The Fallacy of Total War "Unit Diversity"

Like a criminal returning to the scene of the crime, secretly hoping to get caught.. fanboys can't seem to help but to put their weakest foot forward, to open the set with their worst joke. I can only take that on its merits.
The playlist for this video series:
• Total Decline: A Total...
The Reddit thread for this video series:
/ ideas_for_future_total...
The brief coverage I already did of "diversity":
• The Immolation of Tota...
See for yourself:
www.google.com...
My Triplex Acies attempt in RTW:
• Attempting the Triplex...
Hastati and principes redundancy focus video:
• Rome Total War - Princ...
Rome 2's roster is one big copypasted reskinner box:
• Analysis of Rome's Mel...
The AoE2 naval jostle:
• Power of Portuguese & ...
Encompassing the immense unit variety of all of Shogun 2:
• The Unit Variety of Sh...
Shogun 2's spears having inconceivably multiplicitous gameplay:
• Shogun 2's spear units...
Absolutely bizarre juggernaut behaviour in 3K:
• Total War Three Kingdo...
Medieval 2's flamethrowers, used in conjunction with gunners and artillery:
• Medieval 2 - Skipping ... , • Medieval 2 - Greek Fir...
Homeworld introducing units with a red carpet:
• Let's play Homeworld -...
The podcast in the month after Rome 2 talking about reskinning:
• Podcast Ep.7 - "Y U NO...
Intense barbarian vs Roman combat in RTW:BI
• Battles in RTW:BI are ...
#reskinnerbox #unitformity #dontcarelookscool
Thanks to @Total War CAT for the thumbnail once again. Subscribe to him for future gameplay collaborations.
0:00 Intro and context
4:05 "Diversity"
4:30 Devil's advocate
9:30 Skinner boxing
12:30 True unit variety
14:40 Shogun 2's "unit diversity"
17:15 Detracting units
26:20 Games that kill their own variety
29:55 Unit variety creating gameplay in Total War
31:30 Polish and actual gameplay consideration
35:45 Calling it 8 years ago, proving it today
Best way to support me and what I do:
/ volound
❤️ Thanks to all supporters ❤️
My complete gaming setup:
www.amazon.co....
Join my Discord server and elevate those sons of bitches:
/ discord
My FB Page for ranty longposts:
/ volound
My Twitter shitterings:
/ volound
My Twitch:
/ volound

[@Volound]

Since uploading, I learned that there already exists a concept in game design to describe what "unit diversity" would want to be pointing to, and it confirms everything I've claimed about modern Total War and about games in general. The term is "Orthogonal Unit Differentiation". The differentiation is orthogonal because it occurs on axes that do not overlap or interact with one another. There is not a trivial sliding up and down on a scale like with hastati and principes armour in Rome 1. There is not a sliding up and down on the melee attack spectrum like all of the legionaries of Rome 2. There is actual meaningful differentiation that defines the units in ways that meaningfully affect decision-making and expands possibilities for gameplay. There is a whole GDC talk on this (by Harvey Smith of the Dishonored that was my channel focus for years, very serendipitously). If you listened to this video all the way through and are interested in more, I recommend listening to it too: www.gdcvault.com/play/1022697/Orthogonal-Unit

[@Volound]

here's a video to substantiate it and help popularise this term: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nny7qmWon957p8U

[@stalkingstork4482]

Shogun 2 has pretty good unit diversity :)

[@LibertysetsquareJack]

Thank you. It's refreshing to hear something that makes sense for a change.

[@metrobiusofsollkhav3143]

Unit diversity is real thing, but those morons use it wrong. Lets use rome1 and shogun2. Rome1 has dicent unit diversity, every faction is destinct and every unit is clearly itself without chance of misinterpreting unit on field. Only thing i would like added would be regional recruitment bonuses. Legionary who grow up in germania will have better physical properties then urbanite from north italia lets say. Maybe add one extra charge, ones recruited in greece should maybe have one moral lower but garrison property (dunno, just spitballing for greeks being too cultured and shit). Shogun2 in another hand is low key disappointing in unit diversity, but all units r well rounded, distinct in manner and do thier work on field with distinction. If i would add anything to shogun2 it would be stuff MOSS mod added. Drafted, profesional, veteran profesional, samurai, veteran samurai, monk units, hero units. But most problems arive from shit outside of units, armies being all around generals is disquasting, family tree being a joke, industry being bland to the point of +/-, agents being confusing and in most cases useless.....

