Is Total War a Real Time Strategy Game?

[@SSR2902]

Finally someone in the total war community who understand what is the difference between tactics and strategy instead of throwing the word strategy left and right.

[@danielx8765]

Usually most total war gamers or RTS gamers aren't that picking in military term they use strategy as in the sense of "dating strategy". But if I am trying to view total war or most RTS in military term, they aren't even tactical. Because they lack the tactical projection that can be apply in the RL tactical situation, simply put, they are too abstract and far away(inaccurate) from RL war that it made them tactically inaccurate. A good example will be, would you call chess a tactical game, operational game or strategy game? A chess is a "game" that has very little to do with "war" despite it got inspired by war. Total war series is the same.

[@SSR2902]

@@danielx8765 Ok who told you that tactics and strategy are military terms. Strategy: " a general plan to achieve one or more long-term or overall goals". Vaguely defined as to mean many things. Like a marketing strategy, ore a football team might have a strategy to win the game. I think you can agree that Those don't have anything to do with military. Tactics: "a conceptual action or short series of actions with the aim of achieving of a short-term goal". you are in a campaign and you use tactics to win the short-term goal, winning the battle. And I would call chess a strategy game. You fight for the center so that you can obstruct the movement and development of the opponent's pieces so that allocate more pieces into an attack than the defender can allocate to defend. And along the way opportunities can arise where you can use tactics to gain a material advantage. whether they are applicable in real-life combat is irrelevant. and yes the tern tactics is used in chess.

[@danielx8765]

@@SSR2902 you need to read my paragraph again. I said most people use it in a general term like "dating strategy" where tactics and strategy is not as clear defined as where people who use it in a military term. I can also say "when I play mario kart my strategy/tactics is XYZ" it is similar like one saying it in chess tactics. But let us to be honest here, chess has very little application to RL military tactics/operation and strategy. Unless you use it in an abstract way like using "mario kart tactics". What I am saying is people who argue strategy vs tactics is usually comming from military aspect which is not the case for abstract(and also out of touch of reality) game like chess and general usage like "dating strategy" I will say the same thing to Total war, it is as tactical as dating "tactic/strategy" is tactical or strategy but not in the military sense.

[@OGRamrod]

More like finally a content creator who understands what Total War really is supposed to be and why we loved it and what we wanted it to grow up to be instead of some guys all trying to copy Ssethtzeentach (PBUH) making a bunch of videos about cheesing mechanics.

[@giraffesushi8112]

@@SSR2902 except the origin of the word strategy is from ancient greece and was about military...

[@Smartacus98]

I jumped ship on Total War after Rome II and never really looked back. When I occasionally see what it is now it feels like bumping into a high school ex who has since become a drug addict/joined a cult/become a furry.

[@antthegord9411]

im in the exact same boat man. haven't even glanced CA's way after Rome II. series is a joke now

[@BastiPROTON]

Same here. I'll keep an eye out for anything new, but it disappoints every time.

[@prs_81]

Lol, as if Rome II was good.

[@CoffeeMaus]

Come now, some furries have redeeming qualities. These new TW games meanwhile...

[@j.bbailey6275]

Nah u guys are missing out

[@NaCk210]

That charge at the end made me remember fondly the solidity of the units back then. Sure, watching a heavy cavalry charge actually send units flying can look -kinda- cool the first time but eventually it contributes to how fucked up the physics feel in this game, and how they developers just completly abandoned any intention of depicting a realistic simulation. I get that they want the charges to feel strong, but having all soldiers fly like bowling pins ends up giving you the opposite reaction, because it's not making you feel that the cavalry is heavy, it's making you feel like the infantry is extremely light. Besides, if anything a charge should make the horses trample and run over troops rather than push them.

[@m3thisse]

Strategy: What to achieve Tactics: How to achieve it There's so much to say here, honestly, on topic of TW as well as mechanical, gameplay issues. My main takeaway however was to to never fucking ever buy a game/dlc that stinks 'cashgrab'. Whoever makes it. An indie dev that's 'trying to get by' and 'really appreciates your support', or a respected, famous studio with iconic creations behind it - both will only understand one language, the language of dollars. Most people don't realize just how much power their wallet has in this context.

