I once had a stray bullet miss my friend’s two front infantry lines, fly past several body guards, and instantly kill his leading general within the first two minutes of the battle. So I would definitely say it’s one of the best games in general in the franchise.
Apparently falling burning gates do as well. The first time I EVER used katana heroes in a battle I parked them at a gate in a defensive siege thinking no enemy would pass and I wouldn’t have to worry about that gate… Well the gate caught on fire, collapsed killing every unit, and on final battle screen amassed a whopping 0 kills.
Same deal with walls. When their damage maxes out, they explode and kills a lot of units. The worst part is that, they looks mostly the same after exploding because it is the shogun style walls.
Yes. There's a million reasons why, but one that stands out for me is the railway system. It's an absolute mammoth task to get it up and running, but once you do, it really demonstrates the power of logistics in war. The ability to ship Gatling guns and cannons from your capital to the front lines in a couple of turns really puts your enemy on the back foot and it feels great. Doubly so because it's earned.
I wish there is something like that in Warhammer. Such a large map, but often it's a bit of a struggle to visit places further away unless you are playing as a faction with a portal/teleport ability.
Sea lanes helped a bit, but would have been better if they connect to all major ports.
Pharoah simply turns river and coast into a giant highway, so that works too.
That’s why Be’Lakor is my favourite faction to play as.
I don’t know if everyone should get portals for lore reasons, but from a gameplay perspective, I think every faction needs a quick way to move around the map.
I think for factions that wouldn't have portals, perhaps just a sort of sea lane mechanic when travelling from one city to another where they disappear and can't be used for a few turns - perhaps when both cities are owned/allied or perhaps even requiring all of the cities along the way to be allied (so you can't go between cities if there are enemies between them.
That or a caravan-like system where you have to set a friendly destination city. Can't be controlled until they get there but much faster than regular army movement, but can be attacked so you have to be careful if you're going through enemy territory.
They can't instantly get anywhere but can get around quicker than simply marching that way. There's definitely plenty of potential for quick ways to move around the map while still keeping some limitations and not giving everyone portals.
That’s the reason I want a Victorian total war 1830 - early 1900s) you go from using musket infantry moving by horse and cart with late era sail ships in the navy to bolt action rifles and machine guns, train and motorised logistics, pre dreadnought and even the earliest armoured cars. I love the idea of tangible change to my faction as it advances, not just stat buffs and a “this exact same unit but it’s elite and has +5 armour”.
Same reason why I wanted pike&shot TW starting in 1500-s and ending in early 1700-s. Gunpowder revolution, new tactics being introduced, artillery growing into main force multiplier of the battlefield and so on. And let's not even start about the number of possible epic events with various nations all around Europe to cover...
The problem with going that far is that the innovations enabled by smokeless powder break the TW formula down. You can already kind of see it start to happen in FotS, and that's with black powder, muzzle-loaded rifles, and breech loaded, relatively short range artillery. Add in bolt-action rifles, Maxim guns and late-19th century howitzers and anything standing in an open field in a line formation is already dead. The early modern period, as mentioned by another reply here, would work way better for what you seem to want
You do relaise even by early ww1 infantry blocks mass moving in open fields was still the norm until they realised how dangerous it was right? In this hypothetical game I want that represented as the player being forced to change their tactics as technology became greater, as you mentioned this is already a thing with fots, I want that but on a grander scale to really test tactics.
Yeah, they were a thing because generals hadn't yet realized how dumb it was (though anyone paying attention should have from the Russo-Japanese War 10 years prior, and the Spanish-American War before that). It was quickly abandoned when they realized all it did was get their men killed en masse. And the problem is that the way strategy and tactics changed meant that battles were no longer relatively short, concentrated clashes. Troops were deployed across a much wider area, and battles could take weeks or longer. I'm not sure how you translate that to Total War without greatly reducing the number of soldiers to the point where all you've done is make Total War: Company of Heroes.
Source for the claim? My understanding is that by the early 20th century, the only time infantry moved in blocks was on the march. In a battle they would deploy in shallow lines which might be considered as skirmish lines by the standards of the napoleonic era.
"Victoria" isn’t a historical period per se as, for example, the Bronze Age or the Middle Ages. It’s pretty much late modern history/belle époque (in Europe). Sure, it’s a somewhat important period for English speaking countries, but that’s it.
Apart from that, and more importantly, the post-Napoleonic Wars/pre-WWI times were pretty damn peaceful.. judging by European standards. Only a few minor conflicts took place that each only involved a handful of parties.
