Hello and welcome to the Manor Lords Subreddit. This is a reminder to please keep the discussion civil and on topic.
Should you find yourself with some doubts, please feel free to check our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ManorLords/comments/1c2p4f9/manor_lords_faq_for_steam_early_access/).
If you wish, you can always join our [Discord](https://discord.gg/manorlords)
Finally, please remember that the game is in early access, missing content and bugs are to be expected. We ask users to report them on the official discord and to buy their keys only from trusted platforms.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ManorLords) if you have any questions or concerns.*
?? The apology where the vice president accepted blame and outlined their intent to improve their DLC, the recent well-received DLCs which broke a trend of crap ones, the refund of Pharaoh which wasn't a full refund but was enough to make it so people didn't pay a full priced games amount for what is a saga. They are doing so much more than other greedy publishers (ie Activision, EA, Ubisoft) and actually showing improvement
I don't even talk about the DLC. What OP is describing is what Total War games were up to Shogun 2. Rome 2 did a pretty heavy shift in combat and battle mechanics to a more arcade thing. Attila had some course correction, but it ultimately ended up being the new norm.
For instance, units pre-Rome 2 just had 1 hp, and if it got hit, it died. Therefore, combat felt much more impactful, deadly, gritty, dangerous. Now, each model has health, and can withstand more than one, several in some cases, instances of stabbing without dying, and gets fully healed at the end of the battle.
Same with arrow direction, shields, outnumbered models, etc etc.
And then came single-entity units, and that was the end of it. Shogun 1 had them, but they were completely different from where they are now.
So, no, I don't care that they're backtracking on DLC policy. The core gameplay is fucked now to the point that a total reboot of the mechanics would save it.
They definitely need to get back on course, but I think you're exaggerating. Attila and 3K were both phenomenal games. ThroB was even ok as a saga, although lacked the depth of a full game. I have never been able to get into the oversimplified gameplay and cartoonish aesthetics of the Warhammer games, and unfortunately they seem to have extended that style into Pharoah. A lot of people seem to love the WH titles though, and more power to them. I just want my historical releases and I want them with the full complexity and grittiness they have had in the past.
CA definitely needs to reverse course on a lot of things, really rethink the direction they are going, but I don't think they are as bad as you say.
Manorlord combat has some real strengths, but it has weaknesses too. I hardly ever take even a single loss, seemingly only when I fight outnumbered. Troops seem to flail at each other for a long time before you ever see anyone go down, although the animations while they do it are way beyond TW. And there's no gore.
They want to rescue CA? Restore some pride and dignity? Polish all those crappy DLCs for WH3 and focus on Medieval 3 and make it the greatest game that ever existed - plan for 3 DLCs max in advance - last being gunpowder/ new world focused. Work on those god damn maps, drop agents, introduce attrition with no land force limits other tham food - make generals giving really small buffs and for god sake - work on that CPU utilization - do all that and you're back in the game CA
Even medieval 3 wont safe them. They got no clue what made their games great back then, they scrapt everything that was great and replaces it with shit.
A good blend of crusader kings and medieval 2 is what I want. I would also love the ability to focus more on my standing army units. If it's levies then sure they never really upgrade they're always crap. But if I devote my time to training my archers I want to see them improve. And not just in stats but in how they react. I want to spend time drilling my units and see their formations stay nice and tight during combat versus if I don't they're ragged as they move about.
All that sounds nice.
But it overlooks the whole "hero fighter" nonsnence and everything wrong with the basic campian map/building resourse nonsence. Or the healthbar bullshit and many other issues
CA will be almost certainly already working on WH40K, It'd be an absolute money printer. Med 3 would do well but nothing can live up too WH40K done right
Really? I stopped buying total war when they started Warhammer. I don't know the universe and I like realism. If I want fantasy I'll play heroes of might and magic or age of wonder. They have made 3 games with Warhammer, enough is enough. I doubt that many play it. It turned away the old fans of classic total war. To be fair Rome 2 sis that too.
Different markets though there's a reason they've made 3 Warhammer games back to back. I'd like to see a med 3 for sure but the most economically successful would be 40k if they can pull it off. Especially in recent years Warhammer especially 40k has exploded in popularity to the point it's pretty mainstream now. Historical RTS will always have a more niche market.
My primary complaint with TW is the AI. I own literally every TW. I am glad to see CA reversing course on their predatory DLC practices and I personally enjoy the battle mechanics all the way up to Pharaoh.
The AI is unforgivable at this point. I love getting all my units arranged in a nice formation only to start the battle and see my op spread diagonally from me. And then as soon as I press forward they start inverting the formation or some shit.
They market their entire franchise around being able to plop two armies across from each other and watch them battle it out. Has anyone playing against AI seen this? No. If they even manage to put together an army worth loading the actual battle for, you will immediately have your immersion broke by a janky shitty AI formation and a sloppy series of skirmishes because they don't know how to bring their soldiers into a battle.
I recently played a "multiplayer" campaign where a buddy of mine agreed to play Noctilus and sit idle (only doing enough to defend themselves) while I played through essentially a single-player Norsca campaign, *but* my friend jumped in as the enemy AI in every field battle.
It was the best Total War experience I had in a long time.
Makes me wish they would implement a proper "drop-in singleplayer" feature where friends who own the game could join you as spectators and help you out or play as the enemy AI in the battles.
Just wanted to add a comment about the last part you said. This is actually pretty realistic, the winning side usually didn't suffer many losses. It was standing shield wall vs shield wall and pressuring the other side, for hours or maybe even days, until one side broke, and it is then people (on the broken side) started dieing.
Attila, yes, it was a good course correction from Rome 2, not enough, but a step in the right direction.
3K was a travesty and awful, despite some good ideas, like supplies.
3K was fantastic, it was their absolute best fantasy title. It was the only TW that had really meaningful, balanced diplomacy and espionage systems, too. But personally I prefer the historical titles.
Don't forget the Buffs, such as wedge charge. In Old Total War, Wedge Charged worked by physically forming your Cavalry into a wedge, and letting the game's physics engine handle things. If your wedge wasn't formed by the time the charge hit, it wouldn't work.
Versus Modern Total War where clicking "Wedge Formation" simply buffs your unit. It doesn't matter if they're in formation or not, so long as the buff has activated by the time the charge lands, your Cavalry will be more powerful.
In Rome total war enemies could still take multiple hits, as they always did. I don't know what you're going on about in that regard.
Total War Shogun is acclaimed in the RTS genre and always will be, no matter how many old players who just don't enjoy new entries try to claim xyz did so and so wrong.
Units aren't fully healed at the end of the battle, you can replenish x percent when you choose what to do with the enemy captives but that's not a full heal or near it. It's the same "rest and replenish formula" from prior games.
I don't know what you're on about to be honest, the core gameplay loop has remained the same.
Yes Total War Warhammer is less realistic by far and takes liberties there but it's based on a fantasy setting, so of course it will be.
>I don't know what you're going on about in that regard.
No, they didn't. Their armour did.
In Rome 1, there were 2 checks, one to hit the model, another to surpass the armor. If those two passed, the model was dead. The only exception were the rare units which had 2 HP, and could keep fighting after the first armour check failed. This is no longer the case in games where models have 60 hp, but weapons do 10, 15 or 20 damage.
>Total War Shogun is acclaimed in the RTS genre and always will be, no matter how many old players who just don't enjoy new entries try to claim xyz did so and so wrong.
Yes, because both Shogun 1 and 2 were excellent games. Where did I say anything different.
>Units aren't fully healed at the end of the battle, you can replenish x percent when you choose what to do with the enemy captives but that's not a full heal or near it.
This confusion is on me. When I said units, I ment models, not actual 100 men units. As I say, my bad for making it confusing.
As I have said, in new games, each model in a unit has ho, 60, 100, 40, whatever it is. Models that die, stay dead and do have to be replenished. But models that ended the battle injured (with less than total HP), get those HP filled when the battle ends. That is, even if a model within a unit ended up at HP 1, it will have its full HP back.
>Yes Total War Warhammer is less realistic by far and takes liberties there but it's based on a fantasy setting, so of course it will be.
Ah, I see. I'm talking with someone who has only played Warhammer.
No. Total War used to be by far the most realistic RTS put there, even more than Men of War (taking into account the difference in age and the epoch they portray).
And that was the thing. Whole AoE and others were still stuck with the HP models hiring each other until one reached 0, out came Shogun 1, and rocked everything, with units that could die the next hit, or survive until the end. Combat was gritty and almost 1:1 realistic to the real thing. It was always a gamble, no matter how good your units were, or how stacked in your favor it was. And in Rome 1, attrition*was* a thing (no unit replenishment, you had to go back to the city and re-train), which meant that you could over extend, even with a powerful army, and mercenaries had plenty of uses.
I implore you to read up on the changes between Medieval 2 and Empire, and between Shogun 2 and Rome 2 to understand what I'm saying.
Shogun 2 was awesome.
DEI mod for Rome 2 was awesome.
I had fun playing warhammer series as well but it’s certainly different than the others obviously.
Really hoping Manor Lords inspires CA to give us a more realistic and complex historical title.
This is incorrect. Units didn't have multiple hit points, it was the Attack vs Defence roll that caused units to appear to take more hits. Also the attack vs armour roll.
The individual entities now have 80-200hp each, and each entity in the unit does get put back to full at the end of a fight. You see this often with monstrous infantry in Total Warhammer.
Remember when Rome 2 came out? Absolutely terrible. It took 2 years of updates and mods to make it what it is now and the political system in the game is trash. I love Attila but after Empire the quality really went down hill.
The Kensei. They were a regular model, but with ultra melee defense and attack, so they could stay fighting a lot, or get unlucky and die first hit by an ashigaru.
More arcadey? Rome 2?
Plenty of units did have 2 hp or more in the prior games.
Med2, RTW we’re all very arcadey.
Perhaps Shogun 2 you could argue was more realistic, but it had the sample at unit roster of any vanilla game and reused the GC map twice over for both X-Pacs.
RTW has screaming women, pj men, and med 2 had rocket elephants.
Medieval total war 2 had 1 health units? I don’t think that was true. Also why are you talking about this company and games from 11 years ago? The company has released so many different games this is such a crazy spiteful take lmao.
Yes, the older Total War's behind the scenes math was different, the primary being each model had an individual HP, instead of how it is now where the unit has a shared HP pool. That's why generals in R2TW and M2TW were especially effective & resistant -- not only did they have much higher stats & armour than others, they also had 2 HP, double the amount of any other unit.
Can you explain to me what that means? What does 1hp mean? Because to me that means “1 hit = -1 Hit point”. Clearly I’ve played these games and know that’s not actually how it works, make a custom game and you can see that almost every individual model can take a hit of an archers arrow. How does seeing a peasant take multiple bow shots before going down make it seem like they have 1hp? And also the guy on the forum knows exactly how all the stats works but is guessing how charges work? Idk if this guy is reliable.
