Total War series

[Luke Skywalker]

Anybody else play these games? I really enjoy them, even if some of them have some not trivial glitches and balance issues. Is the new Shogun 2 good?

[RazorOutlaw]

I used to play Medieval 2: Total War pretty frequently but, eh, everything gets old eventually. Anyway, I did start with Shogun: Total War and got every game up to Empire: Total War. With all of those games I never experienced the kind of trouble with games crashing or acting strangely. I was never -really- disappointed until E:TW. The game didn't play well on my machine even with the settings turned down, the sound was frequently buggy, the music was horrible, and the actual battles (I love, love, love custom games) felt like more of an after thought. And if my main mode of entertainment, the custom games, doesn't allow for much customization (maybe I want a mega-army with maxed experience etc., for a long battle!) then I don't see much a point in enjoying the product overall.

I was really disappointed and I felt burned, finally, after all these years. Yeah, they patched the game but it was hardly playable until that point. I finally understood what critics meant when CA shoveled out shit and expected fans to playtest their game for them. I was just one of the lucky ones for a while.

With Shogun 2 I only tried the demo playing on "Very Hard" and, of course, I didn't win. So that's good on the difficulty setting. The game run well too. The combat was pretty much the same as E:TW and mildly reminiscient of the first Shogun.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

I'm pretty tolerant of games' flaws, but what killed TW for me was Napoleon. Not because Napoleon was bad -- it really wasn't -- but because Empire should have had a lot of Napoleon's improvements in it.

Combined with zero interest in the Shogun setting, I've just stopped caring about TW. Now I'm on an EU3 binge, after trying it for the first time. I miss tactical battles, but the campaign blows TW out of the water.

[Sinewmire]

I've played them since Shogun up until Medieval II, but my PC was cheap so my components aren't up to the newer games. I bought Empire a couple of weeks ago, and I'm enjoying that as I'm currently re-reading the Aubrey-Maturin series and I'm a big fan of Sharpe.

I like that I can take real world knowledge and use it to my advantage in Empire (I know that fighting in more than two ranks is largely pointless for Musket lines, nobody else seems to)

I must admit, I can't see what they can put into Napoleon that they couldn't have in Empire. They've just put in a huge patch to improve the ai, presumably based on Napoleon, and I know there were a lot of actual complaints and boycotting of Empire.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

They've just put in a huge patch to improve the ai, presumably based on Napoleon, and I know there were a lot of actual complaints and boycotting of Empire.

The last time they patched Empire was over a year ago.

I want to like the game (and I did), but it's painfully hard to play it and not be constantly reminded that Napoleon just does everything better... except Napoleon just has a bunch of silly "wow that Napoleon guy sure was swell" story games, no grand campaign to speak of, and a less interesting (to me) setting.

I like that I can take real world knowledge and use it to my advantage in Empire (I know that fighting in more than two ranks is largely pointless for Musket lines, nobody else seems to)

This is something that I did enjoy about Empire quite a lot when it first came out. I remember when the demo hit, and people were absolutely mystified by the supposed "difficulty" of the naval battle demo... whereas I found it pretty easy to score a decisive victory the first time through, simply by virtue of knowing the ropes when it comes to 18th century naval warfare.

[Kingmaker]

Rome was good, Med2 was okay, Kingdoms was good, Empire was crap, and I haven't played Napoleon, Shogun 2, or the games earlier than Rome.

Empire was clunky, had terrible AI, and I felt that it lacked a depth of tactics compared to the earlier games.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

I felt that it lacked a depth of tactics compared to the earlier games.

I disagree vehemently with this. Most TW players, prior to Empire, came into it being more comfortable with medieval-style armchair generalship that's all about hand-to-hand fighting, cavalry charges, and other such concepts. I think what happens is that these players simply had no idea how to handle musket infantry and the style of warfare that surrounds them. Things like cavalry charges become more delicate and circumstantial (and therefore require more thought), artillery use is much more integrated (as opposed to entirely optional in, say, Medieval 2), and you now have the constant question of whether a given infantry unit should be shooting or fighting in hand-to-hand at any given moment (whereas in Medieval or Rome, your archers shoot and your melee guys melee, period).

That's just the land combat. The naval combat adds an entire new dimension of tactical depth.

