell? That's very stupid. Or the battles being decided primarily on chance, without any mechanics, formations, deployment, strategy and tactics to determine the outcome on a more calculated basis. That's not how strategy games are supposed to work. Plus, coming in from the point of view of a long time TW fan who's never played a Paradox game before, I just don't like the idea of real time campaign, sorry. As a player, I want to take my time and play games in my own pace. Real time campaign forces you to adapt to the pace of the other factions, or you're left behind. I don't like that at all. I don't want my strategy game to feel like I'm racing with the other factions, I want it to feel more strategic than that. And of course, I just can't overlook the "no playable battles" thing, it's a big deal to me in a historical strategy game. Plus, the terrible DLC policy. When even the fans admit it, you know it's just awful.

You probably watched an europa universalis gameplay. That's a 2001 game. Don't take it as a reference. It's like taking shogun (2000) 1 as the reference for total war series. If you want to get a better impression you could mainly watch an europa universalis IV gameplay. Crusader kings II could be also a good reference, but it's quite more based on feudal mechanics (with intense power relations with your vassals).

EU IV is more simple and "vanilla" than the other paradox games and thus it's recommended to initiate in the series. The first games are painfully difficult and confusing, but after 2 or 3 complete campaigns and some visits to the wiki, it's freaking good and ironically quite simple and with mainly clear mechanics.

Diplomacy is very decently made: you need casus belli to attack (which you can ellaborate through diplomats or get for many causes) can put efforts to improve effectively relations in a thousand interesting ways. Client states are fantastic (if you befriend them you can annex them forever). If you grow too strong by violence and ambition, enemies get into coalition against you and overextension by too many conquest brings tremendous unrest.

War is not that cool of course, there are not battles, but still the war is extremly tactic and the existence of manpower (population suitable for recruitment) prevent ridiculous mechanics. There's war fatigue, great attrition mechanics, 1000 times better and more realistic unrest mechanics, they reflect better the cultural coexistence and the religious issues... Believe me, THAT'S GRAND STRATEGY, not total war. If you think you can enjoy pure grand strategy games with not so much battlefield action.

I love both Total War and EU4 (and CK2), and any great strategy gamer should, at least for once, try both sagas as they're both great and offer complementary experiences. Unluckily Total war resists to learn from Paradox interactive in terms of diplomacy, unrest (trade mechanics are awesome, but maybe too complicated for average total war players). And sandbox experience, without victory conditions (only date limit), makes it generally more enjoyable. I like to start a Rome 2 campaign, but after the initial challenge it's terribly boring and just finish the campaign to get the steam achievements. With EU4 I beg the computer not to get to the finishing date yet, as there's still fun and challenge to the last minute.

Paradox has an unpleasant DLC policy. They release too many, but most are cheap and unnecesary or alternatively worth buying. And they're generous during sales period, making enormous discounts (I'd suggest anyone to add them to the whishlist and wait to sales to get them on 25% of the original price)

[Theramines]

Paradox has an unpleasant DLC policy.

That's why I don't try their games. I got one of their games, Cities Skylines, I think it's called, without realising it was Paradox game. Twice my saves and downloaded mods were broken by DLCs only a month or so after I bought it. I uninstalled it after that,

[druchii7]

I agree, but generally the game is totally enjoyable without DLC (which are better oriented to veterans by adding a few interesting extra choices and sometimes more micromanagement, which you needn't at all as a beginner as you'll better learn the mechanics little by little), and again, be patient, their sales offer very big discounts.

The games are so carefully designed that despite being easily moddable, most people use little or no mods other than graphic mods. Overhauls are generally not needed and neither are DLCs. Vanilla game or any of the starter pack feel satisfying and are complete games (all factions playable in core game, DLC however add better realism or better aesthetics to certain ones which feel too generic on vanilla).

Personally I think that it's worth at least trying because it's very unique as the best grand strategy game ever, the same way that TW is worth trying because it's by far the best battle simulator ever, no matter which historical period you choose, there's no serious competitor. Not even trying any of them is loosing the chance to meet astonishing strategy possibilities.

Seriously, I've seen vanilla EU4 for 9$ on humble bundle sales. I got a decent pack with half of the DLC under 30$ during sales. Price is not an excuse for those who are patient, even though I agree that I hate paradox DLC policy and would never, ever buy a DLC from paradox if it isn't on sales.

[izzi]

While I am not in to that period (I am more a gunpowder player). I do see potential in the game and in future expansions. It's true that 3K is a more fantasy driven genre if you follow the 14th century manuscript...and I think it's also more reflected that way in movies and/or other art. Maybe it's best known for the Chinese public that way. Same for us that some legends are based on history (at least where I live). But, if I see that they still are releasing expansions for RTWII, maybe they will do the same for that geography area. Like the Mongol invasion, or for me, the opium war (without the fantasy part).