[@Dmitrisnikioff]

Actually, one of my favourite things in tabletop Warhammer was the Ogre Kingdoms, because of their far smaller model count, played really, really differently from most other factions and the same cannot be said of their incarnations in WH3, which was always a damn shame.

[@ballerlarva4214]

Going with your hastati/principes example. i think it might have been cool if princepes were not actually recruitable, but units of hastati that gained a certain number of experience chevrons either became princepes or you got an option to upgrade them for a fee, and that they were much better than hastati.

[@Volound]

theres a good way to handle it. sensible, level-headed comment.

[@alik5972]

For role-playing purposes you could make principes and triarii's limited recruitment to the amount of individual units of hastatii and principes that survived x amount of battles or gained x amount of experience, you could say the unit of hastati stays but the individuals that filled it became principes, I think that would help mechanically

[@ballerlarva4214]

@@alik5972 That actually reminds me of another incident of 'dumbing down' that I don't think Volound has addressed specificially: replenishment of units not diluting experience. In Shogun 2, your veterans really feel valuable. They are a great resource, but you dont want to be too reckless with them because if the unit loses 80% of it's men they'll lose several chevrons after they replenish. In Warhammer once a unit is rank 9 it's rank 9, so long as it isn't annihilated you'll always have that rank 9 unit.

[@alik5972]

@@ballerlarva4214 that's a great system. I could forgive it not being used but ironically it would fit the most to Warhammer out of any other TW game. Wish we could get a half decent Warhammer related Total War game though, I don't think the game catches the atmosphere that Warhammer universe has. Size of battle? Nah, just shrink it down as if Warhammer is not one of the most epical fantasy universes. Epicness of battles? Make sure they are 5 minute clickfests as if godlike monsters and epic spell casts don't exist and make sure that every unit has health bars so that a Shaggoth that is taller than a city wall, wielding a giant hammer can sometimes swing full force and don't kill one spearman. So much is missed man, imagine if they could capture the atmosphere like they did with Shogun. I don't think Volound would not play it just because he's not interested in Warhammer

[@aprinnyonbreak1290]

It also gives you incentive to follow the strategy and preserve them, since your veterans can't easily be replaced, and take the greatest risk with your more replaceable units.

[@thepizzafoogle5481]

For me, unit diversity is when different units have their own uniqueness that is easy to notice, and therefore you can pinpoint their purpose and build on them.

[@anthonyoruovo6733]

@Pro Tengu I think what he means is battle performance and roles as opposed to audio-visual appearances.

[@anthonyoruovo6733]

@Pro Tengu Yes. But there are also interactive levels to games (interactive entertainment) in which the computer does calculations behind the scene. Now if these calculations do not reflect the variations from the audio-visual side of the same, then we can say - regardless of the audio-visual presentation - that it lacks variety or "diversity". So it doesn't just depends on how a model looks but also how it plays within the scope of the mechanics the game has to offer.

[@thepizzafoogle5481]

@Pro Tengu Stop overcomplicating it.

[@trotskyeraumpicareta4178]

@Pro Tengu I think he meant the "notice" through a design perspective, or at least that is how I would put. And the point about the programming and the audiovisual is not just about being reflected but about being predictable too (which is essential to strategy/tactical games). And for that you need both good game design and good character design for the units.

[@thepizzafoogle5481]

@Pro Tengu No, thats not what I meant

[@ElZilchoYo]

CAs diversity is 500 units that are identical but have slightly different names. ELITE AXE WARRIORS, NOBLE AXE FIGHTERS, MAILED AXE WARRIOR NOBLE FIGHTERS.

[@canofsteelcan6795]

They need to make the unit have a unit treeline for example silver rank hastati can be upgrade to principes because the hastati are already veteran rather than making the early veteran unit useless, but this also could make the game kinda unbalanced

[@colinsanders9397]

I hated that in the newer games. The factions felt same-y and I looked at unit stats and found out that they all had the same stats. It was literally just re-skinned units. So glad I didn't spend any money on those games.

[@sandrothenecromancer6810]

In warhammer it is worse since shielded and unshielded units are different where the latter is simply redudant.

[@maverick8697]

Two TW games from now it will be ELITE AXE WARRIORS vs AXE ELITE WARRIORS vs AXE WARRIORS OF THE ELITE ;).

[@Newovar]

Unit diversity means having a warhound unit with a different skin on every faction.

