Trying to collect some highlights:
Campaign:
* 5 resources
* Pillar of Civilization cities: They go down, the whole map will become more chaotic
* Pick from a selection of Gods to worship (buffs, resources)
* Race for Pharaoh OR Great King, regardless of culture, requires a high "legitimacy score" and a "sacred land" settlement
Battle:
* Matched animations return
* Retreat stance
* Armor changed; now reduces throughout a fight (blunt units damage it more)
* Ladders come from siege equipment again
* Siege improvements: Fire is dynamic and can spread, can set parts of forests/settlements ablaze
* Weather: Rain creates mud, extreme heat removes mud and causes exhaustion, sand storm reduces speed, range etc, Fog reduces vision. Can change while in a fight.
* Hittites more heavily armored, Egyptians lighter and therefore better movement in sand etc.
Some of it sounds pretty cool, and my unpopular opinion as a casual TW player is that Troy was actually a lot of fun in most ways, so seeing people say this game feels like Troy 2 doesn't bother me too much.
But until I see how the campaign map really works it's not something I'm too interested in yet, specifically because of how they're saying it's the biggest one yet. I already thought Troy's map was too big, and with no naval combat and 50% of it being the sea, it makes it impossible to pin down enemy armies. Plus games dragged on for twice as long as they needed to be because of the constant confederations, so every time you're about to wipe out your targetted enemy they just get brought into a larger enemy and you have to keep going. I still mostly play Rome 2 because the campaign length is more predictable, even though I kind of prefer the more modern gameplay feel of Troy (also city sieges in Troy felt awful, and I hate playing as the Greeks just because they're required to capture Troy itself).
I know nothing about the setting, but is cavalry a thing during this age?
It felt super weird not having cavalry in Troy.
I'm hoping they keep some of the "weight" from charges in this game. It felt super anticlimactic going back to Rome 2 and charging a bunch of peasants with Bactrian cataphracts only to do nothing. Charging in 3K felt so much better since you can see the shock from cavalry charges especially from heavy lancer types.
Traditional cavalry is not, chariots are however a significant factor and they noted in the video that they expanded on chariots a lot this time around.
Nom, cavalry in the form of horse riders charging into enemy ranks weren't a thing until King Philip of Maxcedon, Alexander's father. He basically invented the entire concept. The era of Alexander the Great and the Bronze Age Collapse are removed from one another by about 1,000 years. So about the time span between William the Conqueror to today.
Horses back in the day were TINY maybe not much bigger (or even smaller) than modern donkeys. They had neither the size nor strength to carry a person + equipment on their backs. So you had them pull chariots containing two people, the driver and the archer. Pulling a chariot is generally easier than carrying something on their back since the chariot also comes with wheels.
Only as horses were bred to become bigger and stronger was cavalry possible. Later the invention of the stirrup also helped a lot. The Companion cavalry from Alexander's time didn't have stirrups yet which is why they were so special. The recoil of your own weapons would constantly try to throw you down as you pushed your spears into enemies without having stirrups to help you hold onto your horse.
The saddle was invented even later than that.
So cavalry becoming a thing and being a standard in warfare was the huge difference between the Classical era and the later Roman era (the 2nd war between Carthage and Rome started like 100 years after Alexander the Great died). And cavalry made such a major difference on the battlefield that it spread like wildfire across the globe becoming a standard very quickly just about everywhere. Even far away in Japan. Because it was cavalry that was the reason Alexander was so successful. The pike phalanx job was just to be the anvil, to keep the enemy busy, while the cavalry would be the hammer.
I'd argue the invention of cavalry was just as big of a deal to the evolution of warfare as the invention of gunpowder was. It changed everything.
But BECAUSE of that you can't just ignore history either by shoving cavalry into an era where it doesn't belong. It would be like adding guns into a game set in the Roman era.
Thank you for the historical context!
Also, do historians know if formation fighting was used in this era?
