..but, let us not omit the most problematic thing about the "single entity" - that it is completely redundant. a tautology. a pleonasm. ...burning fire. P.S. if you have ideas for future subjects that i can navigate for this analysis/critique series on total war, you can use this thread on my subreddit: www.reddit.com/r/Volound/comments/is77kf/ideas_for_future_total_war_critique_subjects/
I miss the Captains, do you remember captains man? Last time we have seen them was in Shogun 2, The fact that they haven't been reintroduced after all these years is proof that CA has no clue of what is doing.
@@ravenstrategist1325 Same, and the fact that in games like Rome 1 you could promote them or adopt them into your dynasty if they did really well gave them loads more character than just a placeholder general
@@e.a.forrest1968 that's like something that would of been good in 3 kingdoms but I can understand why they left it out of Warhammer. I've played Shogun 2 and while I liked captains I really don't think it would of fit in warhammer very well (especially the whole adopting thing). I will say that I don't think that it's a sign that CA has no clue what to do. the Warhammer games and 3 Kingdoms have been some of the most popular titles that CA has released (I think that Troy might of beaten them but the fact that it was free makes that a bit questionable to me, we'll just need to see how many people keep on playing Troy to see how popular it truly is) and I think that going with the ideas that they used in their most popular games is generally a good idea
I don't think it's SINGLE ENTITIES as much as CA and TW trying very hard to move away from anything historical and appeal to a way way more casual fanbase. After the failure of THRONES OF BRITANNIA which released 2 years ago, CA could have went in any direction with their next Saga Title considering they were meant to be 'experimental' games. They clearly chose TROY to make Single Entities instead of making another Thrones of Britannia/Older TW type game with the usual generals as 'normal unit'. I honestly suspect CA will just stray further and further from History and just make 'Myth' games. To their eyes, TW3K made massive bank because of the Chinese audience and TWW2 sold a bunch of copies to fantasy enthusiast more than any of the Historical TW games. I'm actually very curious WHY CA likes to use the Rome 2 template for every single game after Rome 2, Shogun 2 was pretty great. 3K is the furthest they've moved from that standard template with at least some interesting ideas like 3 generals per army. Honestly the only way for CA to actually remove Single Entities is for the next 'Historical' TW that doesn't have Single Entities to somehow outsell WH2 and TW3K. It's clear CA doesn't really care about how their battles are balanced. Spectacle sells, the next unit has got to be bigger, badder in the new DLC. Sadly it works and that's what people buy.
@@lotrlmao1648 there is that historic mode yeah.. and it was the only mode i played the game in.. As much as i liked the individuals represented in this period, i cannot stand how they can defeat entire armies single handedly like in dynasty warriors
@@katyusha1527 And that is a good mode, i dont know why dont they bring this mode into Troy. The only time i accept Single general defeat entire army is in Warhammer because they are Fantasy.
It's a surreal feeling when you watch the footage of the Kensai in Shogun 1 and Achilles in Troy and think to yourself "The Kensai animations look better.". The way the Kensai keeps moving around and continuously makes his attack animation gives off the impression that he's at least trying to parry and dodge the spears being poked in his direction. Achilles just does nothing as he's being stabbed by several of them. He doesn't even raise his shield and only uses the damn thing to attack with.
Rome1 and Medieval2 did combat better than anything after. Stats being % chance of dying/killing and having proper feedback from getting hit but not dying. Sometimes in med2 i notice that few of my guys are ganging up on one enemy and keeping him occupied on defense. He is just just parrying, blocking and taking hits on armor without dying instead of just standing there and attacking the air. Frustrating things happen when you are using units with great weapons on med2. They will kill but if enemy manages to get hit before that slow weapon swing is over that swing gets cancelled and it becomes a parry or stagger. People will actually actively defend themselves instead of just taking it to the face all the time. And throughout all this you never know when someone dies because everyone gets just one hit point. Med2 even had sync kills that happened occasionally. They were simple and did not break the flow of combat that much.
They had to drop matched combat for the huge variety of skeletons in Warhammer then realized not enough people cared about it to begin with to be worth the expense. Kind of sad
@@Sakiawe The troops also had weight back then as well, for example peasants versus roman legionaries or knights, the heavier troops would push the lighter troops back as well. these days the fights are a brawl on a ice ring were formations shatter apart upon impact.
@Alvi Syahri its a bug. Shield wearing units have very big invisible bonus to defense, which doesn't show in stat screen. Disable this bonus and they get totally annihilated by gothic knights. Most of the big mods like TA or StSt did it right. I think it was even a case in Kingdoms mini-campaings.
I miss the time in total war when recruiting troops actually had an impact on the population in your cities. And as you fought battles and lost units they weren’t magically replenished, you had to send up replacements from your core cities or hire mercenaries to carry on a campaign. This made using your best and most elite units more meaningful as you knew there wasn’t an easy way to replenish them. Edit: also I hate the single entity heroes
@@kapitanbeuteltier5889 but you coukd not just spam your elite in that game too. You needed to wait long turns before the best units became avalaible for recruiting again.
One missed opportunity I recently saw with Shogun 2 and Hero units, was the option to have your general switch from their generic bodyguard unit, to a bodyguard made of a hero unit. So imagine you built the legendary spear dojo. Imagine being able to send your faction leader to go spend a few turns in that dojo, and then at the end of it come out with a Yari Hero Generals bodyguard. And it makes sense because why wouldn't your daimyo want to surround himself with the best warriors in his domain. And suddenly that Generals bodyguard that can be taken out by a full unit of light cavalry, can now stand toe to toe with the best the enemy has, while still being vulnerable to dying like any of his companions.
I would like retainers to be actual units added to your bodyguard unit, where over the course of a long campaign, your general's retinue would become large with the prestige and gains from the long years of conquest. Similar to Rome 1 in how your experienced generals would have super long lists of retinue and traits, especially if they spent time in a town with a academy for several years.
You can actually boost your general's fighting skill by a lot with the skill tree, even increasing his armour by +2 and the amount of men in his bodyguard by 30%.
theres so much they couldve done. even if the skill tree was made more worthwhile, the one two hands describes. and yeah if you have a "sword master" or "kyuzo" in your retinue, why wouldnt he be there on the field? should be able to see him at the front of the generals bodyguard beside the man himself, J O.
Napoleon: Total War has a great sense of tension, your general is a tiny sixteen man Generals Staff in battles where he can be wiped out by a single cannon shot. I was frequently moving him to positions where the enemy artillery could not get a clear shot at him.
I tend to use my generals in Rome and Medieval 2 for charges against enemy archers or flanks because of the big unit size and strong staying power. When I first used my general the same way in Empire... he was shot to bits by enemy line infantry. Ouch. Now I'm always very cautious with my generals in Empire and Napoleon.
And the moments, when your army is at it's last breath and general rallies last standing solders to defend what remains of artillery battery, but their ammo is depleted, so they have to go to bayonet charge and general fights side to side with his men...
@Alexander Kerensky Yep. The other day I was playing Medieval 2 and fighting to hold a hill, and I put my general behind the slope to keep him safe. But he got unlucky, a stray ballista bolt killed him. Everything becomes so tense after something like that happens, it's like you're fighting to avenge the general. In a modern total war he would have survived, and the battle would have been unmemorable.
I miss the times when using a general/general bodyguards required good timing otherwise you risked killing him by mistake or keep him behind to deal with routing units after the battle was over or in the case of Rome 2 suiciding him if he was a political opponent because managing politics in that game at the beginning is expensive as hell
Bogdan Ionuț yeah, I loved that. I once lost a fight I should’ve won by all means, but my friend (we were doing head to head) went ahead and pulled off a miracle. I was getting comfortable because I knew I would win, and forgot he had 2 cavalry units, before I knew it he assassinated my general and managed to pull of a phyrric victory. I’ve never once been as careless with my general again. And then achilles. Just, no.
@@ewout2763 or the chariots in Troy. I miss when in Rome 1 you needed to play around with the enemy to manage to catch the offguard and flank them because a wall of pikes or some ranged units could've killed them so easy or make them go berserk. Also I had a similar battle a few months ago in Attila in multiplayer. It was a siege battle, me on the attack and my friend on the defense and he lost his general at some point and by the end of the battle I got a little bit cocky and decided that it will be a waste of time to wait for my soldiers to grind down the last remaining units and I decided to charge them in the back with my general which was already quite depleted and seeing that they didn't broke (because elite units) I panicked and pulled out forgetting about the detachment penalty in Attila. My general and 13 more bodyguards survived just to be killed by one of the towers a few moments latter and I was praying for my units to not break and in the end I barely got the phyrric victory
@@undertakernumberone1 with med 2 I always liked how unpredictable the general can be. In one scenario he and his entire unit slaughter pretty much every one in other cases he decided to be right in the thick of the fight and uses up all of his hitpoints faster than the rest of the bodyguards
@@bogdan3386 can't remember ever seeing the General just being slaughtered... aside of Empire and Napoleon. Because compared to any other TW, there the Generals were flimsy. I remember taking out Boney with the first cannon salvo when he attacked Gibraltar. Generals in TW were nuts in most games.
CA has a AI Problem. They invent Gamplay Mechanic after Gameplay mechanic but cant make an AI that can handle those mechanics in any Reasonable Capacity. The Coolest Gameplay Mechanic is of no use in a Singleplayer Game if you cant make an AI which knows how to Deal with it. The massive Bonuses the AI gets speaks Volumes of this. the better your AI is, the less Bonuses it needs o keep up with the Player. Units cost less for AI ( Ai cant manage Money ) AI can recruit more Units ( Ai contantly does dumb things, therefore it has to be able to build up new units faster then the Player ) AI pays less Upkeep ( means AI cant manage reasonable Rosters relative to its Economy ) AI Buildings cost less AI gets a big basic income Ai gets lessened effects from Campaign map ( like Attrition, AI doesnt even recognize those effects on the map ) Which basicly lead on higher difficulty levels to Exploit the AI as much as you can instead of making sound strategic decisions. Since Rome, they try to dumb down/Streamline the game mechanics to make it easier for the AI to keep up and still fail to adapt the AI to it.
Don't forget how the AI sometimes flat out ignores some faction mechanics, like how in Warhammer the Bretonnian faction's basic units, which are various flavours of peasant mob, require you to think strategically and balance your army more carefully, as each unit of peasants in your stack is a unit of peasants not working your fields. The AI, however, has infinite peasants. This means your economy will crash hard with every confederation you make, which wouldn't be so bad if Brettonia wasn't one of the confederation focused factions
And it feels terrible. My late tier units and armies barely stand with low-premid ones that enemies has. It disconnects from the historical/lore awesomeness of my late units, it doesnt make feel that Im heroicly winning - Im just playing as a punching bag that has managed to punch back, but sloggishly and with great struggle. I want and deserve to have my own totally stomping moments that I worked for instead of struggling every battle.
@@MrKYT-gb8gs Building an AI that is as Intelligent as a Player is not the Goal. Building that Kind of Ai would be an enourmous task. Think of the Smartest Chess Computer which basicly needs its own Processor only to calculate the ( in relation ) limited chess moves compared to how many diffrent variables a modern Game has. The Goal would be to create a Synergy between the game mechanics and the AI. Create game mechanics you are able to Program an AI for. if you tryed to built a human like intelligent AI, youll need 1 PC only to run the AI and another one to run the game.
Jesus Christ, these heroes are even more overpowered than they are in a literal fantasy title like Warhammer. At least in Warhammer you can shoot them dead with guns, smack them down with monsters, or surround them with armour-piercing melee infantry. Imagine a year where the closest thing to a historical total war game is Mount and Blade: Bannerlord.
Forgive me if I misremember, but isn't Troy supposed to be non-historical, and was designed to be like the myths where heroes were supposed to be OP? Like, CA designed it this way on purpose, with a more historical and realistic game supposedly coming next? It doesn't excuse gameplay balance, but I get the sense people are complaining because they don't like the game because they don't like the concept, not because its a bad game. Its like saying NFL Blitz or NBA Jam were bad games because they weren't realistic sports games. Troy is the NBA Jam of Total War games.
the issue with troy is they say its a truth behind the myth approach. its not illiad the game, its troy, they take a bunch of myths from the era and put them together... but make it all regular people like a historical title, but give you non historical heros,
there’s just a lack of consistsncy or rather lack of identity with troy. I think the arcadiness of troy will lead to fun vs multiplayer when it finally gets added
@@Krynn72 If I understood it right it´s acually the opposite of wha you said. They tryed to make it as realistic as possible with the litte influence of gods and the non existence of real beasts and mosters. So the heros should be more killable with unites and not less then in 3 kingdoms or Warhammer. But it could be that I´m wrong and they wanted it to be like that.
What are you talking about dude? The last Total War Game that came out was shogun 2... this is a weirdly elaborate prank. When are you gonna finish the Hattori campaign?
@@AquaticSkipper At release no, it was awful. But in todays time yes it's good because it's fixed for the most part, so yeah that should considered one of the best TW games, makes no sense people trash on it because it had a bad start but it's good now, doesnt make any sense of them.
@@sylamy7457 Yeah, I hold modern Rome 2 at nearly the same level as Shogun 2. Nearly. It was trash at launch, but a good game now. I still prefer the older titles, but at least the gameplay was sort of balanced.
Considering the Saxon shieldwall collapsed against the Normans because their king took a one-in-a-million arrow-shot in the eye, I'd say that's what I want out of my battles. There are many occasions where a single lucky event swung a battle, and even the course of history. One time my Briton faction leader in Rome TW died because he flipped his fancy chariot over a bunch of barbarian peasant rebels I was bullying.
@@jaspervanheycop9722 the Normans had already won at that point, they had tricked the tired saxons to break formation and leave their position of strength. the only saxon unit still fighting when harold was killed was his body guard and perhaps a small group of other rallied around them. the rest had broken during 1 of the 3 charges the normans preformed after they tricked the saxons.
To be honest it works well with Warhammer games because it's a fantasy game. Saddens me that just because it worked where it was meant to work they are trying to force it to the rest of their games
3K and Troy I would say are also borderline mythological settings. We only barely know that they actually existed. So being bigger than life is par for the course for these settings.
@@Dparrey On the subject of the Trojan War, sure, but 'we barely know the Three Kingdoms era even happened'? What a load of bullshit! It's an enormous and well attested period of Chinese history, and it isn't even that old! Troy is thought to be 1500BC or so. Three Kingdoms is only 200AD.
@@Nicator_ except specifically the three kingdoms work and not other same era works is largely agreed upon by scholars to he highly poeticised. We know about many larger details and small details from other works.... But the romance is literally that. If you really think the 3 bound brothers sat under a peach tree and swore an oath that's a stretch. Several incidents are actually well known to be false. For instance Zhang Fei and the whipping of the official.
I noticed something when you compared Warhammer to 3 Kingdoms and Troy. In Warhammer you had a whole spectrum of single entity units ranging from single men, dwarfs, elves, or orks, to literal giants and dinosaurs, with small unit count units in between. And also having single entity units that specialized in different things like killing heroes, maintaining the army in battle, or slaying great beasts. Also Warhammer had many ways of killing a single entity Hero, because of magic. You could debuff them until they were little more than a common warrior and then kill them with normal units, or you could directly attack their health with spells or boosted attacks. Troy and 3 Kingdoms show that the only way to really kill a Hero is by using another Hero to whittle down their health bar, nothing else.
interesting. further to the point of shoehorning the whole concept into a place where there is no reason to expect it to ever work. unbalanced, trivial gameplay that looks and feels absurd.
@@Volound yeah, honestly, TW WH has many issues. Lack if balance, poor AI and the god awful dificulty scaling being chief amongst them. But at least it sure has amazing unit and tactic variety. Which is precisely why poor dificulty scaling and AI is even worse for it than for other TW titles. As it forces you into a single playstyle to win (line of shields to stop the stupid AI, massed ranged troops to actually hurt them. Don't even try to flank, don't do anything other than shoot, spam magic, and camp a hill) but that's the thing. This system cannot work in regular TW. Because in warhammer there's giant abominations that can eat your healthbar in one fell swoop. Necromancers that turn your fallen warriors into skeletal hordes against you, flying dragons that could flank you out of nowhere if the AI wasn't braindead, which sadly it is, the skaven can catch you off guard by sacrificing their units (literally and metaphorically) by charging straight through them with magic lightning infused chariots of mechanical doom, or deliberarely bomb melee fights knowing the lifes of their slaves are worthless because they can spam them much faster than you can build anything, so any trade is good for them, and mages can just drop meteorites or balls of lightning into hordes shamelessly, but will be put down by a good sniper before anyone even notices them if they get caught off guard early. 3K, Troy, etc. Have none of this. Hell, Troy could have done that by actually adding all the different myths and legends from the time with actual magical units. But instead it had the mythological creatures be larger dudes and gave them no real power (except sirens having the power of... "taunting" the enemy. Ejem.) I mean. Really?! They could've added all of the different creatures of bronze age mythology, and given us a real warhammer style circus, but no. One could argue the perfect total war would share the mechanics of shogun and the roster of warhammer. But they gave us the mechanics of warhammer with the roster of shogun. It's probably the worst thing they could've done.
I don't mind TW Warhammer, because it calls itself fantasy. It's less offensive to me. It still has problems, but at least it isn't lying to you. 3 Kingdoms and Troy just piss me off. :D
The thing is, I can accept super powerful heroes single entity units in Warhammer. Because it´s fiction. its cool to have mages, dragons, ogres. But when you put that on historical based games it´s terrible. Warhammer shouldn´t even be compared to the historical franchise.
I remember playing the original shogun on the 1999 PC, both of which my grandmother gave me as a birthday present, I thought the Kensai seemed so cool when I first encountered them, so cool in fact that I made as many of them as I could before my next battle, thinking “if it’s just one man in this game of hundreds of soldiers, he must be unstoppable”, then I got into the battle, I charged them at the enemy line. Archer fire and cavalry charges then tore my precious kensai to pieces and although my heart sunk at that moment, I realised, they’re not unstoppable, they’re just humans who have weaknesses, I can’t build an army from 10 extremely well trained men and hope to beat a well rounded decent enemy force. Then we skip to now, you can beat an army of like 2000(no generals garrison force) with only Lu Bu, I’ve seen it done on TH-cam
'If the arquebus don't take him down before he makes it to the enemy line, there is now a ticking clock, where their men become the seconds; they do their duty, one after another, to engage, and fall to his unmatched dueling ability, nobody can match him on the battlefield, but even he has limits; every man he kills allows him five more seconds of life... until his stamina wanes, after all he is just one man'. Paraphrased, but how it sounded solemn got me even after viewing this video again. I like fantastical scenarios, armies, arms and armour, but it's far more appealing when a heroic unit seems above and beyond due to their simulated ability to fight and survive purely by skill and every advantage given to them, rather than giant health pools. Seeing one Kensai dying abruptly, anti-climatically, to a projectile shows that yes, he is a supreme fighter... but just a man.
CA should rename "Total War" to "Heroes War" if they going to continue with their Hero gimmicks in their upcoming games. Remember the days, Total War made you feel "The General" and all your decision either will lead you to a road of victory or defeat. Now, it's just a clusterfuck of a duel between Heroes, the rest of the army is more likely a meatshield.
clusterfuck really is the word. all of these games now devolve to clusterfucks. just look at my 3k videos where im either engaging in a 3D timing puzzle with cavalry, or im firing trebuchets into a danger close blob at city walls, or on my spear circle meatshields that have dildoes for spear tips. its just a mess, man. nothing like it used to be, ever.
maybe dont play total war games that are based in mythology.....go play Rome 2 if you want something more realistic lol Achillies was the grandson of Zeus.....he is guna be able to do some shit you or i couldn't dream of doing...which is why no one will remember our names ;)
@@princedhan100 he is bitching about single entities being too strong when thats kinda the whole point to them.....thats why you get only 1 general in this and warhammer and not a whole unit like in shogun or rome.....they dont need a whole unit because thats how strong they are....go play the games that already have what you want don't change a game for the bitching and moaning of a few whem theres a few games out there that would be right up his alley
I think the health system in general is a concern because it dictates new terms for even the most basic interactions between units. In one of my first battles in Rome 2 I had my unit of armored hoplites come under fire from the enemy's unit of slingers. They were not engaged and were facing directly towards them. After watching none or almost none of my men fall in the first and second volley, I directed my attention elsewhere in the battle, confident in their armor's ability to shrug off missile fire. It was moments later that I saw the numbers on my armored hoplites' unit card falling like so much running water. The sling rocks went from bouncing off their shields and armor (something that was even shown in promotional material was a gif of an eastern slinger's throw bouncing harmlessly off the plated armor of a roman legionary), the rocks went from that to a devastating volley expected of from Cretan Archers in the first Rome. In earlier games you could generally judge the lethality of a ranged unit from their first two volleys. Now with the health system used since Rome 2 there is a "soften up" aspect where a seemingly ineffective missile volley will ramp up. Arrows are no longer shrugged off by heavy armor, the very thing you would wear armor for. Armor was avoidance before. A unit didn't take damage because the armor was what saved their lives. Now armor is mitigation. It delays inevitable death as each arrow chips down that green bar of yours, with only your shield block chance stalling you from meeting oblivion. An individual rock no longer has an individual chance to kill a man. Assuming no shield, there is a static, finite amount of rocks to every man in every army. For some men, three rocks will never kill, but four will always kill. There are factors like elevation differences that can come into play, but they only change the effective health of the unit under fire via bonuses and penalties to the damage being delivered, they only change that finite number of rocks by one or two, doing nothing to address the pitiful representation portrayed by the very first rocks. With ranged combat and no shields, there are no lucky survivors, there are no unlucky casualties. It is a system that betrays intuition.
totally on the mark with the health system. it produces absurd results. i remember during my testing of testudo during rome 2, i would notice how you could have your legionnaires stand fully exposed and get dinked on the head and chest by relentless sling shot, and you could then testudo them up so they are an impenetrable mass, and then have the slingers resume fire on your "weakened" (whatever that means) legionnaires, and they would all die as if the formation is being strafed by a fighter. rocks dinking off their deployed shields and they just lose grip of the shield and go limp. its absolutely absurd. "betrays intutiion" sums it up perfectly.