[@satch5471]

Holy fuck this yes. Wolf rats undead hounds undead hounds with poison chaos warhounds chaos warhounds with poison 😂😂😂

[@heliosjollywolf9552]

@@jaywerner8415 yeah its almost like um idk a coat of arms in the historical games?

[@heliosjollywolf9552]

@@jaywerner8415 its not like all factions can recruit every version, besides if your gonna use the dogs as a problem then every total war game is shite cus soooo many diffrent archers

[@heliosjollywolf9552]

@@jaywerner8415 well yeah any total war game has expendable units... i mean why would you ever go with early game trash if you haveenough money for the better options

[@QueenAleenaFan]

@@jaywerner8415 Rats just got a warhound.

[@mjozies]

To someone who started his Total War journey within the last year (with WH2). After the steep initial learning curve I started to really resent the fact that I couldn't win battles I should have because of unit bonuses. In what world do any spearmen lose to any kind of cavalry when they are holding their ground? I was completely flabbergasted when I played Shogun 2 and discovered that Yari Ashigaru are useful the entire campaign. So to me, (an admitted very unexperienced player) unit diversity should be units playing different roles on the battlefield, and being more or less suited to those roles, and not just having a beefier set of numbers.

[@Volound]

comments like these are why i do this.

[@entspannter]

This is the reason why you cannot really play warhammer on anything higher the normal or without mods that remove the flat boni the AI gets, if you want a fair-ish campaign.

[@levimalone4433]

That's something I'm facing in my wh2 campaign right now. I'm a two veteran 10 years now. And it's the only game where putting my spears on the flanks to stop cav and monsters from flanking me. Unfortunately the base spears are literally good for nothing

[@HarbingerOfTruth1]

You are a lucky one, my first total war game was Shogun 2 and because of that I expected every following release to be as good as Shogun 2.

[@Jupiter__001_]

@@HarbingerOfTruth1 You got it when it was free like I did, didn't you?

[@notgoddhoward5972]

"CA get back in formation!" CA did not get back into formation

[@Cx10110100]

you drunken fool

[@raigarmullerson4838]

And was shot

[@janehrahan5116]

Medieval 2 represents the dozens of minor different units in later games with armor tiers. Each one is visually distinct and minorly different in the field but mostly functions the same. Med 2 recognized that these minor variations don't deserve their own full units.

[@rorschach1985ify]

Just what I was thinking, Med 2's low tier units look bland because they are meant to be to show off their status as weaker and less organized troops who start looking better as you improve their armor and looks to match how much better equipped and trained they are where they usually get more experience when you use them.

[@komradekevinthekommuneistd7362]

Unit diversity for me is when different units fulfil different perpouses on the battlefield and offer different gameplay and strategic opportunities.

[@anderu2384]

@@jaywerner8415 spearmen without shields has a role as a cheap backline defender in multi, but in campaign they're useless, I never see anyone recruit them

[@deriznohappehquite]

@@anderu2384 they would be theoretically now somewhat useful on a strategic level as fodder in a reaction spam army because They can be built without any recruitment building to help slow an enemy army that has bypassed the player’s armies. The only problem is that recruitment requires lords, and the player gets massively punished for each new army they recruit.

[@drafezard7315]

@@jaywerner8415 I recall Katana cavalry being the anti-cavalry cavalry that beats other cavalry units in prolonged fights. Though I mostly played multiplayer, maybe their role is different in campaign.

[@HackerArmy03]

I just want my braced spearmen not getting slaughtered by a frontal cavalry charge and flying like team rocket.

[@countmarkula1993]

Looks like your spearmen are blasting off again. lmao Can't wait til Bannerlord fully implements spear bracing in single player. Vlandian Pikemen may become the bane of the Khuzait.

[@PaleShine89]

I would argue that first couple of rows WILL and SHOULD get mown down by the charge (depends on the heaviness of the cavalry) But the damage and model loss should be tremendous too.