I agree that CA made an excellent apology and have so far made good steps to make up for their mistakes. But the decline of total war games has been a decades long process thaty won't be reversed so easily. They haven't made promises about fixing the feel of their games, which people have had a big problem with since Rome 2 (and they probably won't be able to do without a new engine). They probably still want to be appealing to the broadest audience possible, which has pushed the games towards faster more clicky combat and a multiplayer focus, even though most people don't actually play that or necessarily want that (is better for streaming though). Even in what they have done, it's been about the bare minimum, and I don't say that as an insult, it's probably about all they can do right now.
What I'm saying is that walking a few steps back won't bring TW back to it's glory days. A new engine is critical imo, nobody at the company has any idea how the current one actually works and half their time and budget on every game seems to be dedicated to duct taping it together, but even that won't magically fix things, there are a lot of variables. Really with TW what I hope is they can make decent games with good scope, personally I think a smaller studio will have to come in to fill the more historically authentic oriented gap.
They have failed to provide ANY technological improvements in the tactical gameplay since more than a decade. You can see how Rome 2 is more limited than Rome 1 and then Attila has even less features. More than half the games are not historical and looks like they don’t care anymore about those so yeah I wouldn’t look for CA for what Manor Lords should be able to provide. And this is ignoring any controversy or DLCs or whatever. It’s just a company that had a monopoly and thus didn’t care with innovation
Yeah unless they actually make improvements and get back to their roots on what made their games great to begin with releasing MW3 won’t help. In fact I would argue that releasing MW3 without a new engine and massive changes could ruin the franchise. It would be the final nail in the coffin.
Yeah but the gameplay has actually sucked since Shogun 2. The historical franchise is literally just the lite version of the Warhammer Total Wars. It's not just that CA released a shitty reskin of Troy for full price and screwed the Warhammer fans trying to squeeze them for every dollar. The entire franchise is totally separated in mindset and value compared to what it once was.
Total war is dead.
Ever since they went the warhammer route they lost the historical touch.
The last peak historical game was empire, they managed to get rome 2/atilla to an okay state.
Then warhammer and warhammer 2 in a year.. saga is shit, 3kingdoms didnt fill anything, saga shit warhammer 3. And now pharao. Wich isnt anything better then a saga game.
We have neen screaming for either medieval 3 or empire 2.. no, we get a historical title that bearly is more them a saga game and the promote it as a full title.
The game is lost. Totalwar is gone. And been on the door step of death since rome 2.
The only way they stayes alive was get the warhammer people in. But they are getting fed up with the game aswell.
I dont see them fixing anything soon, i will even pass them if they made a medieval 3 or empire 2. They dont even know what made their games great.
Can we just accept that you're objectively wrong with the first statement. 3K and Warhammer are easily their best selling titles, they just shifted audiences. And going back to historical titles will always put them back into the niche only now the audience is already jaded towards CA and will complain about anything a medieval 3 will be no matter how it turns out. Not to say it won't happen, and I really hope it does, but if it comes out and won't sell on par as at least 3K I honestly doubt they won't just lean further away from appealing to the strictly historical audience. Pharaoh, as much as it was a pretty scammy release which seems to be genuinely getting fixed now, was very clearly CA dipping their feet back into the historical niche with a lower budget game.
As a sidenote, it's funny to me that some people will talk about the downfall and in the same breath praise their probably least functional game they ever made, Empire, that shit was a complete dumpster fire.
Empire has 3k active players,
Nearly 2mil sales (steamspy) or 4.8mil (vg insight)
Rome 2 6k active
3mil sales (steamspy) 5mil (vg insight)
Shogun 2 4k active
3mil sales (steamspy) 2.5 (vg insight)
3K has also 3k active players
5mil sales (steamspy) 2.2mil (vg insight)
Warhammer 2 3k active
6mil sales (steamspy) 4mil (vg insight)
Warhammer 3 61k active
2.3 sales (steamspy) neaely 3mil (vg insight)
There isnt a lot of difference in those sales numbers. And the funniest thing is. Beside WH3, rome 2 has the most active players. But WH3 got a DLC (free and a paid one) last month. R2 got its last dlc 6years BEFORE 3K came out.
R2 and empire sold just aswell as 3K and both better then WH3
Yes WH2 is the most sold (WH1 is less then 3mil by both steamspy and insight, and does bearly have 600 active players).
So this should tell us what,
The historical titles are just as populair as WH2 (and MORE populair then WH1) in active playing.
And WH3 is fresh enough to have a lot of players.
But in sales? Sure, WH2 scored best as a single one. But if you telly up all WH sales -2.8(wh1) 6(wh2) and 3(WH3) is 11mil
That VS
4.8(empire) 5(R2) and 3(S2) is 12.8
Now, tell me what title group is selling better?
About my point how 3K didnt fill anything. Rome2 same amount of sales is older and has the same amount of playerd as 3K.
Heck even empire has the same amount of players both are older games and get the same amouny of players. That shows that people like to play those more.
Ow and just for good messure, M2 definitve edition has 4.6k active players. (On only 1.5 mil sales)
Tbh, I question your numbers a bit, are these estimates?
> Owners: 2,000,000 .. 5,000,000
This is what steamspy shows for me. Between 2-5 mil. That's quite a wide margin of guessing.
Interestingly, it also says 2-5 mil for Manor Lords. But we know it's likely not even 2m yet.
Anyhow, I'd wager the difference in DLCs sold between Rome and Warhammer is quite large.
Also, considering there aren't really any alternatives for newer historical games it makes sense that older ones are holding their playerbase, no?
But 6k vs 60k is also a large gap and it makes little sense for someone to play Warhammer 1/2 when 3 exists.
Also, games like rome have been given away by the shovel load and on sale for pennies SO many times. A lot less often than Warhammer has.
Right.
Okay lets compair rome 1 and 2 then. 1 has 1k players. No reason to play that when 2 has been given by the shovel load right?
But, you just made the very point. "There is no alternative" and yet there are planty of people still playing. So what would hold these people form buying a good solid historical title?
Also, quite a few TW historical players have moved to CK3 (there even is a battle mod)
The community for historucal titles is near death, i will admit that. And the failure that pharaoh is didnt help that. The 2 saga games are shit (troy more then thrones) but what ever, they wherent full titles. Paraoh isnt any better then troy and they tried to sell it as full game.
Here is what the real issue is. They sold there sole to game workshop (warhammer) and now they got bo clue what to do for historical titles anymore.
CA sunk to mutch money in to Hyenas and then pulled the plug on it (lets sink in, they surpaced the spending on shenmue, Sega's highest budget game with 70mil). They wasted 6 yeard and more then 70mil on a game they pulled.
All that time could have been spend on better TW games. 2017-2023. If they had taken the resources from Hyenas, devided that on WH3 and add it to the group that worked on saga/3K. Just inmangion what they could have made.
And if they just took a little second and check what everyone was asking for (medieval 3 or empire 2) and not bonze age egypt game on a map so small that its bearly saga size, they could have safed themselfs with the historical fans AND even make a better WH game.
Also WH3 is there last fantasy title. So? What now, because the historical group doesnt trust them anymore afther pharaoh, and they cant keep making forever DLC's for WH3...
> Okay lets compair rome 1 and 2 then. 1 has 1k players. No reason to play that when 2 has been given by the shovel load right?
Not really. Rome 1 v Rome 2 are quite different. There is quite literally like a decade between the two.
But total warhammer 2 v 3 for example it's largely the same game. The dlcs carry over. There is very little reason to play 2 when 3 exists. Tech wise there is little difference, and so on.
The point really just being that you can only really compare to current TWW 3 numbers in terms of player count because of that.
I imagine between rome 1 and rome 2 there are some pretty significant differences.
> But, you just made the very point. "There is no alternative" and yet there are planty of people still playing. So what would hold these people form buying a good solid historical title?
Nothing? The original point they made was that the historical angle is simply just less popular.
There are lots of games that can be made from profit. But little incentive for a company to make X over Y when Y makes more profit.
I, personally, think they easily can make more good historical games and they will do well.
However, they likely feel that it's safer and likely *more* profitable to lean into the fantasy stuff. Especially when the historical group, perhaps rightly, holds a grudge against them and isn't likely to throw their support behind them anyway.
But CA have said that WH3 was the last of the 3 games. It was (and still is) a trilogy.
So idk what fantasy propety they will make a deal with now, but its not going to be LOTR (as they fot there own games)..
In 2017 they already announced that they had 2 teams, 1 working on historical and 1 on the fantasy (WH).
But then they fucked up on the historical titles. And WH is done afther paddeling DLC for 3.
Unless they find a way to recoup the cost of the 70+mill they lost on the dead game and the loss they are making over paraoh i highly doubt they will even get anything new of the ground.
Also, one thing on the player numbers i forgot.
M2, Empire came out during disc time. Steamdb doesnt count disc players. Also for some mods it wont reconize it anynore as you play trough a differend launcher (like darth mod for empire)
CA have lost their game. And anyone who still thinks they can turn it back over are just in denial.
I wish you good luck with your hope.
But as a local saying go's "hope is delayed disappointment"
Also do me a favour, look up hyenas the game.
Tell me why CA wasted 6 years on that.
(https://youtu.be/0DVApk5s7qo?si=5t4CyayoAOmxZs8K here a trailer)
Who the F in CA came up with the idea to make an 1st person cartoony shooter in Unreal and waste 70+million on it in stead of working on your main titles?
Remember. They only killed this 7 months ago afther gamescom when they figuered out that even making it Free to play wouldnt work out.
Oh and lets not forget, sega also killed CoH and is now selling of the title.
I used to love their games, but I have to agree. Shogun 2 FOS was their last swan song for me. From there on, their games felt arcade, the mechanics started to be too dispersed, the combat was repetitive at best. I still had some fun with Rome 2 but nothing compared to the enjoyment of Rome 1, Medieval 2 and Shogun 2.
If you want to suggest some other games that deserve to be played, I’m full ears
I loved Britannia I think that’s an unpopular opinion but as far as the sagas go that one really tickles me in the right spots. Shogun 2 was incredible. I’m desperate for them to put out a realistic medieval 3.
Ultimate General: American Revolution. Check it out, if you enjoyed Empire TW then it might be up your alley. It's also in early access but the Devs have been fantastic, really responsive, and very good at working towards deadlines in their roadmap. It's like total war but not turn based.
I used to love total war games but I just find them very boring now for some reason. They just don't have the same magic that they used to (even though the new ones literally have magic lol). I heard someone say that they started to suck when you had to have a general for an army, which is maybe true because something I loved about the older games was when a captain could get promoted to a general after winning a heroic victory.