[@SSR2902]

@rhyfelwyr what are you talking about, most indie developers do there game as a passion project and have a real job as a software developer to sustain themselves. And really in the recent time indie devs make the best games (dominions 5, shadow empire, thea the awakening (i dont think they are an indie company now but they where when they release the game), battle brothers) while big companies are conservative, unambitious and uninnovative.

[@alexburja]

Turn Based Strategy. Real Time Tactics. This is TW to me.

[@timothyoreilly6571]

I swear it's like every game is just becoming more and more casual. I'd been playing Shogun 2 a bunch more because I was enjoying watching you play it, but I grew up playing Rome 1, I had like 2500 hours in that game, and I started playing Rome again and the gameplay is way more punishing. The AI actually feels better as well. It's a bummer they've managed to defenestrate such a good title.

[@captainnyet9855]

Old TW games like Rome were great games hindered by technical limitations, new TW the games the technical capabilities are generally hindered by design choices. Best example being Warhammer 2's horrible siege battles, CA purposefully made those horribly linear siege maps, even though it's already been proven the engine can handle proper siege battles. CA is actively removing features from it's game, sometimes as a band-aid fix for a problem (CA "fixed" the infinite movement exploit by removing the ability to split up your armies) and sometimes just out of what feels like CA cutting corners out of laziness/bad resource management (WH/WH2 siege maps)

[@jeagerjeager9171]

I'm glad it's casual enough for me to play Warhammer

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

I remember in Rome total and medieval 2 units actually had weight and the lines would be moved by weight, heavy infantry would push light units back. These days the units feel like their on a stage dance performance on ice.

[@ageofwar8442]

I'm waiting for a grand strategy game that goes beyond into Epic combining Total War series with paradox games sprinkled with a little bit of civilization games and Empire Earth. Starting in the Bronze Age and ending in the postmodern age.

[@thepizzafoogle5481]

dont start there, have some tribal and hunt battles in the stone age

[@takashi1488]

I got Troy yesterday for free but after 6 hours of playing Achilles I am no longer having fun of this game. I love the new features that your faction's economy is based on raw materials and trade been done bartering resources like what many cultures did in the Bronze Age, but this unrealistic romance mode that makes generals invincible in battle does really turn off that realism and historical vibes. I fell in love with TW Rome and Rome 2 for such reasons. They used to make me feel like each one of those soldiers are trained to this very moment in this battle, but the romance mode destroys that feeling. Achilles killing 93 enemy medium spear infantry by himself is not fun at all. I would go play Assassin's Creed if I want games like that.

[@KvltKommando]

i hate the heroes aspect and i hate resources. There was something nice about the simplicity of just using gold for everything

[@takashi1488]

​@@KvltKommando I really hope the devs stop making TW games unoriginal like adding hero general. But I think they did good job with using resource based economy for the historical aspects of Bronze Age period. The Greeks weren't using gold and silver at that time period yet.

[@giorgiannicartamancini3917]

@@takashi1488 The resource based economy is cool, if a bit broken by the abysmal AI, but yeah the battles are at their worst

[@OGRamrod]

Go read the Iliad as well - the work is very grounded in a realistic understanding of the tactics in use at the time. If they want guys like Achilles to be OP - which he should be - then mods for Medieval 2 did this the way it should have been done: he's really tanky and does a lot of damage and has functionally unbreakable morale. But if I focused him with 2000 archers then he should fall like a tree eventually. Perfect example: Warcraft Total War. I caught a unit of Gurubashi Hydras out in the open. I wanted to keep it from joining a larger army where it would really become a problem if surrounded by supporting elements; I was pushing down into Stranglethorn after recovering from a fatal push into my territory after I broke their last invasion force but it cost me the brigade that was defending the river crossing to do it, so I was wide open for invasion. Anyway, hydras: do I really need to describe what a hydra is and why that's bad? So I sent a fast-moving force of ranged units to kill them. Several hundred archers, crossbowmen, dwarven & human riflemen and some mages to boot. Were they tanky? Yes. Would they have eaten my units alive if they got in striking distance? Definitely, as they should. But I outmaneuvered them and the sheer volume of fire I laid into them eventually killed them all and I took no casualties. Not only was that tactically sound, but it reflects the lore and it's also realistic in a grander sense. We're not talking about the Lich King here who's got some of the best armor ever made in the setting and who's also got a small library of magic spells at his disposal. These are beasts, flesh-and-blood reptiles. Even if they are dinosaurs; getting torn to pieces by what probably amounted to tens of thousands of bullets, bolts, arrows and arcane fireballs should and would kill them. We succeeded, my victorious men rejoined King Varian's army and we broke the siege of Zul'Kunda and headed back north cutting through a force that threatened to flank us before we could be encircled by forces of Gurubashi that were quickly moving in and could've had us in a bind and cost us way too much in a protracted fight, even if we won. I need those units to conquer Stranglethorn Vale and defeat the Gurubashi once and for all now that they're more vulnerable than they've been in about twenty turns after they blew their load on an invasion that came to nothing. They tried to cut off my limbs but all they did was shave my beard. Now they're going to pay for that failure. That is what Total War is supposed to be. That is what keeps you coming back. That is what makes you say, "Just one more turn," four hours ago.