The problem is even worse in Warhammer where single entity units means that if you have a full stack full with those types of units attrition is meaningless
Hidole555 ok, first of all, obviously of you keep shooting them they’ll die eventually, WHERE ARE YOUR MISSILES TO RETURN FIRE, 2 legionaries and testudo aren’t invulnerable to missile fire, there just better at taking it than another unit and take more volleys to kill than a unit without testudo. Armor is there to slow and prevent missiles from killing the guy in the armor, not be invulnerable to missile fire, eventually if you keep shooting the unit they will die, that’s why the usual battle rules limit missiles. The higher the armor, the slower it falls to missiles and the less vulnerable but still vulnerable. Also, hover over the armor point in details or something, armor is split between shield and body armor the shield only works and helps protect from the left and the front, if they are shot by the other 2 sides, it will take higher tolls and higher chances of dying.
This sums up why i dislike modern totalwar system. I find myself playing more Med2 with mods because of it. Having armor and shield just being %-reduction to damage instead of reducing the %-chance of taking it feels wrong. Watching models swinging the air in front of them and not reacting to hits just to see health going down. Having played lot of Warhammer2 for past few days i finally completely realized why it felt weird at times. The difference of having unit 80/100 manpower at 40% health and 80/100 at 80% is massive in terms of durability and it should not vary that much. Models moving around inside the unit make for weird stuff like that happen a lot. Many times after battle i am shocked how little i lost in terms of people, when during battle most units had low hp but not many casualties. Other culprit is just the lack of mass and certain stickiness on units. Reactions from getting hit are nothing or just being sent flying. You can just run through formations and your units react to your commands instantly ignoring the fighting they are doing. AI using that to full extent with cavalry running through your units while taking minimal damage and not loosing any models. Then your own guys just decide they will stand their ground and not even entertain the idea of trying to actively deter enemy. Unless you start clicking like madman. Medieval2 same stuff happens but you cant just force everyone to stop fighting and start running. There tends to be some models that ignore and "buy time" to your unit as a whole to depart from melee. Most importantly you cant just run through enemy units without taking catastrophic losses in process. Unit replenishment on campaign map being fast is making your units strength matter less. Playing at early game on warhammer2 with dwarfs low replenishment and not getting those after battle options that award you % of replenishment works. You cant just streamroll from one battle to next. On most factions and races you tend to get a lot of replenishment outside of cities and stances. Lategame with all % modifiers you just ignore losses in battles (unless you are fighting back to back). In Rome1 and Med2 you had the fun of managing your losses with mercenaries, sending fresh units from your heartlands, taking your armies back for retraining, or just combining precious veteran units in order to be combat effective.
@Deathsdayoff person because it's a cancer that plagued game design meta since dota and LoL turned to be huge e-"""""sport""""" successes, until PUBG came out to shit the bed in other direction "everything needs to be balanced around multiplayer 15-40 minute session mode, also it needs heroes, and abilities, and shops, and equipment, and simplistic rpg progression system otherwise we can't make up another useless esport league for our game franchise" with current meta, it's "everything needs a battle royale mode" on top of that MOBA are the reason of today's publishers huge obsession with shitty esports, which is cancer, therefore mobas = cancer easy
Despite of all the problems that Total War Warhammer accentuated or introduced into Total War, I don't think the fantasy setting of Warhammer is the cause, even though I do think some of the liberties CA took because it was "just a fantasy setting" leaked into, and infected, the historical titles. In fact, I think the overall design philosophy more evident from Total War Warhammmer onwards actually detracts from the Warhammer setting. I don't know how familiar you are with Warhammer Fantasy but it started out as a table top wargame set in a universe of constant war based on medieval and renaissance warfare, players were motivated to build up their armies and customise them both aesthetically and to their play style. For the longest time the universe remained narratively static, besides the well established and developed lore, because the focus of the game were the stories that the players would write from their own battles; their armies, their soldiers, their regiments, were the characters. The massive majority of the art work and of the written lore focuses on military formations that acted in the many battles and wars of the universe. Even in the instances when heroes, monsters and legendary named characters do appear is to accentuate the massive struggle that mere mortals face with nothing but grit, courage and ingenuity and it shouldn't detract from the fact that this is essentially a "what if" scenario of what realistic battles would look like in a high fantasy setting the way the Warhammer Total War detracts. Imperial gunners are supposed to be highly disciplined and trained professional soldiers that are expected to face down the nastiest things the world has to throw at them with well drilled fire, not mindless robots animating their airsoft guns repeatedly in the general direction of the enemy. The struggle of dwarven slayers to bring down the biggest, meanest creature in the battlefield, and to be glad to die doing it, shouldn't look like a bunch of models poking a giant which ocasionaly pokes back with an uninspired particle effect.
Volound: 11:00 The general is your last resort. Me and my Friend's Faction Leader: *Brutally Scared*, *Quite Mad*, *64 Years old*, *The only reason they're not at the front of the battle is because their horses can't run that fast.*
@@Waldemarvonanhalt Absolutely not. You think Zhang He, a veteran general of decades, known for martial art, tactical abilities and courageous nature is similar to Zhang He the beauty obsessed femboy from Dynasty Warriors? The closest to book and histories is in the 1994 tv series. Cao Cao looking as if he always meant business is a complete contradiction. Cao Cao in books, tv series and movies, are always look like he is gleeing, laughing or bragging. He is not a hero of chaos, his entire propaganda is that he would end the chaos. Liu Bei is known as the weeping hero, I hated when the artist did not show that side of him.
@@Waldemarvonanhalt Take a look at the the opening song of the 1994 tv series, they show only six characters but the actors are absoluely spot on in portraying the characters in the book.
@@Account.for.Comment I've only seen Souten Kouro, which is obviously over the top. I'd like to watch that series. Is there a legitimate way I can do that?
@@Waldemarvonanhalt TH-cam. The series is popular enough that it had multiple uploaders. Search for rotk or three kingdoms 1994 eng sub and I found some. It had about a million people involved in its production, iirc. The acting and productions may felt outdated to some people but to me that feel authentic and realistic. No attempts of imitating Hollywood and the actors went deep below the surface of the characters. Liu Bei, the main protagonist of the book and series, is often described as virtuous to a fault, but critical historians and political analyst saw him more as an exceptionally ambitious and cunning political operator. The actor of the 1994 series portrayed the popular image of him while show clear hints of the interior as well. And like what Pixelated Apollo said of what used to be great on Total War, you see the struggles of the common soldiers, constantly, not just the generals. Their close ups are often of dirty, frightened faces and their corpses and deaths were shown graphically. I wish Total War used them as inspiration. Dynasty Warriors portrayals are jokes. The games are very fun and the characters design are clear parody. I loved those games. Red Cliffs is a John Woo action film. Fun to watch and great action. But TW imititation of them are terrbles. DW and TW had female generals whose only roles are that they married some important guys. DW had them to show off their creative character designs, TW had them to show that they never care of the romance or the history. I also reccomend just read the book, I think the old english translation are no longer subjected to copyright.
I know that people have mentioned that single entity units works better in Warhammer, but I don't believe they've really made a good case so far for why it works beyond "Heroes die to dinosaurs". I'll compare mostly to Troy, but 3K is mostly the same but less egregious than that one. Preceding this, I have to explain that there are different kinds of "hero" units in Warhammer. Lords (generals), Heroes (wizards or powerful single warriors),both of which I'll just call heroes, and monstrous units. There is also a middle ground, in that certain units have very low entity counts and fit a role between single entity units and regular units. I'll try to cover all of this. The health pools are much less ridiculous. There are a few incredibly tanky heroes(thinking especially of Leon Louencour, the king of Not-France), but they are an exception rather than the rule and require some commitment on the campaign map to get to that point. This means that marginal damage builds up much faster than in Troy, presenting an actual threat to the unit from the beginning of the fight. The same applies to morale (save of course for the occasional unbreakable unit, but those are rarer than you'd think). Winning a battle by killing the general is actually possible. Not just because of the reasonable health and morale pools, but also because the general's overall Leadership effect is pretty determinant for the routing of most non-elite units. This goes even further for certain factions in a way that wouldn't work in historical, by having certain armies rely entirely on their general being alive at all (Vampire Counts, Vampire Coast, and Tomb Kings), as them dying causes the units themselves to begin losing health all on their own. The fantastical escapes that plague Troy, where your hero can wade in and out of combat freely, is also not present in Warhammer. Heroes that are on foot have trouble escaping combat from even basic infantry unless absolutely no surrounding happens at all, which is rare due to how charges usually leave a hero at least a couple of ranks deep into a unit. It is not a good idea, even on Normal difficulty, to just charge a hero into infantry without some support to pull them out again. Like with most things in Warhammer, there are exceptions in the form of specialized heroes or monsters that can wade in and out more easily, but they just require heavier infantry to get them stuck again. There are more disadvantages to being surrounded as well. Missile units are more brazen about risking some friendly fire, and a hero, especially on a bigger mount, will take a lot of damage if pinned down with enemy missile in range. Heroes who have massive mounts also present far more surface to take damage on, which increases the rate at which they take damage, making blob-wading even more dangerous. Monstrous units tend to do well against heroes, except for heroes with massive Anti-Large bonus (specialized monster hunters yadda yadda). As mentioned, massive dinosaurs can munch the average hero pretty well. Some of these units are single entity, and some are small-count, and all are specialized. Usually these units have some kind of weak point, whether it is a low health pool, limited armor, or slowness, that make countering them feasibly with "regular" units (playing as the Empire, you are generally expected to deal with them either either through artillery, tanks, and halberdiers, or through magic and the small number of elite anti-large you do get). Very often they are massively tall or bulky, making them susceptible to missile fire. Now, there's an elephant in the room that I've barely mentioned so far: magic. Magic in Warhammer comes in these main flavors: functionally artillery, functionally missile fire, unit buffs/debuff, unit healing, and the rare utility spell. Magic is limited by a slowly-regenerating pool of points that is shared for all the casters in the army you control, and also has a maximum cap on how many points will be produced total in the battle. Most of the artillery magic is not aimed at specific units, instead aiming at terrain, and the AI tries to avoid it in a mostly-intelligent manner if the units can move. Missile fire magic is directly targeted and tends to deal a smaller amount of damage spread evenly across a unit. Unit buffs and debuffs can be powerful, but rely on good timing, as they're generally pretty short-lived. Unit healing is directly capped and only in rare instances (undead factions) can actually bring a unit's entity count back up. The few utility spells that exist are generally like freezing a unit in place, or making a big damageless explosion to force blobbed units to separate. The restrictions on magic make it pretty tough to rely heavily on it, as fundamentally the number of spells cast does not scale with the number of wizards you field. Most wizards specialize in one aspect of magic, and they're also very fragile compared to just about any other single entity unit. Some non-wizard heroes get spells too, but usually a small amount, with terrible magic pool regeneration. I can go on and on explaining more and more details of each type of unit, but let me attempt to summarize (I'll try my best to answer follow-up questions from anyone, to their desired level of detail): there's more emphasis on countering due to the greater unit variety and level of specialization (especially across factions), heroes don't get nearly as much of a free ride as Troy and can actually be dealt with tactically, and the other types of single-entity unit are complementary to the combat rather than the clear detriment seen in Troy. Some problems, of course, remain: difficulty-based AI bonuses make infantry much weaker, mostly. Depleted units are much more of a liability (at least in the way that Volound tends to brazenly use them). I can't speak to how possible the crazy 4:1 victories that we see regularly on this channel are in Warhammer's max difficulty, but I'd say they'd be far more likely on the more skirmish-heavy factions, like the Wood Elves, than the factions more focused on elite, monstrous units and magic. If this tempts some players to try the Warhammer series, here's my recommendation: Warhammer 1 is at this point a bit outdated and shows a number of growing pains, but it works and shows the basic mechanics work properly. Warhammer 2 has greater polish in terms of mechanics both in and out of combat, but the campaign has a ticking-clock mechanism (max-difficulty players can mostly ignore it) that pressures the player beyond just conquest. Having both gives you Mortal Empires, which is the two games' maps combined, and is the more sandbox, freeform experience that's standard to Total War. DLC stuff still shows up even if you don't own it, so it's only worth buying DLC for factions that you actually want to play.
While I do believe single-entity units don't have a place in historical total war games, I think the main problem is CA marketing Three Kingdoms and Troy like historical games, instead of as fantasy games like Warhammer was. The gameplay experience was shaped to make the player feel more like epic fantasy heroes instead of historical commanders, I wouldn't say it's a negative experience, merely a different one that CA didn't communicate to us about.
i just dont think they have a place in total war. its obvious what total war is and has always been. warhammer is not total war as i recognise it. its just a mess. single entities are just one component of that mess.
The lack of proper historical titles really bothers me to no end. If we count Troy and 3K out then the last historical game is ToB in 2018. If we move back to the last historical game a lot of people would consider good (though I wouldn't) it is Attila, in 2014... 6 years ago. CA really has done nothing to foster any goodwill from historical fans for over half a decade which leads to understandable worry. Now add the fact that since Warhammer 1 in 2015 single entity heroes have only taken up a larger and more important role in every single mainline TW game save ToB (which we don't talk about) and there really is no reason at all for historical fans to stay invested in this franchise or have any hope for future CA titles.
@@Volound Technically Creative assembly is encroaching onto other Companies' Videogame patents which is 'One Versus a Thousand enemy hordes' and 'One Man Army game design'' popularised by Koei's Omega Force and SEGA's Ryu Ga Gotoku Yakuza studio.
This is one of the reasons I still enjoy older TW games more, I mean even when I play Third Age TW and I have to fight Aragorn or Saruman and even tho their unit is really powerful, they can still go down.
There basically fighting like there three or four men in turns of hit points, enough that there likely to fight well in a good unit an get some kill in as part of the unit. A general unit in Europa Barbarorum for rome 1 is tough as there that guarded army's best fighters, but there only men a few rounds of missile fire or a few units swaping them will win the day.
I think that in Total War Warhammer the issue of single entities is not that bad, however is funny how much meta builds makes the game looks like you are playing League of Legends or DOTA 2 instead of Total War, sometimes the skills of the heroes are so important that the battleflield look more like a moba game than a RTS.
This is why I can’t stick with Warhammer for long. It feels more like Warcraft 3 than TW. Constantly micromanaging your heroes, single entities, magic, and ridiculous artillery. Formations, terrain, elevation, rank and file, morale…either completely gone or just stat boosts for the spreadsheet armies
The ONLY total war game where the generals and "heros" should be single unit powerful beings is the "Warhammer" series, because it makes sense in the game, but beyond that in "Warhammer" there are single entity units and even just army units that are specifically designed to kill single entity units.
I thought Achilles was durable, not powerful. Sure you could wail on him for four hours and a grand total of jack and shit would happen but he’s still a dude.
This is an excellent video into the state of current total war but I wish you would also touch on another aspect of old total war games that is missing - replenishment. In the newer games replenishment is basically a regeneration spell that is cast on your army every turn that magically makes new men appear for free. Constrast this to rome 1, in order to replenish units in rome 1 you need multiple conditions to be true: 1 - Must be at an owned settlement 2 - Must have the denarii to actually afford replenishment 3 - The town must have enough population (local manpower is relevant) 4 - The town must have the prerequisite buildings that were needed to train the units that are being replenished The presence of the 4 rules vastly fleshed out the strategic interaction with the tactical battles because unlike the new games, casualties in rome 1 stick. Especially to the elite units in your army that are only trainable deep in your empire. This actually meant that building a stack of nothing but the best infantry might not be preferable for a long march situation, forcing you to use cheaper units which you can replenish easily on the front. It also exemplified the value of your best men, you always thought twice about committing them to an engagement because every man is valuable and every loss will probably carry forward to many battles in the near future. It meant that tactical retreats were actually viable, damaging enemy units enough might actually mean that their campaign loses steam and is decisively defeated in the subsequent siege. It could also hamper your economy as the towns actually need to hit a population threshold in order to "level up", so if you are constantly training men/replacing dead ones it would actually have an impact on how your economy was growing. Instead of arbitrarily adding more conditions for army attrition (rome 1 had regions where attrition would happen), I would rather that the replenishment system had much more weight in the newer games.
your complaints could be 100% founded but ultimately total war is an RTT and it lives or dies on back of the delicate unit vs. unit engagement that happens in real time. campaign is a small part of the game, as it should be, and this is a tiny aspect of that. there is no way i would bloat that small detail up into an entire video when there exist so many massive, important problems that CA are yet to even properly acknowledge.
@@Volound I once won a battle with only one loss, my general. He was shot by a stray ballista projectile. The rest of the enemy army was killed by my archers and artillery. I gave chase but forgot the fire at will button. F
I cant remember the amount of times I've lost a general in rome from charging into the back of a unit. it makes me laugh every time as he goes flying off the horse
I think it's okay in 3k but only because they decided to make records mode, I wish it was more in their minds when they develop the game though. Friggin battle tigers
yeah, people have described heroes being manageable by all the absurd monsters that can eat them in 2 seconds, and that giving gameplay some balance/structure, but having these supermen that can dominate the field absurdly just trivialises all meaningful gameplay and means there is no worthwhile and meaningful challenge.
"Lord sniping" is what (almost) every multiplayer game of TW:Warhammer revolves around. Death magic, cannons, handgunners, other heroes (and a lot lot more) - all employed with the singular task of sniping out the enemy general for the win. Because if you don't... Well. Just look at Troy.
I got Troy for free, like many people, but it's just so painfully boring I can't bring myself to play it... I only managed about 2hrs playtime total before I had to tap out. I really don't know how the game is at all worth the 37.99 or whatever it is at retail.
I legit played Troy for half a battle, then I quit, hninstalled and never looked back. I couldn't even finish one (1) battle without wanting to actually gut myself. And I like Warhammer 2.
the health bar works in warhammer becuase there are special units that attack individual targets, an example would be the skaven warp fire cannons. Troy is semi fantasy its rock, paper scissors without the paper
Remember playing Rome 1 and winning a defensive siege battle in which I was vastly outnumbered because one of my egyptian peasants managed to cut down the charging Roman general whilst falling back to the square which subsequently led to the routing of the enemy and my victory, better times...
Excellent critique. I am a big fan of the Warhammer games but I was so disappointed when I heard 3K and Troy would be hero focused games. I think heroes being highly impactful makes perfect sense in the Warhammer universe but I was hoping they would keep the historical and fantasy games separated. I had for a long time wished for a Total War game set in Asia and had hoped that it would be centred around China but would feature the Mongols, Koreans and the Japanese and would be sort of an Asian Medieval: Total War. Instead, we got Total War: Dynasty Warriors. Now, I still liked 3K but it just felt like such a wasted opportunity because who knows how many years before we will see another Total War game set in Asia. And the same with Troy. I hoped that we would either get a historical game or we would get Age of Mythology: Total War but instead we could this weird in-between with bizarre units like the Minotaur and Cyclops. The Warhammer games are some of my favourites because I grew up playing Heroes of Might and Magic 3 and always wanted a game like that with massive real-time battles but it would be a shame if CA now abandons all attempts to make great and engaging historical games.
it also doesn't seem as problematic in warhammer because at least in TWW and TWW2 there are ways for armies to deal with the general without having to wipe his army out first. in 3 kingdoms that just doesn't seem to be the case. absolutely everything is determined by the generals dueling each other while the armies are nothing less than a tar pit to slow them down
Same, I love Chinese medieval history, but three kingdoms is a fantasied historical segment. People need to understand that Romance of the three kingdoms is HISTORICAL FICTION similar to 300 spartans and siege of Troy. Troy, three kingdoms, and 300 spartans , these events did happen historically, but the popular medium for it is fantasized/fictionalised/romanticised. For the Asian total war, I would prefer the Tang dynasty period with the battle of Talas. its a period that is not so romanticized not like 3 kingdoms. It has Eastern and Western Kaganates, Goguryeo(Korea), Tibetans, Arabians. Which would be cool. I didn't mind Warhammer since it is a fantasy based lore/game but with the trend of total war games coming out, I have no hope for medieval total war 2. More likely it will be King Arthur total or some shit like that.