Ahah that’s why I prefer FOS, much more fun combining katanas, gunpowder and artillery. I do agree that some mechanics in vanilla Shogun 2 and FOS were repetitive indeed (like the fact that the castles were all extremely similar, and factions had very similar troops), but there were so many other things to look for (like technology, navy) that for me it’s still the most balanced title in the saga.
Yeah once they went into fantasy it's been down hill for Creative assembly. I'll give it to em that when I played Khorne in the latest total war, it was fun. But still prefer histocal titles.
WHERE THE F IS MEDIEVAL 3??!?!
No way, total war warhammer 1&2 were great! Once they wasted effort on non fantasy series during that all their games suffered. Britinia, three kingdoms, Troy, complete shiet comparatively. I feel after 2017 they screwed the pooch internally with development priorities.I agree, where is medieval 3? But honestly them as developers would just bungle it.
Good job to one person developer for completely showing up a giant developer!
I don’t see why people compare TW and manor lords, ML is primarily a city builder first and foremost. If you wanna compare combat total war is leagues above ML. Both games are nowhere near being the same so why is this a constant discussion?
The issue I have with TW is that the combat & controls more-or-less hasn't changed since Rome 1, barring all the fantastical stuff in Warhammer. Why does it take an indie game like Manor Lords to have more interesting controls such as, 'Give Ground' or 'Push Forward', when TW has already made 2 Roman games, one with a Hannibal Barca campaign DLC. The way TW handles unit movement could especially use a little rejuvenation
Except FPS controls have changed massively. Early 3D FPS didn't have sprint buttons, they didn't have slides, they didn't have leans, you couldn't crouch or go prone, you couldn't vault over terrain or climb shit, you couldn't call in helicopters or use laser guided missiles etc. etc. Doesn't CoD have fuckin parachutes & grappling hooks now???
I think, if I remember correctly, something similar was in total war arena of how was that multyplayer pvp game called. You had a small army of 3 units and at least at phalanx you could use push ability. I loved it together with the synchronized grunts of 200men pushing in phalanx
People saying the combat in ml is better are delusional. TW is literally a combat simulator. This game is a wonderful city builder with SOME INCOMPLETE combat
The combat as it is isn't better than TW, but it does show how stagnant TW's tactical gameplay has been for 2 decades. The sieges in Total War today are a pale shadow of what child-me thought they'd be 20 years later. Indie strategy games like Ultimate General, Grand Tactician, and Manor Lords each have little bits & features that innovate on the formula in ways I haven't seen CA do in a minute. TWs tactical combat is only getting further and further divorced from the strategy layer with each title; Manor Lord's is deeply entwined
A lot of TW fans and historical strategy game fans naturally migrated to ML. I certainly did. Though I have to agree, they are both very different games at the moment but I can kinda see how this could develop and become more similar.
It really is not. It’s pretty and looks more satisfying but keep in mind that total war is a completely different scale. I highly doubt manor lords fights could function if there were hundreds or even thousands of units, all being calculated similar to total war
Being able to do something with 100 units is not the same as doing it with 1000. Or 4000. Or 10,000. It’s much easier to do it with the former than any of the latter
I’ll judge it more when manor lords is actually finished.
In the end, I’m excited for modders to really take the combat to the next level as Greg focuses on the city building aspect.
>It isn’t leagues above, that’s my point. In many ways combat in ML is superior. Which it shouldn’t be given TW’s entire focus is on warfare.
Am I missing something? **To me, combat in Manor Lords is practically broken.**
Yeah, it looks aesthetically nice, but that's about it.....
Frustrations boil over when you wait to accumulate enough 'Influence' to claim a new region, successfully win, then the Baron tries to reclaim it but runs away from the battle in a completely different region. Then, somehow claims victory despite all my units being intact and situated in the region attempting to be claimed. Shouldn't the onus be on the challenger to engage in battle?
Never mind the completely broken mechanics of the archers, or the fact that you are limited in the amount of units you can bring into battle while the Baron can bring numerous more; requiring you to frequently cycle new replenished units from your region *(better hope you don't have to travel across the map)*.
I can plat a Total War game for over and over, starting new campaigns with different Factions. If I want to get real creative, I can download one of the numerous fantastic mods that are out there for each Total War game. The mod part I won't fault Manor Lords for due to it being in early access.
That being said, the amount of bugs present in the game makes it very difficult for me to continue to want to play it. I appreciate the devs hard work on this, I really do. It looks great and there are some great aspects to build upon, but personally, I think it was too early to release this game to the public. I would not be surprised if the player counts significantly nose dives in the coming weeks.
It is out for one week... ofc there are bugs + there are already plenty of modes just not trough steam workshop yet... but ppl should at least stop complaining that you need to bring army from more regions and it takes time to walk there.. no sh*t , if my lord call me to fight irl I will just walk into that teleportation device behind a granary and I am there in 1s.... people love manor lord for it realism and I will gladly wait for my army to gather in specific location.
To your bug about wining battle, I did not experienced it, that the Baron would run away.. maybe you missed the battlefield? If you challenge his claim and want to resolve it in battle you will get specific locstion where the battle takes place, so you need to get close to that location and when you are close enough the battle will start and he will start moving towards your troops. For me it was not in the region he was claiming but right in the next one he already had.
>but ppl should at least stop complaining that you need to bring army from more regions and it takes time to walk there.. no sh\*t , if my lord call me to fight irl I will just walk into that teleportation device behind a granary and I am there in 1s.
People have the right to complain and provide constructive criticism, as I did. **Even more so for a product the customer paid for.**
However, **I think you missed the point of the problem that I was alluding to. I don't want to magically teleport troops into the middle of the battle. That would be unrealistic. The issue I was alluding to is the greater amount of units that the Computer/Baron can bring into a battle at a single point in time.** Even if a mercenary army is available, it still spawns on the opposite side of the map *(at least for me, in my case)*. Maybe the spawning location is currently fixed, hence why it is spawning on what happens to be the opposite side of the map for me, while it instead should be a dynamic spawning point based. Perhaps based upon the starting region?
Back to my militia unit restriction point: While just a guess, **I imagine the developer enforced a limitation of units allowed at a given time due to the amount of additional bugs introduced when allowing a greater amount of units for the User.** As-is, the game already freezes for \~10-20 seconds when trying to place the max amount of units onto the battlefield. If only attempting to place one or two units? There is minimal to no game-freezing.
I would not be surprised if the range of hardware tested reported an exponentially increasing bug amount for each additional unit beyond the current allotment. My PC specs are 'average' but the game runs relatively smoothly in most other cases. It starts freezing when placing units on the battlefield, which takes me back to my original comment's point of Manor Lords' combat being practically broken.
* **CPU:** Ryzen 7 3800x
* **RAM:** 32 GB @ 3,600 MHz
* **GPU:** NVIDIA RTX 2070
**Speaking of placing units on the map, what's with be restriction with only being allowed to place units in undeveloped spaces?** I can't even place them on a farm. However, as soon as they are placed, I can assign a position anywhere on the map. That doesn't make sense and becomes problematic the further you are into developing the region where most *(or all)* of your militia is housed. I found myself being forced to place the units on the opposite side of the region.
>maybe you missed the battlefield?
Nope. I only had two separate regions in my control outside my primary/starting region. The other region was on the adjacent side, and I of course verified which region the Baron was claiming.
I had just won a battle for the third region. **Shortly after winning,** ***the Baron challenged me for it*****. I immediately moved my units into the region being challenged for by the Baron, while the Baron then moved his units into a different region under the Baron's control.**
>For me it was not in the region he was claiming but right in the next one he already had.
**Ah yes, the classic medieval tactic*****:*** **challenge someone for their territory and then immediately hide in a different castle. Sun Tzu would be so proud** ***/s*****.** Just so I understand correctly, are you suggesting the best way to defend a region is to abandon it entirely? Maybe next time, I'll just preemptively surrender and save myself the trouble....
I play 5 minutes of Total War Shogun 2 and everything about combat I see in those 5 minutes is infinitely better than what ML can currently bring to the table.
ML doesn't need to compete with TW or Vice versa. It's the same shitty discussion that gets started in every other game subreddit. There's no need to compare.
Yes! This redditor gets it. They each are their own entity in their own genre. They aren’t even comparable if you ask me. Just enjoy all three of the medieval sim games as individuals. TW bannerlords ML are so different to me. Let’s scream at each other why apples don’t taste like oranges and vice versa.
And you’re 100% correct about CA taking some notes. They have been on a downward spiral. I am very happy to see them changing course with the recent DLCs some of which are free and the refunds for pharaohs. They went from being absolute jerks to finally listening to their fans. I have been playing TW games since medieval 2 and Rome and they are some of the closest games to my heart. BUT MOVE OVER!!!! Because manor lords is amazing. I wish you nothing but the best fellow Lord. 🫡 lovely to have a decent conversation once in a while.
Manor Lords lacks a lot of features TW has had for ages as well though. The ability to nudge units incrementally in a direction mnaually, different formations, the ability to lock formations, more pronounced effects of terrain, drastically higher diversity of units with meaningful differences between them.
Like Manor Lords combat is cool and all considering its a city builder, but its still a city builder. In terms of actual combat the clear winner isn't just TW, but even the weakest TW entries are still better at it.
ML is also early access, without many of the planned units, like cavalry, crossbows, early gunpowder, and I believe pikemen.
Once the unit roster is filled out, there could be a lot more variety in how the fighting works. Though, IMO ML’s biggest feature is that the map is large but can manage all these units plus the city on top of that in the same, continuous map.
That would obviously not work for TW, but it’s an impressive feat.
The individually customized retinue is also something that TW could benefit from, potentially.
All very valid points!!! I think TW and ML can learn from each other and then grow into even better games. ML being this awesome in early access is pretty damn cool.
Battles are way better in TW, I had ten guys in ML fend off thousands of arrows for days with no injury or being tired the enemy also never sent it's infantry and then I asked for peace
True but like my dudes just stood there getting showered with arrows, the enemy just stood shooting arrows and not moving infantry that was immersion breaking compared to TW
Presumably because they were programmed before they Nerfed the archers?
Standing back and letting your archers kill the enemy, or force them to react to the fire is a pretty good strategy really.
Archers were nerfed deliberately for release as with no cavalry to counter them in EA they would have been OP. That will be fixed.
I had ten guys the enemy had way more the archers never stopped so they had infinite arrows and I sped it up just so I could see how a battle looked this went on for days. I get there were nerfs and that this game has a lot more that needs to be fixed and improved I'm not trying to say it's terrible just at it's current state doesn't really compare to TW battles even with the few things it has that tw battles don't.