[@MidnightSt]

yeah the "tactics vs strategy" term issue. the part of the issue is, though, that people don't really know the difference between them. even I don't, probably, since the best/clearest explanation i ever got was a silly short: "strategy is about correctly picking what objectives need to be achieved. tactics is about how to achieve them."

[@ashholiday123]

Strategy = Big Plan to win the WAR. Tactics = Small Plan to Win the BATTLE.

[@_jwp_7311]

To me it is quite obviously not an RTS, and I don't see anyone who has played an RTS such as AoE 1-2 or SC2 making the mistake to call any TW such... RTS-games, regardless of the title, have economy and military management, or macro- and micromanagement coexisting within the same, limited domain of time which the player uses. These things are completely separate in TW games.

[@captainnyet9855]

that horn at the end... I almost made a shameful display in my pants hearing that.

[@ryilan7417]

I had to chuckle when the clip of World of Warcraft showed up. Not because of what's occuring in the clip, but because of how pertinent I found it to you describing the current state of Total War as amorphous and weird. In a way the series is suffering from the same thing that affected not only World of Warcraft, but also games like the Elder Scrolls en Fallout series to a degree. Accessibility. Simply put, this happens when the development of the game stops being targeted towards their core audiance and tries to grow it by appealing to players outside of that core. The problem is that when you design a game for everyone, you're not designing it appeal to anyone in particular anymore. World of Warcraft is a good example of this. Used to be that getting to max level and getting the best gear in raids took dedication and effort. Nowadays leveling is super easy and anyone can get decent gear by playing a few hours each day. Heck, you're not even guaranteed to get good gear anymore even if you put the time in due to the RNG aspect of loot these days. Veterans of the Elder Scrolls series can all attest to the fact that Bethesda has been dumbing down their games since Daggerfall. Features in previous games don't make it to the next title, to the point where in Skyrim you can't create your own spells anymore. As for Fallout, just look at the difference between Fallout 4 and preceeding titles. Skills are gone, you're left with four options for conversations, the option to resolve the main quest in a non-violent manner is not there anymore and so on. I'm not saying that accessibility will neccesarily result in a bad game. I just think that accessibility is what caused the slow devolution of the Total War series to the point where it lost sight of what it used to be.

[@cordlc]

Yeah, what's happened to Total War isn't exclusive to its own series, and it isn't even exclusive to videogames. It's entirely in line with what's happening with modern culture, in how there's a growing chasm between people that more easily accept the "education" they're given, and those that trust more in their own instinct. This gap widens the more the city dwelling specialists (whom produce all the media) lose more and more touch with basic reality. This applies to everything I can think of, especially media. Movies, music, theater, books, whatever. A common element being the modern work having some sort of technical "advantage" or focus, at the expense of losing the importance of the bigger picture.

[@idontknow970]

Great analysis of something that could be chalked up to simply being a misnomer but it does carry more weight than that. The total war games of today are straying away grom what drew me to them as a kid. Obviously, witnessing and taking part in the historical battles and campaigns you've read about was the initial allure but once you get over the grandiose pitched battles the enjoyment came from the tactical elements of the game; outmaneuvering the enemy, a clean hammer and anvil, exploiting a skirmishing advantage, etc. The strategy on the campaign map was enjoyable but it was all about the set up and anticipation of your next great tactical feat. The less important and perhaps less logical the tactics become with these hero characters and some things like height advantage seemingly not holding significant weight, difficulty combat modifiers etc, the less interested I become in newer installations in the franchise. Not that they're all bad games; and they certainly aren't completely devoid of tactics either, but it's clear to see they are slowly evolving into something else.