[The Vortex Empire]

I've played Rome and Medieval II, and both are great, but where Total War shines is in the modding community. Without mods they're pretty fun, but mods just take them to a whole new level. After playing Roma Surrectum II for Rome or Stainless Steel for Medieval II I'd never want to go back. I don't own it, but I played a little Shogun II and it just bored me. Every faction had the exact same units, and as such there was no variety to the gameplay. It didn't matter who you fought, every battle was the same.

[Kingmaker]

I think what happens is that these players simply had no idea how to handle musket infantry and the style of warfare that surrounds them. Things like cavalry charges become more delicate and circumstantial (and therefore require more thought), artillery use is much more integrated (as opposed to entirely optional in, say, Medieval 2), and you now have the constant question of whether a given infantry unit should be shooting or fighting in hand-to-hand at any given moment

Believe it or not, I'm aware of this. It all sounds good in theory, but Empire's battle system was so clunky that actually implementing tactics that required maneuvering units was a exercise in futility. A simple wheel right to face the line of infantry flanking you? Flip coin; tails your troops get bunched up and massacred, heads they pull off the maneuver in a half-assed manner and are merely at a crippling disadvantage. Infantry squares don't work half the time, your artillery officers should be cashiered (hey, the damn thing's been loaded for the past five minutes. Fire. Now. Fuck...), and god forbid you refrain from yanking the lanyard if another fucking cannon in your own battery is in the way. The result of all this is that the array of tactics you can employ without risking everything going catastrophically wrong due to game engine fuckery is limited. Thrown on fewer unit types (by my count 9 v 13), and tactical depth goes down the shitter. I don't really care if the homogenized, simplified armies are period-realistic, because realism doesn't excuse a shitty game. And let's not get started on the campaign's problems.

The naval system was much better and more interesting and actually fun, but also quite clumsy ("reduce sail to avoid overtaking the ship ahead of us? We brake for no one!"). Frankly, I would have been happier if they hadn't bothered with the Total War game and just spent the effort making a good, detailed navy sim.

And an axe I have to grind with all total war games thus far is the difficulty of withdrawing. How many battles in history were actually fought to near-annihilation (hint: very few).

[atg]

Heh speaking of artillery. Funniest moment I had in Empire was when I was playing as Prussia and the Russians sent an army of 1x General 1x artillery and about 8x infantry against one of my fortified settlements (star fort or something). All I had defending was 3 units of the milita-infantry, I forget what they're called.

About three minutes into the batte the message pops up saying the enemy general was dead. I check around and the entire generals unit is on the ground dead in front of their artillery. One of the enemy infantry units gets to the wall, gets shot at by my militia, then the whole enemy army routs.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Believe it or not, I'm aware of this. It all sounds good in theory, but Empire's battle system was so clunky that actually implementing tactics that required maneuvering units was a exercise in futility. A simple wheel right to face the line of infantry flanking you? Flip coin; tails your troops get bunched up and massacred, heads they pull off the maneuver in a half-assed manner and are merely at a crippling disadvantage. Infantry squares don't work half the time, your artillery officers should be cashiered (hey, the damn thing's been loaded for the past five minutes. Fire. Now. Fuck...), and god forbid you refrain from yanking the lanyard if another fucking cannon in your own battery is in the way. The result of all this is that the array of tactics you can employ without risking everything going catastrophically wrong due to game engine fuckery is limited. Thrown on fewer unit types (by my count 9 v 13), and tactical depth goes down the shitter. I don't really care if the homogenized, simplified armies are period-realistic, because realism doesn't excuse a shitty game. And let's not get started on the campaign's problems.

Oh I absolutely agree that units were too stupid to be trusted with a grocery list, much less a battle plan. That's one of the thing that aggravates me about Napoleon: The latter game fixes those dumb-ass unit problems, but this was never really implemented in Empire as it should have been. Medieval II really wasn't much better in this regard; I recall being frequently frustrated that units would just uselessly mill about aimlessly in a loose mob half the time you ordered them to charge (or even just receive a charge), especially if you were inside a city or castle.

Though I'll still disagree with you on homogenized armies. They look that way, sure, because everyone uses Line Infantry, which happen to be uniformed, musket-armed troops. Except that every nation's Line Infantry has significantly different stats, nevermind the various other units some nations can and cannot get. So, yeah, they're the same in the same sense that in Medieval all the nations' knights wear mail, ride horses, and use lances. (which, incidentally, were even more homogeneous than any Empire unit, because most nations actually shared the exact same Feudal/Chivalric/whatever Knights. So this "Empire armies are the same!!!" whining is particularly bunk)

[Kingmaker]

Though I'll still disagree with you on homogenized armies. They look that way, sure, because everyone uses Line Infantry...words...So this "Empire armies are the same!!!" whining is particularly bunk

I think you misunderstand me. I'm aware of the difference in stats among equivalent units in Empire (iirc, the Brits and Prussians have line inf w/ high morale and rate of fire, but are crazy expensive; the Russians and the Austrians are shit but cheap and have extra guys, etc...), and the number of generic units in M2TW. What I mean is unit types at a higher level. Simpler to just enumerate the unit types I remember from each (bear in mind, I haven't played either in about a year, so I may have forgotten something incredibly obvious).