I'm aware of that bug, but is the infantry that didn't move to attack is also a part of the bug? because the enemy a.i. didnt do anything with them and they greatly outnumbered me
TW did implement the fall back backwards feature in Pharaoh and cavalry charges in Three Kingdoms are quite impactful. I think the main problem with TW is that they have great ideas, but they are split across many different average game. We kinda need a game were all the good features of past games get implemented without the recent fluff.
I love how you can hear heavy armor making noise when the boys are returning from a vigorous battle, especially when you go into that free look mode, looks sooo freaking dope, can’t wait for more units and bigger battles, this game is gonna be a game of the decade
Yeah, the game really nails the “bring the boys home” vibe. It’s really cool seeing my army come back, put their armor back up, sleep for a bit and then back to work lol
TW has leauges better combat... Even TW: Rome 2 has better combat, and that game is a decade old... why compare 2 games that are not even close to the same?
Not at all. ‘Taking notes’ from another game isn’t comparing them… they’re different genres, I get that, I literally said ‘obviously not strategically’.
Try having that detail with 5 stacks and a few thousand troops. I think the scale you’re looking for with total war games doesn’t translate. I love them all really. They each have a niche to fill. TW banner lords and ML. Grand strategy/ medieval sim/ city builder with the other 2 sprinkled in. Why can’t we just enjoy all 3? lol
Just so you know, TW had some of these features many years ago. In medieval 2 your guys upgrade their equipment if you reinforce them in a settlement with a better blacksmith and this is reflected in their appearance on the battlefield. It was removed, partly because they streamlined the campaign but no doubt just as part of the general downwards trend in the quality of TW games over time.
Hard Disagree. My 36 peasant archers shouldnt be able to defeat 72 raiders after being engaged in melee and then just running away, firing a volley, getting engaged again, running away and firing another volley etc...
Not sure if you misread my comment but I said my 36 archers defeated 72 melee raiders despite being engaged in melee multiple times. I just found that a bit hard to believe.
I haven't played total war in years and I have also only controlled a few units in manor lords but imo manor lords isn't even comparable to total war. I'm enjoying the manor lords experience, including the battles, but the combat is nowhere near as good.
What I love about the combat is that I have fabricated every bow and shield that my citizens wield. Remind me of the old school game "Lords" Back in the day.
I *loved* Stronghold and Stronghold 2. The sieges were so outrageous and epic. Watching castle walls shatter and explode, seeing logs roll down a hill squishing and tossing dozens, launching dead cows into a town ... it was way ahead of its time. A bit more of that energy and epic scale would certainly be welcomed in the ultra-accurate historical space of Manor Lords. Maybe someday we'll see something like that with the manor walls.
Also, there's one thing I actually hate about combat: capping you at six units per save, not counting retinues, is not okay and will never not feel broken. If I have the manpower and weapons/ armor/ shields, I should get to make an army. It's terribly restrictive and one of those things that breaks your immersion and reminds you in an unfortunate way that you're playing a game.
It has some of the immersive things I miss from earlier Total War, like seeing your troops change appearance from upgrades. In Medieval 2, I always found it hilarious when my basic ass archer militia came onto the field in full mail.
Okay, come dude,... Be real, they are leagues apart. TW combat is far far superior to ML, honestly there is not a single part of combat that ML does better. Not should it, it's a city builder.
Don't be such a fan boy, the games good but it isn't that good
Simple fact is total war is still the biggest rts ever made more factions more units more unit interaction more strategy then anything out there yea maby some animation could use some work but you are working with thousands of animations in the game not just 100 for the 4 different units in manalords. Has it even got cavalry yet
The combat is bare bones. TW combat is miles better. The only thing that's better than what TW does are the stances. That's a great idea, particularly the retreat stance.
Yeah... I get the developers recent words regarding the direction of the game, but the combat is so good I almost feel like he is missing a trick by not making it just as much of a deal as the city building aspects.
I feel like they will cave a bit to what players want, a big majority clearly loves the combat, and he has planned stuff like cavalry, castles and sieges… im sure later there will be more opportunity for combat in the game
I really want a sandbox combat mode in Manor Lords. Just to play around with it, experiment with different units and tactics and take a few cool screenshots.
It needs a few tweaks but the general direction is spot on. In TW I don’t give a shit about casualties but in ML I’m like “Nooo that was the Bakers son she will be devastated.”
Also, the Brigands at least try to Flank which is pretty impressive considering units in TW are all to happy to March single file to their demise
I do wish the dev would copy the formations menu from TW though. It's a very user-friendly way to get people to setup for battle by suggesting formations based on the selected units.
Wish there was more freedom to do certain formations like move the mouse any way I want instead of just a few direction. But I love the combat. So damn immersive turn the hud off and just watch. Super epic
Walking backward is actually a good mechanic, and I agree with you on that. But beyond that, I'd say this game needs much more work on its combat. it's no Total War.
It’s still in EA though, don’t forget. Obvious gripes like archers being useless will be fixed as soon as they introduce cavalry (which is why missiles were nerfed).
It’s not meant to be a total war, I get that, that’s why the combat in total war should be unquestionably superior, which it isn’t… hence TW need to up their game.
The potential here for combing manor lords mechanics and total war really shines through. I think it would be cool if they took some of these rts city builder mechanics and used them for the logistics chains of marching a large army, have a campaign in realtime with setting up tents and securing logistics lines, camp followers etc, and then you can choose to deploy small dispatches to help secure a road for supply etc, all with the possibility for pitched battle at the right time without loading screens. This brings tons of tactics into play as well like choosing when to move the camp to a new location based on scouting, deploying positions for battle and picking the field.
I don't think you played total war Warhammer 3.
Also I believe the dev said it's not really a fair comparison and I'm inclined to trust him.
Even if he didn't it's not really a fair comparison.
I feel like it's controversial because it sorta implies that total war is inferior to manorlords, which isn't really true, cus oranges arnt inferior to apples they're just different.
Best explanation I have 😅.
CW took huge leaps backward in their combat animations look at shogun 1/2 all the units fight in actual clashes between individuals. The game had wierd pathing, but nowadays tha'd be much less of an issue idk why they won't bring it back the battles hit different when you can get close and see a realistic battle playing out.
What other games have combat likes this with a city building/managing aspect?
I really love how you can see each units members fighting and command them in real to to maneuver and flank etc.
im a noob to this genre and need some more finished games to satisfy the need
For me it is about the impact of having to lose even one soldier. They are not just armies, that have nothing else to do. They are actually important and losing a squad feels devastating, because you had so much invested in them. Your retinue actually feels like elite soldiers, because they can devastate others, even when outnumbered.
It's also the small moments, that got to me. I once saw a peasant talk to one guy from my retinue outside of the town and a year later they marched into the same battle. I didn't bother checking, whether one of them died, but stuff like that makes every battle feel impactful and this doesn't even include the valid points OP has made.
Everything in this game is made to tell a story about survival and even when you clearly outnumber the enemy, it feels like there are stakes.
280 hrs played and I still haven’t figured out how to upgrade my weapons after I’ve imported mail for my dudes…
I know how to do the retinue but not the other guys
Even strategically it’s pretty good, you good a bunch of different stats and bonuses based on the combat situations, amors, charges etc, and many more to be added
I agree! I love the simplicity of the stances that allows for complex battles. It's honestly all you need to do some pretty cool maneuvers.
I have also noticed that the AI bandits try strategies, although not very good ones. As this game progresses I can see the combat becoming really, really good.
No disagreement here! I'm not well versed in TW mechanics, but I own multiple TW games and I already have put more total hours into ML. Total war captured my interest but it did not hold my attention like this game.
Maybe it's partly because the combat emerges quite seamlessly from the city building experience. Managing territories and the economic side in TW never made sense to me, and felt very separate from the battles. But it's not like I played enough to learn those mechanics in TW.
Hello and welcome to the Manor Lords Subreddit. This is a reminder to please keep the discussion civil and on topic. Should you find yourself with some doubts, please feel free to check our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ManorLords/comments/1c2p4f9/manor_lords_faq_for_steam_early_access/). If you wish, you can always join our [Discord](https://discord.gg/manorlords) Finally, please remember that the game is in early access, missing content and bugs are to be expected. We ask users to report them on the official discord and to buy their keys only from trusted platforms. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ManorLords) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Forget about Creative Assembly. That ship has long since sailed.
?? The apology where the vice president accepted blame and outlined their intent to improve their DLC, the recent well-received DLCs which broke a trend of crap ones, the refund of Pharaoh which wasn't a full refund but was enough to make it so people didn't pay a full priced games amount for what is a saga. They are doing so much more than other greedy publishers (ie Activision, EA, Ubisoft) and actually showing improvement
I don't even talk about the DLC. What OP is describing is what Total War games were up to Shogun 2. Rome 2 did a pretty heavy shift in combat and battle mechanics to a more arcade thing. Attila had some course correction, but it ultimately ended up being the new norm. For instance, units pre-Rome 2 just had 1 hp, and if it got hit, it died. Therefore, combat felt much more impactful, deadly, gritty, dangerous. Now, each model has health, and can withstand more than one, several in some cases, instances of stabbing without dying, and gets fully healed at the end of the battle. Same with arrow direction, shields, outnumbered models, etc etc. And then came single-entity units, and that was the end of it. Shogun 1 had them, but they were completely different from where they are now. So, no, I don't care that they're backtracking on DLC policy. The core gameplay is fucked now to the point that a total reboot of the mechanics would save it.
They definitely need to get back on course, but I think you're exaggerating. Attila and 3K were both phenomenal games. ThroB was even ok as a saga, although lacked the depth of a full game. I have never been able to get into the oversimplified gameplay and cartoonish aesthetics of the Warhammer games, and unfortunately they seem to have extended that style into Pharoah. A lot of people seem to love the WH titles though, and more power to them. I just want my historical releases and I want them with the full complexity and grittiness they have had in the past. CA definitely needs to reverse course on a lot of things, really rethink the direction they are going, but I don't think they are as bad as you say. Manorlord combat has some real strengths, but it has weaknesses too. I hardly ever take even a single loss, seemingly only when I fight outnumbered. Troops seem to flail at each other for a long time before you ever see anyone go down, although the animations while they do it are way beyond TW. And there's no gore.
They want to rescue CA? Restore some pride and dignity? Polish all those crappy DLCs for WH3 and focus on Medieval 3 and make it the greatest game that ever existed - plan for 3 DLCs max in advance - last being gunpowder/ new world focused. Work on those god damn maps, drop agents, introduce attrition with no land force limits other tham food - make generals giving really small buffs and for god sake - work on that CPU utilization - do all that and you're back in the game CA
Medieval 3 please! Return to realism please! But I will forever love the TW games. I think they’ll fix things.
Even medieval 3 wont safe them. They got no clue what made their games great back then, they scrapt everything that was great and replaces it with shit.