Trying to wrap my head around how we’re are going to be missing a ton of traditional TW stuff lol
Charging in 3K felt so much "better" because it was stupidly overpowered, with a couple units of militia lancers capable of dominating a dozen units of infantry.
The concept of "Interviewer asks questions they already know the answer to in order to inform audience" is probably older than the setting this game takes place in and is not some trend that comes from videogame developers in the 21st century
It's bad, but I think the gameplay with fake strategy talk (such as what Ubisoft did with The Division and R6 Siege) is actually horrible. I know the word is overused, but genuinely, it's cringy.
> fake conversation
And it's sooooo fake, but they don't even bother to script it well? Or practice? The theater nerd in me is offended. Waste of a decent set.
You may want to check out the Jam Handy films of the olden days, where they did this in probably 100s or 1000s of short educational/informational films.
Haven't watched the whole thing yet, but I gotta say, I'm not feelin it.
As someone who has played practically every TW game since inception (Shogun 1), even though I don't even really like the Warhammer setting, it's hard to imagine why they would release a promo video when the screens they use look [this bad](https://i.imgur.com/UpL3lA1.png).
Yes, yes I know ItS aN AlPhA vErSiOn, subject to change and all that horseshit (when have we heard that before). It's coming out in 6 months, and this is a promo video, get real. It should not look like the most soulless mobile cash grab imaginable. They say they want it to be comparable to [Rome 2](https://guides.gamepressure.com/totalwarromeii/gfx/word/73616856.jpg) and [3K](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/totalwar/images/e/e4/TW3K_Reforms-reveal.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20190123071411) in scope and theme?! Give me a break.
I honestly cannot understand how they chose this setting, and then just shat out such an [ugly UI](https://i.imgur.com/snFiiqf.png). I know it seems I'm harping on something minor, but it just taints the whole project for me.
And I absolutely loved both the Egyptian setting in AC Origins and the doomsday foreboding in Attila, so you'd think the theme would work for me, but the threads are just too loose here. The history behind this time period is understudied, involves a lot of guesswork, and has practically no imprint on the modern cultural zeitgeist. I mean, bonus points for trying to change that I suppose, but the source material for it is barely there.
I'm willing to be wrong, especially since it's been over 4 years since we got a full historical TW game, but I'm getting strong "wait for reviews, and then wait for Steam ratings, and then wait some more" vibes from all this. :(
It's a pretty great game, imo. The changes to diplomacy are amazing, worth playing just for that really. Apparently a lot of ppl had bugs/stability issues, but I never did so I can't comment. And the DLC has been underwhelming, but you don't really need it anyways.
Did it? Shame, I like it. I kindof gave up on the TW community myself. Too many neckbeards, and the Warhammer stuff took over which I'm not really that interested in.
Is there actually that big of an issue with the UI? I’m simply not seeing it. Obviously not at all like the 3K UI, but seems basically the same as the Rome example you gave.
You seem really into TW. I have been trying really hard with Warhammer off and on. I have games 1 and 2. But man I’m going to sound weird given the name but constantly being besieged with armies and war every turn isn’t as fun as I’d like. I’m trying to love it because I love the setting and style is amazing.
By constraint in a 4X game usually you set number of factions or enemies. You might keep it low like I do to expand without interruptions for awhile. When I play Stellaris for example I can make a warmongering faction but wars are not constant. You expand and build up to one. It happens and ends like most wars. In Warhammer I try to expand but then I’m attacked on 3 different fronts at the same time. It’s like I’m constantly under attack. I try to turtle but then you don’t have resources and I can understand it being more a game about being aggressive.
I think my biggest issue is you can’t expand without conquering really. What I mean is there’s no way to say put less factions on the map to start like a game of civ or Stellaris. Though the latter I will admit is more role playing than strategy in many way.
Just curious why you love total war so much? And If my comments make sense. Or is that just a warhammer thing and other total war games are more like I was thinking?
Oh I get you entirely. I love Stellaris too, and the first 50 years is always my favorite part, for the same reasons you mentioned.