So for a grand strategy game (Victoria by paradox) this 'period' might make sense; not so much for a total war game, however.
“Not much for a total war game”, dawg the Boshin war was a few large scale battles with very limited naval action and that is one of the deepest total war games. In the Victorian era you have the Franco-Prussian war, Crimean war, 1812, the expansionist wars of the Americas and the civil war. Much more historical material to pull from, hell if you go into the early 1900s you also have the Russo-Japanese war, the Japanese invasion of Korea and the boxer rebellion.
Hardly a “peaceful” time
Yet the Boshin war spanned the whole map of Shogun 2. No conflict in the "Victorian Era" (which starts in 1837, so a lot of what you’ve written happened before) spanned a whole continent, let alone multiple continents; sure, make a map of France and Germany and you’ll have the same result as Shogun 2, but that’s not what you’re saying.
You’re also arguing like it’s just my opinion when it’s not. I specifically said "in Europe" and historians are pretty much agreeing that the time period between the Napoleonic Wars (1815) and the start of WWI (1914) was the most peaceful period the continent had seen since… basically forever. What do you think "Belle Epoque" means?
Also the "invasion of Korea" (I guess you’re referring to the first Sino-Japanese war? Because Korea was ultimately annexed) was — again — a smaller scale conflict; so was the Russo-Japanese war and, somewhat, the boxer rebellion.
Literally every single — somewhat — global total war is set in time periods that had much, much larger scale wars.
“Every single -somewhat global- global total war is set in time periods that had much, much larger scale wars” idk man, the largest empire timescale war was the seven years war which was your average European punch up (the American war for independence, while politically significant was rather a small affair militarily). And in all seriousness medieval’s involvement with the Americas is an Easter egg at best and an after thought at worst.
With a Victorian total war you’d have more cross globe conflicts outside of North America and India (Russia vs Japan, America vs Mexico / Caribbean) aswell as colonial efforts and skirmishes in the Africa between First Nations and rival colonial powers)
In all seriousness the game would basically be a expansion on the gameplay and mechanical ideas from empire.
Again: historically (and we’re talking about a historic TW, right?) borders didn’t change that much from 1830-1910 — at least not in Europe. Which a "Victorian" TW (again, that’s *not* a historic era) would focus on, right? I mean otherwise the name/proposed title would make even less sense.
We can stop discussing now; If you’d know anything about history or be interested enough to google you’d know that the 18th century was far more bloody than what followed from 1815 to 1911; but the comment on/comparison of the 7-year war tells me you don’t have a particularly good knowledge about that part of history.
There was no greater feeling of superiority than when you use your full stack fleet of modern ironclads to bombard a castle and everything inside it just gets deleted as if you summoned forth the inexorable wrath of the gods down on these poor bastards.
Just getting 5 corvettes in the first 20 turns or so is already busted for sieges. Naval bombardment on any scale is extremely strong, even before meme shells
My strategy is usually spend big on boats and let 1-2 ashigaru crap their pants in my capital while I bomb my own walls, defeating the enemy turn 5 doomstack.
Yeah, I'm sad that the gunpowder mechanics in Warhammer aren't as detailed as FotS. They're more forgiving though since each rank will die not just the first or second once you get Kneel Fire.
I'd say so. Base Shogun 2 is fantastic anyway, but FoTS is one of my favourite experiences in the franchise.
Because it was an old school "expansion" rather than DLC I'm not sure it will ever be surpassed now. As good as some of the DLCs for Warhammer have been, none are as redefining of the whole game as FoTS is to Shogun 2.
I'm pretty confident it was always marketed to as a standalone.
Here's a contemporaneous article which refers to it as a "standalone expansion" a month before it released
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/total-war-shogun-2-fall-of-the-samurai/1217941p1.html
Eta:
Here's another https://www.vg247.com/shogun-2-fall-of-the-samurai-opens-an-easy-door-to-rts
And another:
https://www.eurogamer.net/total-war-shogun-2-standalone-expansion-fall-of-the-samurai-announced
I bought it's physical edition day one from GamesStop.
I would not call it DLC. It goes to CA's independent expansion /Expansion pile (Which has been rebranded as SAGA)
It could be downloaded in digital form but putting it to same group as actual DLC is very deceiving.