[@Volound]

if youre here and reading this before the video goes live, leave a comment explaining what "unit diversity" means to you. itll help with the analysis and thesis. thanks chapperinos 👌

[@the_honma6472]

Unit diversity to me means "contrasting choices", what faction i choose, what kind of army i build and how i modify it through upgrades via buildings and general skills and how many regiments of which unit types i include. All tailored to how i choose to tackle different challenges that are more varied due to how diverse the games choices are. The choice between individual units in Shogun 2 is great, there isn´t just Spearman Tier 1-3, Yari Ashigaru, Yari Samurai and Naginata Samurai all have their own strengths and weaknesses. The Yari Ashigaru are the weakest, but they are cheap and absolutely overperfom in defensive situations, they never lose their relevancy. Yari Samurai are fast and can defend the flanks more dynamically against cavalry, but they are weaker than the other units in the Samurai class. Naginata Samurai are great allrounders, but ultimately do the assigned job worse than the specialized units. Warhammer does this very nicely too, the game has 15 very different unit rosters that are quite diverse and, through the generals abillities, items, spells, followers, buildings and agents, the armies are very customizable, especially with the SFO Grimhammer Mod. Warhammer actually takes advantage of the more stat-focused gameplay of the newer Total Wars by taking a slight step towards games like the Heroes of Might and Magic series.

[@johnthompson2228]

I'd say unit diversity is about narrowing roles in which individual units could fill in your army, If you make the unit roster in such a way in that 1 unit could fill multiple roles than your players aren't going to field an army with an array of units that complement each other. That just results in doomstacks and doomstacks are boring as all the tactics and strategy gets automated.

[@andrewshaw1571]

Units of different strengths and weaknesses allowing for different uses in combat. For example a tough unit with low attack but strong defence to hold enemies in a melee, units that are inferior but cheap, allowing for more to be brought to the field and more armies on the map without bankrupting your nation. I shogun 2 managed it withot having many types because their uses were stark enough that numbers of them in the army changed the dynamic of the force. Yari samurai were a veritable bear trap for cavalry that even at your best, you dont want to accidentally run into. Bow samurai had less men than bow ashigaru but could outmelee yari ashigaru so you didnt know if your friend was going to use them to continuously shoot at you or if they were going to suddenly charge in as an unexpected extra melee unit that can now outflank your line since you set up the spear wall wide enough for the melee units you thought you were fighting. Katana samurai can dismount and outmelee yari ashigaru if you need them to. Theres no point in having loads of troop types and abilities if they arent balanced in any way. Why would i care about war dogs or daughters of mars if outside of the memes, they are just worse than something else i could bring so they just clutter up my unit production interface. I dont need them, nothings stopping me buying the best so why wouldnt i just buy the best troops for my armies. In shogun i sometimes need too many armies to allow that, rome 2 i cant have that many armies anyway so full top troops it is.

[@Pik3ace]

Unit Diversity means for me having diffrent units without copy pasting stats and abilities. Units from different Factions schould not all have the almost exact same stats and a faction specific skin. Thats not diversitiy but rehashing. Every Faction should have a few units with specialized stats and abilities in addition to the "standart" Units, like for example Levies or common Soldiers, with standardized stats. Maybe even Faction specific mechanics that influence standard units like the Oda in TW Shogun 2.

[@Spider-Too-Too]

Some faction that focus on skirmish units and some focus on heavy infantry like Roman and Greeks. But in order to let factions who don’t have good heavy infantry to shine, these faction will need special terrain that works for their combat style. Hell, Roman used mountain terrain to defeat the Greek

[@David_Brinkerhoff93]

Unit Diversity: The player can easily distinguish the battlefield role of a unit according to its strengths, weaknesses and capabilities. A well developed Unit Diversity will allows the player to make impactful decisions that will enhance the players use of strategies and tactics according to the players skill level. But im sure these azzhats at Creative Assembly will say unit Diversity is as shallow as skin color or cultural markers like costume or armor aesthetics.

[@ivanvoronov3871]

Mechanics is not the only part of a game. Just because some units play similarly its very cool to have many different verities for role play. Why do you think people spend 100 of pounds on knife skins in csgo or spend hours on cosmetic rpg items. Warhammer has more replay value because you you get attached to the different factions and unit designs

[@tyburn1493]

The reason they even use the term "diversity" instead of "variety" is precisely because they are shallow and more concerned with PR and presentation over making good, functional games - they definitely get tax relief for this purpose and I'm pretty sure they receive huge grants and subsidies from UK government departments/initiatives for the same reason - in theory, encouraging creative and educational learning of British culture and history, in practice another wing dedicated to the destruction of same, the promotion of ouhtright historical revisionism, BBC Romano-British Africans tier; why they hire unqualified people to make changes like female generals in Rome 2 and female soldiers in Attila etc, rather than develop good game mechanics.