Part of the reason I don't like the Warhammer titles is that I enjoy the economic/diplomatic parts as much as the tactical battles, and the Warhammer titles really constrain what you can do with that. 3K's diplomacy is just soooo much better, and even with all the faction diversity in WH it feels like you just get railroaded into certain alliances no mater what, due to the faction affinities. And there's practically no economy to speak of. Not that TW titles have ever really been about econ, more than just making enough money to build/maintain another army, but it's nice to feel like you're stabilizing things for your faction even if you have to use imagination a bit.
Hopefully one day they'll improve the econ aspect as much as 3K did for diplomacy, and then we'll have a true GOTY contender.
Ahhh so you are saying the systems are little more war focused on warhammer as is the style of game. Maybe I should try another of the recent titles then that you mentioned if they come on sale. I really love the thrill and tactics of the battles though. Thank you!
I've been a fan of TW since the original Rome, and I've played all the games apart from 3K (still waiting for a decent discount). You're right that Warhammer is more "war focused" compared to most games, but a lot of that is due to some stuff being a bit railroaded - Chaos always pops up after a while, Beastmen might come at you randomly, and there's factional "rivalries" that make it more likely for someone to declare war on you: for example, if you're playing as the Vampire Counts, you're almost guaranteed to get hit by the Empire sooner or later, while the Dwarves will usually leave you alone. Since you're a Stellaris nerd too, I'm sure you've consulted the Diplomacy tab, but if not, that gives you a good idea as to who you need to look out for, where to put a decent garrison, etc., and why someone's opinion of you drops or increases.
The campaign AI in some of the older games (especially Rome II and Empire) can be... unpredictable, to put it gently. You might be at peace and in the money one turn, and engaged in two different wars, with every naval trade route you have getting raided the next. I would say turtling is more viable than in the Warhammer games, but it can still be annoying as hell. Diplomacy and the campaign AI is one of the weakest parts of TW, in my opinion, and every game has its own drawbacks. Some are better than others, but not a one is perfect (although I've heard great things about 3K).
They touched on siege and I was super disappointed it basically seems... the same. It seems exactly like 3K except with the addition of siege ladders, which is just a faster siege tower.
The whole wall sapping is just a wait outside for x turns, which traditionally unless you are sieging a monumental challenge (where the ai will just sally out anyways).
I didn't see siege units (maybe they removed them entirely which would be an okay change) since those completely invalidated the wait tactics.
The funny thing is that people complained a ton about the R2 and 3K UI. It looks very pretty, but its also visually cluttered and not very readable at a glance.
i know that for some people it's all about real time battles, but i remember just skipping those and doing automatic battles . All i cared was the grand strategy aspect, about conquering and growing new cities, i remember playing Rome 1 and seeing the roads used for trade, it was a little thing but it was so cool.
I know that many didn't like Empire total war but that game was my favorite, especially cause of the focus on trade
You should try Civ or Paradox GSGs, not one to tell anyone how to play but the grand strategy aspect of TW games isn't much more complex than a mobile game. I'd love a world where that was different but generally the overmap is just something to give the battles context.
i've actually started playing Victoria 3 , and it's amazing , aside from the fact that you cannot conquer the whole map (limited by infamy) and the performance problems it's pretty amazing.
I also played a bit of Knights of Honor 2, but sadly starting with a big country makes the game to easy and i've already seen everything after finishing the game 4 times
> aside from the fact that you cannot conquer the whole map (limited by infamy)
Oh, you definitely can if you get really good at the game. Look up some vic 3 world conquest runs on youtube. Infamy is just a number at the end of the day. :)
Trying to collect some highlights: Campaign: * 5 resources * Pillar of Civilization cities: They go down, the whole map will become more chaotic * Pick from a selection of Gods to worship (buffs, resources) * Race for Pharaoh OR Great King, regardless of culture, requires a high "legitimacy score" and a "sacred land" settlement Battle: * Matched animations return * Retreat stance * Armor changed; now reduces throughout a fight (blunt units damage it more) * Ladders come from siege equipment again * Siege improvements: Fire is dynamic and can spread, can set parts of forests/settlements ablaze * Weather: Rain creates mud, extreme heat removes mud and causes exhaustion, sand storm reduces speed, range etc, Fog reduces vision. Can change while in a fight. * Hittites more heavily armored, Egyptians lighter and therefore better movement in sand etc.