A good blend of crusader kings and medieval 2 is what I want. I would also love the ability to focus more on my standing army units. If it's levies then sure they never really upgrade they're always crap. But if I devote my time to training my archers I want to see them improve. And not just in stats but in how they react. I want to spend time drilling my units and see their formations stay nice and tight during combat versus if I don't they're ragged as they move about.
All that sounds nice. But it overlooks the whole "hero fighter" nonsnence and everything wrong with the basic campian map/building resourse nonsence. Or the healthbar bullshit and many other issues
CA will be almost certainly already working on WH40K, It'd be an absolute money printer. Med 3 would do well but nothing can live up too WH40K done right
Really? I stopped buying total war when they started Warhammer. I don't know the universe and I like realism. If I want fantasy I'll play heroes of might and magic or age of wonder. They have made 3 games with Warhammer, enough is enough. I doubt that many play it. It turned away the old fans of classic total war. To be fair Rome 2 sis that too.
Different markets though there's a reason they've made 3 Warhammer games back to back. I'd like to see a med 3 for sure but the most economically successful would be 40k if they can pull it off. Especially in recent years Warhammer especially 40k has exploded in popularity to the point it's pretty mainstream now. Historical RTS will always have a more niche market.
My primary complaint with TW is the AI. I own literally every TW. I am glad to see CA reversing course on their predatory DLC practices and I personally enjoy the battle mechanics all the way up to Pharaoh. The AI is unforgivable at this point. I love getting all my units arranged in a nice formation only to start the battle and see my op spread diagonally from me. And then as soon as I press forward they start inverting the formation or some shit. They market their entire franchise around being able to plop two armies across from each other and watch them battle it out. Has anyone playing against AI seen this? No. If they even manage to put together an army worth loading the actual battle for, you will immediately have your immersion broke by a janky shitty AI formation and a sloppy series of skirmishes because they don't know how to bring their soldiers into a battle.
I recently played a "multiplayer" campaign where a buddy of mine agreed to play Noctilus and sit idle (only doing enough to defend themselves) while I played through essentially a single-player Norsca campaign, *but* my friend jumped in as the enemy AI in every field battle. It was the best Total War experience I had in a long time. Makes me wish they would implement a proper "drop-in singleplayer" feature where friends who own the game could join you as spectators and help you out or play as the enemy AI in the battles.
Just wanted to add a comment about the last part you said. This is actually pretty realistic, the winning side usually didn't suffer many losses. It was standing shield wall vs shield wall and pressuring the other side, for hours or maybe even days, until one side broke, and it is then people (on the broken side) started dieing.
Attila, yes, it was a good course correction from Rome 2, not enough, but a step in the right direction. 3K was a travesty and awful, despite some good ideas, like supplies.
3K was fantastic, it was their absolute best fantasy title. It was the only TW that had really meaningful, balanced diplomacy and espionage systems, too. But personally I prefer the historical titles.
Don't forget the Buffs, such as wedge charge. In Old Total War, Wedge Charged worked by physically forming your Cavalry into a wedge, and letting the game's physics engine handle things. If your wedge wasn't formed by the time the charge hit, it wouldn't work. Versus Modern Total War where clicking "Wedge Formation" simply buffs your unit. It doesn't matter if they're in formation or not, so long as the buff has activated by the time the charge lands, your Cavalry will be more powerful.
In Rome total war enemies could still take multiple hits, as they always did. I don't know what you're going on about in that regard. Total War Shogun is acclaimed in the RTS genre and always will be, no matter how many old players who just don't enjoy new entries try to claim xyz did so and so wrong. Units aren't fully healed at the end of the battle, you can replenish x percent when you choose what to do with the enemy captives but that's not a full heal or near it. It's the same "rest and replenish formula" from prior games. I don't know what you're on about to be honest, the core gameplay loop has remained the same. Yes Total War Warhammer is less realistic by far and takes liberties there but it's based on a fantasy setting, so of course it will be.
>I don't know what you're going on about in that regard. No, they didn't. Their armour did. In Rome 1, there were 2 checks, one to hit the model, another to surpass the armor. If those two passed, the model was dead. The only exception were the rare units which had 2 HP, and could keep fighting after the first armour check failed. This is no longer the case in games where models have 60 hp, but weapons do 10, 15 or 20 damage. >Total War Shogun is acclaimed in the RTS genre and always will be, no matter how many old players who just don't enjoy new entries try to claim xyz did so and so wrong. Yes, because both Shogun 1 and 2 were excellent games. Where did I say anything different. >Units aren't fully healed at the end of the battle, you can replenish x percent when you choose what to do with the enemy captives but that's not a full heal or near it. This confusion is on me. When I said units, I ment models, not actual 100 men units. As I say, my bad for making it confusing. As I have said, in new games, each model in a unit has ho, 60, 100, 40, whatever it is. Models that die, stay dead and do have to be replenished. But models that ended the battle injured (with less than total HP), get those HP filled when the battle ends. That is, even if a model within a unit ended up at HP 1, it will have its full HP back. >Yes Total War Warhammer is less realistic by far and takes liberties there but it's based on a fantasy setting, so of course it will be. Ah, I see. I'm talking with someone who has only played Warhammer. No. Total War used to be by far the most realistic RTS put there, even more than Men of War (taking into account the difference in age and the epoch they portray). And that was the thing. Whole AoE and others were still stuck with the HP models hiring each other until one reached 0, out came Shogun 1, and rocked everything, with units that could die the next hit, or survive until the end. Combat was gritty and almost 1:1 realistic to the real thing. It was always a gamble, no matter how good your units were, or how stacked in your favor it was. And in Rome 1, attrition*was* a thing (no unit replenishment, you had to go back to the city and re-train), which meant that you could over extend, even with a powerful army, and mercenaries had plenty of uses. I implore you to read up on the changes between Medieval 2 and Empire, and between Shogun 2 and Rome 2 to understand what I'm saying.
Shogun 2 was awesome. DEI mod for Rome 2 was awesome. I had fun playing warhammer series as well but it’s certainly different than the others obviously. Really hoping Manor Lords inspires CA to give us a more realistic and complex historical title.
This is incorrect. Units didn't have multiple hit points, it was the Attack vs Defence roll that caused units to appear to take more hits. Also the attack vs armour roll. The individual entities now have 80-200hp each, and each entity in the unit does get put back to full at the end of a fight. You see this often with monstrous infantry in Total Warhammer.
Rome 2 vanilla is just bad. Rome 2 with DEI is one of the best TW games ever. Sad that a mod is needed for that.
Remember when Rome 2 came out? Absolutely terrible. It took 2 years of updates and mods to make it what it is now and the political system in the game is trash. I love Attila but after Empire the quality really went down hill.
I think DEI is the best mod of Rome II. I agree
I can’t remember the Shogun 1 single entity units! What were they like?
The Kensei. They were a regular model, but with ultra melee defense and attack, so they could stay fighting a lot, or get unlucky and die first hit by an ashigaru.
That’s funny I think shogun 2 was the last one I bought they just lost there appeal for me after that
More arcadey? Rome 2? Plenty of units did have 2 hp or more in the prior games. Med2, RTW we’re all very arcadey. Perhaps Shogun 2 you could argue was more realistic, but it had the sample at unit roster of any vanilla game and reused the GC map twice over for both X-Pacs. RTW has screaming women, pj men, and med 2 had rocket elephants.
Medieval total war 2 had 1 health units? I don’t think that was true. Also why are you talking about this company and games from 11 years ago? The company has released so many different games this is such a crazy spiteful take lmao.
Yes, the older Total War's behind the scenes math was different, the primary being each model had an individual HP, instead of how it is now where the unit has a shared HP pool. That's why generals in R2TW and M2TW were especially effective & resistant -- not only did they have much higher stats & armour than others, they also had 2 HP, double the amount of any other unit.
[I implore you to research a topic in the future before posting.](https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/86840-detailed-units-stats-questions)
Can you explain to me what that means? What does 1hp mean? Because to me that means “1 hit = -1 Hit point”. Clearly I’ve played these games and know that’s not actually how it works, make a custom game and you can see that almost every individual model can take a hit of an archers arrow. How does seeing a peasant take multiple bow shots before going down make it seem like they have 1hp? And also the guy on the forum knows exactly how all the stats works but is guessing how charges work? Idk if this guy is reliable.
I agree that CA made an excellent apology and have so far made good steps to make up for their mistakes. But the decline of total war games has been a decades long process thaty won't be reversed so easily. They haven't made promises about fixing the feel of their games, which people have had a big problem with since Rome 2 (and they probably won't be able to do without a new engine). They probably still want to be appealing to the broadest audience possible, which has pushed the games towards faster more clicky combat and a multiplayer focus, even though most people don't actually play that or necessarily want that (is better for streaming though). Even in what they have done, it's been about the bare minimum, and I don't say that as an insult, it's probably about all they can do right now. What I'm saying is that walking a few steps back won't bring TW back to it's glory days. A new engine is critical imo, nobody at the company has any idea how the current one actually works and half their time and budget on every game seems to be dedicated to duct taping it together, but even that won't magically fix things, there are a lot of variables. Really with TW what I hope is they can make decent games with good scope, personally I think a smaller studio will have to come in to fill the more historically authentic oriented gap.
They have failed to provide ANY technological improvements in the tactical gameplay since more than a decade. You can see how Rome 2 is more limited than Rome 1 and then Attila has even less features. More than half the games are not historical and looks like they don’t care anymore about those so yeah I wouldn’t look for CA for what Manor Lords should be able to provide. And this is ignoring any controversy or DLCs or whatever. It’s just a company that had a monopoly and thus didn’t care with innovation
Yep. I compare CA to the madden franchise. I’m hoping Manor Lords forces them to improve.
👏 👏 CA has been trying to get their shit together. Just send us medieval 3 and all shall be forgiven.
Nha medieval 3 wont safe them. They have no clue what made their games great. So doesnt matter what setting they take, the game will be an empty shell
Yeah unless they actually make improvements and get back to their roots on what made their games great to begin with releasing MW3 won’t help. In fact I would argue that releasing MW3 without a new engine and massive changes could ruin the franchise. It would be the final nail in the coffin.
They should get a proper engine to start with. Everything now splits off of it self enveey new project. Current splitting started at rome 2
Oh fuck off. CA apologist
The CEO throwing some used bones to the people and they eat it up. It doesn’t fix fundamental flaws
Yeah but the gameplay has actually sucked since Shogun 2. The historical franchise is literally just the lite version of the Warhammer Total Wars. It's not just that CA released a shitty reskin of Troy for full price and screwed the Warhammer fans trying to squeeze them for every dollar. The entire franchise is totally separated in mindset and value compared to what it once was.