[@Volound]

you get it. damn right. agree especially about the development of new satisfactions. i went from being amazed that there were more men than in red alert 2, to having pure satisfaction from perfect plays.

[@idontknow970]

@@Volound unfortunately for CA, their player base is getting older and older. A fresh coat of paint, pretty new graphics with motion captured animations and blood effects doesn't entice us anymore. Especially when the core tactial gameplay elements are beginning to feel disingenuous to the fundamental properties of a total war battle us players had become accustomed to. We wanted improvements on what worked so well not for them to revamp and gut the system entirely. I feel the game becoming a damn near yearly franchise has dramatically impeded the integrity of the once prestigious tactical battle simulation.

[@cobrates7832]

Yeah, I agree. The original Shogun and Medieval are the best strategic and tactical games of the franchise by far. From Rome onward both the strategic and tactical elements went downhill fast. Cinematic and rpg elements became king. I think only because the original concept of a grand strategy map and real-time battles was so damn freaking good the franchise has survived this long. I always feel a little sad thinking about how awesome their more recent installments could have been if they had spend more time on the strategic and tactical aspects of the game. This whole hero system is perhaps the best example. You know something is off when leveling up, skill trees, buffs etc. are among the main ingredients of something that calls itself a strategy game.

[@iwankazlow2268]

@@cobrates7832 What was changed from Shogun and Medieval to Rome that made the game less good?

[@cobrates7832]

@@iwankazlow2268 A lot ;) The strength of Shogun and Medieval was their simplicity. Pretty much all features of those games were build around Sun Tzu's The Art of War. That worked really well - especially for the AI. A good example is the strategic map. Obviously the way Rome did it is better if the AI could handle army movement better. But that isn't the case. So even though Rome's system is superior, the way Shogun and Medieval did it worked better for the AI because it was much easier to handle. If you make improvements to the game that hamper the AI (so it makes more retarded decisions) the game loses out on the strategic and tactical level - which is what I like about TW games. That's what I mean when I say that the strategic and tactical aspects went downhill. TW games did improve on many levels but the AI couldn't keep up. And if the AI can't handle it on the strategic and tactical levels it isn't worth it in my opinion. I much rather play a game that challenges my strategic and tactical decision-making than one that looks better and has more options but doesn't challenge me as much.

[@Quackerilla]

Kinda feels more like a Myth 2 descendant than a "real time" strategy

[@blahmarduk]

you point, you click, you solve puzzles in a sense. don't see the difference.

[@halo12390]

i learned something today. game devs need to see this video

[@speedracer1004]

As a player of total war games, I only got into the series to begin with due to the hive around Napoleon which ended up getting me into Empire as well. I literally had no idea there was more games until after I had played those two games for around a year. I'm still so fresh to total war that as of a hour ago I learned more about Medieval 2 than I had ever known before. And as total war nerd who was raised on broken Empire and it's slightly polished successor Napoleon. I was completely blown away, it was a bit hard to adjust to the overall town management, taxation, diplomacy and many more aspects which my simple minded total war brain was to lazy to try to understand before. I absolutely love it only after a few hours of gameplay, I'm seriously considering buying Rome or it's remastered version as my young eyes are still not entirely used to these older graphics!

[@gerardjagroo]

That Parthian Cataphract charge at the end gave me the chills😱😱😱

[@Owlr4ider]

Completely agree with the quote you provided about the RTS genre. It should have been called RTT rather than RTS as the tactical aspect is much more pronounced than the strategic, which only comes into play in the base building part of the game. Total War has never been an RTS game, as the entire strategic part of the game is on the campaign map. That's perfectly fine by the way, it's what makes Total War so unique, this combination of turn based strategy on the campaign map with real time tactics on the battle map, getting the best of both the TBS and RTS(T) genres. The problem is that as you mentioned most people don't realize the RTS genre has very little to do with actual strategy which is part of the reason why this genre has slowly but surely been dying for quite a while now. Similarly Total War is in an identity crisis of its own, with the new CA having misidentified what the Total War genre was thus taking it in a completely alien direction.