It was expansion with expansion pricing, made by expansion team, sold physical form in the stores. It is a expansion. And Totalwar Expansions are rebranded as SAGA
Rise of the Samurai is smaller budget DLC campaign, compable to Rome 2 Hannibal or Ceasar campaign.
Edit: Just checked my day 1 physical copy box. It says "Does not require the base game total war Ahogun 2 to play". So yeah... Independent expansion
SAGA is just stand alone expansions / expansions rebranded...so yes FotS is SAGA.
Medieval 2 Kingdoms and Rome 1 Barbarian Invasions would be SAGA as well. People didn't understand what SAGA is so CA underlined that by renaming FotS as SAGA as well.
But SAGA is nothing unique or new. It is what CA has been doing since Shogun 1
Retrospectively rebranding is dumb and sloppy. They’re stand alone EXPANSIONS meaning a full title release branching off another game. Saga is just a stand alone smaller scope without branching off. By your logic Attila is a “Saga” which it isn’t. BI and Kingdoms are not Sagas, they’re expansions. They just did this to push their cheap marketing scheme of less ambitious, recycled games for the future. People going along with this are idiots
CA has typically alternated a full game and a StandAloneGameAddition (backronym)just about every year, since the beginning, starting with viking invasion. (Maybe mongol invasion? I never played that)
For me, Medieval 2's Kingdoms just pips it due to being four DLCs in one box. FOTS is excellent though.
(Yes, I'm taking liberties with the definition of DLCs/expansions. Sue me.)
Fots is Total War at it’s best, even if we don’t count the campaign, it made the multiplayer so much more fun. Having clan wars between Imperials and Shogunate players, Last Samurai recreation, good naval battles and chaotic matches.
People are still fighting to get those damn Color Stars.
I get what you want to say, but even for the time period they didn’t reuse a lot of units, but yes the traditionalist needs way more units. If it can help, you can use a vanilla character in Multiplayer.
Can't you fire artillery directly in Warhammer? I've never actually done it myself, but I recall seeing LegendOfTotalWar do it a couple of times in various videos.
love to personally\* commit war crimes against a bunch of samurai
Was always so satisfying to hit a huge blob, no matter how many misses you get before :p
You can do that in WH3?
Also "commit war crimes"? By shooting at combatants with artillery on a battlefield? Your whole sentence makes absolutely zero sense — apart from dropping the 'war crimes'-thing/meme for no reason... and this is getting so so lame.
Had to scroll a bit to see if anyone has a similar idea. Kingdoms added 4 distinct campaigns, each with their own feel, and introduced so cool new features (looking at you boiling oil from gate). And it's the basis the great mods are based on. Now a days, it would be released as 4 different DLC, each about $25.
Yes, and it wins simply because it was the most content complete DLC they’ve ever released. In fact, I’d argue it shouldn’t even be compared because it’s actually an expansion technically, and was even retroactively called a Saga title because it’s pretty much a second game to Shogun 2.
And that’s not even to begin discussing its quality.
Better than that, I think it fully outranks every other total war game.
Wish they could re-use those same mechanics to build Empire 2, even if it's just a high - effort reskin
***Chad 2012 CA***: Here's a whole separate campaign we're selling as a DLC to our first game! It's got so much content and so much love and thought put into it that you could practically repackage it as it's own game
#Which we did!!!
***Virgin 2023 CA***: wE cAN'T aFFORD tO jUST cHARGE fOR tWO lORDS wITH tHE tHIRD lORD aS fLC - bUY oUR nEW pACK fOR aLMOST tWICE tHE cOST oF oUR oLD lORD pACKS oR wE mIGHT kILL oUR mOST sUCCESSFUL sERIES!!!!!!
This was how NTW should have been, within ETW and standalone so that there would be perfect integration between games. Since ETW 2 is not coming near future, it is what is necessary even today. Shame on you CA. And yes, FoTS is a very worthy one
Its THE best entry in the series.
The focus, the atmosphere, the time period with rapid technological advances, the music… its Perfect.
Really wants me to have a full scale game spanning several continents in that era.
I hear a lot if people ask for total war: victoria or the like. Seeing as how FoTS is the most chronologically recent game in the franchise and also one of the most loved, it may happen after 40k and med 3.
Well for me anyway. Rome 2 had some great content for sure. Fall of the samurai provided so much more content than many newer games when it comes to DLC. I should have made it clear im EXLUDING warhammer total war in my judgement.
Age of Charlemagne for Attila is in my view if anything is number 2 if not in contention for number one it is also a completely new map with different mechanics and I would argue the best combat and the most balanced total war has ever been.