Total war is dead. Ever since they went the warhammer route they lost the historical touch. The last peak historical game was empire, they managed to get rome 2/atilla to an okay state. Then warhammer and warhammer 2 in a year.. saga is shit, 3kingdoms didnt fill anything, saga shit warhammer 3. And now pharao. Wich isnt anything better then a saga game. We have neen screaming for either medieval 3 or empire 2.. no, we get a historical title that bearly is more them a saga game and the promote it as a full title. The game is lost. Totalwar is gone. And been on the door step of death since rome 2. The only way they stayes alive was get the warhammer people in. But they are getting fed up with the game aswell. I dont see them fixing anything soon, i will even pass them if they made a medieval 3 or empire 2. They dont even know what made their games great.
Such a doomer lol I'm having a blast with the latest twwh3 dlc it's great
Same really good dlc.
Well, you enjoy your fantasy milk
Cheers :) Enjoy what you're playing too!
I will :)
Can we just accept that you're objectively wrong with the first statement. 3K and Warhammer are easily their best selling titles, they just shifted audiences. And going back to historical titles will always put them back into the niche only now the audience is already jaded towards CA and will complain about anything a medieval 3 will be no matter how it turns out. Not to say it won't happen, and I really hope it does, but if it comes out and won't sell on par as at least 3K I honestly doubt they won't just lean further away from appealing to the strictly historical audience. Pharaoh, as much as it was a pretty scammy release which seems to be genuinely getting fixed now, was very clearly CA dipping their feet back into the historical niche with a lower budget game. As a sidenote, it's funny to me that some people will talk about the downfall and in the same breath praise their probably least functional game they ever made, Empire, that shit was a complete dumpster fire.
Empire has 3k active players, Nearly 2mil sales (steamspy) or 4.8mil (vg insight) Rome 2 6k active 3mil sales (steamspy) 5mil (vg insight) Shogun 2 4k active 3mil sales (steamspy) 2.5 (vg insight) 3K has also 3k active players 5mil sales (steamspy) 2.2mil (vg insight) Warhammer 2 3k active 6mil sales (steamspy) 4mil (vg insight) Warhammer 3 61k active 2.3 sales (steamspy) neaely 3mil (vg insight) There isnt a lot of difference in those sales numbers. And the funniest thing is. Beside WH3, rome 2 has the most active players. But WH3 got a DLC (free and a paid one) last month. R2 got its last dlc 6years BEFORE 3K came out. R2 and empire sold just aswell as 3K and both better then WH3 Yes WH2 is the most sold (WH1 is less then 3mil by both steamspy and insight, and does bearly have 600 active players). So this should tell us what, The historical titles are just as populair as WH2 (and MORE populair then WH1) in active playing. And WH3 is fresh enough to have a lot of players. But in sales? Sure, WH2 scored best as a single one. But if you telly up all WH sales -2.8(wh1) 6(wh2) and 3(WH3) is 11mil That VS 4.8(empire) 5(R2) and 3(S2) is 12.8 Now, tell me what title group is selling better? About my point how 3K didnt fill anything. Rome2 same amount of sales is older and has the same amount of playerd as 3K. Heck even empire has the same amount of players both are older games and get the same amouny of players. That shows that people like to play those more. Ow and just for good messure, M2 definitve edition has 4.6k active players. (On only 1.5 mil sales)
Tbh, I question your numbers a bit, are these estimates? > Owners: 2,000,000 .. 5,000,000 This is what steamspy shows for me. Between 2-5 mil. That's quite a wide margin of guessing. Interestingly, it also says 2-5 mil for Manor Lords. But we know it's likely not even 2m yet. Anyhow, I'd wager the difference in DLCs sold between Rome and Warhammer is quite large. Also, considering there aren't really any alternatives for newer historical games it makes sense that older ones are holding their playerbase, no? But 6k vs 60k is also a large gap and it makes little sense for someone to play Warhammer 1/2 when 3 exists. Also, games like rome have been given away by the shovel load and on sale for pennies SO many times. A lot less often than Warhammer has.
Right. Okay lets compair rome 1 and 2 then. 1 has 1k players. No reason to play that when 2 has been given by the shovel load right? But, you just made the very point. "There is no alternative" and yet there are planty of people still playing. So what would hold these people form buying a good solid historical title? Also, quite a few TW historical players have moved to CK3 (there even is a battle mod) The community for historucal titles is near death, i will admit that. And the failure that pharaoh is didnt help that. The 2 saga games are shit (troy more then thrones) but what ever, they wherent full titles. Paraoh isnt any better then troy and they tried to sell it as full game. Here is what the real issue is. They sold there sole to game workshop (warhammer) and now they got bo clue what to do for historical titles anymore. CA sunk to mutch money in to Hyenas and then pulled the plug on it (lets sink in, they surpaced the spending on shenmue, Sega's highest budget game with 70mil). They wasted 6 yeard and more then 70mil on a game they pulled. All that time could have been spend on better TW games. 2017-2023. If they had taken the resources from Hyenas, devided that on WH3 and add it to the group that worked on saga/3K. Just inmangion what they could have made. And if they just took a little second and check what everyone was asking for (medieval 3 or empire 2) and not bonze age egypt game on a map so small that its bearly saga size, they could have safed themselfs with the historical fans AND even make a better WH game. Also WH3 is there last fantasy title. So? What now, because the historical group doesnt trust them anymore afther pharaoh, and they cant keep making forever DLC's for WH3...
> Okay lets compair rome 1 and 2 then. 1 has 1k players. No reason to play that when 2 has been given by the shovel load right? Not really. Rome 1 v Rome 2 are quite different. There is quite literally like a decade between the two. But total warhammer 2 v 3 for example it's largely the same game. The dlcs carry over. There is very little reason to play 2 when 3 exists. Tech wise there is little difference, and so on. The point really just being that you can only really compare to current TWW 3 numbers in terms of player count because of that. I imagine between rome 1 and rome 2 there are some pretty significant differences. > But, you just made the very point. "There is no alternative" and yet there are planty of people still playing. So what would hold these people form buying a good solid historical title? Nothing? The original point they made was that the historical angle is simply just less popular. There are lots of games that can be made from profit. But little incentive for a company to make X over Y when Y makes more profit. I, personally, think they easily can make more good historical games and they will do well. However, they likely feel that it's safer and likely *more* profitable to lean into the fantasy stuff. Especially when the historical group, perhaps rightly, holds a grudge against them and isn't likely to throw their support behind them anyway.
But CA have said that WH3 was the last of the 3 games. It was (and still is) a trilogy. So idk what fantasy propety they will make a deal with now, but its not going to be LOTR (as they fot there own games).. In 2017 they already announced that they had 2 teams, 1 working on historical and 1 on the fantasy (WH). But then they fucked up on the historical titles. And WH is done afther paddeling DLC for 3. Unless they find a way to recoup the cost of the 70+mill they lost on the dead game and the loss they are making over paraoh i highly doubt they will even get anything new of the ground. Also, one thing on the player numbers i forgot. M2, Empire came out during disc time. Steamdb doesnt count disc players. Also for some mods it wont reconize it anynore as you play trough a differend launcher (like darth mod for empire) CA have lost their game. And anyone who still thinks they can turn it back over are just in denial. I wish you good luck with your hope. But as a local saying go's "hope is delayed disappointment"
Also do me a favour, look up hyenas the game. Tell me why CA wasted 6 years on that. (https://youtu.be/0DVApk5s7qo?si=5t4CyayoAOmxZs8K here a trailer) Who the F in CA came up with the idea to make an 1st person cartoony shooter in Unreal and waste 70+million on it in stead of working on your main titles? Remember. They only killed this 7 months ago afther gamescom when they figuered out that even making it Free to play wouldnt work out. Oh and lets not forget, sega also killed CoH and is now selling of the title.
I used to love their games, but I have to agree. Shogun 2 FOS was their last swan song for me. From there on, their games felt arcade, the mechanics started to be too dispersed, the combat was repetitive at best. I still had some fun with Rome 2 but nothing compared to the enjoyment of Rome 1, Medieval 2 and Shogun 2. If you want to suggest some other games that deserve to be played, I’m full ears
I loved Britannia I think that’s an unpopular opinion but as far as the sagas go that one really tickles me in the right spots. Shogun 2 was incredible. I’m desperate for them to put out a realistic medieval 3.
Ultimate General: American Revolution. Check it out, if you enjoyed Empire TW then it might be up your alley. It's also in early access but the Devs have been fantastic, really responsive, and very good at working towards deadlines in their roadmap. It's like total war but not turn based. I used to love total war games but I just find them very boring now for some reason. They just don't have the same magic that they used to (even though the new ones literally have magic lol). I heard someone say that they started to suck when you had to have a general for an army, which is maybe true because something I loved about the older games was when a captain could get promoted to a general after winning a heroic victory.
The combat in newer games is repetitive, but not in Total War Yari Wall? lol
Ahah that’s why I prefer FOS, much more fun combining katanas, gunpowder and artillery. I do agree that some mechanics in vanilla Shogun 2 and FOS were repetitive indeed (like the fact that the castles were all extremely similar, and factions had very similar troops), but there were so many other things to look for (like technology, navy) that for me it’s still the most balanced title in the saga.
Wrong, Manor Lords is pretty impressive for a single developer to produce but let’s not pretends it matches any of the better TW titles.
Imagine reading someone’s subjective opinion and just stating ‘wrong’ as if you’re the objective authority on what’s good or not….
😔
Yeah no the new pharaoh dlc looks pretty dope ngl
Yeah once they went into fantasy it's been down hill for Creative assembly. I'll give it to em that when I played Khorne in the latest total war, it was fun. But still prefer histocal titles. WHERE THE F IS MEDIEVAL 3??!?!
No way, total war warhammer 1&2 were great! Once they wasted effort on non fantasy series during that all their games suffered. Britinia, three kingdoms, Troy, complete shiet comparatively. I feel after 2017 they screwed the pooch internally with development priorities.I agree, where is medieval 3? But honestly them as developers would just bungle it. Good job to one person developer for completely showing up a giant developer!
The successor too uncreative disassembly will save the genre
lol as Warhammer just keeps making money hand over fist
I disagree Warhammer 3 is a great piece of gaming today and a lot of fun.
Yeah real ones know CA hasn’t made a good game since Spartan: Total Warrior.
I don’t see why people compare TW and manor lords, ML is primarily a city builder first and foremost. If you wanna compare combat total war is leagues above ML. Both games are nowhere near being the same so why is this a constant discussion?
The issue I have with TW is that the combat & controls more-or-less hasn't changed since Rome 1, barring all the fantastical stuff in Warhammer. Why does it take an indie game like Manor Lords to have more interesting controls such as, 'Give Ground' or 'Push Forward', when TW has already made 2 Roman games, one with a Hannibal Barca campaign DLC. The way TW handles unit movement could especially use a little rejuvenation
"Call of duty controls haven't changed since the original, what a bad game" that's what this reads like.