The problem with a "Total War Asia" is that there really isn't a time period where all of those parties you suggested are engaged in enough to matter, especially considering how prior to the Meiji era Japan has been practically a complete backwater third-party in any grand scale conflict in East-Asia, with Korea serving more of a role (and even they were minor power at best. Tough, but minor). Mongol Invasions of China could be exciting, provided if most people are excited for the notion of what would essentially be "Attila 2: But in China" (which tbf is pretty cool to me because I like Attila)
@The Martial Lord of Loyalty ok. sorry, I've just never seen a battle in my campaigns where that's the case (that might be because I play it on romance mode rather than historical)
he physically threatened me after vindictively attacking me repeatedly cross-platform and i noticed the threat was completely empty and pointed it out. absolutely nothing wrong with that. gyazo.com/e6005573a6f0e64e1cc404e9b7e5fc19 gyazo.com/f7e8b65173b34d1cd9daba47a1b67e6d gyazo.com/b43f63495db44b0242ab23c8a9519b1b gyazo.com/ffca3e7fef1f38bb2cb4ac89df41b416
it wasnt below the belt at all. it wouldve been absurd of me not to draw attention to it given the circumstances. you have someone engaging in a completely unprovoked vendetta, making threats (which they then conceal), and manipulating an entire sub with transparent omissions and slant. the person topped it all off by threatening me IRL, as you can clearly see, and i pointed out my awareness of how the threat was completely impotent. im waiting for a single person to explain to me how what i did was below the belt. this has been going on for a whole day now and nobody has attempted to.
totally agree. you dont get to smear campaign them either with transparent manipulation and omission. gyazo.com/e6005573a6f0e64e1cc404e9b7e5fc19 gyazo.com/f7e8b65173b34d1cd9daba47a1b67e6d gyazo.com/b43f63495db44b0242ab23c8a9519b1b gyazo.com/ffca3e7fef1f38bb2cb4ac89df41b416
@@Volound still, you coulda made a better, more reasonable argument other than trying to insult people to win the argument, like right now, instead of insulting me, you atleast tried to give facts. Nice channel and all but you should seriously reconsider how you interact with other who try critique you.
I know being a Hero of Justice in real life is what most people want in their life. But What you are doing right now is what i consider what a harasser would do. Other people wrongdoing doesn't make your wrongdoing right. I looked at that reddit thread by chance. From first glance, I think the poster is playing the victim since he is obviously not posting entire conversation. He concealed things that won't do him any good and focus on other people wrongdoing, just like politics. Selective truth is usually applied by people that like to play victim, and it works because of most people want to be the hero of justice. I am not saying who is right or wrong. From what I see, it is just 2 people having a aggressive conversation and one of them trying to make that part of the conversation everyone problem just because the other one wouldn't simply comply to his demand. He is simply trying to make the "community" to pressure someone into submission. Just not a cool action. It is the internet, why make everything so personal? You have a nice intention for trying to fight for the less fortunate, but don't let people misuse your good will.
I think the latest total war games are a mistake. When they integrated the fantasy to historical settings it messes up. I think the "single entity" worked in the warhammer series because it is a "fantasy settings". you got dragons and demons, you should have wizard and heroes. it balances out. but when you got that drafted farm boy then he faces Achilles then it isn't balance :D they should kept the fantasy system inside a fantasy setting. Loving your vids btw keep it up!
But Troy is more or less a fantasy setting. Thats the Problem they had with the setting. They didn't wanted to go full fantasy again because not all fans like it but they can't go full normal because it's still Troy. And voila we have this medicore TW game out of it.
I have read some parts of the romance of the three kingdoms. Above all else is a work of historical fiction, written one thousand years later base on popular legends that the towns had about that period and a few real records. In the game you have the record mode if you want to play like medieval 2 china edition, but the use of single entity generals is not so far away from the source. In that book generals kill each other personally many times, one person against hundred or a thousand, some examples that comes to mind are Taishi ci and Lü Bu. So just don't see your point, there's a woman that was supposed to be the daughter of the God of fire in that book, saying that it doesn't suit it is not knowing the source material.
@@flachzange1614 It was still perfectly possible to have a game that scrupulously followed what we know about late Bronze Age geopolitics and warfare, but include the characters from the Iliad in an otherwise historical context. It wouldn't have been historically accurate as such, but it would have been historically authentic. They simply decided to go the middle road just so they could do whatever the hell they wanted, justifying every decision with "well it's not historical and it's not the Iliad either". I would have loved a historical late Bronze Age game. I would also have loved a proper Iliad/Trojan cycle game. We got neither.
A few years ago I really wanted them to make a Napoleon 2 or Medieval 3. Considering their recent "advancements," I really don't want them to ruin a series like that.
It’s not bad in Warhammer because it’s fantasy, the lore supports it lol. It never felt too OP either, I understand you don’t like Warhammer TW based on it’s total war aspect but it’s an amazing Warhammer game. So I think we can rule out trying to compare the two, the problem is they are taking “historical” and using Warhammer TW mechanics.
Bro Jangles but sometimes it kinda get out of hand. Lords like Luther hakorne and loen can literally solo an entire stack which is fun if you are doing it but it’s frustrating playing against it
As someone who plays the tabletop, i'd argue TW takes warhammer to a unhealthy place that's not really supported by the lore. Yes, there are mythical creatures, heroes, and magic but at the end of the day, every unit was mortal. All it took was one god roll, and your super powerful unit that was the centerpiece of your army, to be killed. The reason why these characters became characterized in lore was because of their abilities and achievements, the story and that they were still adding to that list, the tabletop became an extension of that story. Health bars create an expectation of knowing whether your unit is in danger and negates the impact of what their actions should be. True heroes became heroes because they emerged despite the risk and came victorious. These two are incompatible in the TW format to a good gameplay experience.
pasted from elsewhere: "and its one thing to "fit" with the setting. its another thing entirely to fit with basic RTT principles and with total war game design and with their AI and with their game systems. thats what i care about - actual good gameplay that is meaningful and has a challenge to let there be any point in enacting it whatsoever. these games are all trivially solved by basic intuition and simple micro."
I really like how you analyse the flaws of the beloved total war franchise and I would love to see it fixed. But sadly it seems as you can see by your ban on the subreddit that they would rather just silence you instead of improve their games :(
Something that I think should be examined are the settings that are being portrayed in Three Kingdoms, Troy and Warhammer. Setting aside the obvious fantasy of Warhammer Fantasy, these are all settings that are in a sense defined by their heroes: in Romance of the Three Kingdoms, common soldiers are more often described by their numbers and the impunity with which they are ignored by characters/figures like Zhao Zilong, who tears single-handedly escapes a battle, cutting through Cao Cao's men with his sword in one hand and Xuande's son in the other, or Guan Yu riding into the heart of an enemy army, swiftly beheading the general, scooping his head up and returning to Cao Cao. As I've come to understand it, the Iliad is also full of stories, of heroes' daring exploits and titanic duels at the whims of the gods and their own fate. The point I'm trying to make is I wager that Creative Assembly, through the usage of powers and health-bar-bearing Single-Entities, are trying to evoke that same kind of feeling, of these titanic men, whose very presence shapes the flow of the battle. It's a very "fantasy novel", "epic" kind of feeling, which Warhammer also attempts to capture. The problem is that there is already a genre of these types of games, musou games like Dynasty Warriors, to experience that, and I'd argue they're probably better at expressing that kind of feeling where a single person (the player avatar) can control the flow of the battle. I don't think it's a wise step for a series that has made its name or carved out a niche for itself like Total War has to try and pivot to contain that kind of gameplay (or dare I say storytelling). To add my own story at the end, I remember the first time I played a Total War game: I was a little late to the whole experience and managed to get a copy of Empire in high school, and as any red-blooded American boy I took a swing at the American Revolution. Imagine my surprise when in the very first engagement, a British cannon managed to not only tear through the General's bodyguard (leading from the front, as all great leaders do /s) but end George Washington's career with a red splatter on Virginian soil. I was very much more careful with following generals after that, ahaha. All that said, excellent video, good analysis, sorry about the essay, I was really intrigued by the Shogun 1/kensai stuff!
There are stories that Mao could swim across the Yangtze faster than Michael Phelps. I suspect there was something similar going on in the Iliad and the Romance of the three Kingdoms. These hero legends are a reflection of the societies that made them, not reality. Heroic stories told by historic Generals like Caesar are actually somewhat believable. Like a soldier somehow misplacing his shield, but, rather than suffering disgrace, swam across a raging river to retrieve it... Or a pair of brothers who held off an enemy attack while a bridge was dismantled behind them and swam to safety afterwards... Or an electrician who kept working during an air raid while everyone hid around him (actually, the last one was Patton).
@@hypothalapotamus5293 ik, I am just pointing out that he couldn't and it was never claimed- though they did man big deal about him swimming in the river
Everywhere I look I see people saying "I didn't even want it for free." Just how bad has C.A gotten at making games that they can't even *GIVE THEM AWAY?*
It's made CA £250,000,000 just off of free copies on epic, apparently they are planning on using it for a new TW engine. Perhaps we will see some change in the next mainline historical TW prehaps not, one can hope.
@@hounsdjentlow3074 Those numbers tell you nothing. If it was on Steam you could easily look up how many people were actually playing it. I don't know if the Epic Games store has a function like that since I'd rather not use it, but probably not. Remember when Three Kingdoms was released on Steam and it had like 2 million downloads in the first few hours, and then a day later it had less than 19.000 people still playing?
@@akiramasashi9317 I dont disagree with you on you point about credibility. But if anything is to be taken from this is regardless, the series goes on because there is demand. And until theres not, there wont be a time without a new game, with new ideas on its way. I actually like troy though the single entity thing sucks :(
@@hounsdjentlow3074 That's fair, I'm not about to tell people what they can and can't like. I'm just really disappointed in every post-Shogun 2 title and that's made me jaded.
a happy medium I always liked in medieval 2 at least was the general bodygaurd and similar units. they where smaller in size but each had 2 health as compared to almost all infantry and cavalry’s 1. that gave them the solidity to survival most single attacks, but a concentrated armor piercing force ormtipleattacks would almost always overwhelm them. their hp balanced by their small unit sizes. the idea of small digit “hits” instead of high digit “health bars” i like. for normal troops, they either defend well enough to not be critically hurt, or they are critically hurt/killed. while a “important” creature has just 1-2 additional levels between capable and not capable to illustrate their mythical/high moral/high prestige/high competency that are then balanced by their small/single unit size.
One more thing about Rome that I loved, if a captain, not a general, just one of the soldiers who was elected to lead the army, did a really good job, there’s a chance he’d get promoted to a general, he’d get his honour guard, he’d usually be better in combat than a lot of your lazy management generals, if you chose he could become the heir and then leader of your faction in time, but then if you miss one cavalry charge, neglect one unit who flanks you, that general could die as fast and suddenly as any other soldier. That’s why I love Rome and even bought the mobile version purely so I could experience it again at any time I want, yes the controls are a little finicky, the UI is a little sloppy and it’s a bit harder to make micromanagement decisions, I still get to have that total war feeling I loved playing the original Rome and building these organic generals who gain traits dependant on the life they live, the possibility of having too many bad traits, losing personal guard and having your favourite commander assassinated, all because you were careless in raising them. I don’t know why the trait system left after Rome 1, it just added more dynamic and real character to the people who FELT real as they grew into YOUR family tree and YOUR empire, not the family of the great god hero of your faction, but your family, the players own dynasty who they built and grew personally.
Total War Warhammer does it best honestly. Lords aren't immortal and units can easily kill one if used correctly. And there are lords that feel really powerful and fun to use\play against. The only exception to the rule is a Sword of Khaine user, that becomes just unkillable. It also feels appropriate that such fantasy titles as Three Kingdoms and Troy share the same system, especially with Three Kingdoms, where they really nail that Dynasty Warriors feel to the lords, and if you notice, Three Kingdoms is completely centered around those lords when it comes to mechanics. Troy however has a problem, where a general is really clunky to use in a "normal" way, as he would have pathing\animation issues, and would get almost zero kills, compared to Three Kingdoms lords, and are way tankier than the lords from Warhammer and Three Kingdoms combined. So you use them just to duel other heroes or stick 'em in a blob to provide buffs. Aka they are simply unfun to use. I don't *feel* Achilles to be the Big Dick Warrior he was hyped to be. Remember that the last historical title we got was Atilla.
always thought it was weird to try to depict achilles in a total war game. they failed to navigate this at all. hes just another generic hero with a health bar that goes down. achilles dies by a thousand cuts.
@@Volound True. Btw- thanks for all your videos about the state of TW and CA. Like you I joined the wagon with Shogun and dropped out because of Rome2, and I feel much of the pain you seem to feel. I hope CA will one day return to their roots and make a game for me again. Meanwhile, keep up the good work.
It's a weird thing, for example, in Warhammer 2, I enjoyed watching two kings battling it out, but on the other hand, it was cool for that reason, and that reason only. Having a single entity is pretty dumb otherwise, because if you let your general hang back and let your soldiers do all the fighting, you'll still win, because you're only missing one unit with a slightly better attack. I miss the days of Medieval 2.
Why did you thinks volound cares about ca partnership if he want to play a new total war he can buy and ca cant stop him from make videos look i dont agree with what he did to legend but the rest i agree with a good part principally about newer total wars
What's this? Volound delivering another coherent video essay about games that doesn't come off as trivial, pretentious and/or whiny as most do? This is fantastic. You've struck gold here my friend.
I used to watch you years ago it's really disappointing to see you act like this. Using someone's mental health issues as ammunition for a disagreement is a shitty thing to do.
he fully invited it upon himself by engaging in a lunatic vendetta culilminating in threatening me IRL after claiming he was going to destroy me in a youtube comment he then deleted, and which im lucky i got an email receipt for. after he claimed that, he slandered me cross-platform. so no, absolutely not. swallowed the executively decided bullshit narrative. im the one that should be disappointed.
@@Volound do you have a direct link your reddit comments appear to have been deleted. Even if your side of the argument is true what you did is still a shitty act that has had clear consequences. I hope you have enough maturity to grow from this.
absolutely not. i stand by my actions, which were measured and appropriate, as you can clearly see from an account of the situation that is not transparently manipulated and slanted. gyazo.com/e6005573a6f0e64e1cc404e9b7e5fc19 gyazo.com/f7e8b65173b34d1cd9daba47a1b67e6d gyazo.com/b43f63495db44b0242ab23c8a9519b1b gyazo.com/ffca3e7fef1f38bb2cb4ac89df41b416
@@Volound yes it appears he threatened your channel. However had you not taken your "measured and appropriate action" which was out of line he would have achieved nothing. Had you done the measured and appropriate action of ignoring him nothing would've happened.
Can you do a video like this one on chariots? (Which, ironically, the warhammer games balance best) They literally swim through infantry with nothing but braced spearmen/pikemen able to stop them. And Troy doesn't have any unit capable of formations that'd stop chariots. Historians still don't have much of an idea how they were actually used in battle. As for the video: I think you're absolutely right, aside from the warhammer titles that this kind of hero unit fits in. This has inspired me to give Rome 2 and the classic health bar lacking titles a try.
Volound lol lets be honest. The game isnt the reason why you have lost your privileges, it was the shitty stuff you did. Own it, move on, instead of blaming everyone but yourself.
i got the email telling me i have lost my affiliation 3 days ago, so youre wrong unless you believe in time machines. then why does legendoftotalwar have access when hes a right-winger that does racist dog whistling and invokes nazi imagery? youre a gullible moron. they dont care about people and their properties and actions beyond how it affects the perception of themselves and their games.
I feel like Warhammer is the best and worst thing to happen to Total War. On one hand it drew in an entire new fandom in Total War which is good for CA but now they are trying to cater to those fans by making each new total war game a little more Warhammer by adding unrealistic game mechanics into “historical titles” that would never exist in the old total war thus leaving there veteran and historical fan base in the dust. I like the Warhammer games but want an actual good historical Total War game
Yeah I think a problem with single entities outside Warhammer is there’s not something that burst damage fast enough, like magic, or hundreds of projectiles on WHTW and those ones can even regen too
Volound is perfecting his persuasive speaking game and breaking down game design for us, while CA product managers are busy trying to corner the obsessive fan market. See, you can't put strategy in a DLC, tactics in a lootbox. But, once you ride out the single entity trend and reach the terminal evolution of these hero units, monetizing summer outfits for your favorite men of bronze becomes possible.
i hearted this comment before i went to sleep but it made me laugh because its pretty much on the mark. this was a long time coming. you saw right through me. and youre seeing the trajectory we are on. it is not a good one. just look at "elysium". its a fucking android card game for total war. that is cringe.
The thing I hate about Warhammer Total War is it isn't even consistent with tabletop. Heroes have 2-3 hp on average, 4-5 at most, and have to join units for ablative hp, IE bodyguards. Even monster units like greater demons and the like never have huge hp pools. So not only does Warhammer Total War not represent Total War well, it doesn't even represent Warhammer well.
I really like Empire, personally, the variation of tactics between regions, and nations really drew me in. No overpowered mega generals, just ranked infantry holding the line against the foreign hordes.
While i did like Empire, it had the problem if beeing way to binary. A cavalry charge into enemy artillery position will result in a) the cavalry smasing into the art, routing them with barely any casualties, or b) the artillery landing one good shot, routing the cav. Thanks to the huge differences in artillery effectiveness, especially early game, the game was just way to random.
Two things killed Empire for me; the sieges and the bugs. The dreary feeling of slowly demolishing a fort and then slowly picking away at the braindead AI inside rather than launching an equally pointless assault with my difficulty-hamstrung army against an entrenched opponent sucked the fun out of the game for me. I didn't feel like I was taking Vienna with the Ottomans, avenging my faction's humiliations at the feet of the walls of that great city. I felt like I was taking a cheap toy fort guarded by lemmings and commanded by a border collie. And the bugs. Dear God, the bugs. I finally packed the game in and uninstalled when, after a hard fought battle, a unit of Russian reinforcements got stuck on some terrain and wouldn't take the field. The animations are slow and janky, units will randomly turn and present their flank when ordered to fire, or shy away from a charge to mysteriously start shuffling sideways instead. These events completely pull me out of the experience and remind me that I'm a random idiot sitting at a computer playing with toys instead of a grand general commanding an army. A humbling and grounding experience, if a demoralising one..
Personally I've played both historical and the warhammer titles. I think that in the context of warhammer it kinda makes since the heros are this level of immortal. Just because there are plenty more tools that can can be used to take them out in the form of monstrous infantry, single monsters, and even flying units. However I can agree that I miss the days when you had to actually be thoughtful with your general. In troy theres no giant, no troll, no dragon, no magic, no chaos chosen that can be a threat to your immortal hero. Now it's only men vs men with a few immortals running around the field. It's a bit lame when I got on to Troy for the first time and realized that it wasnt fun in a historical way or a warhammer way and just logged off.
yeah that could help a lot, giving an actual rock paper scissors where heroes are just yet another angle. if dinosaurs can eat them in seconds, thats fine. it just completely leaves the classic total war RTT which is unit on unit combat. pasted from elsewhere: "and its one thing to "fit" with the setting. its another thing entirely to fit with basic RTT principles and with total war game design and with their AI and with their game systems. thats what i care about - actual good gameplay that is meaningful and has a challenge to let there be any point in enacting it whatsoever. these games are all trivially solved by basic intuition and simple micro."
So I apologize I gotta watch the rest of this video later, but I'm at the part where you're discussing why Kensai weren't a problem in Shogun 1 as opposed to the recent titles. The thing about Kensai was that they could be countered with very cheap units. Properly supported in a large army Kensai were beasts, forcing your opponent to either commit a significant portion of it's army to take him down or accept the losses he'll inflict while contending with the rest of your army. However, Kensai were highly vulnerable both to projectiles and to being swamped with large numbers of expendable units. Even humble yari ashigaru (which for those not acquainted with Shogun 1 were nothing like the yari-wall beasts they are in Shogun 2, they were literally missile fodder that easily broke on the battlefield) would kill Kensai by swamping them, wearing him out with their numbers until they could strike a killing blow. It was a very cost-effective trade. Bows ofc could do it even more easily, and committing a Kensai into a bridge battle was a huge risk. TW went away from single entity units for quite a few titles. Eventually when Shogun 2 arrived they came up with the effective solution of giving heroes a small squad of elite soldiers to fight alongside. Then they brought back single entity units in Warhammer, beefed up their stats significantly, and reduced opposing troop numbers so swarm tactics were less effective. I will get to the rest of this video later tomorrow to see your take on why single-entity units are a problem in modern TW games, but anyhow that's my take on why Kensai weren't a problem in Shogun 1.