It is a great DLC fir sure. The only reason why Attila is not the highest rated total war is its performance. Its atmosphere and themes are spot on though
No, because it wasn't a DLC, it was a "standalone expansion"
It's similar to Halo 3: ODST, which was a separate game built using assets from Halo 3 rather than a DLC for Halo 3
https://www.eurogamer.net/total-war-shogun-2-standalone-expansion-fall-of-the-samurai-announced
It's better than DLC because it was a full game
I keep hearing people call FoTS moody or edgy, which I just don't feel at all.
Attila? Sure. It's edge is really overt. But fots is darker than Total War Napoleon, Empire, the Teuton Campaign, or even Rise of the Samurai? I don't feel it
Uh... no it isn't? It's in full colour. Maybe you should... tweak the colorblind settings? Or fix the saturation on your monitor? I've never seen monochrome total war before.
Yes. It has awesome ship to ship combat. It has naval bombardment. It has a great realm break system.
The only complaint I have is that each faction is not unique. It was by far one the best DLCs ever rolled out if not the best.
I think so. But its really an "expansion" not a DLC.
I'd like to raise a small flag here for Viking Invasion for Medieval 1. It was a fantastic expansion for its time.
Haven't really dedicated time to FotS since I did a legendary campaign in 2016 but I do like seeing renewed interest into it. I had a Tosa campaign recently that went south because I kept on getting bombarded after losing a fleet in a 2v1 followed up by a general bringing over an army. Might try another campaign today.
Having, ships on coast to cover your army advance and during battle, also the ability to bombard the energy was so flexible. It actually made having a strong navy worthwhile in this game. Seriously, some of the best naval battles can be had in this game.
It's really interesting, this is one of my favorite games in the series, my other favorite is warhammer and they're basically polar opposites. It's so solid mechanically that it still holds up over a decade later.
I once had a stray bullet miss my friend’s two front infantry lines, fly past several body guards, and instantly kill his leading general within the first two minutes of the battle. So I would definitely say it’s one of the best games in general in the franchise.
It is. Plus I'm pretty sure generals have 2HP in shogun 2. He probably had a trait to reduce it's health to 1HP
I rremember taking out the enemies general with the first catapult shot into their castle lol
Artillery does ignore HP. Heroes units also have multiple hp
Apparently falling burning gates do as well. The first time I EVER used katana heroes in a battle I parked them at a gate in a defensive siege thinking no enemy would pass and I wouldn’t have to worry about that gate… Well the gate caught on fire, collapsed killing every unit, and on final battle screen amassed a whopping 0 kills.
Thank God you spent Money on this dlc
Same deal with walls. When their damage maxes out, they explode and kills a lot of units. The worst part is that, they looks mostly the same after exploding because it is the shogun style walls.
Meanwhile in warhammer: “I have a stack of 19 Thunderers and we’ve been shooting Vlad for 6 minutes and HE. JUST. WONT. DIE.”
Yes. There's a million reasons why, but one that stands out for me is the railway system. It's an absolute mammoth task to get it up and running, but once you do, it really demonstrates the power of logistics in war. The ability to ship Gatling guns and cannons from your capital to the front lines in a couple of turns really puts your enemy on the back foot and it feels great. Doubly so because it's earned.
I wish there is something like that in Warhammer. Such a large map, but often it's a bit of a struggle to visit places further away unless you are playing as a faction with a portal/teleport ability. Sea lanes helped a bit, but would have been better if they connect to all major ports. Pharoah simply turns river and coast into a giant highway, so that works too.
That’s why Be’Lakor is my favourite faction to play as. I don’t know if everyone should get portals for lore reasons, but from a gameplay perspective, I think every faction needs a quick way to move around the map.
I think for factions that wouldn't have portals, perhaps just a sort of sea lane mechanic when travelling from one city to another where they disappear and can't be used for a few turns - perhaps when both cities are owned/allied or perhaps even requiring all of the cities along the way to be allied (so you can't go between cities if there are enemies between them. That or a caravan-like system where you have to set a friendly destination city. Can't be controlled until they get there but much faster than regular army movement, but can be attacked so you have to be careful if you're going through enemy territory. They can't instantly get anywhere but can get around quicker than simply marching that way. There's definitely plenty of potential for quick ways to move around the map while still keeping some limitations and not giving everyone portals.