[@PerfectJayDread]

Oh Christ please do SupCom FAF. Just seeing it again is enough to get me salivating.

[@leoestellar5232]

The campaign involves planning for long-term goals that involve key assets into keeping your empire stable and managing your armies efficiently. The tactics come when the battle starts between the armies. Overall it is a strategy game with tactical elements. Without strategy everything will fall apart and without tactics, you can have the best army in the world and get your shit kicked in. And it is a Turn Based Strategy Game overall.

[@australiananarchist480]

the "tactical" map in Rome 2 i would call Operational, rather than Strategic or Tactical. Operational is the inbetween. Thinking of WW2, Operation Barbarossa was a strategy, then each Army Group was an Operational, then Kursk or Stalingrad would be tactical

[@australiananarchist480]

oh lit, like the second i posted this you mentioned it lol

[@jeffcurrey8765]

Ya, the loss of the tactical height advantage is significant, from Shogun 1 to 2. What was the last TW game to bestow this realism to the happy gamer? I haven't played Rome 1 or Medieval 2 in so long, I really don't know.

[@Osvath97]

Troy has units that are immune to flanking??? I understand why a few units would have unbreakable morale, throughout history we have seen units with such high morale that they fight to the death without hesitation (it makes more sense than what can happen in Shogun 2: having your hero unit fight until there is literally just one person left... And that person retreats. That is not how human psychology works, especially not when the unit is surrounded)... But the only way you could possibly be immune to flanking would be to deploy in a square formation, which has a lot of negative side-effects. Just saying: "Immune to flanking since they are just so good." makes no sense. Remember how the Spartans at Thermopylae got defeated? Flanking. I guess CA just does not consider the Royal Spartan Hippeis elite enough...

[@CHAOSWITHUS]

great work as always

[@BeardedCatDad]

I've been saying this for years. An RTS requires strategy. This would include strategy of resource collection and management, strategy in building creation and placement, strategy in what units to create and where, and strategy of what to research and when. Most "true" RTS games include resource collection, building management, unit micro, and some sort of tech or upgrade trees. Total War does include those, but ONLY in the turn-based campaign. Therefore, the battle mode is actually just RTT much as you said. When I tell people this they look at my like I'm crazy because Total War calls itself and RTS rather than separately as both a "Grand-Strategy" and "Real-Time Tactics" game.

[@lateralus6512]

Volound; what are your thoughts on Age of Empires 2 as a game in general?

[@Volound]

one of the first games i ever played, the conquerors expansion. i got the demo on a PC gaming magazine issue CD and rekt the aztec campaign over and over again on the hardest difficulty as a kid. i know that mission inside out to this day.

[@lateralus6512]

@@Volound I'd like to see you play that game. The new Definitive Addition is a better remaster than most people were expecting.

[@_jwp_7311]

It’s definitely a major improvement for mechanical skill ceiling and there are tons of new campaigns too, some of which are actually difficult for even the highest caliber players.

[@Nicholas-zl5fl]

To be honest, I liked the strategy part better than the tactical part. I'm not saying the battles aren't fun, they are. I'm just saying I like constructing the cities and composing the armies and managing the economy and converting provinces to the our religion better than the battles.

[@dubiousdevil9572]

It's a grand strategy/real time tactics

[@gokbay3057]

No. Paradox games are Grand Strategy. Total War is Turn Based Strategy and Real Time Tactics.

[@dubiousdevil9572]

@@gokbay3057 you're wack

[@iregreteverything360]

@@gokbay3057 Imagine calling paradox games anything but glorified spreadsheets with maps

[@gokbay3057]

@Reee Monro if you think Stellaris is that you should take a look at Aurora 4X

[@johnirby8847]

If they could somehow make time a decisive factor in TW it would change everything. If someone can complete the strategic part and hit end turn multiple times before the AI or the enemy can...you get stacking effects or something. 🤷🏼‍♂️

[@pjw6525]

Strategy is what you need to do to get there. Tactics is what you do when your there

[@hughjanus3899]

TotalWar was never a RTS to me. It had elements of CIV and StarCraft combined into what we know as TotalWar.

[@Volound]

yep same here. when i heard RTS, i always thought of something really massive in scope playing out in real time, like "supreme ruler".