In my first game of TW ever, I was playing MTW2 and I lost by regicide in 5 turns and two battles. I started with three family members. The first died rear charging a group of rebel peasant archers in the first battle. The other two died in a siege a couple turns later. One was the first casualty, shot by an archer tower's second arrow. The other got hit by a crossbow. After that I was really paranoid about my generals for a long time.
I can't imagine they'll vehemently continue this single entity stuff for much longer. In 3K, I think it's hard to make the complaint when you have the option to play with or without single entity generals-and while, yes, CA could definitely try to improve their AI, no one's telling you to cheese the game either. Though I also have the understanding that sometimes that ends up being necessary in higher difficulties because the AI gets more and more bonuses. Troy... I've had mixed results on how my heroes are used. I honestly don't get how you've managed to get your general to literally casually stroll through enemy lines, because if I tried that, the entire enemy army would've swarmed my general. My only gripe is AI generals always seem to gain a speed bonus when fleeing. Beyond that, I just have my troops engage with the enemy and my generals go on a hunt for their's. Warhammer? I can't tell if there's a problem with that or not with some people. The whole setting kinda has a thing for outrageous maneuvers performed by each race's more renowned leaders and generals. One example? How, in lore, Grimgor Ironhide took on whole swaths of Rat Ogres by himself until he got bored and left. Anyhow, I'm pretty certain they'll bring back General bodyguard units in later historical titles. Fantasy? Maybe, maybe not depending on what world they wanna do next, imo.
I get your point and I agree that single entity generals for historical TW titles don't make that much sense. But especially for the fantasy titles it is mandatory, where supernatural beings are common,who can obliterate armies on their own. But yeah Troy should have an option to turn single entities off.
IKR, I just discovered this guy's youtube channel and though his videos are long with much redundant talk he actually creates concrete arguments. When I investigated this "hate", I recognised quickly that he was being targeted by a mob of snowflake fanboys because he criticises their beloved game. It's weird really because they accuse him of targeted harrasment, while in fact there's no evidence for that at all. All there is is one post on the subreddit, where both Volound and a commenter were arguing and while it could be "toxic" behaviour on BOTH sides. No targeted harrasment or anything of the sort happened on the side of Volound. Volound himself seems to be targeted by harassement of an army of reddit fanboys....
In medieval 2, Despite conventional knowledge telling me otherwise, I find it's actually a pretty good idea to use your General's Bodyguard, because they're on par with some of the highest tier cavalry in the game, and have multiple hitpoints.
And if you are lucky enough you can get a general that is a killing machine with traits that give him HP bonus, ATK bonus, speed bonus etc etc. But for that you have to risk his life making him go to combat a lot and you also have the risk that he get a bad trait that makes him weaker instead of stronger
On the General's Bodyguard Units: Napoleon Total War (which is still a good tactical Total War Game, fight me plebs) did it right when it came to generals and their units: they were the general's staff, they weren't there to fight at all. Your general was supposed to rally the troops, keep the morale up and so forth. His unit was there to try and keep him safe from being killed outright by rushing lancers, hussars or mounted chasseurs. However, when he was rallying or inspiring the troops, passing behind the infantry line doing their volley fire, your general could get hit by a stray musket ball, or a ricochet cannonball. Generals had a lot of influence on the battle through their aura and presence. And yet they died fairly easy in Napoleon Total War; I've had enemy generals suddenly dying out of nowhere, only to see that they were passing near an unfortunate infantry unit that was being targetted by my artillery presumably to keep them from routing. And I've had my own generals die because of a light infantry skirmisher whose stray bullet happened to hit him. And if he was this legendary general that gave huge morale boosts to your units in his army, then that really impacted your campaign.
While I can understand the complaining in three kingdoms and Trou, heroes have to be OP in warhammer. The lore shows it. And even ingame if you put a few armor piercing missile units then the hero will go down pretty fast. However I agree with you that while OP and monstrous heroes are ok in fantastical games, historical should stick to maybe strong but still human generals (Rome 1's was very strong and hard to kill but a bit of unluckyness and bye the general)
im not the kind of person that would ever be interested in/motivated by lore. id always be thinking about game mechanics and how it determines gameplay.
@@barbute3684 absolutely not. lore is arbitrary and has no say. it was written by people that have no game design background. you have a fundamental misunderstanding.
@@Volound The people who wrote the lore also wrote the rules and designed gameplay for Warhammer. TWWH is a simulation of a tabletop game, you're being obtuse.
@@barbute3684 total war is a real time tactics game and anything designed for tabletop will probably have no say. lore has no way to dictate effective game design or circumvent known game design elements and tenets. telling me im being obtuse when you just evaded the banal point im making is just projection. what youre doing is tantamount to telling me harry potter novels have a functioning magic system written into the fiction, so it should be able to work as described in games, that it can easily be imported over with no problems and that any problems people identify can be magic wanded away by just appealing to its lore precedent. its just ridiculous and it transparently completely avoids talking about anything relating to game design and gameplay (which is all that matters), so its obvious what youre doing.
It’s the same with Empire. Your general stays back, away from the dangerous enemy guns, even, behind a rock or something so cannons can’t kill him. The general’s cavalry should only ever be used when you have no cavalry left, when both you and the enemy are battered and on the verge of breaking and you just need one last charge to win.
I've gotten multiple free games from Epic Games in the past. I *knew* they were going to release Troy for free there. I fully intended to download it because I love a good game deal. And yet, I totally forgot to download it. Just totally slipped my mind. I've been a fan of the series as long as you have, and I totally forgot that the newest release was coming out for free. That's how far we've come.
yeah that says it all. apathy is the end. apathy is why they target specific enthusiast audiences with no background in total war and that only care about the most trivial superficialities. their core audience is being ignored and neglected and forgotten. so their audience forgets them in turn.
There are times in old Total War games, that I wouldn't have my general run down fleeing troops because I knew he was already in combat earlier and the miniscule chance that the fleeing guy would score a hit would prevent me from further risking Scipio Africanus.
in Napoleon, generals may die instantly by stray shots or even friendly fire, just from any bouncing artillery shell, canister shots or missile cav. Tho i prefer in Fall of the samurai where it's a bit more forgiving, or Rome 2 where u can use general to fight as actual elite unit
Well, my Napoleon just got 1 shotted by a stray Old Guard unit musket in square formation that tried to protect him from the British cav when i play Waterloo battle.
Come to think of it, one man doomstacks were present in Medieval 2. Like a king-general with high stats could slay a whole unit of heavy cavalry solo. I remember that my heavy cav killed his guars and then the king kept one-hit-KO my heavy cav every second or so. One unit he wiped out completely, others he just damaged. It happened during siege, so army loss/routing wouldn't trigger because he stood in the center square.
When you spoke on scope at the end. I suddenly remembered watching replays of shogun 2/napoleon i had where i'd pick out random dudes from units (usually units i remember performing interesting feats in said battle) and I'd try to keep track of that guy and see where he ended up as the battle progressed. if he died he died. But i remembered him and his deeds. One of my favorite set of memories from this series.
Heroes in WH2 being gods makes sense. Anyone who has played tabletop knows how OP some of them are (although it comes at a high BP cost). But for “historical” games please can we have generals that actually need to be protected. Also collision seems broken in Troy. Even in WH2 you risk your hero/general getting trapped and surrounded to die. For what I see in Troy it seems your heroes can easily slip in and out. Shouldn’t the general/hero get penalized and stabbed to death if surrounded? Small rant about sieges for ALL TW games since Rome2. Quit letting everyone have free ladders ffs. Why build walls when everyone and their mom has their own set of 100ft ladders? Sure you can have them IF you spend the time to build them!
OP but still one good roll can kill them. This is not possible with how TW currently rendered this system, I want heroes to be at risk, where you can get an unlucky engagement and be killed by a heroic common soldier. I do not get that feel with TW, 3K or Troy
Even then, a character in tabletop has, at most, 4-6 attacks so if they all hit, wound and goes through armour and ageis save, that's still just 4-6 dudes dead, in a unit of 30-50 men. They were powerful but a single unit could kill a character, mostly.
pocket ladders. also i dislike the gameplay produced by single entities. it doesnt matter about the context. it isnt total war at all. the gameplay loop of these single entity games is just bad in terms of quality total war experience. i dont see any context of fantasy immersion that can mitigate its massive drawbacks. the gameplay will always surely be trivially solved and devoid of meaningful challenge. that is why the hidden combat modifiers of my last video are so punitive.
I personally loved the general's bodyguard from Medevial 2. I loved having massive groups of generals in one army and just wipe out armies, but they had weaknesses. Spearmen. I can't tell you how many times I've attacked a small army with 8-10 generals and they had 3 spearmen units and they just wiped out my generals. And to be honest, it was frustrating, but it was surreal. No matter how powerful the cavalry is, there is a counter. And that counter can literally be a homless guy with a short spear and a small sheild. Its such a lovely balance that I don't think we'll ever have again in a Total War game.
Then attack them in the flank. Have your heavy infantry, spearmen or, if you don't have any, your most expendable general slowly attack them in the front and charge them with your main generals from the flanks.
watch my last 2 videos and tell me how i dont get dropped for that ..when people got dropped for pointing out thrones of britannia was a little bit shitty.
they are, which is why there was extreme selective omission of them, and why my right to reply was revoked while the thread was pinned to the top of the sub. executively decided smear job because i criticise their games. gyazo.com/e6005573a6f0e64e1cc404e9b7e5fc19 gyazo.com/f7e8b65173b34d1cd9daba47a1b67e6d gyazo.com/b43f63495db44b0242ab23c8a9519b1b gyazo.com/ffca3e7fef1f38bb2cb4ac89df41b416
@@javidthompson7415 lmfao how were those comments toxic? I swear to god, you soybois wouldn't even survive MW2 Rust quickscope lobbies on the 360 for one minute without contemplating suicide......
I never played the original Shogun, but I played (and still play and love) Shogun 2. There are no single entities there, but they do have the Hero units. Their unit size is way smaller, and in combat against certain units, they can excel, but they require care when you use them because they can be trapped, fired upon, or countered, which makes you care more for them than your general in the new Total War games.
Although I pretty strongly disagreed with the thesis of your last video (that Total War's last successful game was Shogun 2), I think you hit the nail on the head here. Although I enjoy Troy, and Three Kingdoms, what kept me from enjoying 3K for a while was the deemphasis of rank and file in favour of hero units. In Rome 2 (my favourite, although I think Shogun is a more quality game), every unit or unit type has a distinct role and a substantial weight to them. In Rome 2, Pikemen hold the centre, Thorax Swords engage the wings of their infantry, and Thureos Spears guard against cavalry and throw javelins into the backs of enemy infantry. In 3K, melee infantry all kind of blur together for me, and it feels like their job is to just engage the enemy infantry while I micro my cav and generals. In 3K it feels like the best I can ask of my infantry is to make the enemy's numbers go down faster than my number, whereas in Rome 2 infantry units can actually varied tactical uses.
thanks for being willing to acknowledge when you think im right and making good arguments. i have no problem with good faith actors taking issue with anything at all that i say.
I think the biggest problem with bringing in the legendary heroes from Warhammer is not also bringing ways to efficiently deal with them. In Warhammer you can use explosive missile units to decimate heroes in 2-4 volleys, use monstrous units to stun lock them in place quickly killing them or use heavy cavalry and chariots to cycle charge the heroes down. However in the newer games such as 3 kingdoms and troy you and the AI don't have access to recruit these kinds of high damage units and as a result the best tactics become focus the weakest parts of the army which is the infantry. To reiterate the big difference is that infantry simply doesn't do enough damage or have enough health to justify having it when compared to heroes. One solution would be to introduce specialized units that excel at killing single entities but lose every time to regular infantry.
The thing i missed was Sacrificing the general unit to fill in the gaps or to flank charge as a last hope for victory, but then out of no where *the Screen closes in to 2 people fighting each other* No No No NOOOOO!!!!! the General died my army retreats and i now have to get a family member far from the front lines to lead the army i also missed the time when a general died the army would most likely retreat, and that generals could die at anything, a Catapult missed the inf and hit the general behind, when u try to rally the troops and a stray arrow hits the general, and the most risky part that made me feel alive when 2 generals fight each other and knowing who ever won would win the battle, the best time i had was Rome total war and my general charged the flanks of the enemy, killing the Greeks and the Greeks send in Cav to counter me and everyone died but my general and like 3 body guards, i was almost in tears of joy knowing that the Legend General of the Greek Campaign would live to fight another day, and not be the man to charge in mass of men to be killing them while the troops just stab him and the general not flinching, not acting wounded, not even slowing down. Also War-hammer i was kinda excited for it, as i was hoping it would be like lord of the rings total war (the med 2 mod) where the Generals would be as kill able as the Orcs you are leading, or the elves you are commanding, but the total war series is going down because, it feels like they was trying to make movies of the Generals that was God like, and almost un kill able, but what they should do is make them just as kill able as the troops they lead, just historically they have been lucky and almost died many times -the many that hate new total war, wish you a good day and hope the old will Rise from the Ashes of the new
i miss those medieval 2 battles where your bodyguard would charge and charge and get smaller and smaller and youd barely win by virtue of so much desperation and grit. i had those same battles in rome. those were the best. i played as carthage and had a 70 year old conqueror that carved out an entire empire with his charging into his anvil of punic spearmen. i think his bodyguard had about 80 or 90 horses by the time i stopped the campaign. i stopped the campaign just so he wouldnt die of old age. i also would only have played warhammer if it turned out to be like third age mod for med 2, but i always knew it wasnt going to be, so ive always had no interest.
In thrones of Britannia I remember always using my general’s royal thanes as a combat unit because they were so good in combat, well armored, wouldn’t rout, basically the bedrock of the damn army. He routinely won fights and even killed other elite units, I think he was either jammed dead center in the squad and I never was at a point where the unit was in major danger or he was actually just the terminator.
Partly a matter of the success of warhammer which for its faults is very much in line with it's lore of "and than the elf lord killed 500 dumb humans because he's an avatar of a war god." partly because Three Kingdoms was a Chinese release and the Romance of the Three Kingdoms is the only narrative allowed. Troy is just them being lazy and reusing the fantasymechanics under a guise of "mythical." I don't think they really believe a truly historical/grounded total war can be successful. Which is, heartbreaking.
Funny thing is that in Warhammer Fantasy the Heroes and the Lords are not overpowered monsters that can take entire armies by themselves. (Unless they are overpowered monsters in the lore or literally monsters )The typical charcters are inserted in units so they are protected and their stats are not that crazy. While most infantry has 1 wound and 1 attack heroes have typically 2 wounds and 3 attacks and lords have 3 wounds and 3 or 4 attacks. Wizards have almost always 1 attack because it is not their job to fight in melee. Compare it with TTW where a High elf Spearman has 63 hit points and a Prince had over 4000.
As others have said, the biggest issue regarding single entity units is their counters or lack thereof. Warhammer has a large variety of units who can deal with Heroes, artillery, Anti-Large inf, etc... In 3K and Troy the only solution is bringing another hero which just turns the game into a hero arms race. Growing up watching Sharpes Rifles my favorite TW is still Napoleon, I miss the days when cheese was less meta and combined arms was the best way to play. Alas.
the funny thing is in warhammer fantasy the wargame, it was basically a bunch of dice checks that decided whether a unit lives or dies which is pretty much total war
this ruined the 3 kingdoms campaign i started yesterday. It explains perfectly why the game doesnt feel as good as the older ones, i loved rome 2, its not perfect but can be patched with mods in a way that the newer ones cant. Warhammer in itself was cool but its mechanics ruined the franchise, i guess im starting a shogun 2 campaign for the 20th time tonight instead
@@_jwp_7311 for real. I started playing Medieval 2 like a week and a half ago. Most every battle consists of micro heavy cav engagements. It’s simple as fuck but I’m not too familiar with the unit speeds, so not every battle is a straight up slaughter yet lol
11:57 “earlier games would mock you as what you are doing is foolish” Actually, shogun 2 itself also is very clear about this, with the animation that shows when you run the game where in the samurai duals and defeats the defender only to be shot in the back by a torrent of arrows
..but, let us not omit the most problematic thing about the "single entity" - that it is completely redundant. a tautology. a pleonasm.
...burning fire.
P.S. if you have ideas for future subjects that i can navigate for this analysis/critique series on total war, you can use this thread on my subreddit: www.reddit.com/r/Volound/comments/is77kf/ideas_for_future_total_war_critique_subjects/
I miss the Captains, do you remember captains man? Last time we have seen them was in Shogun 2, The fact that they haven't been reintroduced after all these years is proof that CA has no clue of what is doing.
@@ravenstrategist1325 Same, and the fact that in games like Rome 1 you could promote them or adopt them into your dynasty if they did really well gave them loads more character than just a placeholder general
@@e.a.forrest1968 that's like something that would of been good in 3 kingdoms but I can understand why they left it out of Warhammer. I've played Shogun 2 and while I liked captains I really don't think it would of fit in warhammer very well (especially the whole adopting thing).
I will say that I don't think that it's a sign that CA has no clue what to do. the Warhammer games and 3 Kingdoms have been some of the most popular titles that CA has released (I think that Troy might of beaten them but the fact that it was free makes that a bit questionable to me, we'll just need to see how many people keep on playing Troy to see how popular it truly is) and I think that going with the ideas that they used in their most popular games is generally a good idea
I don't think it's SINGLE ENTITIES as much as CA and TW trying very hard to move away from anything historical and appeal to a way way more casual fanbase.
After the failure of THRONES OF BRITANNIA which released 2 years ago, CA could have went in any direction with their next Saga Title considering they were meant to be 'experimental' games. They clearly chose TROY to make Single Entities instead of making another Thrones of Britannia/Older TW type game with the usual generals as 'normal unit'. I honestly suspect CA will just stray further and further from History and just make 'Myth' games. To their eyes, TW3K made massive bank because of the Chinese audience and TWW2 sold a bunch of copies to fantasy enthusiast more than any of the Historical TW games.
I'm actually very curious WHY CA likes to use the Rome 2 template for every single game after Rome 2, Shogun 2 was pretty great. 3K is the furthest they've moved from that standard template with at least some interesting ideas like 3 generals per army.
Honestly the only way for CA to actually remove Single Entities is for the next 'Historical' TW that doesn't have Single Entities to somehow outsell WH2 and TW3K. It's clear CA doesn't really care about how their battles are balanced. Spectacle sells, the next unit has got to be bigger, badder in the new DLC. Sadly it works and that's what people buy.
Ehhh it's important to say because all units are made of a large number of individual entities, some units consist only of a single entity.
once upon a time in rome 1 i lost my general because an elephant fell on him
u lyin boi
@@Volound i swear on shingen's mustache it's true!
@@Rogdub LMAO
u arent a true rome 1 veteran until a dying elephant kills your faction leader
I lost shit tone of generals that way, still tho they were very op in rome1
Old Total War: Army fights while the General Watches
3k and Troy: General fights while the Army watches
this is so true it hurts
What i thought 3k has realism mode that make your general act like normal unit that cannot even fight well
@@lotrlmao1648 there is that historic mode yeah.. and it was the only mode i played the game in..
As much as i liked the individuals represented in this period, i cannot stand how they can defeat entire armies single handedly like in dynasty warriors
@@katyusha1527 And that is a good mode, i dont know why dont they bring this mode into Troy. The only time i accept Single general defeat entire army is in Warhammer because they are Fantasy.
Basically Souten Kouro.
It's a surreal feeling when you watch the footage of the Kensai in Shogun 1 and Achilles in Troy and think to yourself "The Kensai animations look better.". The way the Kensai keeps moving around and continuously makes his attack animation gives off the impression that he's at least trying to parry and dodge the spears being poked in his direction. Achilles just does nothing as he's being stabbed by several of them. He doesn't even raise his shield and only uses the damn thing to attack with.
Rome1 and Medieval2 did combat better than anything after. Stats being % chance of dying/killing and having proper feedback from getting hit but not dying. Sometimes in med2 i notice that few of my guys are ganging up on one enemy and keeping him occupied on defense. He is just just parrying, blocking and taking hits on armor without dying instead of just standing there and attacking the air.
Frustrating things happen when you are using units with great weapons on med2. They will kill but if enemy manages to get hit before that slow weapon swing is over that swing gets cancelled and it becomes a parry or stagger. People will actually actively defend themselves instead of just taking it to the face all the time.
And throughout all this you never know when someone dies because everyone gets just one hit point.
Med2 even had sync kills that happened occasionally. They were simple and did not break the flow of combat that much.
They had to drop matched combat for the huge variety of skeletons in Warhammer then realized not enough people cared about it to begin with to be worth the expense. Kind of sad
@@thatguy09001 I don't blame them, battles are over in 30 seconds, it's impossible to zoom in. Maybe for youtubers.