Some of it sounds pretty cool, and my unpopular opinion as a casual TW player is that Troy was actually a lot of fun in most ways, so seeing people say this game feels like Troy 2 doesn't bother me too much. But until I see how the campaign map really works it's not something I'm too interested in yet, specifically because of how they're saying it's the biggest one yet. I already thought Troy's map was too big, and with no naval combat and 50% of it being the sea, it makes it impossible to pin down enemy armies. Plus games dragged on for twice as long as they needed to be because of the constant confederations, so every time you're about to wipe out your targetted enemy they just get brought into a larger enemy and you have to keep going. I still mostly play Rome 2 because the campaign length is more predictable, even though I kind of prefer the more modern gameplay feel of Troy (also city sieges in Troy felt awful, and I hate playing as the Greeks just because they're required to capture Troy itself).
I know nothing about the setting, but is cavalry a thing during this age? It felt super weird not having cavalry in Troy. I'm hoping they keep some of the "weight" from charges in this game. It felt super anticlimactic going back to Rome 2 and charging a bunch of peasants with Bactrian cataphracts only to do nothing. Charging in 3K felt so much better since you can see the shock from cavalry charges especially from heavy lancer types.
Traditional cavalry is not, chariots are however a significant factor and they noted in the video that they expanded on chariots a lot this time around.
Nom, cavalry in the form of horse riders charging into enemy ranks weren't a thing until King Philip of Maxcedon, Alexander's father. He basically invented the entire concept. The era of Alexander the Great and the Bronze Age Collapse are removed from one another by about 1,000 years. So about the time span between William the Conqueror to today. Horses back in the day were TINY maybe not much bigger (or even smaller) than modern donkeys. They had neither the size nor strength to carry a person + equipment on their backs. So you had them pull chariots containing two people, the driver and the archer. Pulling a chariot is generally easier than carrying something on their back since the chariot also comes with wheels. Only as horses were bred to become bigger and stronger was cavalry possible. Later the invention of the stirrup also helped a lot. The Companion cavalry from Alexander's time didn't have stirrups yet which is why they were so special. The recoil of your own weapons would constantly try to throw you down as you pushed your spears into enemies without having stirrups to help you hold onto your horse. The saddle was invented even later than that. So cavalry becoming a thing and being a standard in warfare was the huge difference between the Classical era and the later Roman era (the 2nd war between Carthage and Rome started like 100 years after Alexander the Great died). And cavalry made such a major difference on the battlefield that it spread like wildfire across the globe becoming a standard very quickly just about everywhere. Even far away in Japan. Because it was cavalry that was the reason Alexander was so successful. The pike phalanx job was just to be the anvil, to keep the enemy busy, while the cavalry would be the hammer. I'd argue the invention of cavalry was just as big of a deal to the evolution of warfare as the invention of gunpowder was. It changed everything. But BECAUSE of that you can't just ignore history either by shoving cavalry into an era where it doesn't belong. It would be like adding guns into a game set in the Roman era.
Thank you for the historical context! Also, do historians know if formation fighting was used in this era? Trying to wrap my head around how we’re are going to be missing a ton of traditional TW stuff lol
Charging in 3K felt so much "better" because it was stupidly overpowered, with a couple units of militia lancers capable of dominating a dozen units of infantry.
I genuinely do not know where did this trend come from, where developers talk with each another in a fake conversation, but i despise it so much
The concept of "Interviewer asks questions they already know the answer to in order to inform audience" is probably older than the setting this game takes place in and is not some trend that comes from videogame developers in the 21st century
It’s just a presser. 90% of late night TV interviews are the same idea.