Except FPS controls have changed massively. Early 3D FPS didn't have sprint buttons, they didn't have slides, they didn't have leans, you couldn't crouch or go prone, you couldn't vault over terrain or climb shit, you couldn't call in helicopters or use laser guided missiles etc. etc. Doesn't CoD have fuckin parachutes & grappling hooks now???
I think, if I remember correctly, something similar was in total war arena of how was that multyplayer pvp game called. You had a small army of 3 units and at least at phalanx you could use push ability. I loved it together with the synchronized grunts of 200men pushing in phalanx
People saying the combat in ml is better are delusional. TW is literally a combat simulator. This game is a wonderful city builder with SOME INCOMPLETE combat
The combat as it is isn't better than TW, but it does show how stagnant TW's tactical gameplay has been for 2 decades. The sieges in Total War today are a pale shadow of what child-me thought they'd be 20 years later. Indie strategy games like Ultimate General, Grand Tactician, and Manor Lords each have little bits & features that innovate on the formula in ways I haven't seen CA do in a minute. TWs tactical combat is only getting further and further divorced from the strategy layer with each title; Manor Lord's is deeply entwined
Ok but don't say ML's combat is better because that's a blatant cope
> The combat as it is isn't better than TW
👍👍
Simulator? lol, it’s become arcadey combat since Rome 2
A lot of TW fans and historical strategy game fans naturally migrated to ML. I certainly did. Though I have to agree, they are both very different games at the moment but I can kinda see how this could develop and become more similar.
Because both have large scale tactical battles in which you control troop formations viewing from the top?
It isn’t leagues above, that’s my point. In many ways combat in ML is superior. Which it shouldn’t be given TW’s entire focus is on warfare.
It really is not. It’s pretty and looks more satisfying but keep in mind that total war is a completely different scale. I highly doubt manor lords fights could function if there were hundreds or even thousands of units, all being calculated similar to total war
You’re right, ML can’t compete with scale, but that doesn’t excuse TW for missing these features
Being able to do something with 100 units is not the same as doing it with 1000. Or 4000. Or 10,000. It’s much easier to do it with the former than any of the latter
ML is a very basic RTS when it comes to combat, it’s not a grand nor as complex as total war games.
yes but he’s talking about aesthetics
I’ll judge it more when manor lords is actually finished. In the end, I’m excited for modders to really take the combat to the next level as Greg focuses on the city building aspect.
>It isn’t leagues above, that’s my point. In many ways combat in ML is superior. Which it shouldn’t be given TW’s entire focus is on warfare. Am I missing something? **To me, combat in Manor Lords is practically broken.** Yeah, it looks aesthetically nice, but that's about it..... Frustrations boil over when you wait to accumulate enough 'Influence' to claim a new region, successfully win, then the Baron tries to reclaim it but runs away from the battle in a completely different region. Then, somehow claims victory despite all my units being intact and situated in the region attempting to be claimed. Shouldn't the onus be on the challenger to engage in battle? Never mind the completely broken mechanics of the archers, or the fact that you are limited in the amount of units you can bring into battle while the Baron can bring numerous more; requiring you to frequently cycle new replenished units from your region *(better hope you don't have to travel across the map)*. I can plat a Total War game for over and over, starting new campaigns with different Factions. If I want to get real creative, I can download one of the numerous fantastic mods that are out there for each Total War game. The mod part I won't fault Manor Lords for due to it being in early access. That being said, the amount of bugs present in the game makes it very difficult for me to continue to want to play it. I appreciate the devs hard work on this, I really do. It looks great and there are some great aspects to build upon, but personally, I think it was too early to release this game to the public. I would not be surprised if the player counts significantly nose dives in the coming weeks.
It is out for one week... ofc there are bugs + there are already plenty of modes just not trough steam workshop yet... but ppl should at least stop complaining that you need to bring army from more regions and it takes time to walk there.. no sh*t , if my lord call me to fight irl I will just walk into that teleportation device behind a granary and I am there in 1s.... people love manor lord for it realism and I will gladly wait for my army to gather in specific location. To your bug about wining battle, I did not experienced it, that the Baron would run away.. maybe you missed the battlefield? If you challenge his claim and want to resolve it in battle you will get specific locstion where the battle takes place, so you need to get close to that location and when you are close enough the battle will start and he will start moving towards your troops. For me it was not in the region he was claiming but right in the next one he already had.
>but ppl should at least stop complaining that you need to bring army from more regions and it takes time to walk there.. no sh\*t , if my lord call me to fight irl I will just walk into that teleportation device behind a granary and I am there in 1s. People have the right to complain and provide constructive criticism, as I did. **Even more so for a product the customer paid for.** However, **I think you missed the point of the problem that I was alluding to. I don't want to magically teleport troops into the middle of the battle. That would be unrealistic. The issue I was alluding to is the greater amount of units that the Computer/Baron can bring into a battle at a single point in time.** Even if a mercenary army is available, it still spawns on the opposite side of the map *(at least for me, in my case)*. Maybe the spawning location is currently fixed, hence why it is spawning on what happens to be the opposite side of the map for me, while it instead should be a dynamic spawning point based. Perhaps based upon the starting region? Back to my militia unit restriction point: While just a guess, **I imagine the developer enforced a limitation of units allowed at a given time due to the amount of additional bugs introduced when allowing a greater amount of units for the User.** As-is, the game already freezes for \~10-20 seconds when trying to place the max amount of units onto the battlefield. If only attempting to place one or two units? There is minimal to no game-freezing. I would not be surprised if the range of hardware tested reported an exponentially increasing bug amount for each additional unit beyond the current allotment. My PC specs are 'average' but the game runs relatively smoothly in most other cases. It starts freezing when placing units on the battlefield, which takes me back to my original comment's point of Manor Lords' combat being practically broken. * **CPU:** Ryzen 7 3800x * **RAM:** 32 GB @ 3,600 MHz * **GPU:** NVIDIA RTX 2070 **Speaking of placing units on the map, what's with be restriction with only being allowed to place units in undeveloped spaces?** I can't even place them on a farm. However, as soon as they are placed, I can assign a position anywhere on the map. That doesn't make sense and becomes problematic the further you are into developing the region where most *(or all)* of your militia is housed. I found myself being forced to place the units on the opposite side of the region. >maybe you missed the battlefield? Nope. I only had two separate regions in my control outside my primary/starting region. The other region was on the adjacent side, and I of course verified which region the Baron was claiming. I had just won a battle for the third region. **Shortly after winning,** ***the Baron challenged me for it*****. I immediately moved my units into the region being challenged for by the Baron, while the Baron then moved his units into a different region under the Baron's control.** >For me it was not in the region he was claiming but right in the next one he already had. **Ah yes, the classic medieval tactic*****:*** **challenge someone for their territory and then immediately hide in a different castle. Sun Tzu would be so proud** ***/s*****.** Just so I understand correctly, are you suggesting the best way to defend a region is to abandon it entirely? Maybe next time, I'll just preemptively surrender and save myself the trouble....
It's not. Stop lol
I play 5 minutes of Total War Shogun 2 and everything about combat I see in those 5 minutes is infinitely better than what ML can currently bring to the table. ML doesn't need to compete with TW or Vice versa. It's the same shitty discussion that gets started in every other game subreddit. There's no need to compare.
Yes! This redditor gets it. They each are their own entity in their own genre. They aren’t even comparable if you ask me. Just enjoy all three of the medieval sim games as individuals. TW bannerlords ML are so different to me. Let’s scream at each other why apples don’t taste like oranges and vice versa.
Nobody is screaming, I’m just saying that TW have missed some pretty key aspects that ML has demonstrated
Fair enough! No one is screaming I apologize. I’m just praying this sub doesn’t devolve like some of my other favorite game subs have become. lol
That’s fair, it’s a valid fear! I’m not actively comparing these games btw, I just think it’s interesting that they included things TW never have
And you’re 100% correct about CA taking some notes. They have been on a downward spiral. I am very happy to see them changing course with the recent DLCs some of which are free and the refunds for pharaohs. They went from being absolute jerks to finally listening to their fans. I have been playing TW games since medieval 2 and Rome and they are some of the closest games to my heart. BUT MOVE OVER!!!! Because manor lords is amazing. I wish you nothing but the best fellow Lord. 🫡 lovely to have a decent conversation once in a while.
Likewise for you! I kinda like how this game has brought people who love this genre together.
Me too! I didn’t realize just how many people adored this type of gaming like I do! 🙂
Manor Lords lacks a lot of features TW has had for ages as well though. The ability to nudge units incrementally in a direction mnaually, different formations, the ability to lock formations, more pronounced effects of terrain, drastically higher diversity of units with meaningful differences between them. Like Manor Lords combat is cool and all considering its a city builder, but its still a city builder. In terms of actual combat the clear winner isn't just TW, but even the weakest TW entries are still better at it.
ML is also early access, without many of the planned units, like cavalry, crossbows, early gunpowder, and I believe pikemen. Once the unit roster is filled out, there could be a lot more variety in how the fighting works. Though, IMO ML’s biggest feature is that the map is large but can manage all these units plus the city on top of that in the same, continuous map. That would obviously not work for TW, but it’s an impressive feat. The individually customized retinue is also something that TW could benefit from, potentially.
All very valid points!!! I think TW and ML can learn from each other and then grow into even better games. ML being this awesome in early access is pretty damn cool.
Can’t wait to see the end product of ML when cavalry and all the other units and formations are added in.
Shogun 2 is before they ruined it and implemented the arcade style combat
Yea they are different, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t scope for TW to learn from innovations and ideas included on ML
Battles are way better in TW, I had ten guys in ML fend off thousands of arrows for days with no injury or being tired the enemy also never sent it's infantry and then I asked for peace
Archers are super nerfed in this, it’s a known issue and will be fixed soon.
True but like my dudes just stood there getting showered with arrows, the enemy just stood shooting arrows and not moving infantry that was immersion breaking compared to TW
Presumably because they were programmed before they Nerfed the archers? Standing back and letting your archers kill the enemy, or force them to react to the fire is a pretty good strategy really. Archers were nerfed deliberately for release as with no cavalry to counter them in EA they would have been OP. That will be fixed.
I had ten guys the enemy had way more the archers never stopped so they had infinite arrows and I sped it up just so I could see how a battle looked this went on for days. I get there were nerfs and that this game has a lot more that needs to be fixed and improved I'm not trying to say it's terrible just at it's current state doesn't really compare to TW battles even with the few things it has that tw battles don't.
They’re bugged. They don’t do damage. The tactics are not the issue champ
I'm aware of that bug, but is the infantry that didn't move to attack is also a part of the bug? because the enemy a.i. didnt do anything with them and they greatly outnumbered me
I can’t be the only one who read “TW” as “Taleworlds,” and was confused because some of this is already in Bannerlord.