@@Sakiawe The troops also had weight back then as well, for example peasants versus roman legionaries or knights, the heavier troops would push the lighter troops back as well. these days the fights are a brawl on a ice ring were formations shatter apart upon impact.
@Alvi Syahri its a bug. Shield wearing units have very big invisible bonus to defense, which doesn't show in stat screen. Disable this bonus and they get totally annihilated by gothic knights. Most of the big mods like TA or StSt did it right. I think it was even a case in Kingdoms mini-campaings.
I miss the time in total war when recruiting troops actually had an impact on the population in your cities. And as you fought battles and lost units they weren’t magically replenished, you had to send up replacements from your core cities or hire mercenaries to carry on a campaign. This made using your best and most elite units more meaningful as you knew there wasn’t an easy way to replenish them.
Edit: also I hate the single entity heroes
That was only in one Rome 1 and in that game it was ridiculously easy to exploit.
@@kapitanbeuteltier5889 medieval 2 : am i a joke to you?
@@MrKingoffire no. But recruiting or disbanding units didnt interact with a cities population in that game
@@kapitanbeuteltier5889 oh yeah I thought you meant unit maintenance too. Übrigens können auch auf deutsch labern.
@@kapitanbeuteltier5889 but you coukd not just spam your elite in that game too. You needed to wait long turns before the best units became avalaible for recruiting again.
One missed opportunity I recently saw with Shogun 2 and Hero units, was the option to have your general switch from their generic bodyguard unit, to a bodyguard made of a hero unit. So imagine you built the legendary spear dojo. Imagine being able to send your faction leader to go spend a few turns in that dojo, and then at the end of it come out with a Yari Hero Generals bodyguard. And it makes sense because why wouldn't your daimyo want to surround himself with the best warriors in his domain. And suddenly that Generals bodyguard that can be taken out by a full unit of light cavalry, can now stand toe to toe with the best the enemy has, while still being vulnerable to dying like any of his companions.
I would like retainers to be actual units added to your bodyguard unit, where over the course of a long campaign, your general's retinue would become large with the prestige and gains from the long years of conquest. Similar to Rome 1 in how your experienced generals would have super long lists of retinue and traits, especially if they spent time in a town with a academy for several years.
You can actually boost your general's fighting skill by a lot with the skill tree, even increasing his armour by +2 and the amount of men in his bodyguard by 30%.
theres so much they couldve done. even if the skill tree was made more worthwhile, the one two hands describes.
and yeah if you have a "sword master" or "kyuzo" in your retinue, why wouldnt he be there on the field? should be able to see him at the front of the generals bodyguard beside the man himself, J O.
so cool @@j.o.2618
Napoleon: Total War has a great sense of tension, your general is a tiny sixteen man Generals Staff in battles where he can be wiped out by a single cannon shot. I was frequently moving him to positions where the enemy artillery could not get a clear shot at him.
I tend to use my generals in Rome and Medieval 2 for charges against enemy archers or flanks because of the big unit size and strong staying power. When I first used my general the same way in Empire... he was shot to bits by enemy line infantry. Ouch. Now I'm always very cautious with my generals in Empire and Napoleon.
I remember watching a TW battle where one of the generals got fucking yeeted barely into the battle by a stray cannon
I love NTW3 because there are generals who are on foot with a regiment instead of on horseback
And the moments, when your army is at it's last breath and general rallies last standing solders to defend what remains of artillery battery, but their ammo is depleted, so they have to go to bayonet charge and general fights side to side with his men...
@Alexander Kerensky Yep. The other day I was playing Medieval 2 and fighting to hold a hill, and I put my general behind the slope to keep him safe. But he got unlucky, a stray ballista bolt killed him. Everything becomes so tense after something like that happens, it's like you're fighting to avenge the general. In a modern total war he would have survived, and the battle would have been unmemorable.
I miss the times when using a general/general bodyguards required good timing otherwise you risked killing him by mistake or keep him behind to deal with routing units after the battle was over or in the case of Rome 2 suiciding him if he was a political opponent because managing politics in that game at the beginning is expensive as hell
Bogdan Ionuț yeah, I loved that.
I once lost a fight I should’ve won by all means, but my friend (we were doing head to head) went ahead and pulled off a miracle. I was getting comfortable because I knew I would win, and forgot he had 2 cavalry units, before I knew it he assassinated my general and managed to pull of a phyrric victory.
I’ve never once been as careless with my general again.
And then achilles. Just, no.
@@ewout2763 or the chariots in Troy. I miss when in Rome 1 you needed to play around with the enemy to manage to catch the offguard and flank them because a wall of pikes or some ranged units could've killed them so easy or make them go berserk. Also I had a similar battle a few months ago in Attila in multiplayer. It was a siege battle, me on the attack and my friend on the defense and he lost his general at some point and by the end of the battle I got a little bit cocky and decided that it will be a waste of time to wait for my soldiers to grind down the last remaining units and I decided to charge them in the back with my general which was already quite depleted and seeing that they didn't broke (because elite units) I panicked and pulled out forgetting about the detachment penalty in Attila. My general and 13 more bodyguards survived just to be killed by one of the towers a few moments latter and I was praying for my units to not break and in the end I barely got the phyrric victory
So, not Medieval II where you could ahve your general solo entire armies early in the game, and later on with the right skills.
@@undertakernumberone1 with med 2 I always liked how unpredictable the general can be. In one scenario he and his entire unit slaughter pretty much every one in other cases he decided to be right in the thick of the fight and uses up all of his hitpoints faster than the rest of the bodyguards
@@bogdan3386 can't remember ever seeing the General just being slaughtered... aside of Empire and Napoleon. Because compared to any other TW, there the Generals were flimsy.
I remember taking out Boney with the first cannon salvo when he attacked Gibraltar.
Generals in TW were nuts in most games.
CA has a AI Problem.
They invent Gamplay Mechanic after Gameplay mechanic but cant make an AI that can handle those mechanics in any Reasonable Capacity. The Coolest Gameplay Mechanic is of no use in a Singleplayer Game if you cant make an AI which knows how to Deal with it.
The massive Bonuses the AI gets speaks Volumes of this. the better your AI is, the less Bonuses it needs o keep up with the Player.
Units cost less for AI ( Ai cant manage Money )
AI can recruit more Units ( Ai contantly does dumb things, therefore it has to be able to build up new units faster then the Player )
AI pays less Upkeep ( means AI cant manage reasonable Rosters relative to its Economy )
AI Buildings cost less
AI gets a big basic income
Ai gets lessened effects from Campaign map ( like Attrition, AI doesnt even recognize those effects on the map )
Which basicly lead on higher difficulty levels to Exploit the AI as much as you can instead of making sound strategic decisions.
Since Rome, they try to dumb down/Streamline the game mechanics to make it easier for the AI to keep up and still fail to adapt the AI to it.
Don't forget how the AI sometimes flat out ignores some faction mechanics, like how in Warhammer the Bretonnian faction's basic units, which are various flavours of peasant mob, require you to think strategically and balance your army more carefully, as each unit of peasants in your stack is a unit of peasants not working your fields. The AI, however, has infinite peasants. This means your economy will crash hard with every confederation you make, which wouldn't be so bad if Brettonia wasn't one of the confederation focused factions
And it feels terrible. My late tier units and armies barely stand with low-premid ones that enemies has. It disconnects from the historical/lore awesomeness of my late units, it doesnt make feel that Im heroicly winning - Im just playing as a punching bag that has managed to punch back, but sloggishly and with great struggle. I want and deserve to have my own totally stomping moments that I worked for instead of struggling every battle.
It would be interesting if they could implement a neural net that learns from human players
@@MrKYT-gb8gs Building an AI that is as Intelligent as a Player is not the Goal. Building that Kind of Ai would be an enourmous task. Think of the Smartest Chess Computer which basicly needs its own Processor only to calculate the ( in relation ) limited chess moves compared to how many diffrent variables a modern Game has.
The Goal would be to create a Synergy between the game mechanics and the AI. Create game mechanics you are able to Program an AI for. if you tryed to built a human like intelligent AI, youll need 1 PC only to run the AI and another one to run the game.
@@TheGouliat yea that's the problem. The ai is too limited and this limits the features of the gameplay
I love me some Warhammers, but I wish not every one of their next titles become like them. Great videos, comrade.
thanks meng.
@@Volound what does meng mean?
@@r1cosito (The ancient name of "Silent Watcher")
Jesus Christ, these heroes are even more overpowered than they are in a literal fantasy title like Warhammer. At least in Warhammer you can shoot them dead with guns, smack them down with monsters, or surround them with armour-piercing melee infantry. Imagine a year where the closest thing to a historical total war game is Mount and Blade: Bannerlord.
Forgive me if I misremember, but isn't Troy supposed to be non-historical, and was designed to be like the myths where heroes were supposed to be OP? Like, CA designed it this way on purpose, with a more historical and realistic game supposedly coming next? It doesn't excuse gameplay balance, but I get the sense people are complaining because they don't like the game because they don't like the concept, not because its a bad game. Its like saying NFL Blitz or NBA Jam were bad games because they weren't realistic sports games. Troy is the NBA Jam of Total War games.
the issue with troy is they say its a truth behind the myth approach. its not illiad the game, its troy, they take a bunch of myths from the era and put them together... but make it all regular people like a historical title, but give you non historical heros,
there’s just a lack of consistsncy or rather lack of identity with troy. I think the arcadiness of troy will lead to fun vs multiplayer when it finally gets added
@@Krynn72 If I understood it right it´s acually the opposite of wha you said. They tryed to make it as realistic as possible with the litte influence of gods and the non existence of real beasts and mosters. So the heros should be more killable with unites and not less then in 3 kingdoms or Warhammer. But it could be that I´m wrong and they wanted it to be like that.
@@Krynn72 its kinda like between mystery and history, centaurs are just big guys wearing costumes...
What are you talking about dude? The last Total War Game that came out was shogun 2... this is a weirdly elaborate prank. When are you gonna finish the Hattori campaign?
Rome 2 is excellent, and in particular has the series best siege battles. Watch Ellington or Joe On It
@@AquaticSkipper At release no, it was awful. But in todays time yes it's good because it's fixed for the most part, so yeah that should considered one of the best TW games, makes no sense people trash on it because it had a bad start but it's good now, doesnt make any sense of them.
@@sylamy7457 Yeah, I hold modern Rome 2 at nearly the same level as Shogun 2. Nearly. It was trash at launch, but a good game now. I still prefer the older titles, but at least the gameplay was sort of balanced.
It's an ok game
@@AquaticSkipper Someone hasn't played Attila.
one time in shogun 2 a stray dunderbuss shot executed my faction leader from 15 miles away
a living, breathing game. a sandbox. an actual military simulator.
Volound have you played mount and blade?
Considering the Saxon shieldwall collapsed against the Normans because their king took a one-in-a-million arrow-shot in the eye, I'd say that's what I want out of my battles. There are many occasions where a single lucky event swung a battle, and even the course of history. One time my Briton faction leader in Rome TW died because he flipped his fancy chariot over a bunch of barbarian peasant rebels I was bullying.
@@jaspervanheycop9722 the Normans had already won at that point, they had tricked the tired saxons to break formation and leave their position of strength. the only saxon unit still fighting when harold was killed was his body guard and perhaps a small group of other rallied around them. the rest had broken during 1 of the 3 charges the normans preformed after they tricked the saxons.
I lost two Generals in Napoleon from a cannonball that bounced of a hill in front of the enemie's battery.
To be honest it works well with Warhammer games because it's a fantasy game. Saddens me that just because it worked where it was meant to work they are trying to force it to the rest of their games
this could be a good description.
3K and Troy I would say are also borderline mythological settings. We only barely know that they actually existed. So being bigger than life is par for the course for these settings.
@@Dparrey On the subject of the Trojan War, sure, but 'we barely know the Three Kingdoms era even happened'? What a load of bullshit! It's an enormous and well attested period of Chinese history, and it isn't even that old!
Troy is thought to be 1500BC or so.
Three Kingdoms is only 200AD.
@@Nicator_ except specifically the three kingdoms work and not other same era works is largely agreed upon by scholars to he highly poeticised. We know about many larger details and small details from other works.... But the romance is literally that. If you really think the 3 bound brothers sat under a peach tree and swore an oath that's a stretch. Several incidents are actually well known to be false. For instance Zhang Fei and the whipping of the official.
Rome 1 is the "borderline mythological" done right.
I noticed something when you compared Warhammer to 3 Kingdoms and Troy. In Warhammer you had a whole spectrum of single entity units ranging from single men, dwarfs, elves, or orks, to literal giants and dinosaurs, with small unit count units in between. And also having single entity units that specialized in different things like killing heroes, maintaining the army in battle, or slaying great beasts. Also Warhammer had many ways of killing a single entity Hero, because of magic. You could debuff them until they were little more than a common warrior and then kill them with normal units, or you could directly attack their health with spells or boosted attacks. Troy and 3 Kingdoms show that the only way to really kill a Hero is by using another Hero to whittle down their health bar, nothing else.
interesting. further to the point of shoehorning the whole concept into a place where there is no reason to expect it to ever work. unbalanced, trivial gameplay that looks and feels absurd.
@@Volound yeah, honestly, TW WH has many issues. Lack if balance, poor AI and the god awful dificulty scaling being chief amongst them. But at least it sure has amazing unit and tactic variety. Which is precisely why poor dificulty scaling and AI is even worse for it than for other TW titles. As it forces you into a single playstyle to win (line of shields to stop the stupid AI, massed ranged troops to actually hurt them. Don't even try to flank, don't do anything other than shoot, spam magic, and camp a hill) but that's the thing. This system cannot work in regular TW. Because in warhammer there's giant abominations that can eat your healthbar in one fell swoop. Necromancers that turn your fallen warriors into skeletal hordes against you, flying dragons that could flank you out of nowhere if the AI wasn't braindead, which sadly it is, the skaven can catch you off guard by sacrificing their units (literally and metaphorically) by charging straight through them with magic lightning infused chariots of mechanical doom, or deliberarely bomb melee fights knowing the lifes of their slaves are worthless because they can spam them much faster than you can build anything, so any trade is good for them, and mages can just drop meteorites or balls of lightning into hordes shamelessly, but will be put down by a good sniper before anyone even notices them if they get caught off guard early. 3K, Troy, etc. Have none of this. Hell, Troy could have done that by actually adding all the different myths and legends from the time with actual magical units. But instead it had the mythological creatures be larger dudes and gave them no real power (except sirens having the power of... "taunting" the enemy. Ejem.) I mean. Really?! They could've added all of the different creatures of bronze age mythology, and given us a real warhammer style circus, but no. One could argue the perfect total war would share the mechanics of shogun and the roster of warhammer. But they gave us the mechanics of warhammer with the roster of shogun. It's probably the worst thing they could've done.
I don't mind TW Warhammer, because it calls itself fantasy. It's less offensive to me. It still has problems, but at least it isn't lying to you. 3 Kingdoms and Troy just piss me off. :D
@@Norilius no. The AI does nothing else on Legendary than on normal. It just gets stronger
The thing is, I can accept super powerful heroes single entity units in Warhammer. Because it´s fiction. its cool to have mages, dragons, ogres. But when you put that on historical based games it´s terrible. Warhammer shouldn´t even be compared to the historical franchise.
After I bought 3kingdoms and I killed an entire army only to have my men routed by one dude I knew I had thrown away my money.
lmao
I remember playing the original shogun on the 1999 PC, both of which my grandmother gave me as a birthday present, I thought the Kensai seemed so cool when I first encountered them, so cool in fact that I made as many of them as I could before my next battle, thinking “if it’s just one man in this game of hundreds of soldiers, he must be unstoppable”, then I got into the battle, I charged them at the enemy line. Archer fire and cavalry charges then tore my precious kensai to pieces and although my heart sunk at that moment, I realised, they’re not unstoppable, they’re just humans who have weaknesses, I can’t build an army from 10 extremely well trained men and hope to beat a well rounded decent enemy force.
Then we skip to now, you can beat an army of like 2000(no generals garrison force) with only Lu Bu, I’ve seen it done on TH-cam
your grandmother was a legend. i salute her.
'If the arquebus don't take him down before he makes it to the enemy line, there is now a ticking clock, where their men become the seconds; they do their duty, one after another, to engage, and fall to his unmatched dueling ability, nobody can match him on the battlefield, but even he has limits; every man he kills allows him five more seconds of life... until his stamina wanes, after all he is just one man'.
Paraphrased, but how it sounded solemn got me even after viewing this video again. I like fantastical scenarios, armies, arms and armour, but it's far more appealing when a heroic unit seems above and beyond due to their simulated ability to fight and survive purely by skill and every advantage given to them, rather than giant health pools. Seeing one Kensai dying abruptly, anti-climatically, to a projectile shows that yes, he is a supreme fighter... but just a man.
CA should rename "Total War" to "Heroes War" if they going to continue with their Hero gimmicks in their upcoming games. Remember the days, Total War made you feel "The General" and all your decision either will lead you to a road of victory or defeat. Now, it's just a clusterfuck of a duel between Heroes, the rest of the army is more likely a meatshield.
clusterfuck really is the word. all of these games now devolve to clusterfucks. just look at my 3k videos where im either engaging in a 3D timing puzzle with cavalry, or im firing trebuchets into a danger close blob at city walls, or on my spear circle meatshields that have dildoes for spear tips. its just a mess, man. nothing like it used to be, ever.
maybe dont play total war games that are based in mythology.....go play Rome 2 if you want something more realistic lol Achillies was the grandson of Zeus.....he is guna be able to do some shit you or i couldn't dream of doing...which is why no one will remember our names ;)
@@Shifty51991 Rewatch the video, lad. You'll get there.. somehow.
@@princedhan100 he is bitching about single entities being too strong when thats kinda the whole point to them.....thats why you get only 1 general in this and warhammer and not a whole unit like in shogun or rome.....they dont need a whole unit because thats how strong they are....go play the games that already have what you want don't change a game for the bitching and moaning of a few whem theres a few games out there that would be right up his alley
>heroes war
you mean total war: might and magic?
I think the health system in general is a concern because it dictates new terms for even the most basic interactions between units.
In one of my first battles in Rome 2 I had my unit of armored hoplites come under fire from the enemy's unit of slingers. They were not engaged and were facing directly towards them. After watching none or almost none of my men fall in the first and second volley, I directed my attention elsewhere in the battle, confident in their armor's ability to shrug off missile fire. It was moments later that I saw the numbers on my armored hoplites' unit card falling like so much running water. The sling rocks went from bouncing off their shields and armor (something that was even shown in promotional material was a gif of an eastern slinger's throw bouncing harmlessly off the plated armor of a roman legionary), the rocks went from that to a devastating volley expected of from Cretan Archers in the first Rome. In earlier games you could generally judge the lethality of a ranged unit from their first two volleys. Now with the health system used since Rome 2 there is a "soften up" aspect where a seemingly ineffective missile volley will ramp up. Arrows are no longer shrugged off by heavy armor, the very thing you would wear armor for. Armor was avoidance before. A unit didn't take damage because the armor was what saved their lives. Now armor is mitigation. It delays inevitable death as each arrow chips down that green bar of yours, with only your shield block chance stalling you from meeting oblivion. An individual rock no longer has an individual chance to kill a man. Assuming no shield, there is a static, finite amount of rocks to every man in every army. For some men, three rocks will never kill, but four will always kill. There are factors like elevation differences that can come into play, but they only change the effective health of the unit under fire via bonuses and penalties to the damage being delivered, they only change that finite number of rocks by one or two, doing nothing to address the pitiful representation portrayed by the very first rocks. With ranged combat and no shields, there are no lucky survivors, there are no unlucky casualties. It is a system that betrays intuition.
totally on the mark with the health system. it produces absurd results. i remember during my testing of testudo during rome 2, i would notice how you could have your legionnaires stand fully exposed and get dinked on the head and chest by relentless sling shot, and you could then testudo them up so they are an impenetrable mass, and then have the slingers resume fire on your "weakened" (whatever that means) legionnaires, and they would all die as if the formation is being strafed by a fighter. rocks dinking off their deployed shields and they just lose grip of the shield and go limp. its absolutely absurd.
"betrays intutiion" sums it up perfectly.
The problem is even worse in Warhammer where single entity units means that if you have a full stack full with those types of units attrition is meaningless
The problem with Rome 2, was that the shielded units didn´t block missiles, it was just like armor
Hidole555 ok, first of all, obviously of you keep shooting them they’ll die eventually, WHERE ARE YOUR MISSILES TO RETURN FIRE, 2 legionaries and testudo aren’t invulnerable to missile fire, there just better at taking it than another unit and take more volleys to kill than a unit without testudo. Armor is there to slow and prevent missiles from killing the guy in the armor, not be invulnerable to missile fire, eventually if you keep shooting the unit they will die, that’s why the usual battle rules limit missiles. The higher the armor, the slower it falls to missiles and the less vulnerable but still vulnerable. Also, hover over the armor point in details or something, armor is split between shield and body armor the shield only works and helps protect from the left and the front, if they are shot by the other 2 sides, it will take higher tolls and higher chances of dying.