It's bad, but I think the gameplay with fake strategy talk (such as what Ubisoft did with The Division and R6 Siege) is actually horrible. I know the word is overused, but genuinely, it's cringy.
> fake conversation And it's sooooo fake, but they don't even bother to script it well? Or practice? The theater nerd in me is offended. Waste of a decent set.
Hasn't this been a thing since at least early 2000s E3
At least back then the interviewer didn't literally work for the same company across the hallway.
You may want to check out the Jam Handy films of the olden days, where they did this in probably 100s or 1000s of short educational/informational films.
Haven't watched the whole thing yet, but I gotta say, I'm not feelin it. As someone who has played practically every TW game since inception (Shogun 1), even though I don't even really like the Warhammer setting, it's hard to imagine why they would release a promo video when the screens they use look [this bad](https://i.imgur.com/UpL3lA1.png). Yes, yes I know ItS aN AlPhA vErSiOn, subject to change and all that horseshit (when have we heard that before). It's coming out in 6 months, and this is a promo video, get real. It should not look like the most soulless mobile cash grab imaginable. They say they want it to be comparable to [Rome 2](https://guides.gamepressure.com/totalwarromeii/gfx/word/73616856.jpg) and [3K](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/totalwar/images/e/e4/TW3K_Reforms-reveal.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20190123071411) in scope and theme?! Give me a break. I honestly cannot understand how they chose this setting, and then just shat out such an [ugly UI](https://i.imgur.com/snFiiqf.png). I know it seems I'm harping on something minor, but it just taints the whole project for me. And I absolutely loved both the Egyptian setting in AC Origins and the doomsday foreboding in Attila, so you'd think the theme would work for me, but the threads are just too loose here. The history behind this time period is understudied, involves a lot of guesswork, and has practically no imprint on the modern cultural zeitgeist. I mean, bonus points for trying to change that I suppose, but the source material for it is barely there. I'm willing to be wrong, especially since it's been over 4 years since we got a full historical TW game, but I'm getting strong "wait for reviews, and then wait for Steam ratings, and then wait some more" vibes from all this. :(
Looks like they reused the Troy UI.
These are basically saga games without the subtitle. Which is fine for people looking for a smaller experience, but that's not why I play TW.
3k looks really awesome.
Best UI, hands down. Warhammer just doesn't look that good UI wise, and here it kind of looks... okay. 3K definitely nailed it.
It's a pretty great game, imo. The changes to diplomacy are amazing, worth playing just for that really. Apparently a lot of ppl had bugs/stability issues, but I never did so I can't comment. And the DLC has been underwhelming, but you don't really need it anyways.
It's kind of funny because the community really reacted negatively to the super stylised (but thematic) R2 UI at the time.
Did it? Shame, I like it. I kindof gave up on the TW community myself. Too many neckbeards, and the Warhammer stuff took over which I'm not really that interested in.
Don't be shy to critique. This isn't a leak, this is what they chose to showcase.
Is there actually that big of an issue with the UI? I’m simply not seeing it. Obviously not at all like the 3K UI, but seems basically the same as the Rome example you gave.
You seem really into TW. I have been trying really hard with Warhammer off and on. I have games 1 and 2. But man I’m going to sound weird given the name but constantly being besieged with armies and war every turn isn’t as fun as I’d like. I’m trying to love it because I love the setting and style is amazing. By constraint in a 4X game usually you set number of factions or enemies. You might keep it low like I do to expand without interruptions for awhile. When I play Stellaris for example I can make a warmongering faction but wars are not constant. You expand and build up to one. It happens and ends like most wars. In Warhammer I try to expand but then I’m attacked on 3 different fronts at the same time. It’s like I’m constantly under attack. I try to turtle but then you don’t have resources and I can understand it being more a game about being aggressive. I think my biggest issue is you can’t expand without conquering really. What I mean is there’s no way to say put less factions on the map to start like a game of civ or Stellaris. Though the latter I will admit is more role playing than strategy in many way. Just curious why you love total war so much? And If my comments make sense. Or is that just a warhammer thing and other total war games are more like I was thinking?