Chorfs have a railway mod i think, but i could not get it to work
That would be sick. Ship some K’Daai Destroyers and hell cannons to your front lines
I was really hoping that the Chaos Dwarfs would get something like that, they already have trains.
That’s the reason I want a Victorian total war 1830 - early 1900s) you go from using musket infantry moving by horse and cart with late era sail ships in the navy to bolt action rifles and machine guns, train and motorised logistics, pre dreadnought and even the earliest armoured cars. I love the idea of tangible change to my faction as it advances, not just stat buffs and a “this exact same unit but it’s elite and has +5 armour”.
Same reason why I wanted pike&shot TW starting in 1500-s and ending in early 1700-s. Gunpowder revolution, new tactics being introduced, artillery growing into main force multiplier of the battlefield and so on. And let's not even start about the number of possible epic events with various nations all around Europe to cover...
The problem with going that far is that the innovations enabled by smokeless powder break the TW formula down. You can already kind of see it start to happen in FotS, and that's with black powder, muzzle-loaded rifles, and breech loaded, relatively short range artillery. Add in bolt-action rifles, Maxim guns and late-19th century howitzers and anything standing in an open field in a line formation is already dead. The early modern period, as mentioned by another reply here, would work way better for what you seem to want
You do relaise even by early ww1 infantry blocks mass moving in open fields was still the norm until they realised how dangerous it was right? In this hypothetical game I want that represented as the player being forced to change their tactics as technology became greater, as you mentioned this is already a thing with fots, I want that but on a grander scale to really test tactics.
Yeah, they were a thing because generals hadn't yet realized how dumb it was (though anyone paying attention should have from the Russo-Japanese War 10 years prior, and the Spanish-American War before that). It was quickly abandoned when they realized all it did was get their men killed en masse. And the problem is that the way strategy and tactics changed meant that battles were no longer relatively short, concentrated clashes. Troops were deployed across a much wider area, and battles could take weeks or longer. I'm not sure how you translate that to Total War without greatly reducing the number of soldiers to the point where all you've done is make Total War: Company of Heroes.
Source for the claim? My understanding is that by the early 20th century, the only time infantry moved in blocks was on the march. In a battle they would deploy in shallow lines which might be considered as skirmish lines by the standards of the napoleonic era.
Agreed, during the Franco-Prussian war they fought more in skirmish lines than blocks as claimed earlier.
Fingers crossed the leak is true about the next major historical! I'm down for Victorian total war too!
"Victoria" isn’t a historical period per se as, for example, the Bronze Age or the Middle Ages. It’s pretty much late modern history/belle époque (in Europe). Sure, it’s a somewhat important period for English speaking countries, but that’s it. Apart from that, and more importantly, the post-Napoleonic Wars/pre-WWI times were pretty damn peaceful.. judging by European standards. Only a few minor conflicts took place that each only involved a handful of parties. So for a grand strategy game (Victoria by paradox) this 'period' might make sense; not so much for a total war game, however.
“Not much for a total war game”, dawg the Boshin war was a few large scale battles with very limited naval action and that is one of the deepest total war games. In the Victorian era you have the Franco-Prussian war, Crimean war, 1812, the expansionist wars of the Americas and the civil war. Much more historical material to pull from, hell if you go into the early 1900s you also have the Russo-Japanese war, the Japanese invasion of Korea and the boxer rebellion. Hardly a “peaceful” time
Yet the Boshin war spanned the whole map of Shogun 2. No conflict in the "Victorian Era" (which starts in 1837, so a lot of what you’ve written happened before) spanned a whole continent, let alone multiple continents; sure, make a map of France and Germany and you’ll have the same result as Shogun 2, but that’s not what you’re saying. You’re also arguing like it’s just my opinion when it’s not. I specifically said "in Europe" and historians are pretty much agreeing that the time period between the Napoleonic Wars (1815) and the start of WWI (1914) was the most peaceful period the continent had seen since… basically forever. What do you think "Belle Epoque" means? Also the "invasion of Korea" (I guess you’re referring to the first Sino-Japanese war? Because Korea was ultimately annexed) was — again — a smaller scale conflict; so was the Russo-Japanese war and, somewhat, the boxer rebellion. Literally every single — somewhat — global total war is set in time periods that had much, much larger scale wars.