This sums up why i dislike modern totalwar system. I find myself playing more Med2 with mods because of it. Having armor and shield just being %-reduction to damage instead of reducing the %-chance of taking it feels wrong. Watching models swinging the air in front of them and not reacting to hits just to see health going down. Having played lot of Warhammer2 for past few days i finally completely realized why it felt weird at times. The difference of having unit 80/100 manpower at 40% health and 80/100 at 80% is massive in terms of durability and it should not vary that much. Models moving around inside the unit make for weird stuff like that happen a lot. Many times after battle i am shocked how little i lost in terms of people, when during battle most units had low hp but not many casualties.
Other culprit is just the lack of mass and certain stickiness on units. Reactions from getting hit are nothing or just being sent flying. You can just run through formations and your units react to your commands instantly ignoring the fighting they are doing. AI using that to full extent with cavalry running through your units while taking minimal damage and not loosing any models. Then your own guys just decide they will stand their ground and not even entertain the idea of trying to actively deter enemy. Unless you start clicking like madman. Medieval2 same stuff happens but you cant just force everyone to stop fighting and start running. There tends to be some models that ignore and "buy time" to your unit as a whole to depart from melee. Most importantly you cant just run through enemy units without taking catastrophic losses in process.
Unit replenishment on campaign map being fast is making your units strength matter less. Playing at early game on warhammer2 with dwarfs low replenishment and not getting those after battle options that award you % of replenishment works. You cant just streamroll from one battle to next. On most factions and races you tend to get a lot of replenishment outside of cities and stances. Lategame with all % modifiers you just ignore losses in battles (unless you are fighting back to back). In Rome1 and Med2 you had the fun of managing your losses with mercenaries, sending fresh units from your heartlands, taking your armies back for retraining, or just combining precious veteran units in order to be combat effective.
They got some MOBA in my Tactical battle simulator. I am insulted.
Well 3k has records mode that fixes this
@Deathsdayoff person I do but I don't want to go back. Man can only take so much shit from Yasuo or PA...
You mean there's a tactical battle simulator in this moba?
@Deathsdayoff person because it's a cancer that plagued game design meta since dota and LoL turned to be huge e-"""""sport""""" successes, until PUBG came out to shit the bed in other direction
"everything needs to be balanced around multiplayer 15-40 minute session mode, also it needs heroes, and abilities, and shops, and equipment, and simplistic rpg progression system otherwise we can't make up another useless esport league for our game franchise"
with current meta, it's "everything needs a battle royale mode" on top of that
MOBA are the reason of today's publishers huge obsession with shitty esports, which is cancer, therefore mobas = cancer
easy
Man, I've said this many times inteh CA subreddit and gotten shit every time I've said it.
Despite of all the problems that Total War Warhammer accentuated or introduced into Total War, I don't think the fantasy setting of Warhammer is the cause, even though I do think some of the liberties CA took because it was "just a fantasy setting" leaked into, and infected, the historical titles.
In fact, I think the overall design philosophy more evident from Total War Warhammmer onwards actually detracts from the Warhammer setting. I don't know how familiar you are with Warhammer Fantasy but it started out as a table top wargame set in a universe of constant war based on medieval and renaissance warfare, players were motivated to build up their armies and customise them both aesthetically and to their play style.
For the longest time the universe remained narratively static, besides the well established and developed lore, because the focus of the game were the stories that the players would write from their own battles; their armies, their soldiers, their regiments, were the characters. The massive majority of the art work and of the written lore focuses on military formations that acted in the many battles and wars of the universe. Even in the instances when heroes, monsters and legendary named characters do appear is to accentuate the massive struggle that mere mortals face with nothing but grit, courage and ingenuity and it shouldn't detract from the fact that this is essentially a "what if" scenario of what realistic battles would look like in a high fantasy setting the way the Warhammer Total War detracts.
Imperial gunners are supposed to be highly disciplined and trained professional soldiers that are expected to face down the nastiest things the world has to throw at them with well drilled fire, not mindless robots animating their airsoft guns repeatedly in the general direction of the enemy. The struggle of dwarven slayers to bring down the biggest, meanest creature in the battlefield, and to be glad to die doing it, shouldn't look like a bunch of models poking a giant which ocasionaly pokes back with an uninspired particle effect.
Volound: 11:00 The general is your last resort.
Me and my Friend's Faction Leader: *Brutally Scared*, *Quite Mad*, *64 Years old*, *The only reason they're not at the front of the battle is because their horses can't run that fast.*
CA is trying and failing to combine TW with Dynasty Warriors. I truly believe this.
Don't a lot of the Chinese generals from Three Kingdoms strongly resemble their respective characters in Dynasty Warriors?
@@Waldemarvonanhalt Absolutely not. You think Zhang He, a veteran general of decades, known for martial art, tactical abilities and courageous nature is similar to Zhang He the beauty obsessed femboy from Dynasty Warriors? The closest to book and histories is in the 1994 tv series. Cao Cao looking as if he always meant business is a complete contradiction. Cao Cao in books, tv series and movies, are always look like he is gleeing, laughing or bragging. He is not a hero of chaos, his entire propaganda is that he would end the chaos. Liu Bei is known as the weeping hero, I hated when the artist did not show that side of him.
@@Waldemarvonanhalt Take a look at the the opening song of the 1994 tv series, they show only six characters but the actors are absoluely spot on in portraying the characters in the book.
@@Account.for.Comment I've only seen Souten Kouro, which is obviously over the top. I'd like to watch that series. Is there a legitimate way I can do that?
@@Waldemarvonanhalt TH-cam. The series is popular enough that it had multiple uploaders. Search for rotk or three kingdoms 1994 eng sub and I found some. It had about a million people involved in its production, iirc. The acting and productions may felt outdated to some people but to me that feel authentic and realistic. No attempts of imitating Hollywood and the actors went deep below the surface of the characters. Liu Bei, the main protagonist of the book and series, is often described as virtuous to a fault, but critical historians and political analyst saw him more as an exceptionally ambitious and cunning political operator. The actor of the 1994 series portrayed the popular image of him while show clear hints of the interior as well. And like what Pixelated Apollo said of what used to be great on Total War, you see the struggles of the common soldiers, constantly, not just the generals. Their close ups are often of dirty, frightened faces and their corpses and deaths were shown graphically. I wish Total War used them as inspiration.
Dynasty Warriors portrayals are jokes. The games are very fun and the characters design are clear parody. I loved those games. Red Cliffs is a John Woo action film. Fun to watch and great action. But TW imititation of them are terrbles. DW and TW had female generals whose only roles are that they married some important guys. DW had them to show off their creative character designs, TW had them to show that they never care of the romance or the history. I also reccomend just read the book, I think the old english translation are no longer subjected to copyright.
I know that people have mentioned that single entity units works better in Warhammer, but I don't believe they've really made a good case so far for why it works beyond "Heroes die to dinosaurs". I'll compare mostly to Troy, but 3K is mostly the same but less egregious than that one.
Preceding this, I have to explain that there are different kinds of "hero" units in Warhammer. Lords (generals), Heroes (wizards or powerful single warriors),both of which I'll just call heroes, and monstrous units. There is also a middle ground, in that certain units have very low entity counts and fit a role between single entity units and regular units. I'll try to cover all of this.
The health pools are much less ridiculous. There are a few incredibly tanky heroes(thinking especially of Leon Louencour, the king of Not-France), but they are an exception rather than the rule and require some commitment on the campaign map to get to that point. This means that marginal damage builds up much faster than in Troy, presenting an actual threat to the unit from the beginning of the fight. The same applies to morale (save of course for the occasional unbreakable unit, but those are rarer than you'd think).
Winning a battle by killing the general is actually possible. Not just because of the reasonable health and morale pools, but also because the general's overall Leadership effect is pretty determinant for the routing of most non-elite units. This goes even further for certain factions in a way that wouldn't work in historical, by having certain armies rely entirely on their general being alive at all (Vampire Counts, Vampire Coast, and Tomb Kings), as them dying causes the units themselves to begin losing health all on their own.
The fantastical escapes that plague Troy, where your hero can wade in and out of combat freely, is also not present in Warhammer. Heroes that are on foot have trouble escaping combat from even basic infantry unless absolutely no surrounding happens at all, which is rare due to how charges usually leave a hero at least a couple of ranks deep into a unit. It is not a good idea, even on Normal difficulty, to just charge a hero into infantry without some support to pull them out again. Like with most things in Warhammer, there are exceptions in the form of specialized heroes or monsters that can wade in and out more easily, but they just require heavier infantry to get them stuck again.
There are more disadvantages to being surrounded as well. Missile units are more brazen about risking some friendly fire, and a hero, especially on a bigger mount, will take a lot of damage if pinned down with enemy missile in range. Heroes who have massive mounts also present far more surface to take damage on, which increases the rate at which they take damage, making blob-wading even more dangerous.
Monstrous units tend to do well against heroes, except for heroes with massive Anti-Large bonus (specialized monster hunters yadda yadda). As mentioned, massive dinosaurs can munch the average hero pretty well. Some of these units are single entity, and some are small-count, and all are specialized. Usually these units have some kind of weak point, whether it is a low health pool, limited armor, or slowness, that make countering them feasibly with "regular" units (playing as the Empire, you are generally expected to deal with them either either through artillery, tanks, and halberdiers, or through magic and the small number of elite anti-large you do get). Very often they are massively tall or bulky, making them susceptible to missile fire.
Now, there's an elephant in the room that I've barely mentioned so far: magic. Magic in Warhammer comes in these main flavors: functionally artillery, functionally missile fire, unit buffs/debuff, unit healing, and the rare utility spell. Magic is limited by a slowly-regenerating pool of points that is shared for all the casters in the army you control, and also has a maximum cap on how many points will be produced total in the battle. Most of the artillery magic is not aimed at specific units, instead aiming at terrain, and the AI tries to avoid it in a mostly-intelligent manner if the units can move. Missile fire magic is directly targeted and tends to deal a smaller amount of damage spread evenly across a unit. Unit buffs and debuffs can be powerful, but rely on good timing, as they're generally pretty short-lived. Unit healing is directly capped and only in rare instances (undead factions) can actually bring a unit's entity count back up. The few utility spells that exist are generally like freezing a unit in place, or making a big damageless explosion to force blobbed units to separate. The restrictions on magic make it pretty tough to rely heavily on it, as fundamentally the number of spells cast does not scale with the number of wizards you field. Most wizards specialize in one aspect of magic, and they're also very fragile compared to just about any other single entity unit. Some non-wizard heroes get spells too, but usually a small amount, with terrible magic pool regeneration.
I can go on and on explaining more and more details of each type of unit, but let me attempt to summarize (I'll try my best to answer follow-up questions from anyone, to their desired level of detail): there's more emphasis on countering due to the greater unit variety and level of specialization (especially across factions), heroes don't get nearly as much of a free ride as Troy and can actually be dealt with tactically, and the other types of single-entity unit are complementary to the combat rather than the clear detriment seen in Troy.
Some problems, of course, remain: difficulty-based AI bonuses make infantry much weaker, mostly. Depleted units are much more of a liability (at least in the way that Volound tends to brazenly use them). I can't speak to how possible the crazy 4:1 victories that we see regularly on this channel are in Warhammer's max difficulty, but I'd say they'd be far more likely on the more skirmish-heavy factions, like the Wood Elves, than the factions more focused on elite, monstrous units and magic.
If this tempts some players to try the Warhammer series, here's my recommendation: Warhammer 1 is at this point a bit outdated and shows a number of growing pains, but it works and shows the basic mechanics work properly. Warhammer 2 has greater polish in terms of mechanics both in and out of combat, but the campaign has a ticking-clock mechanism (max-difficulty players can mostly ignore it) that pressures the player beyond just conquest. Having both gives you Mortal Empires, which is the two games' maps combined, and is the more sandbox, freeform experience that's standard to Total War. DLC stuff still shows up even if you don't own it, so it's only worth buying DLC for factions that you actually want to play.
While I do believe single-entity units don't have a place in historical total war games, I think the main problem is CA marketing Three Kingdoms and Troy like historical games, instead of as fantasy games like Warhammer was. The gameplay experience was shaped to make the player feel more like epic fantasy heroes instead of historical commanders, I wouldn't say it's a negative experience, merely a different one that CA didn't communicate to us about.
i just dont think they have a place in total war. its obvious what total war is and has always been. warhammer is not total war as i recognise it. its just a mess. single entities are just one component of that mess.
The lack of proper historical titles really bothers me to no end. If we count Troy and 3K out then the last historical game is ToB in 2018. If we move back to the last historical game a lot of people would consider good (though I wouldn't) it is Attila, in 2014... 6 years ago.
CA really has done nothing to foster any goodwill from historical fans for over half a decade which leads to understandable worry. Now add the fact that since Warhammer 1 in 2015 single entity heroes have only taken up a larger and more important role in every single mainline TW game save ToB (which we don't talk about) and there really is no reason at all for historical fans to stay invested in this franchise or have any hope for future CA titles.
ToB is good, just a little dull
@@Volound Technically Creative assembly is encroaching onto other Companies' Videogame patents which is 'One Versus a Thousand enemy hordes' and 'One Man Army game design'' popularised by Koei's Omega Force and SEGA's Ryu Ga Gotoku Yakuza studio.
This is one of the reasons I still enjoy older TW games more, I mean even when I play Third Age TW and I have to fight Aragorn or Saruman and even tho their unit is really powerful, they can still go down.
Yeah the heroes in that mod are powerful but like in the book can be overwhelmed and killed and have bodyguards still.
There basically fighting like there three or four men in turns of hit points, enough that there likely to fight well in a good unit an get some kill in as part of the unit.
A general unit in Europa Barbarorum for rome 1 is tough as there that guarded army's best fighters, but there only men a few rounds of missile fire or a few units swaping them will win the day.
Teacher: what do you want to be when you grow up?
Me: Single entity unit.
I think that in Total War Warhammer the issue of single entities is not that bad, however is funny how much meta builds makes the game looks like you are playing League of Legends or DOTA 2 instead of Total War, sometimes the skills of the heroes are so important that the battleflield look more like a moba game than a RTS.
This is why I can’t stick with Warhammer for long. It feels more like Warcraft 3 than TW. Constantly micromanaging your heroes, single entities, magic, and ridiculous artillery. Formations, terrain, elevation, rank and file, morale…either completely gone or just stat boosts for the spreadsheet armies
The ONLY total war game where the generals and "heros" should be single unit powerful beings is the "Warhammer" series, because it makes sense in the game, but beyond that in "Warhammer" there are single entity units and even just army units that are specifically designed to kill single entity units.
implying that it doesnt make sense for fucking ACHILLES to be that powerful
@@Frogotron If they were going full mythic it would indeed make sense... but they explicitly didn't do that.
I thought Achilles was durable, not powerful. Sure you could wail on him for four hours and a grand total of jack and shit would happen but he’s still a dude.
This is an excellent video into the state of current total war but I wish you would also touch on another aspect of old total war games that is missing - replenishment.
In the newer games replenishment is basically a regeneration spell that is cast on your army every turn that magically makes new men appear for free.
Constrast this to rome 1, in order to replenish units in rome 1 you need multiple conditions to be true:
1 - Must be at an owned settlement
2 - Must have the denarii to actually afford replenishment
3 - The town must have enough population (local manpower is relevant)
4 - The town must have the prerequisite buildings that were needed to train the units that are being replenished
The presence of the 4 rules vastly fleshed out the strategic interaction with the tactical battles because unlike the new games, casualties in rome 1 stick. Especially to the elite units in your army that are only trainable deep in your empire. This actually meant that building a stack of nothing but the best infantry might not be preferable for a long march situation, forcing you to use cheaper units which you can replenish easily on the front. It also exemplified the value of your best men, you always thought twice about committing them to an engagement because every man is valuable and every loss will probably carry forward to many battles in the near future. It meant that tactical retreats were actually viable, damaging enemy units enough might actually mean that their campaign loses steam and is decisively defeated in the subsequent siege.
It could also hamper your economy as the towns actually need to hit a population threshold in order to "level up", so if you are constantly training men/replacing dead ones it would actually have an impact on how your economy was growing.
Instead of arbitrarily adding more conditions for army attrition (rome 1 had regions where attrition would happen), I would rather that the replenishment system had much more weight in the newer games.
your complaints could be 100% founded but ultimately total war is an RTT and it lives or dies on back of the delicate unit vs. unit engagement that happens in real time. campaign is a small part of the game, as it should be, and this is a tiny aspect of that. there is no way i would bloat that small detail up into an entire video when there exist so many massive, important problems that CA are yet to even properly acknowledge.
They gotta stop this "single hero general unit" in realism-based TW's, it only fits and works in Warhammer tw
I miss the days when you could one shot the general.
same here. rome total war stray onager shots.
also someone said their general died from an elephant falling on him.
the pinnacle of total war.
@@Volound I once won a battle with only one loss, my general. He was shot by a stray ballista projectile. The rest of the enemy army was killed by my archers and artillery. I gave chase but forgot the fire at will button. F
A friend of mine one-shot the Pope with a cannon in Medieval 1.
fots after sending your general to run down enemies, the elite infantry shoot the daimyo in the back is hilarious
@St. Petersberg couldn't you? I definitely remember saving some, but it was with mods.
I cant remember the amount of times I've lost a general in rome from charging into the back of a unit. it makes me laugh every time as he goes flying off the horse
CA trying to appeal to Historical and Fantasy fans at the same time won't cut. In Warhammer setting it's understandable, 3k and Troy not so much.
I think it's okay in 3k but only because they decided to make records mode, I wish it was more in their minds when they develop the game though. Friggin battle tigers
yeah, people have described heroes being manageable by all the absurd monsters that can eat them in 2 seconds, and that giving gameplay some balance/structure, but having these supermen that can dominate the field absurdly just trivialises all meaningful gameplay and means there is no worthwhile and meaningful challenge.
"Lord sniping" is what (almost) every multiplayer game of TW:Warhammer revolves around.
Death magic, cannons, handgunners, other heroes (and a lot lot more) - all employed with the singular task of sniping out the enemy general for the win. Because if you don't...
Well. Just look at Troy.
I got Troy for free, like many people, but it's just so painfully boring I can't bring myself to play it... I only managed about 2hrs playtime total before I had to tap out. I really don't know how the game is at all worth the 37.99 or whatever it is at retail.
I can only get to turn 60 or so before the game fall aparts for me
@St. Petersberg Three Kingdoms actually feels like an amazing game though, especially with the campaign changes
Only thing I like about Troy is the shields. They’re so pleasing to look at for some reason
I legit played Troy for half a battle, then I quit, hninstalled and never looked back. I couldn't even finish one (1) battle without wanting to actually gut myself. And I like Warhammer 2.
the health bar works in warhammer becuase there are special units that attack individual targets, an example would be the skaven warp fire cannons. Troy is semi fantasy its rock, paper scissors without the paper
Semi fantasy was such a shit idea. Especially if you were gonna give god like abilities to the heros
Remember playing Rome 1 and winning a defensive siege battle in which I was vastly outnumbered because one of my egyptian peasants managed to cut down the charging Roman general whilst falling back to the square which subsequently led to the routing of the enemy and my victory, better times...
Excellent critique. I am a big fan of the Warhammer games but I was so disappointed when I heard 3K and Troy would be hero focused games. I think heroes being highly impactful makes perfect sense in the Warhammer universe but I was hoping they would keep the historical and fantasy games separated. I had for a long time wished for a Total War game set in Asia and had hoped that it would be centred around China but would feature the Mongols, Koreans and the Japanese and would be sort of an Asian Medieval: Total War. Instead, we got Total War: Dynasty Warriors. Now, I still liked 3K but it just felt like such a wasted opportunity because who knows how many years before we will see another Total War game set in Asia. And the same with Troy. I hoped that we would either get a historical game or we would get Age of Mythology: Total War but instead we could this weird in-between with bizarre units like the Minotaur and Cyclops.
The Warhammer games are some of my favourites because I grew up playing Heroes of Might and Magic 3 and always wanted a game like that with massive real-time battles but it would be a shame if CA now abandons all attempts to make great and engaging historical games.
it also doesn't seem as problematic in warhammer because at least in TWW and TWW2 there are ways for armies to deal with the general without having to wipe his army out first. in 3 kingdoms that just doesn't seem to be the case. absolutely everything is determined by the generals dueling each other while the armies are nothing less than a tar pit to slow them down
Same, I love Chinese medieval history, but three kingdoms is a fantasied historical segment. People need to understand that Romance of the three kingdoms is HISTORICAL FICTION similar to 300 spartans and siege of Troy.