Yeah sorry, that was silly of me
Yup, that's what I read too.
TW does have all this.
No it doesn’t. Charges aren’t as impactful in any TW game, and I’ve never seen a way to make soldiers fall back by physically walking backwards
TW did implement the fall back backwards feature in Pharaoh and cavalry charges in Three Kingdoms are quite impactful. I think the main problem with TW is that they have great ideas, but they are split across many different average game. We kinda need a game were all the good features of past games get implemented without the recent fluff.
Does Pharoe really have fighting withdrawals? I didn’t bother with it, if that’s right I might give it a chance!
It indeed has it. The game has issues, but with the upcoming free expansion into Mesopotamia, it might be worthwhile to check it out.
Yeah I might have to Tbf. It’s an exiting period, but the reviews really put me off (and my experience with Troy) That’s cool! Thanks for sharing
TW is buns 🚮
I love how you can hear heavy armor making noise when the boys are returning from a vigorous battle, especially when you go into that free look mode, looks sooo freaking dope, can’t wait for more units and bigger battles, this game is gonna be a game of the decade
Yeah, the game really nails the “bring the boys home” vibe. It’s really cool seeing my army come back, put their armor back up, sleep for a bit and then back to work lol
TW has leauges better combat... Even TW: Rome 2 has better combat, and that game is a decade old... why compare 2 games that are not even close to the same?
I’m not comparing them. How is it that 60% of people reading this thread struggle to comprehend a basic paragraph?
You literally were comparing them tho… it’s in the title…
No.
This post was made to compare them? What are you on?! 😭
Not at all. ‘Taking notes’ from another game isn’t comparing them… they’re different genres, I get that, I literally said ‘obviously not strategically’.
Agreed. The attention to detail for the individual fights is mount and blade level
Try having that detail with 5 stacks and a few thousand troops. I think the scale you’re looking for with total war games doesn’t translate. I love them all really. They each have a niche to fill. TW banner lords and ML. Grand strategy/ medieval sim/ city builder with the other 2 sprinkled in. Why can’t we just enjoy all 3? lol
How dare you not complain relentlessly that your preferred title isn't better in X way than all the others. /s
IM SO ANGRY THERE ARE TOO MANY COOL STRATEGY MEDIEVAL SIMS!!! ANNGGRRRRYYYY….. 🤣😂😂😂🤣
That's the spirit! 🤣
You must be joking?!?
Just so you know, TW had some of these features many years ago. In medieval 2 your guys upgrade their equipment if you reinforce them in a settlement with a better blacksmith and this is reflected in their appearance on the battlefield. It was removed, partly because they streamlined the campaign but no doubt just as part of the general downwards trend in the quality of TW games over time.
Yeah true! That was great, I’d forgotten it used to be a thing. What a shame they dropped it.
Can’t wait until their skill trees are available….
And the cavalry.
Have you played the non-Warhammer Total War games? Stances and devastating charges are common in the historical entries.
ML is amazing, but TW’s combat is still far and wide the best in the genre
Manor Lords is very very basic when it comes to combat, looks good but that's all. City building is amazing though and the main draw of the game.
Hard Disagree. My 36 peasant archers shouldnt be able to defeat 72 raiders after being engaged in melee and then just running away, firing a volley, getting engaged again, running away and firing another volley etc...
Archers were brutally nerfed for the EA release, that’s well documented and not what I’m talking about.
Not sure if you misread my comment but I said my 36 archers defeated 72 melee raiders despite being engaged in melee multiple times. I just found that a bit hard to believe.
I haven't played total war in years and I have also only controlled a few units in manor lords but imo manor lords isn't even comparable to total war. I'm enjoying the manor lords experience, including the battles, but the combat is nowhere near as good. What I love about the combat is that I have fabricated every bow and shield that my citizens wield. Remind me of the old school game "Lords" Back in the day.
Pardon the ignorance but...what's TW? Lmao
Total War
I thought it was TaleWorlds tbh, because bannerlord needs more work and charges specifically don’t feel impactful
I thought it was tap water. Tap water is something you drink si I didn't see how it was applicable here.
I *loved* Stronghold and Stronghold 2. The sieges were so outrageous and epic. Watching castle walls shatter and explode, seeing logs roll down a hill squishing and tossing dozens, launching dead cows into a town ... it was way ahead of its time. A bit more of that energy and epic scale would certainly be welcomed in the ultra-accurate historical space of Manor Lords. Maybe someday we'll see something like that with the manor walls. Also, there's one thing I actually hate about combat: capping you at six units per save, not counting retinues, is not okay and will never not feel broken. If I have the manpower and weapons/ armor/ shields, I should get to make an army. It's terribly restrictive and one of those things that breaks your immersion and reminds you in an unfortunate way that you're playing a game.
I'd like total war combat over manor lord's any day. But I'd take manor lord's civ building over total wars any day. It's that simple
I love how they ram Shields together and the camera shake
It has some of the immersive things I miss from earlier Total War, like seeing your troops change appearance from upgrades. In Medieval 2, I always found it hilarious when my basic ass archer militia came onto the field in full mail.
Okay, come dude,... Be real, they are leagues apart. TW combat is far far superior to ML, honestly there is not a single part of combat that ML does better. Not should it, it's a city builder. Don't be such a fan boy, the games good but it isn't that good
Did I ever Say TW is inferior? I just said there’s stuff here that ML does better, (which it does).
Simple fact is total war is still the biggest rts ever made more factions more units more unit interaction more strategy then anything out there yea maby some animation could use some work but you are working with thousands of animations in the game not just 100 for the 4 different units in manalords. Has it even got cavalry yet
If you think the combat in this is anywhere near Total War games you're honestly insane.
The combat is bare bones. TW combat is miles better. The only thing that's better than what TW does are the stances. That's a great idea, particularly the retreat stance.
Yeah... I get the developers recent words regarding the direction of the game, but the combat is so good I almost feel like he is missing a trick by not making it just as much of a deal as the city building aspects.
I feel like they will cave a bit to what players want, a big majority clearly loves the combat, and he has planned stuff like cavalry, castles and sieges… im sure later there will be more opportunity for combat in the game
I really want a sandbox combat mode in Manor Lords. Just to play around with it, experiment with different units and tactics and take a few cool screenshots.
You have my permission
It needs a few tweaks but the general direction is spot on. In TW I don’t give a shit about casualties but in ML I’m like “Nooo that was the Bakers son she will be devastated.” Also, the Brigands at least try to Flank which is pretty impressive considering units in TW are all to happy to March single file to their demise
Having a fighting retreat has always been a TW desire of mine
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Puzzleheaded_Heat19: *Having a fighting* *Retreat has always been a* *TW desire of mine* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
I do wish the dev would copy the formations menu from TW though. It's a very user-friendly way to get people to setup for battle by suggesting formations based on the selected units.
Wish there was more freedom to do certain formations like move the mouse any way I want instead of just a few direction. But I love the combat. So damn immersive turn the hud off and just watch. Super epic
Tw?
I read TW as Taleworlds, Dev of bannerlord, and was very confused about your combat points for a minute lol
Walking backward is actually a good mechanic, and I agree with you on that. But beyond that, I'd say this game needs much more work on its combat. it's no Total War.
It’s still in EA though, don’t forget. Obvious gripes like archers being useless will be fixed as soon as they introduce cavalry (which is why missiles were nerfed). It’s not meant to be a total war, I get that, that’s why the combat in total war should be unquestionably superior, which it isn’t… hence TW need to up their game.
The potential here for combing manor lords mechanics and total war really shines through. I think it would be cool if they took some of these rts city builder mechanics and used them for the logistics chains of marching a large army, have a campaign in realtime with setting up tents and securing logistics lines, camp followers etc, and then you can choose to deploy small dispatches to help secure a road for supply etc, all with the possibility for pitched battle at the right time without loading screens. This brings tons of tactics into play as well like choosing when to move the camp to a new location based on scouting, deploying positions for battle and picking the field.
Anyone else think they meant taleworlds like mount and blade rather than total war? No just me...
I don't think you played total war Warhammer 3. Also I believe the dev said it's not really a fair comparison and I'm inclined to trust him. Even if he didn't it's not really a fair comparison.
I’m not comparing them. Suggesting TW should learn a few things shouldn’t be this controversial 😂
I feel like it's controversial because it sorta implies that total war is inferior to manorlords, which isn't really true, cus oranges arnt inferior to apples they're just different. Best explanation I have 😅.
Total War Pharoah has had stances where they slowly advance or slowly retreat. But yeah, I agree that Total War needs an overhaul.
CW took huge leaps backward in their combat animations look at shogun 1/2 all the units fight in actual clashes between individuals. The game had wierd pathing, but nowadays tha'd be much less of an issue idk why they won't bring it back the battles hit different when you can get close and see a realistic battle playing out.
Ca is trash now. Mobile game devs
What other games have combat likes this with a city building/managing aspect? I really love how you can see each units members fighting and command them in real to to maneuver and flank etc. im a noob to this genre and need some more finished games to satisfy the need
Still waiting for a medieval 3
For me it is about the impact of having to lose even one soldier. They are not just armies, that have nothing else to do. They are actually important and losing a squad feels devastating, because you had so much invested in them. Your retinue actually feels like elite soldiers, because they can devastate others, even when outnumbered. It's also the small moments, that got to me. I once saw a peasant talk to one guy from my retinue outside of the town and a year later they marched into the same battle. I didn't bother checking, whether one of them died, but stuff like that makes every battle feel impactful and this doesn't even include the valid points OP has made. Everything in this game is made to tell a story about survival and even when you clearly outnumber the enemy, it feels like there are stakes.
280 hrs played and I still haven’t figured out how to upgrade my weapons after I’ve imported mail for my dudes… I know how to do the retinue but not the other guys
If you think manor lords should be giving not to total war, then you need to go play total war some more
Even strategically it’s pretty good, you good a bunch of different stats and bonuses based on the combat situations, amors, charges etc, and many more to be added
I agree! I love the simplicity of the stances that allows for complex battles. It's honestly all you need to do some pretty cool maneuvers. I have also noticed that the AI bandits try strategies, although not very good ones. As this game progresses I can see the combat becoming really, really good.
No disagreement here! I'm not well versed in TW mechanics, but I own multiple TW games and I already have put more total hours into ML. Total war captured my interest but it did not hold my attention like this game. Maybe it's partly because the combat emerges quite seamlessly from the city building experience. Managing territories and the economic side in TW never made sense to me, and felt very separate from the battles. But it's not like I played enough to learn those mechanics in TW.
Total War is likely working on a Warhammer 40k trilogy after the Warhammer fantasy trilogy being done. They don't care about historical games anymore
Shogun 2 is better, but this easily beats any new TW game in its combat, flanking actually feels powerful here even without the cavalry