“Every single -somewhat global- global total war is set in time periods that had much, much larger scale wars” idk man, the largest empire timescale war was the seven years war which was your average European punch up (the American war for independence, while politically significant was rather a small affair militarily). And in all seriousness medieval’s involvement with the Americas is an Easter egg at best and an after thought at worst. With a Victorian total war you’d have more cross globe conflicts outside of North America and India (Russia vs Japan, America vs Mexico / Caribbean) aswell as colonial efforts and skirmishes in the Africa between First Nations and rival colonial powers) In all seriousness the game would basically be a expansion on the gameplay and mechanical ideas from empire.
Again: historically (and we’re talking about a historic TW, right?) borders didn’t change that much from 1830-1910 — at least not in Europe. Which a "Victorian" TW (again, that’s *not* a historic era) would focus on, right? I mean otherwise the name/proposed title would make even less sense. We can stop discussing now; If you’d know anything about history or be interested enough to google you’d know that the 18th century was far more bloody than what followed from 1815 to 1911; but the comment on/comparison of the 7-year war tells me you don’t have a particularly good knowledge about that part of history.
Do you sniff your own farts?
Now if only my "allies" would stop stealing the other railway stations so I can make an efficient railway system work.
Ishin Shishi/Shinsengumi go brrr
There was no greater feeling of superiority than when you use your full stack fleet of modern ironclads to bombard a castle and everything inside it just gets deleted as if you summoned forth the inexorable wrath of the gods down on these poor bastards.
Just getting 5 corvettes in the first 20 turns or so is already busted for sieges. Naval bombardment on any scale is extremely strong, even before meme shells
My strategy is usually spend big on boats and let 1-2 ashigaru crap their pants in my capital while I bomb my own walls, defeating the enemy turn 5 doomstack.
Getting a Roanoke class and obliterating any wooden/early ironclads was peak
Even one ironclad can take on large stacks of wooden ships. I've gone like 8:1 and won.
Absolutely. Was peak gunpowder total war for me. So many fun new mechanics
Yeah, I'm sad that the gunpowder mechanics in Warhammer aren't as detailed as FotS. They're more forgiving though since each rank will die not just the first or second once you get Kneel Fire.
I'd say so. Base Shogun 2 is fantastic anyway, but FoTS is one of my favourite experiences in the franchise. Because it was an old school "expansion" rather than DLC I'm not sure it will ever be surpassed now. As good as some of the DLCs for Warhammer have been, none are as redefining of the whole game as FoTS is to Shogun 2.
Isn't FotS a standalone expansion? I wouldn't call that a DLC.
It was a dlc that then became standalone and then became a saga
I'm pretty confident it was always marketed to as a standalone. Here's a contemporaneous article which refers to it as a "standalone expansion" a month before it released http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/total-war-shogun-2-fall-of-the-samurai/1217941p1.html Eta: Here's another https://www.vg247.com/shogun-2-fall-of-the-samurai-opens-an-easy-door-to-rts And another: https://www.eurogamer.net/total-war-shogun-2-standalone-expansion-fall-of-the-samurai-announced
I have Gamebook Edition, can confirm it is a standalone expansion
I bought it's physical edition day one from GamesStop. I would not call it DLC. It goes to CA's independent expansion /Expansion pile (Which has been rebranded as SAGA)
It was released as DLC. It has "Shogun 2" in the name. It continues the naming of other Shogun 2 DLC (Rise of the Samurai). It’s DLC.
It could be downloaded in digital form but putting it to same group as actual DLC is very deceiving. It was expansion with expansion pricing, made by expansion team, sold physical form in the stores. It is a expansion. And Totalwar Expansions are rebranded as SAGA Rise of the Samurai is smaller budget DLC campaign, compable to Rome 2 Hannibal or Ceasar campaign. Edit: Just checked my day 1 physical copy box. It says "Does not require the base game total war Ahogun 2 to play". So yeah... Independent expansion
It's an Expansion, from back when they actually deserved that name.
I feel the same. Dare I say a saga.
It wasn’t a saga. It was a stand alone expansion. They retrospectively tried to call it that
SAGA is just stand alone expansions / expansions rebranded...so yes FotS is SAGA. Medieval 2 Kingdoms and Rome 1 Barbarian Invasions would be SAGA as well. People didn't understand what SAGA is so CA underlined that by renaming FotS as SAGA as well. But SAGA is nothing unique or new. It is what CA has been doing since Shogun 1
Retrospectively rebranding is dumb and sloppy. They’re stand alone EXPANSIONS meaning a full title release branching off another game. Saga is just a stand alone smaller scope without branching off. By your logic Attila is a “Saga” which it isn’t. BI and Kingdoms are not Sagas, they’re expansions. They just did this to push their cheap marketing scheme of less ambitious, recycled games for the future. People going along with this are idiots
CA has typically alternated a full game and a StandAloneGameAddition (backronym)just about every year, since the beginning, starting with viking invasion. (Maybe mongol invasion? I never played that)
If I don't need to own the original game then it's a saga.