[@deriznohappehquite]

I would contend that even with heroes, it still remains a tactical game. The heroes are just another type of unit that gets added to the tactical and strategic calculation. I can only speak to Warhammer because that’s the only Total War game with heroes that I’ve played, but heroes are strategically expensive. You can only recruit a limited number of them, they require expensive special buildings to increase their recruitment capacity, they only become more powerful than a standard unit when they reach a high enough level. If a high level hero gets wounded, you have to wait for that hero to recover. If they die, you lose all of their experience. For tactical concerns, they can become exhausted, get separated from allied units and surrounded/swarmed, fired upon en mass, etc. Total War certainly isn’t a historical strategy or tactics series anymore, but it’s still as much of a strategy/tactics series as something like Starcraft, Warcraft, Myth, X Com, Fire Emblem, etc. I would say Warhammer is less tactical than, say, Shogun 2, because your tactics have less chance of swaying the outcome of a battle. There are more operational and strategic considerations to make, though. In Warhammer, some Ashigaru you cobble together wouldn’t really be enough to stop a samurai army,

[@Volound]

did you watch this? kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y6TMmJZmd8qrgpo just wanting to know if youve seen it before i respond further.

[@cobrates7832]

You can contend that a random Batman comic teaches you something about strategy and tactics, just like, say, Sun Tzu's the Art of War. The costumes and gadgets just add some extra layers to the mix, right? Every time you add something it simultaneously takes something else away. You cannot design, say, a car that is both the fastest and most comfortable at the same time. You can go for speed, you can go for comfort, or you can go for something in between. Same is true for games. You can go for strategy, you can go for heroes, or something in between. You cannot have it both ways.

[@deriznohappehquite]

Volound I have seen it now. The AI doesnt seem good at dealing with heroes. Compared to Warhammer, it seems like the units are less sticky so it’s harder to mosh pit a hero. there’s less access to cavalry, and no access to large units or gunpowder, obviously, so the AI isn’t likely to bring those units that are more able to deal with heroes than infantry. The AI also doesn’t make any effort to destroy your isolated units. It’d be cool if CA were able to make an AI that could recognize when one of your units is exposed and exploit that. In Warhammer, they would just charge with everything they have the moment any of your units gets into melee with them or if they take more than token damage. It’s a kind of stupidly simple solution, but the AI has always been stupid. Of course, they AI’s army would most likely include some cavalry, guns, heroes or some kind of monster like trolls, outside of the very early game. The AI’s melee stat cheats suck because they unbalance the game and force the player to engage with fewer of the game’s systems rather than making it more challenging and forcing the player to use more of the game’s systems.

[@Volound]

@@deriznohappehquite yeah i just wanted to make sure you saw some of the scope of the issue before continuing. and yeah you definitely see the problem here. the heroes on their own are a badly implemented and broken concept that completely undermines the normal unit vs. unit. ive not played warhammer but ive heard "SE cheese" (single entity ridiculing of combat) is possible there too. my first hours of total war in 4.5 years are on youtube. search for my "3k heroic victory" video from mid-2019. i began playing total war with single entities, by breaking the game with them. they are a broken idea. i see no real solution to the problem. they dont work in total war. see "jonasnee"s comment elsewhere on this comment section, it nailed some of why i think this is just hopeless. also, the hidden combat difficulty modifiers break the game all on their own. "admiralprice" told me in a discord server that 2 units of mid-tier spears fighting in an even controlled fight, will produce a 7:1 KDR against the player on legendary. that is abysmal and that is pathetic. this game has no balance and no meta. it has no coherence and no direction. it is another rome 2 but this time, the game has a smooth >60fps and no crashes, and the AI actually "works" in normal unit vs. unit. and yeah you really are 100% on the mark with what you said about compelling the player to disengage from systems. you are basically forced to completely ignore infantry combat (absurd in a game set during the trojan war) by the heroes + difficulty combat modifers.

[@deriznohappehquite]

Cobrates the art of war by Sun Tzu is mostly obvious stuff. Batman usually has no internal consistency or rules whereas a video game engine is usually pretty internally consistent. Regardless, strategy is applied to the game, not learned from the game. When you add something, you might take something away, but you don’t necessarily make an inferior product, and what you add might be more subjectively valuable than what you take away. For example, adding seatbelts to a car vs. not adding seatbelts. The seatbelts add safety, but they also take up some space, add weight, and make the car more expensive. Still, the safety benefits outweigh the other considerations to the point where every car has seatbelts. I would agree that Total War is now a different type of strategy game, and it’s sad that the old type of Total War game isn’t being made anymore. Single entities are kind of like taking seatbelts out of every car, in a sense, or adding a spear to the airbags.