[@ful5160]

Man I fucking hate reddit

[@fiddlesticks7245]

@@ivanvoronov3871 "people" that buy cosmetics on CSGO are equal to bugs in terms of brainpower, but I don't expect a slav to understand

[@derekmino3663]

Man the sound of guns in medieval 2 just shits on every other total war with the thunderous sound and shake.

[@iggythegreat5061]

Unit diversity should be done in such a way that I want to play a faction due to vibe it gives off. Westwood games knew this when they made first RTS game ever (Dune 2), every faction had 2 unique quirks and the same roster across all factions. This worked and gave the factions distinct feel as the core units were good, and there were little overlaps when it comes to their roles baseline stats that you get to modify by changing their focus. I am yet to see a decent representation of Nomadic warfare in a Total War game , and as someone whom loves horse archers as a concept leaves me feeling very dry. I was surprised by HomeWorlds:DoK getting spot-on the feel of Nomadic warfare and TW struggles for 20 years to do so. Unit diversity, should be focused on roles, not models and names. The latter is amazing in the campaign battles, so your armies have an imperial feel, where you have levies from all over the place. In multiplayer it is just noise that makes it tedious to pick the proper unit for your tactic, due to you having to compare and contrast stats for 20 minutes or more.

[@alphaman03]

Diversity according to modern total war fanboys: 20 dragons

[@LordBurgerofFriesland]

Or 20 different lizards with or without a shield

[@ascendedbro1828]

Or 2O Mammoths cause every other unit in mammoth's faction sucks.

[@narcick1018]

@@ascendedbro1828 lol that comment shows you havent even played warhammer 2 , most of the units in the norsca faction are viable and the mammoth doomstack can only be utiliezed properly in mid to late game in legendary diffuculty , other than that doomstacks are just overkill if not done in legendary diffuculty oh and i had way more fun crunching tghrough the chaos armies than watching japanese dudes kill eachother again and again

[@ascendedbro1828]

@@narcick1018 I have 700 hours and play legendary only. While most other units are viable in a 1 stack versus 1 stack scenario, it sucks to play with them against multiple stacks that would be thrown at you in huge numbers later in the campaign by the ordertide. Since Norscan economy is garbage you aren't able to produce multiple armies to counter them unless you have defeated the Archaon and became the Everchosen. Your only solution to do anything about Ordertide is doomstacking your mammoths. And yeah most of the "viable" units are utiliezed at the begging of the campaign, particularly marauder berserkers, later they become useless cannon fodder.

[@Mythantor]

The problem I see with this argument is that when the units are not gimped by having to fight against insane AI bonuses, such as when you see them in multiplayer the warhammer games units for each race do have unique traits that differentiate each races playstyle and the units within each race. It's just that the hidden modifiers mean that units cannot perform in the role they are nominally designed for, for example dwarf warriors should munch skaven clanrats and in multiplayer they do but on higher difficulties the Hidden bonuses make any melee unit just redundant. So the problem I see is not in the unit differentiation but in the mechanic of hidden stat modifiers.

[@sztallone415]

I think it's actually managable to merge what both of you're saying. Volund's main point regarding WH isn't that it has no unit diversity, but that in certain areas (ranged combat) many units that are supposed to be gameplay- and logic-wise very different are actually copypasted in the mechanical level, 'in secret', stealing away player freedom, agency and replayability. No one can deny that WH factions has clear cut design goals or niches, like the Dwarves having no cav but strong arty and infantry, and the Beastmen having basically the opposite, creating differing playstyles.

[@BlingLingification]

There are issues with Warhammer Unit Diversity though. Spear units across all factions serve the same purpose, and are essentially reskins of each other with higher or lower stats. You don't use spear units from different factions in a different way because of the faction. All spear units act as meat shields that can take a cav charge. Same thing with sword units. What's the difference between Saurus Warriors, Empire Swordsmen, and Dwarf Warriors/Longbeards? Saurus warriors have higher weapon strength, dwarf warriors have higher armor, but you would use all of them in the same role. What's the difference between Empire Crossbowmen, Bretonnia Peasant Bowmen, and Darkshards? Empire crossbowmen have higher raw missile strength, Bretonnia Peasant Bowmen can have fire or poison, and Darkshards are armor piercing. But do you use any of them in different ways? Not really, you usually recruit a bunch of them to arrow-storm down any high value targets (which tend to have more armor anyway).