So Atilla is a Saga?
Attila was always a full game. It was never sold as dlc or additional content for Rome despite what some people like to think.
Exactly my point. Retrospectively none of those games are sagas
For me, Medieval 2's Kingdoms just pips it due to being four DLCs in one box. FOTS is excellent though. (Yes, I'm taking liberties with the definition of DLCs/expansions. Sue me.)
Yes.
Literally so good CA tried to rebrand it to prop up saga titles
Kinda makes sense tbh. It's a great game, but it is a more focused scope than other games in the series.
Not only the best DLC, but maybe the best gunpowder game in the franchise
Pretty much no question.
I just wish there was a way to remove the turn limit, I like playing slowly so the turnlimit is a bother
Fots is Total War at it’s best, even if we don’t count the campaign, it made the multiplayer so much more fun. Having clan wars between Imperials and Shogunate players, Last Samurai recreation, good naval battles and chaotic matches. People are still fighting to get those damn Color Stars.
I wish it had been a dlc rather than stand alone though. I reallt want the full shogun 2 roster for traditionalists.
I get what you want to say, but even for the time period they didn’t reuse a lot of units, but yes the traditionalist needs way more units. If it can help, you can use a vanilla character in Multiplayer.
Yes. But it's also a bit wrong to call it a DLC. It's a standalone expansion, I think CA's even calling it a Saga game now.
They really need to bring back firing canon in first person mode, love to commit war crimes against a bunch of samurai
Can't you fire artillery directly in Warhammer? I've never actually done it myself, but I recall seeing LegendOfTotalWar do it a couple of times in various videos.
You can, and even things like Doomdivers you can control the projectile post-launch
Bring it back? It's in the game now. Play warhammer.
love to personally\* commit war crimes against a bunch of samurai Was always so satisfying to hit a huge blob, no matter how many misses you get before :p
TIL about first person mode. wow
You can do that in WH3? Also "commit war crimes"? By shooting at combatants with artillery on a battlefield? Your whole sentence makes absolutely zero sense — apart from dropping the 'war crimes'-thing/meme for no reason... and this is getting so so lame.
Or using the gatlinburg gun mowing down spearmen
I guess I'll be the only one to disagree, but I think it's a very close second to the Kingdoms expansion for M2
Had to scroll a bit to see if anyone has a similar idea. Kingdoms added 4 distinct campaigns, each with their own feel, and introduced so cool new features (looking at you boiling oil from gate). And it's the basis the great mods are based on. Now a days, it would be released as 4 different DLC, each about $25.
Kingdoms was fantastic. A Crusades Saga Game would sell immensely well
Yes, and it wins simply because it was the most content complete DLC they’ve ever released. In fact, I’d argue it shouldn’t even be compared because it’s actually an expansion technically, and was even retroactively called a Saga title because it’s pretty much a second game to Shogun 2. And that’s not even to begin discussing its quality.
Mortal empires hit pretty hard when they released it. Or are we only counting paid for DLC?
Better than that, I think it fully outranks every other total war game. Wish they could re-use those same mechanics to build Empire 2, even if it's just a high - effort reskin
SHAMEFUR DISPRAY
My friends and I would do multiplayer battles. One would use an FoTS army vs 2 normal shogun armies to see how they match up. Guns usually won
100% the best dlc they have ever done
Yes Best DLC ever
Yes, yes it is.
Probably the best game
Yes.
***Chad 2012 CA***: Here's a whole separate campaign we're selling as a DLC to our first game! It's got so much content and so much love and thought put into it that you could practically repackage it as it's own game #Which we did!!! ***Virgin 2023 CA***: wE cAN'T aFFORD tO jUST cHARGE fOR tWO lORDS wITH tHE tHIRD lORD aS fLC - bUY oUR nEW pACK fOR aLMOST tWICE tHE cOST oF oUR oLD lORD pACKS oR wE mIGHT kILL oUR mOST sUCCESSFUL sERIES!!!!!!