[@Matvei22420]

Have you done a review of Thrones of Britannia missiles and all the other bs? No one else has posted anything about it (and i see interest in the topic)

[@maxwellsimpson4563]

Ugh, back to rewatching the Hattori campaign

[@iamLI3]

this one i still don't get , in c&c you build a base train troops and fight with them and it's a strategy game but in tw you build a base train troops and fight with them and it's not a strategy game?....

[@thatwolfensteinguy8954]

You build all the troops turn based, not in real time

[@iamLI3]

@@thatwolfensteinguy8954 is that the only difference that matters for this differentiation?

[@kaikongchan5513]

It is good that someone point out the obvious fraud in total war warhammer #.

[@liss160593]

TW games are just an hybrid. I think the combination of Campaign map and Real time battles is what made TW games a success. TW warhammer 2 is by far the best game in the franchise ( given that you have access to Mortal Empires). Thanks to the quantity of totally different units, magic, monsters and heroes the battles have a tactical depth that is not comparable to any other TW game. Since i have played TW W2 i find any historical game extrimely boring, with almost no differences between the factions and really few options in the battlefield. Infantry clash, hammer and anvil, maybe snipe general. That's it. I agree that CA has failed to deliver a good historical game since Medieval 2, Maybe shogun 2 (never played it). Rome 2 and Attila are the worst games of the franchise in my opinion. I also understand that one may really dislike fantasy setting and want a pure historical expirence and that CA is not capable to deliver it anymore. Due to this divided player base (Fantasy and historical) CA is recently trying to adress new games to both community. With the latest one Troy they decided to do an hybrid game, fantasy and historical, trying to please both community but miserably failing to do so pissing off both community. Similar story with 3 Kingdoms where at least they give a choice to the player.

[@Volound]

saying warhammer has tactical depth is just retarded when every infantry unit in the game is nonviable and combat is a devolved ranged clusterfuck. maybe if you play on normal. if you havent played shogun 2 then you dont even know what a good total war game is in the first place.

[@tastycookiechip]

@@Volound He said he's played Medieval 2 tho? That's arguably better than Shogun 2

[@ChaosEIC]

Na but, saying Warhammer is the best game of the franchise is just triggering me. When heroes just kill everything with magic. Warhammer 1/2 is the most unbalanced shit that came out. In Attila it was at least an actual challenge to win as WRE on legendary or getting the This is Total War achievement on ERE even tho the game in itself is just a repetitive spam of the same cities all over the map and a spam of the same armys everywhere. But Baltasar Gelt + 1 or 2 some magicians destroying enemy armys alone (on legendary) is just pathetic and dumb as fuck. Where is the fun in that?

[@jamiemccallum833]

Looks like I could play that game on my laptop

[@the1ultimatet1u49]

i never heard anyone say total war is a rts

[@Volound]

then listen to people talk about it more.

[@cole8834]

????

[@thijsjong]

I like both rts and most total war titles.

[@the1ultimatet1u49]

@@Volound hmm i just hear everyone say turn based strategy game, not rts

[@Volound]

dunno what circles youre in to have noticed that. everyone is using the term "RTS" wrong and has been for decades. just look at the first seconds of the video. search youtube for "best RTS games" or "top 10 strategy games" and youll find watchmojo videos with millions of views and comment sections full of people using words wrong and not understanding what they mean, without being challenged. my perception is entirely correct and yours is 100% wrong ..or the result of cognitive bias or unlucky sampling. P.S. thats even worse because it doesnt even acknowledge the real-time aspect that constitutes the whole point of the game. you wouldnt know civilisation from sudden strike with that kind of terrible terminology.

[@antthegord9411]

Is it safe to say that strategy essentially dictates where a battle will be fought and tactics dictates how it is to be fought?

[@ChaosEIC]

Not really. It is part of the tactics where it will be fought. The strategy is more like: What goals do we have? Taking enemy lands. How do we achieve this? By smashing the enemy defense. Or we can just give them money to give us the land. How do we kill the enemy defense? How do we make sure our army is well supplied? etc.