[perifanosEllinas]

You probably watched an europa universalis gameplay. That's a 2001 game. Don't take it as a reference. It's like taking shogun (2000) 1 as the reference for total war series. If you want to get a better impression you could mainly watch an europa universalis IV gameplay. Crusader kings II could be also a good reference, but it's quite more based on feudal mechanics (with intense power relations with your vassals).

EU IV is more simple and "vanilla" than the other paradox games and thus it's recommended to initiate in the series. The first games are painfully difficult and confusing, but after 2 or 3 complete campaigns and some visits to the wiki, it's freaking good and ironically quite simple and with mainly clear mechanics.

Diplomacy is very decently made: you need casus belli to attack (which you can ellaborate through diplomats or get for many causes) can put efforts to improve effectively relations in a thousand interesting ways. Client states are fantastic (if you befriend them you can annex them forever). If you grow too strong by violence and ambition, enemies get into coalition against you and overextension by too many conquest brings tremendous unrest.

War is not that cool of course, there are not battles, but still the war is extremly tactic and the existence of manpower (population suitable for recruitment) prevent ridiculous mechanics. There's war fatigue, great attrition mechanics, 1000 times better and more realistic unrest mechanics, they reflect better the cultural coexistence and the religious issues... Believe me, THAT'S GRAND STRATEGY, not total war. If you think you can enjoy pure grand strategy games with not so much battlefield action.

I love both Total War and EU4 (and CK2), and any great strategy gamer should, at least for once, try both sagas as they're both great and offer complementary experiences. Unluckily Total war resists to learn from Paradox interactive in terms of diplomacy, unrest (trade mechanics are awesome, but maybe too complicated for average total war players). And sandbox experience, without victory conditions (only date limit), makes it generally more enjoyable. I like to start a Rome 2 campaign, but after the initial challenge it's terribly boring and just finish the campaign to get the steam achievements. With EU4 I beg the computer not to get to the finishing date yet, as there's still fun and challenge to the last minute.

Paradox has an unpleasant DLC policy. They release too many, but most are cheap and unnecesary or alternatively worth buying. And they're generous during sales period, making enormous discounts (I'd suggest anyone to add them to the whishlist and wait to sales to get them on 25% of the original price)

I watched a EU:Rome gameplay, which came out in 2008.

What's up with paradox games all of a sudden? Why are people trying to sell me on these games? I guess I touched a nerve with my criticism.

[druchii7]

Because it's really enjoyable. When a franchise that expends sooooo little on advertising or trailers and though are successful and get good user critics, that's generally because it's good.

I was reluctant to give it a try and I unfortunately began with crusader kings (better start with Europa universalis) , but after I did... It's the kind of game that changes the strategy quality standards forever, much like age of empires or total war. You might like grand strategy or not, but undeniably it's a tremendous game.

If it was the opposite, if you were a paradox games' fan, I'd recommend you to give total war s try to experience the best battle simulation on the market.

[Daruwind]

Paradox´s games are haunted by different menaces. That´s all.

I played some, own full Crusader´s Kings II, Stellaris, Hearts of Iron 4...Let´s say it this way. Here, people complaining about TWs DLCs. Crusader´s Kings got a lot DLCs some are now bundled together to shrink the number but still it is 63 DLCs? Collection is like 150 EU. A lot great ideas in different DLCs, problem is overall compatibility. LIke try to buy them all and launch game. A lot things is not balanced properly vs other choices, often updates are breaking something here something there... AI has two faces, politics, intriques.. good good but moving armies around? Stellaris could be renamed into chokepoints in space... And Hearts of Iron. There are basically two kind of situation. Easy/impossible.

They are great games, dont get me wrong I spend a few hundreds hours in CK2 alone. Definitely in campaign design and features TW could gain a lot inspiration but also there is so much weak stuff. So it is boiling down to whatever preference each person have about perfect game. ;-)

[captainkrunch]

For people talking about Cavalry, lets look at this scenario in detail. The cavalry doing the charging were elite, super-heavy cavalry and were charging into what is clearly(based on the look and generic name, simply "Ji Infantry") a very low tier Halberd unit. This halberd unit was also unbraced and had not adopted any formation to increase its chances of survival. It is no shock at ALL that this resulted in a victory for the cavalry. The same scenario would almost certainly happen in games like Med 2 and Atilla, which are fan favorites. The ONLY game where almost all cavalry will lose in a direct fight to spearmen in any form almost 100% of the time is Shogun 2. That is it. In any other game such a difference in tier between the Spears/Halberds and the Cavalry would go in the cavalry's favor. If anything it is MORE realistic that the cavalry won in this case. If chucking some spears at some peasants, or hell, even professionals, was all it took to deal with cavalry then the cavalryman would not have dominated any field he appeared on throughout history until the 18th century.