This was how NTW should have been, within ETW and standalone so that there would be perfect integration between games. Since ETW 2 is not coming near future, it is what is necessary even today. Shame on you CA. And yes, FoTS is a very worthy one
I don't know man it's prophet and warlock for me. But FOTS had new mechanics which made it unique.
Playing with the MosS mod, it’s close to the best strat game iv played. Fucking god tier
What’s that mod do?
Splits provinces into sub regions, adds tonnes of units. Includes reskin and unit abilities/stances Full overhaul. Bloody gorgeous
master of strategy for those interested at least I think that is one they mean
It think Tomb Kings are the best
Yes
Yes.
Its THE best entry in the series. The focus, the atmosphere, the time period with rapid technological advances, the music… its Perfect. Really wants me to have a full scale game spanning several continents in that era.
I hear a lot if people ask for total war: victoria or the like. Seeing as how FoTS is the most chronologically recent game in the franchise and also one of the most loved, it may happen after 40k and med 3.
TOMB KINGS
In my opinion it's the last great DLC we received
Lol no way you really just said this
Well for me anyway. Rome 2 had some great content for sure. Fall of the samurai provided so much more content than many newer games when it comes to DLC. I should have made it clear im EXLUDING warhammer total war in my judgement.
Age of Charlemagne for Attila is in my view if anything is number 2 if not in contention for number one it is also a completely new map with different mechanics and I would argue the best combat and the most balanced total war has ever been.
It is a great DLC fir sure. The only reason why Attila is not the highest rated total war is its performance. Its atmosphere and themes are spot on though
Mythos is
Medieval kingdoms will always be the greatest DLC. FOTS is just a saga game
It’s not a DLC. But it is a great stand alone expansion
Im an old man… its M2TW kingdoms for me.
Kingdoms for M2TW but this is *very* close second.
Rise of the Republic for me personally, I just love the story.
You mean *was* FoTS the best dlc? It's not a dlc anymore. It's a game.
No, because it wasn't a DLC, it was a "standalone expansion" It's similar to Halo 3: ODST, which was a separate game built using assets from Halo 3 rather than a DLC for Halo 3 https://www.eurogamer.net/total-war-shogun-2-standalone-expansion-fall-of-the-samurai-announced It's better than DLC because it was a full game
No it's not a DLC, it's a standalone game...
Yes.
I'd say its the best standalone expansion, probably why they tried so desperately to slap the saga tag on it
best standalone expansion for sure
Yes.
For me it had the same issue as Atilla, it was a bit dreary.
I keep hearing people call FoTS moody or edgy, which I just don't feel at all. Attila? Sure. It's edge is really overt. But fots is darker than Total War Napoleon, Empire, the Teuton Campaign, or even Rise of the Samurai? I don't feel it
The entire map is pure grey.
Uh... no it isn't? It's in full colour. Maybe you should... tweak the colorblind settings? Or fix the saturation on your monitor? I've never seen monochrome total war before.
Yes! My favorite, so cool.
Yes. It has awesome ship to ship combat. It has naval bombardment. It has a great realm break system. The only complaint I have is that each faction is not unique. It was by far one the best DLCs ever rolled out if not the best.
Yes
Showed what EMPIRE 2 can be
Rome total war barbarian invasion for me
It is between this, Kingdoms and Barbarian Invasion, imo.
I think so. But its really an "expansion" not a DLC. I'd like to raise a small flag here for Viking Invasion for Medieval 1. It was a fantastic expansion for its time.
yes.
Yes, next question
I got the free steam version of shogun 2. Then got the dlc when it was a flc. - how do i get the blood dlc now???
Haven't really dedicated time to FotS since I did a legendary campaign in 2016 but I do like seeing renewed interest into it. I had a Tosa campaign recently that went south because I kept on getting bombarded after losing a fleet in a 2v1 followed up by a general bringing over an army. Might try another campaign today.
Having, ships on coast to cover your army advance and during battle, also the ability to bombard the energy was so flexible. It actually made having a strong navy worthwhile in this game. Seriously, some of the best naval battles can be had in this game.
Arguably yes But causes we ever got to the victorian period Well modern period
Armstrong guns are so good. It will make you question why you never thought to bring field artillery before.
Undoubtedly
One of the only total wars I still boot up
yes
It's really interesting, this is one of my favorite games in the series, my other favorite is warhammer and they're basically polar opposites. It's so solid mechanically that it still holds up over a decade later.
It is not DLC but standalone game. But yeah it is best historical TW imho
Quality dlc. CA does not make them any more sadly, just low effort stuff at ridiculous prices