[@joey19931226]

i think total war falls under the 4x-game category

[@Darek_B52]

Are you sure Sun Tzu said that?

[@thejourney2point0]

Tactical? No sir. Tacticool.

[@Matvei22420]

Is Bannerlord a strategy game more than Total War? Feels like it - tactics seem less important than managing safety of your borders and removing threats map-wide

[@dotcom3987]

"The reason why everyone plays TW is the real time tactics". Not true, in fract i play mostly for the empire-building campaign,m and avoid manual battles most of the time. Unless its a really interesting battle with a cool setup, i do my utmost to avoid it, the battles can become really tiring really fast, fighting the same garrisons over and over and over is a chore.

[@Volound]

total war is an RTT crutched with a superficial campaign that is trivially navigated. the deep and living battles are the whole point. obviously there are people out there that play FIFA for the economy sim aspect but nobody cares about that.

[@am2329]

Well, i think that it wont happend in the next historical total war

[@mrmcgreg]

Funny how strategy and long term planning flies out of the window in Thrones of Britannia because of constant garbage random events.

[@aucklandid4937]

What part of Scotland are from

[@Volound]

glasgow.

[@NoelleIsTheGeoArchon]

This is why l stick to Rtw and mtw2

[@mscapeh4451]

its not a realtime rts tho for thats c,c and age of empires kinda system

[@user-nh7on1nd9i]

안녕하세요 재밌는 게임을 계속 촬영해 주셔서 감사합니다

[@orange_apple2667]

Yes?

[@odinsoneeye7501]

Lingua Franca!!!!!!!

[@TheRealKiRBEY]

I cant really understand most of what you're saying because of your accent But I still love the vids

[@rhysdavies3479]

It's an arcade game now pretty much

[@неболаја]

ppl 1st need 2 understand terms STRATEGY n TACTIX!

[@Sublimeoo]

its a TBSRTT

[@Volound]

the part of the game everyone cares about is RTT.

[@Uberninjaturtle]

Cool vid tho

[@YongyoonKim]

Are you Scottish?

[@Volound]

yep

[@YongyoonKim]

@@Volound Yes, I hate Irish people but I love Scottish and Brits. Had too many bad experiences with both Ireland and N. Ireland.

[@Volound]

@@YongyoonKim im basically 100% genetically irish.

[@YongyoonKim]

@@Volound I don't really believe genetics has to do with it for me. I mean I block almost all Canadians on my steam, but they aren't genetically Canadian. You can't be racist against Canadians, it's simply a culture. Culture is what matters. This is why I don't consider Justin Trudeau Quebecois as he lived most of his life outside of Quebec.

[@Volound]

i support glasgows green and white and ive drank guinness.

[@BucephalusHume]

Sorry but this is pretentious. Strategy is just as significant for RT battles as tactics is for TB campaign. Lol at you referencing sun tzu as if it defines tactics or strategy.

[@Volound]

there isnt any strategy involved with the battles in total war. nothing strategic happens. thats just absurd. sun tzu influenced the shaping of the whole world over millenia. the moving around of borders and the rise and fall of superpowers occurred with sun tzu firmly in the mind of everyone responsible.

[@BucephalusHume]

@@Volound how is that absurd? Of course strategy plays a part. I think you're being too narrow with your definition of tactics and strategy. I'm not disagreeing with you about how influential the character of sun tzu is. Just pointing out that the example you used didn't define strategy or tactics.

[@Volound]

give an example then. fucking stalling pointlessly.

[@BucephalusHume]

@@Volound lol check out your rage issues. How am i stalling, you absolute buffoon? An example of what? Strategy in a total war battle? There's many, high ground for example. Strategy and tactics intermingle and work together, hence why what you were saying in the video is nonesense.

[@BucephalusHume]

@@Volound or did u want an example of a definition? It was kind of unclear, im assuming you can google that tho

[@curismo5526]

Make some dishonored content

[@Volound]

dishonored got cancelled harder than hypatia.

[@Uberninjaturtle]

@@Volound why lol

[@Volound]

i dunno. why did their founder and creative director leave.

[@monishcrack1077]

@@Volound because of bethesda i guess?

[@Uberninjaturtle]

@@jonasnee i liked all 3 games and they ran fine on my mid-high spec pc