[Spear Dog]

For people talking about Cavalry, lets look at this scenario in detail. The cavalry doing the charging were elite, super-heavy cavalry and were charging into what is clearly(based on the look and generic name, simply "Ji Infantry") a very low tier Halberd unit. This halberd unit was also unbraced and had not adopted any formation to increase its chances of survival. It is no shock at ALL that this resulted in a victory for the cavalry. The same scenario would almost certainly happen in games like Med 2 and Atilla, which are fan favorites. The ONLY game where almost all cavalry will lose in a direct fight to spearmen in any form almost 100% of the time is Shogun 2. That is it. In any other game such a difference in tier between the Spears/Halberds and the Cavalry would go in the cavalry's favor. If anything it is MORE realistic that the cavalry won in this case. If chucking some spears at some peasants, or hell, even professionals, was all it took to deal with cavalry then the cavalryman would not have dominated any field he appeared on throughout history until the 18th century.

Disagree. In MTW2 spearmen were very effective against ALL cavalry - knights included - call to mind trying to force a wall/gate breach against deep ranks of spearmen. The English Billmen and all later derivatives in all factions (halberdiers/pikemen) could annihilate any cavalry once it was stalled. I dealt with cavalry in this way, unit of spearmen intercept cavalry/knights, then halberdiers/billmen charge in and hack them and their horses down. In Attila elite spearmen were the mainstay of my armies and I never regretted it. In fact, no TW army (excepting the gunpowder titles) in any TW game stands much chance on any melee based battlefield (exception is assaulting walls in a siege) without a core of spearmen. Less so in Rome 2 but a wise general always had spearmen guarding the ends of the ranks. However, ironically, In Shogun 2 ashigaru spearmen were not much good in the field against cavalry that hit them in the side, and a full cavalry stack against ashigaru in any formation, would roll them off the field and chase them to extinction.

[zoner16]

Disagree. In MTW2 spearmen were very effective against ALL cavalry - knights included - call to mind trying to force a wall/gate breach against deep ranks of spearmen. The English Billmen and all later derivatives in all factions (halberdiers/pikemen) could annihilate any cavalry once it was stalled. I dealt with cavalry in this way, unit of spearmen intercept cavalry/knights, then halberdiers/billmen charge in and hack them and their horses down. In Attila elite spearmen were the mainstay of my armies and I never regretted it. In fact, no TW army (excepting the gunpowder titles) in any TW game stands much chance on any melee based battlefield (exception is assaulting walls in a siege) without a core of spearmen. Less so in Rome 2 but a wise general always had spearmen guarding the ends of the ranks. However, ironically, In Shogun 2 ashigaru spearmen were not much good in the field against cavalry that hit them in the side, and a full cavalry stack against ashigaru in any formation, would roll them off the field and chase them to extinction.

I'm not quite sure what you're disagreeing with here, because you're providing a very different scenario to what happened.

[druchii7]

About cavalry shock, don't forget that tw tries to represent big battles with less troops. That's why soldiers attack not so often, why cavalry has not that big shock etc. The bigger the unit size is, the harder the shock might be. Otherwise infantry wouldn't work like real infantry.

In real life infantry tended to have sizes comparable to legendary mode and bigger, making them bulkier than the TW armies and the battles could be really slow (too much in fact, for the sake of fun it isn't a good idea to have a 6 hours battle.

[captainkrunch]

Disagree. In MTW2 spearmen were very effective against ALL cavalry - knights included - call to mind trying to force a wall/gate breach against deep ranks of spearmen. The English Billmen and all later derivatives in all factions (halberdiers/pikemen) could annihilate any cavalry once it was stalled. I dealt with cavalry in this way, unit of spearmen intercept cavalry/knights, then halberdiers/billmen charge in and hack them and their horses down. In Attila elite spearmen were the mainstay of my armies and I never regretted it. In fact, no TW army (excepting the gunpowder titles) in any TW game stands much chance on any melee based battlefield (exception is assaulting walls in a siege) without a core of spearmen. Less so in Rome 2 but a wise general always had spearmen guarding the ends of the ranks. However, ironically, In Shogun 2 ashigaru spearmen were not much good in the field against cavalry that hit them in the side, and a full cavalry stack against ashigaru in any formation, would roll them off the field and chase them to extinction.

That isn't at all a related scenario. Forcing a wall-breach with cavalry meant you did not get your charge off, and was really not the intended use for cavalry. In the trailer we saw a straight charge down a street that was uninterrupted. Also, I am not talking about elite tier spearmen, or even Mid tier, or even upper low tier. I am talking about the spears we saw in the trailer, which were clearly low tier. I agree, higher tier spearmen/Halberdiers should(and did) beat cavalry. But like I said, I am talking purely about an elite heavy cav unit charging into low tier unbraced spearmen, and in a case like that cav winning handily has been the norm.

Also, I was referring purely to head on charges, not flanking or maneuvering. Yes in S2 it was quite possible to win using a very cavalry heavy force if you played smart.