M2TW: Light Infantry, Armored Infantry, Shock Infantry, Pikemen, Skirmishers, Archers, Crossbowmen, Light Cav, Heavy Cav, Horse Archers, Gunpowder troops, Artillery, and Gimmick troops (encompassing peculiar units like elephants, naffatun, heavy archers, and other weird stuff and/or fantasy crap). Total: 13

Empire: Line Infantry, Light Infantry, Grenadier Infantry, Melee Infantry, Light Cav, Heavy Cav, Dragoons, Artillery, Horse Artillery. Total: 9

My criteria for distinct unit type was based on general stats and possessing distinct battlefield roles. "Elites" don't get a distinct category, nor do dual purpose units (e.g. retinue longbowmen, Scots Guards, Aventuriers). With that in mind, there is some stuff to quibble about. I'd argue I'm being fairly generous in lumping all of M2's light infantry into a single category when it could be probably be split into spearmen and militia/notspearmen. Likewise, splitting off Horse Arty from regular arty is being generous to Empire.

Melee infantry is by and large a joke in Empire; with one or two exceptions they break even at best against bayonet armed line inf, even if the line inf doesn't get a volley off. On the other hand, artillery is pretty much a joke in Medieval 2, unless you're attacking a city. Barring a handful of exceptions (artillery elephants? Really?) the artillery just doesn't do much for you.

As far as battlefield pathing, I agree that it wasn't great in Rome or M2, but as long as you were outside a city wall, it was generally okay. A unit might derp a sudden about-face now and then, but they didn't get hung up over basic maneuvering. Actually, I think pathing and unit got worse with later installments. I recall far more stuck units and idiot pathing in M2 than in Rome, and waaaay more in Empire than in either of the previous games. And sieges have never worked.

[Meest]

Got Total War: Shogun 2 free with a vid card purchase and glad it was free, not buying any more in the series until an engine revamp or something. Buggy and way too taxing for no reason.

[The Vortex Empire]

Heh speaking of artillery. Funniest moment I had in Empire was when I was playing as Prussia and the Russians sent an army of 1x General 1x artillery and about 8x infantry against one of my fortified settlements (star fort or something). All I had defending was 3 units of the milita-infantry, I forget what they're called.

About three minutes into the batte the message pops up saying the enemy general was dead. I check around and the entire generals unit is on the ground dead in front of their artillery. One of the enemy infantry units gets to the wall, gets shot at by my militia, then the whole enemy army routs.

Pfft, that's nothing. I was playing the historical battle in M2TW where you play Poland against the HRE, and the battle had literally just begun. I Immediately began to rearrange my guys into a better formation, when I hear the enemy cannons firing their first volley, only for the camera to cut to my General dying. That's right, the very first shot from the enemy cannons killed my General, so as it was a historical battle I lost.Took about 30 seconds.

[streetad]

I still get a lot of mileage out of Medieval 2 - especially with the Stainless Steel mod which makes vast improvements to the basic game. I also have Third Age, which is a LoTR mod and does some fairly interesting things with the engine....

[Top Cap]

I am playing shogun 2 right now and am enjoying it even though it is a bit buggy, i have played several others as well.

[GuppyShark]

I have been playing these games since Rome. I love them, but I'm not blind to the flaws.

As many have mentioned, Empire drove me into a blind rage. So buggy, so slow, and then they release Napoleon as a new game instead of an expansion. I think it was also the first of the games where modders couldn't change the campaign map!

However, when I discovered that you can buy games from the EU at a fraction of the cost of buying them domestically, I ordered Shogun 2 on a whim anyway. And I'm very happy with it.

The combat philosophy of the period (what's a shield? that would seem to get in the way of hitting people with sharp objects) is different enough that I enjoy the fighting as a new entity.

I think the main thing I enjoy about Shogun 2 is the theme is omnipresent, from the art direction, sound, music, and gameplay mechanics. I basically have no intention of modding this, there's nothing I'd change except to unlock the minor clans.

