• Total War Series Megathread V3
    5,944 replies, posted
[QUOTE=LiamBrown;39975180]A bit of info about the Rome 2 campaign: [URL]http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?593975-One-Year-One-Turn[/URL][/QUOTE] Most of that sounds good, and I know they explained it in a good way, but i can't help but be disappointed by one turn being one year. I loved the four seasons of Shogun II.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39974560]True, but remember that late medieval heavy cavalry was terrifying. Full plate with heavy lances and well bred horses covered in armour. Quarter a metric ton coming down on you. Norman knights were relatively lightly armed and armoured in comparison to the late medieval ones.[/QUOTE] Here is what Dan Carlin said on this matter: [quote]The fortifications of late dark age/early Medieval Europe were not as advanced as what the Romans actually faced. Hard to say they would have trouble with those tiny Motte and Bailey (and barely beyond that) castles when cities the size of Carthage weren't giving them any trouble. [B]As far as the heavy Cavalry...the Romans fought Sarmatians, Seleucid and Parthian Cataphracts...all with fully armored men and horses wielding the Kontos (lance). The Knights may have been on somewhat larger horses...(but those horses also wouldn't be armored). And let's remember: a 11th century "Melite" (or "Miles") is not really what we conceive of when we imagine a 14th century high medieval knight (although, I doubt a Hundred Years War army would do that well against Romans).[/B] If you want to throw a REAL monkey wrench into this conversation, throw in Alexander's Macedonians. Given the weapon systems involved, Knights wouldn't stand a chance against the Phalangites. Let's also point out one of the most important elements in warfare: leadership. Someone already pointed out the leadership at the NCO level (which is sorely under-appreciated by many...it's not very "sexy" subject-wise)...but what about leadership at the top level? Macedonian generals (especially) but also Roman ones would have been exponentially better than early Medieval ones (and the ability to use drilled troops to maneuver on the battlefield would have been a killer. Medievals couldn't really move...especially infantry...without becoming disordered. So your choices are to move and be disordered...or stand still and be outmaneuvered tactically). Having a general that could outflank opponents is going to be devastating no matter what the other disparities involved. Most medievals had no battlefield reserve (while Romans and Macedonians ALWAYS did). Getting flanked or surprised by ambushes and the like (Medievals were horrible scouting armies as well) would just make the Medievals seem like total amateurs compared to the "civilized" armies (the "Knights" were superbly trained individual warriors...but the Romans and Macedonians are trained to act in concert...as units). Finally, the ad hoc nature of the medievals pretty much assured that you would have ad hoc units that had no expertise acting in concert with each other. Romans (or Macedonians) were trained in large scale wargames to move in concert and by signalling. How are 15,000 Medievals (with maybe 1,200-1,500 "Knights") going to beat 30,000 Romans or Macedonians? Heck...13th Century knights couldn't handle Flemish pikemen (who were amateurs compared to Alexander's pikemen). What am I missing? Oh yeah...Byzantines. Well, I am a fan of the Byzantines. Their armies were built to correspond to the last major changes of the mid-late Roman empire (the mobile reserve idea with local forces manning the empire's borders/perimeter). The Byzantines had issues recruiting good infantry forces (essentially ending up with the problems the Eastern Roman Empire was dealing with vis-a-vis the Western Roman Empire when the Western Romans could still recruit vast numbers of Gallic and German infantry into the legions...tough, warlike fighting men that the Byzantines had trouble matching in the East (with the exceptions of groups like Varangians, etc. Byzantine Scutarii, for example, were not the equal of Trajan's legionaries). The Byzantines also had smaller forces they could field. Their horse archers and mobility would have given their Imperial counterparts fits...but the field fortifications the legionaries would erect whenever they stopped would be a pain to overcome. Byzantine commanders were every bit the equal of Roman ones though. That would be a good fight to witness! The Byzantines (before Manzikert) had few problems with Dark Age/early Medieval armies...even if they didn't like Normans very much...but they were trying to fight knights with cataphracts...a better matchup for the knights than knights trying to break solid, well ordered infantry formations of the sort the Imperial Romans and Macedonians would be fielding in large numbers...)[/quote] [URL="http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/18u20t/dan_carlin_claims_that_you_could_take_the_roman/"]Source[/URL]
Anyone else annoyed by the way people behave in the buildings in Empire and Napoleon? A lot of the time men don't fire at all, and when they do it's one man per window, with the rest of the men standing there like a wally. It should be everyone at a fire point and taking it in turns. At the moment buildings are pretty much useless unless you're in some last ditch attempt against cavalry.
[QUOTE=Mort and Charon;39992936]Anyone else annoyed by the way people behave in the buildings in Empire and Napoleon? A lot of the time men don't fire at all, and when they do it's one man per window, with the rest of the men standing there like a wally. It should be everyone at a fire point and taking it in turns. At the moment buildings are pretty much useless unless you're in some last ditch attempt against cavalry.[/QUOTE] They're irritating in field battles, but I was able to put my weak units into one of the armouries/barracks during a fort siege. Meant they weren't getting completely mauled by the 500 strong regiments of Mughal levies, and there were some intense fights on the roof. They were even able to break off a few of these 500 strong units, with supporting fire of my stronger regiments in their trenches in the centre of the fort.
My least favorite part of Empire was the huge amount of factions on the single player map, it took forever for a turn to load, which really ruined the experience. The muliplayer on Empire is much better than Napoleon's. Better maps, better unit's/unit diversity, etc.
[QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;39993102]They're irritating in field battles, but I was able to put my weak units into one of the armouries/barracks during a fort siege. Meant they weren't getting completely mauled by the 500 strong regiments of Mughal levies, and there were some intense fights on the roof. They were even able to break off a few of these 500 strong units, with supporting fire of my stronger regiments in their trenches in the centre of the fort.[/QUOTE] Problem with Napoleon, especially the Peninsular War campaign which I'm in at the moment, forts are scarce, so defenders have no real advantage anyway, and buildings are more of a hindrance, getting in the way of my formations, than a help. 1 thing I did really like about Napoleon is the (re?)introduction of ambushes, can really change the odds of a battle, and I actually find it quite fun being put on the spot and having to fight a rapid and intense battle on the backfoot.
I must be the only one here that genuinely enjoyed Napoleon. Although, I have to raise a few brows when people say Empire had more unit diversity, when the French faction in Napoleon alone has one too many unique units in it's roster. The Ottoman roster is also worth a mention, because there's a variety of melee and ranged units as well. [editline]21st March 2013[/editline] Admittedly I never played Empire, so I only heard stuff about how notoriously bland each countries armies are (i.e: they're all clones).
I prefer Napoleon too. It's one of my favourite areas of military history, and the game seemed overall more polished and challenging. The units in Empire were definitely a lot more homogenous. People don't like the extra unit DLCs for Napoleon, but I think i picked up the game and all the DLCs for under £10 so I can't complain.
Tbh. I love the diversity. Makes it feel more life-like if you get me. It gives "what the fuck just happened" moments without being unfair because a) I could've known and b) next time I know for sure
The Peninsular campaign is more about attacking supply lines and winning the skirmishes across the Iberian peninsula. The Large battles matter but they are fewer. You can defeat/cripple an army with spies/guerilla's, cutting supplies and causing rebellions.
Napoleon Total War - Or how I learned to stop using cavalry and love the artillery.
[QUOTE=RearAdmiral;39993889]Napoleon Total War - Or how I learned to stop using cavalry and love the artillery.[/QUOTE] Infantry squares that can be formed in less than 5 seconds, artillery like that of Ww1 era technology, Canister shot...
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;39960529][url]http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/03/18/creative-assembly-immortalise-dying-total-war-fan-by-putting-his-likeness-in-game/[/url] Awww[/QUOTE] lmao im gonna use his character in the vanguard
[thumb]http://i.imgur.com/0FMYZfD.jpg[/thumb] Japan builds some pretty sturdy bridges.
[QUOTE=theseltsamone;39994685][thumb]http://i.imgur.com/0FMYZfD.jpg[/thumb] Japan builds some pretty sturdy bridges.[/QUOTE] [img]http://blogs.brisbanetimes.com.au/thegosspel/300mel.jpg[/img] Dang Japans.
[IMG]http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/576675927119316163/67AB54E53C2B44F1EC6E129AD0098DC8E993A4FB/[/IMG] Sheer numbers and bayonets prevail.
Woah wait! Rangergxi? From the 62nd Battalion from Napoleonic Wars? (I know it seems out of place I just can't PM you for some reason)
Final Faction Revealed: [url]http://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Factions[/url] Dunno how I feel about this; would definitely prefer the Selucid Empire. Also, new icon at the bottom of the Factions page. (Probably pre-order bonus faction..)
[QUOTE=Mythman;39999082]Final Faction Revealed: [url]http://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Factions[/url] Dunno how I feel about this; would definitely prefer the Selucid Empire. Also, new icon at the bottom of the Factions page. (Probably pre-order bonus faction..)[/QUOTE] Egypt was kinda predictable. My favorite faction was the selucids and that last icon gives me hope. [URL=http://filesmelt.com/][IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/watisdis.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
Eh always knew it was going to be Egypt, they were a major power during that period so its not really surprising.
Haha time for some scythed chariots biotches
Oh man the Egyptians...bring back good times from my first Rome Total War game. I launched this huge invasion of Egypt with a main legion supported by two other armies. Took all the Nile cities quickly but I just couldn't move outside that area. The Egyptians kept circling around just waiting. It ended up being the campaign that destroyed my imperial dreams, siphoned all my money and resources to wage war across the map while people in my home cities died of plague.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39994962]Woah wait! Rangergxi? From the 62nd Battalion from Napoleonic Wars? [/QUOTE] Yes, Lance Corporal before it fell apart. We all knew Egypt was going to be a faction, it's the age of Rome ffs. :) Most of the faction's were obvious, Carthage, Rome, Egypt.. the "Barbarians" were really the faction's in question.
I still expect modders will unlock the other factions in a few days. Problem is they'll probably be like Empire, half-done and never intended for use. Or maybe they'll fucking sell them to us again.
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;40000821]I still expect modders will unlock the other factions in a few days. Problem is they'll probably be like Empire, half-done and never intended for use. Or maybe they'll fucking sell them to us again.[/QUOTE] I'm feeling the second part :\
[QUOTE=Killerjc;40001285]I'm feeling the second part :\[/QUOTE] I would be ok with that if the newly added faction's were different and added some interesting gameplay.
Yeah, there's no way they [I]couldn't[/I] have Egypt. Their marriage with Rome was kind of a huge deal, especially during the events of the fall of the Republic and the rise of the first and second Caesars. [editline]22nd March 2013[/editline] Not having Egypt would be a crime on par with human trafficking.
Really the lineup seems pretty good, though I would've liked an Iberian faction to round it all out.
I hope the rally point logo means a community choice for the next faction. I'd vote Scythia personally.
[QUOTE=theseltsamone;39994685][thumb]http://i.imgur.com/0FMYZfD.jpg[/thumb] Japan builds some pretty sturdy bridges.[/QUOTE] Wait, is that map a historical battle or in campaign? Haven't seen it before.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.