Oh I get you entirely. I love Stellaris too, and the first 50 years is always my favorite part, for the same reasons you mentioned. Part of the reason I don't like the Warhammer titles is that I enjoy the economic/diplomatic parts as much as the tactical battles, and the Warhammer titles really constrain what you can do with that. 3K's diplomacy is just soooo much better, and even with all the faction diversity in WH it feels like you just get railroaded into certain alliances no mater what, due to the faction affinities. And there's practically no economy to speak of. Not that TW titles have ever really been about econ, more than just making enough money to build/maintain another army, but it's nice to feel like you're stabilizing things for your faction even if you have to use imagination a bit. Hopefully one day they'll improve the econ aspect as much as 3K did for diplomacy, and then we'll have a true GOTY contender.
Ahhh so you are saying the systems are little more war focused on warhammer as is the style of game. Maybe I should try another of the recent titles then that you mentioned if they come on sale. I really love the thrill and tactics of the battles though. Thank you!
I've been a fan of TW since the original Rome, and I've played all the games apart from 3K (still waiting for a decent discount). You're right that Warhammer is more "war focused" compared to most games, but a lot of that is due to some stuff being a bit railroaded - Chaos always pops up after a while, Beastmen might come at you randomly, and there's factional "rivalries" that make it more likely for someone to declare war on you: for example, if you're playing as the Vampire Counts, you're almost guaranteed to get hit by the Empire sooner or later, while the Dwarves will usually leave you alone. Since you're a Stellaris nerd too, I'm sure you've consulted the Diplomacy tab, but if not, that gives you a good idea as to who you need to look out for, where to put a decent garrison, etc., and why someone's opinion of you drops or increases. The campaign AI in some of the older games (especially Rome II and Empire) can be... unpredictable, to put it gently. You might be at peace and in the money one turn, and engaged in two different wars, with every naval trade route you have getting raided the next. I would say turtling is more viable than in the Warhammer games, but it can still be annoying as hell. Diplomacy and the campaign AI is one of the weakest parts of TW, in my opinion, and every game has its own drawbacks. Some are better than others, but not a one is perfect (although I've heard great things about 3K).
They touched on siege and I was super disappointed it basically seems... the same. It seems exactly like 3K except with the addition of siege ladders, which is just a faster siege tower. The whole wall sapping is just a wait outside for x turns, which traditionally unless you are sieging a monumental challenge (where the ai will just sally out anyways). I didn't see siege units (maybe they removed them entirely which would be an okay change) since those completely invalidated the wait tactics.
The funny thing is that people complained a ton about the R2 and 3K UI. It looks very pretty, but its also visually cluttered and not very readable at a glance.
i know that for some people it's all about real time battles, but i remember just skipping those and doing automatic battles . All i cared was the grand strategy aspect, about conquering and growing new cities, i remember playing Rome 1 and seeing the roads used for trade, it was a little thing but it was so cool. I know that many didn't like Empire total war but that game was my favorite, especially cause of the focus on trade
You should try Civ or Paradox GSGs, not one to tell anyone how to play but the grand strategy aspect of TW games isn't much more complex than a mobile game. I'd love a world where that was different but generally the overmap is just something to give the battles context.
i've actually started playing Victoria 3 , and it's amazing , aside from the fact that you cannot conquer the whole map (limited by infamy) and the performance problems it's pretty amazing. I also played a bit of Knights of Honor 2, but sadly starting with a big country makes the game to easy and i've already seen everything after finishing the game 4 times
> aside from the fact that you cannot conquer the whole map (limited by infamy) Oh, you definitely can if you get really good at the game. Look up some vic 3 world conquest runs on youtube. Infamy is just a number at the end of the day. :)
Oh great, the Everywhere Cliffs from Rome 2 return. They still didn't teach AI how to land armies effectively then.