( Is it just me or do the major clans not have better specialised troops, they just have cheaper ones? )

The Co-Op multiplayer is also pretty awesome. I've got a buddy that I am now playing through a second campaign with, it's pretty great co-ordinating your strategy.

[TC Pilot]

For me, the Total War games have only been effective in small doses. There's very usually a wow factor in commanding armies on a battlefield. Marching your soldiers toward an enemy or setting them in a line and watching the enemy lumber toward you has a way of immersing you...

...until you launch your crushing flanking manuever with your cavalry that were hiding in a patch of trees and slaughter the enemy army with a loss of 15 guys on your side...

...and then do it again 30 more times.

Eventually, you get sick of killing the same uber-stack the AI throws at you again and again and again and you realize just how brainless the AI is.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I only ever played Medieval (yes, that's right, the first one) and I enjoyed that one. Then again, I never bothered with actual tactical battles and focused on the turn-based bit. Which was fun. I didn't like the interface they used for Rome though.

Empire/Napoleon I have only ever done naval battles on my mates computer. heh, 120-gun 1st rate versus a frigate. Great fun, especially as they are usually helpful enough to sail right into range of the broadside.

I would much prefer though if they could take the naval bits and make it a separate game. I find that much more interesting than the land warfare crap.

[PainRack]

For me, the Total War games have only been effective in small doses. There's very usually a wow factor in commanding armies on a battlefield. Marching your soldiers toward an enemy or setting them in a line and watching the enemy lumber toward you has a way of immersing you...

...until you launch your crushing flanking manuever with your cavalry that were hiding in a patch of trees and slaughter the enemy army with a loss of 15 guys on your side...

...and then do it again 30 more times.

Eventually, you get sick of killing the same uber-stack the AI throws at you again and again and again and you realize just how brainless the AI is.

There are other tactical combinations one could pull off apart from smash cavalry into flanks though I will agree, it suffers from the same problem of boring, as the AI tactics is simply too weak. Hell, unless they're the greeks, in which case, try to let the Greeks have a winning chance in battle, cause otherwise, they will simply huddle in the city plaza and present an unbreakable wall of spears.

[Luke Skywalker]

Has anyone ever lost a citadel from a siege? The seige AI in medieval 2 was so terrible, from my experience the AI was unable to penetrate a multi level defense. They also stupidly slowly march their entire up at those giant cannon towers you have slaughtering them, and after your gate falls their General impaled himself as he charges headlong into a stack of stakes.

[CaptHawkeye]

The first TW game I played was Medieval 2 which I found really addicting but full of glaring flaws. Empire did little more than piss me off, since it introduced me to the problem most of TW players had been experiencing for years with the release game being a public beta. Napoleon I have not yet played but that's because I have no intention of paying CA a dime for what Empire should have been from day 1. I heard Shogun 2 was also totally broken on release from people who's opinions I actually are about.

It's funny too because in literally any other industry CA would be out of business for constantly releasing broken products.

[PeZook]

Not really: as lackluster and careless as they are, the really sad thing is that no one else can do it better. Can anyone remember the glorious turd that was Imperial Glory?

[Stark]

Nobody else cares. CA might be some of the worst developers in the business, but they have a serious lock on the genre simply through inertia and it just isn't worth the time to fight them for it. That's probably why all the other similar games are indy or basement developers sucking even worse than CA.

If you could make a game, bet on marketing and hope it succeeds even though you know it won't, or just make a cheap mobile or console game and have a stronger likelihood of success, what would you do?

[Luke Skywalker]

Nobody else cares. CA might be some of the worst developers in the business, but they have a serious lock on the genre simply through inertia and it just isn't worth the time to fight them for it. That's probably why all the other similar games are indy or basement developers sucking even worse than CA.

If you could make a game, bet on marketing and hope it succeeds even though you know it won't, or just make a cheap mobile or console game and have a stronger likelihood of success, what would you do?

Oh please. The Total War series may be glitch-errored, but they're very well designed and entertaining games. In what other games do you get to crush the opposition with your massive, many thousands strong armies (instead of the silly, ridiculously small armies in other RTS's) and take over the world?

On a side note, what's up with Janissary Heavy Infantry? They were overpowered in the original, but after the shield patch they get destroyed by far cheaper DFK's. This is fixed in the Expansion packs, but as far as I recall, they're useless by now in vanilla.