Troy, three kingdoms, and 300 spartans , these events did happen historically, but the popular medium for it is fantasized/fictionalised/romanticised. For the Asian total war, I would prefer the Tang dynasty period with the battle of Talas. its a period that is not so romanticized not like 3 kingdoms. It has Eastern and Western Kaganates, Goguryeo(Korea), Tibetans, Arabians. Which would be cool.
I didn't mind Warhammer since it is a fantasy based lore/game but with the trend of total war games coming out, I have no hope for medieval total war 2. More likely it will be King Arthur total or some shit like that.
Jakie K. *Medieval 3 Total War
The problem with a "Total War Asia" is that there really isn't a time period where all of those parties you suggested are engaged in enough to matter, especially considering how prior to the Meiji era Japan has been practically a complete backwater third-party in any grand scale conflict in East-Asia, with Korea serving more of a role (and even they were minor power at best. Tough, but minor). Mongol Invasions of China could be exciting, provided if most people are excited for the notion of what would essentially be "Attila 2: But in China" (which tbf is pretty cool to me because I like Attila)
@The Martial Lord of Loyalty ok. sorry, I've just never seen a battle in my campaigns where that's the case (that might be because I play it on romance mode rather than historical)
"If you met me in real life you would have a panic attack and start hyperventilating and crying, by your own admission."
he physically threatened me after vindictively attacking me repeatedly cross-platform and i noticed the threat was completely empty and pointed it out. absolutely nothing wrong with that.
gyazo.com/e6005573a6f0e64e1cc404e9b7e5fc19
gyazo.com/f7e8b65173b34d1cd9daba47a1b67e6d
gyazo.com/b43f63495db44b0242ab23c8a9519b1b
gyazo.com/ffca3e7fef1f38bb2cb4ac89df41b416
it wasnt below the belt at all. it wouldve been absurd of me not to draw attention to it given the circumstances. you have someone engaging in a completely unprovoked vendetta, making threats (which they then conceal), and manipulating an entire sub with transparent omissions and slant. the person topped it all off by threatening me IRL, as you can clearly see, and i pointed out my awareness of how the threat was completely impotent.
im waiting for a single person to explain to me how what i did was below the belt. this has been going on for a whole day now and nobody has attempted to.
@@Volound The fact that you think these screenshots justify your actions and behaviour, shows what an awful person you really are.
@@jellopeno2111 agitated is an understatement from what I've been seeing people throw at him
@@jellopeno2111 Gotta admit that's pretty savage tho lol
Hey harasser. Just because somebody disagrees with you doesnt mean you get to verbally abuse em
totally agree. you dont get to smear campaign them either with transparent manipulation and omission.
gyazo.com/e6005573a6f0e64e1cc404e9b7e5fc19
gyazo.com/f7e8b65173b34d1cd9daba47a1b67e6d
gyazo.com/b43f63495db44b0242ab23c8a9519b1b
gyazo.com/ffca3e7fef1f38bb2cb4ac89df41b416
@@Volound still, you coulda made a better, more reasonable argument other than trying to insult people to win the argument, like right now, instead of insulting me, you atleast tried to give facts. Nice channel and all but you should seriously reconsider how you interact with other who try critique you.
thats bullshit victim blaming after ive just completely exonerated myself and if you cant acknowledge it, then shame on you.
I know being a Hero of Justice in real life is what most people want in their life. But What you are doing right now is what i consider what a harasser would do. Other people wrongdoing doesn't make your wrongdoing right. I looked at that reddit thread by chance. From first glance, I think the poster is playing the victim since he is obviously not posting entire conversation. He concealed things that won't do him any good and focus on other people wrongdoing, just like politics.
Selective truth is usually applied by people that like to play victim, and it works because of most people want to be the hero of justice.
I am not saying who is right or wrong. From what I see, it is just 2 people having a aggressive conversation and one of them trying to make that part of the conversation everyone problem just because the other one wouldn't simply comply to his demand. He is simply trying to make the "community" to pressure someone into submission. Just not a cool action.
It is the internet, why make everything so personal? You have a nice intention for trying to fight for the less fortunate, but don't let people misuse your good will.
@@Volound you should be the one ashamed for shaming people that disagree ith you
I think the latest total war games are a mistake. When they integrated the fantasy to historical settings it messes up. I think the "single entity" worked in the warhammer series because it is a "fantasy settings". you got dragons and demons, you should have wizard and heroes. it balances out. but when you got that drafted farm boy then he faces Achilles then it isn't balance :D they should kept the fantasy system inside a fantasy setting. Loving your vids btw keep it up!
But Troy is more or less a fantasy setting. Thats the Problem they had with the setting. They didn't wanted to go full fantasy again because not all fans like it but they can't go full normal because it's still Troy.
And voila we have this medicore TW game out of it.
I have read some
parts of the romance of the three kingdoms. Above all else is a work of historical fiction, written one thousand years later base on popular legends that the towns had about that period and a few real records. In the game you have the record mode if you want to play like medieval 2 china edition, but the use of single entity generals is not so far away from the source. In that book generals kill each other personally many times, one person against hundred or a thousand, some examples that comes to mind are Taishi ci and Lü Bu. So just don't see your point, there's a woman that was supposed to be the daughter of the God of fire in that book, saying that it doesn't suit it is not knowing the source material.
@@flachzange1614 It was still perfectly possible to have a game that scrupulously followed what we know about late Bronze Age geopolitics and warfare, but include the characters from the Iliad in an otherwise historical context. It wouldn't have been historically accurate as such, but it would have been historically authentic. They simply decided to go the middle road just so they could do whatever the hell they wanted, justifying every decision with "well it's not historical and it's not the Iliad either". I would have loved a historical late Bronze Age game. I would also have loved a proper Iliad/Trojan cycle game. We got neither.
@@hrotha
Yes, both would have been better than what Troja now is.
A few years ago I really wanted them to make a Napoleon 2 or Medieval 3. Considering their recent "advancements," I really don't want them to ruin a series like that.
I'll fucking say it, Atilla is the last good Total War. People need to embrace the pain, it will forge you stronger.
It’s not bad in Warhammer because it’s fantasy, the lore supports it lol. It never felt too OP either, I understand you don’t like Warhammer TW based on it’s total war aspect but it’s an amazing Warhammer game. So I think we can rule out trying to compare the two, the problem is they are taking “historical” and using Warhammer TW mechanics.
Bro Jangles but sometimes it kinda get out of hand. Lords like Luther hakorne and loen can literally solo an entire stack which is fun if you are doing it but it’s frustrating playing against it
As someone who plays the tabletop, i'd argue TW takes warhammer to a unhealthy place that's not really supported by the lore. Yes, there are mythical creatures, heroes, and magic but at the end of the day, every unit was mortal. All it took was one god roll, and your super powerful unit that was the centerpiece of your army, to be killed. The reason why these characters became characterized in lore was because of their abilities and achievements, the story and that they were still adding to that list, the tabletop became an extension of that story. Health bars create an expectation of knowing whether your unit is in danger and negates the impact of what their actions should be. True heroes became heroes because they emerged despite the risk and came victorious. These two are incompatible in the TW format to a good gameplay experience.
pasted from elsewhere: "and its one thing to "fit" with the setting. its another thing entirely to fit with basic RTT principles and with total war game design and with their AI and with their game systems. thats what i care about - actual good gameplay that is meaningful and has a challenge to let there be any point in enacting it whatsoever. these games are all trivially solved by basic intuition and simple micro."
J O Use mods, TW has survived with mods forever.
Mike Quach It’s not that bad man cmon
In Total War, there is no tomb of the unknown soldier...
I really like how you analyse the flaws of the beloved total war franchise and I would love to see it fixed. But sadly it seems as you can see by your ban on the subreddit that they would rather just silence you instead of improve their games :(
Something that I think should be examined are the settings that are being portrayed in Three Kingdoms, Troy and Warhammer. Setting aside the obvious fantasy of Warhammer Fantasy, these are all settings that are in a sense defined by their heroes: in Romance of the Three Kingdoms, common soldiers are more often described by their numbers and the impunity with which they are ignored by characters/figures like Zhao Zilong, who tears single-handedly escapes a battle, cutting through Cao Cao's men with his sword in one hand and Xuande's son in the other, or Guan Yu riding into the heart of an enemy army, swiftly beheading the general, scooping his head up and returning to Cao Cao. As I've come to understand it, the Iliad is also full of stories, of heroes' daring exploits and titanic duels at the whims of the gods and their own fate. The point I'm trying to make is I wager that Creative Assembly, through the usage of powers and health-bar-bearing Single-Entities, are trying to evoke that same kind of feeling, of these titanic men, whose very presence shapes the flow of the battle. It's a very "fantasy novel", "epic" kind of feeling, which Warhammer also attempts to capture.
The problem is that there is already a genre of these types of games, musou games like Dynasty Warriors, to experience that, and I'd argue they're probably better at expressing that kind of feeling where a single person (the player avatar) can control the flow of the battle. I don't think it's a wise step for a series that has made its name or carved out a niche for itself like Total War has to try and pivot to contain that kind of gameplay (or dare I say storytelling).
To add my own story at the end, I remember the first time I played a Total War game: I was a little late to the whole experience and managed to get a copy of Empire in high school, and as any red-blooded American boy I took a swing at the American Revolution. Imagine my surprise when in the very first engagement, a British cannon managed to not only tear through the General's bodyguard (leading from the front, as all great leaders do /s) but end George Washington's career with a red splatter on Virginian soil. I was very much more careful with following generals after that, ahaha.
All that said, excellent video, good analysis, sorry about the essay, I was really intrigued by the Shogun 1/kensai stuff!
There are stories that Mao could swim across the Yangtze faster than Michael Phelps. I suspect there was something similar going on in the Iliad and the Romance of the three Kingdoms. These hero legends are a reflection of the societies that made them, not reality.
Heroic stories told by historic Generals like Caesar are actually somewhat believable. Like a soldier somehow misplacing his shield, but, rather than suffering disgrace, swam across a raging river to retrieve it... Or a pair of brothers who held off an enemy attack while a bridge was dismantled behind them and swam to safety afterwards... Or an electrician who kept working during an air raid while everyone hid around him (actually, the last one was Patton).
@@hypothalapotamus5293 Mao certainly could not swim as fast as Phelps
@@mickethegoblin7167 and three kingdoms era heroes certainly couldn't single handedly slaughter armies.
@@hypothalapotamus5293 ik, I am just pointing out that he couldn't and it was never claimed- though they did man big deal about him swimming in the river
Everywhere I look I see people saying "I didn't even want it for free."
Just how bad has C.A gotten at making games that they can't even *GIVE THEM AWAY?*
7.5 million downloads in the first 24 hours. It's sad to see how CA has dumbed down TW, but..... you're wrong .
It's made CA £250,000,000 just off of free copies on epic, apparently they are planning on using it for a new TW engine. Perhaps we will see some change in the next mainline historical TW prehaps not, one can hope.
@@hounsdjentlow3074 Those numbers tell you nothing. If it was on Steam you could easily look up how many people were actually playing it. I don't know if the Epic Games store has a function like that since I'd rather not use it, but probably not. Remember when Three Kingdoms was released on Steam and it had like 2 million downloads in the first few hours, and then a day later it had less than 19.000 people still playing?
@@akiramasashi9317 I dont disagree with you on you point about credibility. But if anything is to be taken from this is regardless, the series goes on because there is demand. And until theres not, there wont be a time without a new game, with new ideas on its way.
I actually like troy though the single entity thing sucks :(
@@hounsdjentlow3074 That's fair, I'm not about to tell people what they can and can't like. I'm just really disappointed in every post-Shogun 2 title and that's made me jaded.
a happy medium I always liked in medieval 2 at least was the general bodygaurd and similar units. they where smaller in size but each had 2 health as compared to almost all infantry and cavalry’s 1.
that gave them the solidity to survival most single attacks, but a concentrated armor piercing force ormtipleattacks would almost always overwhelm them. their hp balanced by their small unit sizes.
the idea of small digit “hits” instead of high digit “health bars” i like. for normal troops, they either defend well enough to not be critically hurt, or they are critically hurt/killed. while a “important” creature has just 1-2 additional levels between capable and not capable to illustrate their mythical/high moral/high prestige/high competency that are then balanced by their small/single unit size.
I feel you, man. This stuff, together with all the other heavy RPG elements in TW, is dumb as hell.
yep the forced RPG elements can be really counterproductive.
One more thing about Rome that I loved, if a captain, not a general, just one of the soldiers who was elected to lead the army, did a really good job, there’s a chance he’d get promoted to a general, he’d get his honour guard, he’d usually be better in combat than a lot of your lazy management generals, if you chose he could become the heir and then leader of your faction in time, but then if you miss one cavalry charge, neglect one unit who flanks you, that general could die as fast and suddenly as any other soldier.
That’s why I love Rome and even bought the mobile version purely so I could experience it again at any time I want, yes the controls are a little finicky, the UI is a little sloppy and it’s a bit harder to make micromanagement decisions, I still get to have that total war feeling I loved playing the original Rome and building these organic generals who gain traits dependant on the life they live, the possibility of having too many bad traits, losing personal guard and having your favourite commander assassinated, all because you were careless in raising them.
I don’t know why the trait system left after Rome 1, it just added more dynamic and real character to the people who FELT real as they grew into YOUR family tree and YOUR empire, not the family of the great god hero of your faction, but your family, the players own dynasty who they built and grew personally.
Total War Warhammer does it best honestly. Lords aren't immortal and units can easily kill one if used correctly. And there are lords that feel really powerful and fun to use\play against. The only exception to the rule is a Sword of Khaine user, that becomes just unkillable.
It also feels appropriate that such fantasy titles as Three Kingdoms and Troy share the same system, especially with Three Kingdoms, where they really nail that Dynasty Warriors feel to the lords, and if you notice, Three Kingdoms is completely centered around those lords when it comes to mechanics.
Troy however has a problem, where a general is really clunky to use in a "normal" way, as he would have pathing\animation issues, and would get almost zero kills, compared to Three Kingdoms lords, and are way tankier than the lords from Warhammer and Three Kingdoms combined. So you use them just to duel other heroes or stick 'em in a blob to provide buffs. Aka they are simply unfun to use. I don't *feel* Achilles to be the Big Dick Warrior he was hyped to be.
Remember that the last historical title we got was Atilla.
thrones of britannia actually but thats not your actual point
@@TrveBlackMetal1 I apologize, I forgot that ToB existed.
@@bobbob246 i mean, it was stand alone expansion pack for attila, age of charlemange on steroids.
10:15 not having Achilles being vulnerable to a single stray arrow is pretty bad CA... It sort of ruins the legend.
always thought it was weird to try to depict achilles in a total war game. they failed to navigate this at all. hes just another generic hero with a health bar that goes down. achilles dies by a thousand cuts.
@@Volound True. Btw- thanks for all your videos about the state of TW and CA. Like you I joined the wagon with Shogun and dropped out because of Rome2, and I feel much of the pain you seem to feel. I hope CA will one day return to their roots and make a game for me again.
Meanwhile, keep up the good work.
I had a situation once where Lu Bu killed 2000 men.... Madness.
It's a weird thing, for example, in Warhammer 2, I enjoyed watching two kings battling it out, but on the other hand, it was cool for that reason, and that reason only. Having a single entity is pretty dumb otherwise, because if you let your general hang back and let your soldiers do all the fighting, you'll still win, because you're only missing one unit with a slightly better attack. I miss the days of Medieval 2.
Hows your Creative Assembly partnership going? Oh wait, my b.
watch the video you commented on and see what i think about it. then watch the one from a week earlier.
@@Volound secretly fighting back tears as you type this.
Why did you thinks volound cares about ca partnership if he want to play a new total war he can buy and ca cant stop him from make videos look i dont agree with what he did to legend but the rest i agree with a good part principally about newer total wars
What be a sell-out who is forced by contract to not say your mind on the game even if it has flaws.
What's this? Volound delivering another coherent video essay about games that doesn't come off as trivial, pretentious and/or whiny as most do? This is fantastic. You've struck gold here my friend.
really glad youre liking it meng. doing my duty for the ever-worthy cause of good gameplay for everyone. its what its all about.
Also just noticed that Kensai looks like he's a good 3 feet taller than his ashigaru opponents
I used to watch you years ago it's really disappointing to see you act like this. Using someone's mental health issues as ammunition for a disagreement is a shitty thing to do.
he fully invited it upon himself by engaging in a lunatic vendetta culilminating in threatening me IRL after claiming he was going to destroy me in a youtube comment he then deleted, and which im lucky i got an email receipt for. after he claimed that, he slandered me cross-platform. so no, absolutely not. swallowed the executively decided bullshit narrative. im the one that should be disappointed.
yeah check my reddit post history, it all stands as clear refutation.
@@Volound do you have a direct link your reddit comments appear to have been deleted. Even if your side of the argument is true what you did is still a shitty act that has had clear consequences. I hope you have enough maturity to grow from this.
absolutely not. i stand by my actions, which were measured and appropriate, as you can clearly see from an account of the situation that is not transparently manipulated and slanted.
gyazo.com/e6005573a6f0e64e1cc404e9b7e5fc19
gyazo.com/f7e8b65173b34d1cd9daba47a1b67e6d
gyazo.com/b43f63495db44b0242ab23c8a9519b1b
gyazo.com/ffca3e7fef1f38bb2cb4ac89df41b416
@@Volound yes it appears he threatened your channel. However had you not taken your "measured and appropriate action" which was out of line he would have achieved nothing. Had you done the measured and appropriate action of ignoring him nothing would've happened.
Can you do a video like this one on chariots? (Which, ironically, the warhammer games balance best) They literally swim through infantry with nothing but braced spearmen/pikemen able to stop them. And Troy doesn't have any unit capable of formations that'd stop chariots. Historians still don't have much of an idea how they were actually used in battle.
As for the video: I think you're absolutely right, aside from the warhammer titles that this kind of hero unit fits in. This has inspired me to give Rome 2 and the classic health bar lacking titles a try.
Say goodbye to your total war partnership!
i made 2 videos shitting on the entire direction of the franchise. i dont know what you imagine me to have lost.
Volound CA confirmed you’re no longer a partner. No early access and you’re ridiculed by the entire player base lmao.
if they make a game worth a damn, ill buy it. watch the videos and understand the situation.
Volound lol lets be honest. The game isnt the reason why you have lost your privileges, it was the shitty stuff you did. Own it, move on, instead of blaming everyone but yourself.
i got the email telling me i have lost my affiliation 3 days ago, so youre wrong unless you believe in time machines.
then why does legendoftotalwar have access when hes a right-winger that does racist dog whistling and invokes nazi imagery? youre a gullible moron. they dont care about people and their properties and actions beyond how it affects the perception of themselves and their games.
I feel like Warhammer is the best and worst thing to happen to Total War. On one hand it drew in an entire new fandom in Total War which is good for CA but now they are trying to cater to those fans by making each new total war game a little more Warhammer by adding unrealistic game mechanics into “historical titles” that would never exist in the old total war thus leaving there veteran and historical fan base in the dust. I like the Warhammer games but want an actual good historical Total War game
I agree, and it isn't working. Warhammer is Warhammer. 3K and Troy are not popular, and that should send a message.
Yeah I think a problem with single entities outside Warhammer is there’s not something that burst damage fast enough, like magic, or hundreds of projectiles on WHTW and those ones can even regen too
Volound is perfecting his persuasive speaking game and breaking down game design for us, while CA product managers are busy trying to corner the obsessive fan market. See, you can't put strategy in a DLC, tactics in a lootbox. But, once you ride out the single entity trend and reach the terminal evolution of these hero units, monetizing summer outfits for your favorite men of bronze becomes possible.
i hearted this comment before i went to sleep but it made me laugh because its pretty much on the mark. this was a long time coming.
you saw right through me.
and youre seeing the trajectory we are on. it is not a good one. just look at "elysium". its a fucking android card game for total war. that is cringe.
The thing I hate about Warhammer Total War is it isn't even consistent with tabletop. Heroes have 2-3 hp on average, 4-5 at most, and have to join units for ablative hp, IE bodyguards. Even monster units like greater demons and the like never have huge hp pools. So not only does Warhammer Total War not represent Total War well, it doesn't even represent Warhammer well.
I really like Empire, personally, the variation of tactics between regions, and nations really drew me in. No overpowered mega generals, just ranked infantry holding the line against the foreign hordes.
While i did like Empire, it had the problem if beeing way to binary. A cavalry charge into enemy artillery position will result in a) the cavalry smasing into the art, routing them with barely any casualties, or b) the artillery landing one good shot, routing the cav.
Thanks to the huge differences in artillery effectiveness, especially early game, the game was just way to random.
Two things killed Empire for me; the sieges and the bugs. The dreary feeling of slowly demolishing a fort and then slowly picking away at the braindead AI inside rather than launching an equally pointless assault with my difficulty-hamstrung army against an entrenched opponent sucked the fun out of the game for me. I didn't feel like I was taking Vienna with the Ottomans, avenging my faction's humiliations at the feet of the walls of that great city. I felt like I was taking a cheap toy fort guarded by lemmings and commanded by a border collie.
And the bugs. Dear God, the bugs. I finally packed the game in and uninstalled when, after a hard fought battle, a unit of Russian reinforcements got stuck on some terrain and wouldn't take the field. The animations are slow and janky, units will randomly turn and present their flank when ordered to fire, or shy away from a charge to mysteriously start shuffling sideways instead. These events completely pull me out of the experience and remind me that I'm a random idiot sitting at a computer playing with toys instead of a grand general commanding an army. A humbling and grounding experience, if a demoralising one..
Personally I've played both historical and the warhammer titles. I think that in the context of warhammer it kinda makes since the heros are this level of immortal. Just because there are plenty more tools that can can be used to take them out in the form of monstrous infantry, single monsters, and even flying units. However I can agree that I miss the days when you had to actually be thoughtful with your general. In troy theres no giant, no troll, no dragon, no magic, no chaos chosen that can be a threat to your immortal hero. Now it's only men vs men with a few immortals running around the field. It's a bit lame when I got on to Troy for the first time and realized that it wasnt fun in a historical way or a warhammer way and just logged off.
yeah that could help a lot, giving an actual rock paper scissors where heroes are just yet another angle. if dinosaurs can eat them in seconds, thats fine. it just completely leaves the classic total war RTT which is unit on unit combat.
pasted from elsewhere: "and its one thing to "fit" with the setting. its another thing entirely to fit with basic RTT principles and with total war game design and with their AI and with their game systems. thats what i care about - actual good gameplay that is meaningful and has a challenge to let there be any point in enacting it whatsoever. these games are all trivially solved by basic intuition and simple micro."
You know Achilles was a demi god right.....grandson of Zeus
@@Shifty51991 we all knew that 😁
@The Martial Lord of Loyalty its trivially solved and boring gameplay, and thats demonstrated. has nothing to do with subjectivity.
So I apologize I gotta watch the rest of this video later, but I'm at the part where you're discussing why Kensai weren't a problem in Shogun 1 as opposed to the recent titles. The thing about Kensai was that they could be countered with very cheap units. Properly supported in a large army Kensai were beasts, forcing your opponent to either commit a significant portion of it's army to take him down or accept the losses he'll inflict while contending with the rest of your army. However, Kensai were highly vulnerable both to projectiles and to being swamped with large numbers of expendable units. Even humble yari ashigaru (which for those not acquainted with Shogun 1 were nothing like the yari-wall beasts they are in Shogun 2, they were literally missile fodder that easily broke on the battlefield) would kill Kensai by swamping them, wearing him out with their numbers until they could strike a killing blow. It was a very cost-effective trade. Bows ofc could do it even more easily, and committing a Kensai into a bridge battle was a huge risk.
TW went away from single entity units for quite a few titles. Eventually when Shogun 2 arrived they came up with the effective solution of giving heroes a small squad of elite soldiers to fight alongside. Then they brought back single entity units in Warhammer, beefed up their stats significantly, and reduced opposing troop numbers so swarm tactics were less effective.
I will get to the rest of this video later tomorrow to see your take on why single-entity units are a problem in modern TW games, but anyhow that's my take on why Kensai weren't a problem in Shogun 1.
In my first game of TW ever, I was playing MTW2 and I lost by regicide in 5 turns and two battles. I started with three family members. The first died rear charging a group of rebel peasant archers in the first battle. The other two died in a siege a couple turns later. One was the first casualty, shot by an archer tower's second arrow. The other got hit by a crossbow. After that I was really paranoid about my generals for a long time.
I can't imagine they'll vehemently continue this single entity stuff for much longer. In 3K, I think it's hard to make the complaint when you have the option to play with or without single entity generals-and while, yes, CA could definitely try to improve their AI, no one's telling you to cheese the game either. Though I also have the understanding that sometimes that ends up being necessary in higher difficulties because the AI gets more and more bonuses.
Troy... I've had mixed results on how my heroes are used. I honestly don't get how you've managed to get your general to literally casually stroll through enemy lines, because if I tried that, the entire enemy army would've swarmed my general. My only gripe is AI generals always seem to gain a speed bonus when fleeing. Beyond that, I just have my troops engage with the enemy and my generals go on a hunt for their's.
Warhammer? I can't tell if there's a problem with that or not with some people. The whole setting kinda has a thing for outrageous maneuvers performed by each race's more renowned leaders and generals. One example? How, in lore, Grimgor Ironhide took on whole swaths of Rat Ogres by himself until he got bored and left.
Anyhow, I'm pretty certain they'll bring back General bodyguard units in later historical titles. Fantasy? Maybe, maybe not depending on what world they wanna do next, imo.
I searched youtube for single word "problem" and this video is first page after being published for only 23 minutes. A big problem I guess :D
What's your intentions tho?
I get your point and I agree that single entity generals for historical TW titles don't make that much sense. But especially for the fantasy titles it is mandatory, where supernatural beings are common,who can obliterate armies on their own.
But yeah Troy should have an option to turn single entities off.
This dude is so RIGHT! Prey tell, why all the hate?
brigaded by /r/totalwar for being right.
IKR, I just discovered this guy's youtube channel and though his videos are long with much redundant talk he actually creates concrete arguments.
When I investigated this "hate", I recognised quickly that he was being targeted by a mob of snowflake fanboys because he criticises their beloved game.
It's weird really because they accuse him of targeted harrasment, while in fact there's no evidence for that at all.
All there is is one post on the subreddit, where both Volound and a commenter were arguing and while it could be "toxic" behaviour on BOTH sides. No targeted harrasment or anything of the sort happened on the side of Volound.
Volound himself seems to be targeted by harassement of an army of reddit fanboys....
@@ishitrealbad3039 Here's some hoping that all this hate may serve this guy as a black PR.
@@storyteller1309 black pr?
@@ishitrealbad3039 He could turn the tables with all this mud slinging in his favour.
In medieval 2, Despite conventional knowledge telling me otherwise, I find it's actually a pretty good idea to use your General's Bodyguard, because they're on par with some of the highest tier cavalry in the game, and have multiple hitpoints.
And if you are lucky enough you can get a general that is a killing machine with traits that give him HP bonus, ATK bonus, speed bonus etc etc. But for that you have to risk his life making him go to combat a lot and you also have the risk that he get a bad trait that makes him weaker instead of stronger
I want Rome 1 back, where Soldierranks could push the Enemy back!
I've never played Shogun 1 or even heard of Kensai, but you made it sound so much better than the new games that I might have to give it a go
lmao
You will be surprised how AI was better 20 years ago.
On the General's Bodyguard Units: Napoleon Total War (which is still a good tactical Total War Game, fight me plebs) did it right when it came to generals and their units: they were the general's staff, they weren't there to fight at all. Your general was supposed to rally the troops, keep the morale up and so forth. His unit was there to try and keep him safe from being killed outright by rushing lancers, hussars or mounted chasseurs. However, when he was rallying or inspiring the troops, passing behind the infantry line doing their volley fire, your general could get hit by a stray musket ball, or a ricochet cannonball. Generals had a lot of influence on the battle through their aura and presence. And yet they died fairly easy in Napoleon Total War; I've had enemy generals suddenly dying out of nowhere, only to see that they were passing near an unfortunate infantry unit that was being targetted by my artillery presumably to keep them from routing. And I've had my own generals die because of a light infantry skirmisher whose stray bullet happened to hit him. And if he was this legendary general that gave huge morale boosts to your units in his army, then that really impacted your campaign.
While I can understand the complaining in three kingdoms and Trou, heroes have to be OP in warhammer. The lore shows it. And even ingame if you put a few armor piercing missile units then the hero will go down pretty fast. However I agree with you that while OP and monstrous heroes are ok in fantastical games, historical should stick to maybe strong but still human generals (Rome 1's was very strong and hard to kill but a bit of unluckyness and bye the general)
im not the kind of person that would ever be interested in/motivated by lore. id always be thinking about game mechanics and how it determines gameplay.
@@Volound Then you're fundamentally misunderstanding Warhammer. Lore defines and determines game mechanics and gameplay.
@@barbute3684 absolutely not. lore is arbitrary and has no say. it was written by people that have no game design background. you have a fundamental misunderstanding.
@@Volound The people who wrote the lore also wrote the rules and designed gameplay for Warhammer. TWWH is a simulation of a tabletop game, you're being obtuse.
@@barbute3684 total war is a real time tactics game and anything designed for tabletop will probably have no say. lore has no way to dictate effective game design or circumvent known game design elements and tenets. telling me im being obtuse when you just evaded the banal point im making is just projection. what youre doing is tantamount to telling me harry potter novels have a functioning magic system written into the fiction, so it should be able to work as described in games, that it can easily be imported over with no problems and that any problems people identify can be magic wanded away by just appealing to its lore precedent. its just ridiculous and it transparently completely avoids talking about anything relating to game design and gameplay (which is all that matters), so its obvious what youre doing.
It’s the same with Empire. Your general stays back, away from the dangerous enemy guns, even, behind a rock or something so cannons can’t kill him. The general’s cavalry should only ever be used when you have no cavalry left, when both you and the enemy are battered and on the verge of breaking and you just need one last charge to win.
I've gotten multiple free games from Epic Games in the past. I *knew* they were going to release Troy for free there. I fully intended to download it because I love a good game deal.
And yet, I totally forgot to download it. Just totally slipped my mind.
I've been a fan of the series as long as you have, and I totally forgot that the newest release was coming out for free. That's how far we've come.
yeah that says it all. apathy is the end. apathy is why they target specific enthusiast audiences with no background in total war and that only care about the most trivial superficialities. their core audience is being ignored and neglected and forgotten. so their audience forgets them in turn.
There are times in old Total War games, that I wouldn't have my general run down fleeing troops because I knew he was already in combat earlier and the miniscule chance that the fleeing guy would score a hit would prevent me from further risking Scipio Africanus.
in Napoleon, generals may die instantly by stray shots or even friendly fire, just from any bouncing artillery shell, canister shots or missile cav. Tho i prefer in Fall of the samurai where it's a bit more forgiving, or Rome 2 where u can use general to fight as actual elite unit
Well, my Napoleon just got 1 shotted by a stray Old Guard unit musket in square formation that tried to protect him from the British cav when i play Waterloo battle.
Come to think of it, one man doomstacks were present in Medieval 2. Like a king-general with high stats could slay a whole unit of heavy cavalry solo. I remember that my heavy cav killed his guars and then the king kept one-hit-KO my heavy cav every second or so. One unit he wiped out completely, others he just damaged. It happened during siege, so army loss/routing wouldn't trigger because he stood in the center square.
This is something that should have stayed in warhammer and never left there, it was already bad enough in 3 kingdoms
When you spoke on scope at the end. I suddenly remembered watching replays of shogun 2/napoleon i had where i'd pick out random dudes from units (usually units i remember performing interesting feats in said battle) and I'd try to keep track of that guy and see where he ended up as the battle progressed. if he died he died. But i remembered him and his deeds. One of my favorite set of memories from this series.
Heroes in WH2 being gods makes sense. Anyone who has played tabletop knows how OP some of them are (although it comes at a high BP cost).
But for “historical” games please can we have generals that actually need to be protected. Also collision seems broken in Troy. Even in WH2 you risk your hero/general getting trapped and surrounded to die. For what I see in Troy it seems your heroes can easily slip in and out. Shouldn’t the general/hero get penalized and stabbed to death if surrounded?
Small rant about sieges for ALL TW games since Rome2. Quit letting everyone have free ladders ffs. Why build walls when everyone and their mom has their own set of 100ft ladders? Sure you can have them IF you spend the time to build them!
OP but still one good roll can kill them. This is not possible with how TW currently rendered this system, I want heroes to be at risk, where you can get an unlucky engagement and be killed by a heroic common soldier. I do not get that feel with TW, 3K or Troy
Even then, a character in tabletop has, at most, 4-6 attacks so if they all hit, wound and goes through armour and ageis save, that's still just 4-6 dudes dead, in a unit of 30-50 men. They were powerful but a single unit could kill a character, mostly.
pocket ladders.
also i dislike the gameplay produced by single entities. it doesnt matter about the context. it isnt total war at all. the gameplay loop of these single entity games is just bad in terms of quality total war experience. i dont see any context of fantasy immersion that can mitigate its massive drawbacks. the gameplay will always surely be trivially solved and devoid of meaningful challenge. that is why the hidden combat modifiers of my last video are so punitive.
I personally loved the general's bodyguard from Medevial 2. I loved having massive groups of generals in one army and just wipe out armies, but they had weaknesses. Spearmen. I can't tell you how many times I've attacked a small army with 8-10 generals and they had 3 spearmen units and they just wiped out my generals. And to be honest, it was frustrating, but it was surreal. No matter how powerful the cavalry is, there is a counter. And that counter can literally be a homless guy with a short spear and a small sheild. Its such a lovely balance that I don't think we'll ever have again in a Total War game.
Then attack them in the flank. Have your heavy infantry, spearmen or, if you don't have any, your most expendable general slowly attack them in the front and charge them with your main generals from the flanks.
Do you care that CA dropped you?
watch my last 2 videos and tell me how i dont get dropped for that ..when people got dropped for pointing out thrones of britannia was a little bit shitty.
@@Volound they dropped you for toxicity bro www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/iidhw2/volund_is_now_attacking_other_total_war_youtubers/?
fits the narrative you bought hook line and sinker but not any of the facts, which are the only thing that matters.
they are, which is why there was extreme selective omission of them, and why my right to reply was revoked while the thread was pinned to the top of the sub. executively decided smear job because i criticise their games.
gyazo.com/e6005573a6f0e64e1cc404e9b7e5fc19
gyazo.com/f7e8b65173b34d1cd9daba47a1b67e6d
gyazo.com/b43f63495db44b0242ab23c8a9519b1b
gyazo.com/ffca3e7fef1f38bb2cb4ac89df41b416
@@javidthompson7415 lmfao how were those comments toxic?
I swear to god, you soybois wouldn't even survive MW2 Rust quickscope lobbies on the 360 for one minute without contemplating suicide......
I never played the original Shogun, but I played (and still play and love) Shogun 2. There are no single entities there, but they do have the Hero units. Their unit size is way smaller, and in combat against certain units, they can excel, but they require care when you use them because they can be trapped, fired upon, or countered, which makes you care more for them than your general in the new Total War games.
Although I pretty strongly disagreed with the thesis of your last video (that Total War's last successful game was Shogun 2), I think you hit the nail on the head here. Although I enjoy Troy, and Three Kingdoms, what kept me from enjoying 3K for a while was the deemphasis of rank and file in favour of hero units.
In Rome 2 (my favourite, although I think Shogun is a more quality game), every unit or unit type has a distinct role and a substantial weight to them. In Rome 2, Pikemen hold the centre, Thorax Swords engage the wings of their infantry, and Thureos Spears guard against cavalry and throw javelins into the backs of enemy infantry. In 3K, melee infantry all kind of blur together for me, and it feels like their job is to just engage the enemy infantry while I micro my cav and generals. In 3K it feels like the best I can ask of my infantry is to make the enemy's numbers go down faster than my number, whereas in Rome 2 infantry units can actually varied tactical uses.
thanks for being willing to acknowledge when you think im right and making good arguments. i have no problem with good faith actors taking issue with anything at all that i say.
I think the biggest problem with bringing in the legendary heroes from Warhammer is not also bringing ways to efficiently deal with them. In Warhammer you can use explosive missile units to decimate heroes in 2-4 volleys, use monstrous units to stun lock them in place quickly killing them or use heavy cavalry and chariots to cycle charge the heroes down. However in the newer games such as 3 kingdoms and troy you and the AI don't have access to recruit these kinds of high damage units and as a result the best tactics become focus the weakest parts of the army which is the infantry. To reiterate the big difference is that infantry simply doesn't do enough damage or have enough health to justify having it when compared to heroes. One solution would be to introduce specialized units that excel at killing single entities but lose every time to regular infantry.
The thing i missed was Sacrificing the general unit to fill in the gaps or to flank charge as a last hope for victory, but then out of no where
*the Screen closes in to 2 people fighting each other* No No No NOOOOO!!!!! the General died my army retreats and i now have to get a family member far from the front lines to lead the army
i also missed the time when a general died the army would most likely retreat, and that generals could die at anything, a Catapult missed the inf and hit the general behind, when u try to rally the troops and a stray arrow hits the general, and the most risky part that made me feel alive when 2 generals fight each other and knowing who ever won would win the battle,
the best time i had was Rome total war and my general charged the flanks of the enemy, killing the Greeks and the Greeks send in Cav to counter me and everyone died but my general and like 3 body guards, i was almost in tears of joy knowing that the Legend General of the Greek Campaign would live to fight another day, and not be the man to charge in mass of men to be killing them while the troops just stab him and the general not flinching, not acting wounded, not even slowing down.
Also War-hammer i was kinda excited for it, as i was hoping it would be like lord of the rings total war (the med 2 mod) where the Generals would be as kill able as the Orcs you are leading, or the elves you are commanding, but the total war series is going down because, it feels like they was trying to make movies of the Generals that was God like, and almost un kill able, but what they should do is make them just as kill able as the troops they lead, just historically they have been lucky and almost died many times
-the many that hate new total war, wish you a good day and hope the old will Rise from the Ashes of the new
i miss those medieval 2 battles where your bodyguard would charge and charge and get smaller and smaller and youd barely win by virtue of so much desperation and grit. i had those same battles in rome. those were the best. i played as carthage and had a 70 year old conqueror that carved out an entire empire with his charging into his anvil of punic spearmen. i think his bodyguard had about 80 or 90 horses by the time i stopped the campaign. i stopped the campaign just so he wouldnt die of old age.
i also would only have played warhammer if it turned out to be like third age mod for med 2, but i always knew it wasnt going to be, so ive always had no interest.
@@Volound I am replaying rome and med because of this video again and had an itching to Bring the World to the Julia Heel 💪😎🔪
In thrones of Britannia I remember always using my general’s royal thanes as a combat unit because they were so good in combat, well armored, wouldn’t rout, basically the bedrock of the damn army. He routinely won fights and even killed other elite units, I think he was either jammed dead center in the squad and I never was at a point where the unit was in major danger or he was actually just the terminator.
Partly a matter of the success of warhammer which for its faults is very much in line with it's lore of "and than the elf lord killed 500 dumb humans because he's an avatar of a war god." partly because Three Kingdoms was a Chinese release and the Romance of the Three Kingdoms is the only narrative allowed. Troy is just them being lazy and reusing the fantasymechanics under a guise of "mythical."
I don't think they really believe a truly historical/grounded total war can be successful. Which is, heartbreaking.
Funny thing is that in Warhammer Fantasy the Heroes and the Lords are not overpowered monsters that can take entire armies by themselves. (Unless they are overpowered monsters in the lore or literally monsters )The typical charcters are inserted in units so they are protected and their stats are not that crazy. While most infantry has 1 wound and 1 attack heroes have typically 2 wounds and 3 attacks and lords have 3 wounds and 3 or 4 attacks. Wizards have almost always 1 attack because it is not their job to fight in melee. Compare it with TTW where a High elf Spearman has 63 hit points and a Prince had over 4000.
As others have said, the biggest issue regarding single entity units is their counters or lack thereof. Warhammer has a large variety of units who can deal with Heroes, artillery, Anti-Large inf, etc...
In 3K and Troy the only solution is bringing another hero which just turns the game into a hero arms race.
Growing up watching Sharpes Rifles my favorite TW is still Napoleon, I miss the days when cheese was less meta and combined arms was the best way to play. Alas.
the funny thing is in warhammer fantasy the wargame, it was basically a bunch of dice checks that decided whether a unit lives or dies which is pretty much total war
this ruined the 3 kingdoms campaign i started yesterday. It explains perfectly why the game doesnt feel as good as the older ones, i loved rome 2, its not perfect but can be patched with mods in a way that the newer ones cant. Warhammer in itself was cool but its mechanics ruined the franchise, i guess im starting a shogun 2 campaign for the 20th time tonight instead
glad i could give you your voice and catharsis, comrade.
shogun 2 is king. send me saves for my impossible battles series meng.
Volound I am having real troubles getting myself killed or cornered even in a turn0-shogun Hattori campaign, because of watching your videos :D
@@_jwp_7311 for real. I started playing Medieval 2 like a week and a half ago. Most every battle consists of micro heavy cav engagements. It’s simple as fuck but I’m not too familiar with the unit speeds, so not every battle is a straight up slaughter yet lol
11:57 “earlier games would mock you as what you are doing is foolish” Actually, shogun 2 itself also is very clear about this, with the animation that shows when you run the game where in the samurai duals and defeats the defender only to be shot in the back by a torrent of arrows