[@madgrinder8508]

@@FilipMoncrief Doing the same, Legendary/Normal.But still, the game design make cavalry poor tactical choice and melee in general far less effective than range shooting. I'm having near no fun at all playing WH2 after a thousand hours spent on it, didn't even try last Skaven campaign in last DLC, and just... Got Shogun 2 again and decided to try to play it seriously this time, unlike when it came out, thanks to this channel

[@Mythantor]

@@BlingLingification How would you increase diversity then? The problem is that for any army there are certain core roles that need to be filled. Basic infantry; sord or polearm and almost always a basic ranged unit. I find it amazing that they managed to get as much diversity as they did into units that must be neccesity fill the same roll. It is the higher tiers or speciality units that the armies truly differentiate themselves, Dwarves have heavily armoured infantry and war machines but lack cavalry, Skaven units are cheap but they back them up with weapons teams and monsters. High elves have more elite archers and infantry but tend to be expensive and fairly fragile and so on. People can complain about "lack of diversity" but the simple fact is there are core roles within an army that have to be filled for any army to function.

[@BlingLingification]

@@Mythantor Skaven Weapon Teams fulfill the same role as basic ranged units like dark shards. They are simply a (significant) upgrade of what already exists. Volound's example of the Hastati and Principes from Rome 1 is a pretty good explanation. Once you are able to train Principes, there is no reason to train Hastati since the Principes perform the same exact function as Hastati; Principes are just a direct stat upgrade of Hastati. Once you have Skaven Weapons Teams, do you ever train Skaven slingers? Of course not. This is an example of lack of intra-faction unit diversity (lack of unit diversity within the same faction). Regarding the Artillery options of the Dwarf and Skaven army rosters: although their artillery units shoot differently, they all have some degree of AOE or unit punch through, and you use them in the exact same way as long range direct fire support. Monsters: Two points. 1. Many monsters use the same concept. Send into throngs of non-Anti-large infantry and see the dudes fly and the morale drop. 2. Some monsters fill roles because there is no other unit in the army roster that had filled that role. Elaboration for point 1: Lizardmen, Tomb Kings, High Elves, Dark Elves, Norca: they may have different monsters, but we use many of them all the same way. You don't use a War Hydra any differently from a dragon or Dread Saurus or Mammoth. Elaboration on point 2: Ancient Salamanders, Stegs, Razardon hunting packs all serve the role as artillery because lizardmen don't actually have artillery pieces. Ancient Salamanders and Razardon hunting packs are also bad in melee (just like actual artillery crews), so they really just fill in a gap in the lizardmen roster. In other words, instead of mortars or cannons or bolt throwers, lizardmen have ancient Salamanders, Razardon hunting packs, and stegadons. These two points illustrate lack of inter-faction unit diversity (lack of unit diversity between different factions). Stegadons, on the other hand, are so good at so many roles that there's no point in having any other units in the army (ie doomstack) so what's the point in having the other units? This is another example of lack of intra-faction unit diversity. I think volound explains pretty well how to create meaningful unit diversity with the shogun 2 example of the different yari (spear) units. Yari Ashigaru are slow, have lower morale, but can do the powerful spearwall. This means Yari Ashigaru excel at blunting and holding against frontal assaults to a greater extent than non-spear wall units. Yari samurai don't have the spear wall ability (and would actually lose to yari Ashigaru spear wall if they commit to a frontal assault) but they're faster and more well armored than yari Ashigaru. Yari samurai are great if you want to flank enemy positions or outmaneuver cavalry (Yari Ashigaru in spearwall are very static and can't really adjust to cavalry manuevers). Bullet proof yari samurai can take A LOT of arrows and more bullets to the face than any unit in the game. They excel at attacking gun or ranged units head on. Although each of these units are spear units, they aren't just direct upgrades of each other because they also fulfill distinct roles.

[@shorewall]

When I think Unit diversity, personally, I think of how the faction looks and operates. In Rome 1 you had the Romans, who were based around pila throwing swordmen. In the Hellenic factions, you were based around the Phalanx, which played completely differently. In the Eastern Factions, you had more of an emphasis on Cavalry, including horse archers. In the barbarian factions, you had shirtless fools who might charge out of order. Every faction felt unique, giving you a reason to choose between them, and a different experience depending on who you chose. Medieval 2 had the Italian Factions, Iberian factions, West European factions, East European factions, Byzantium, and the Muslim factions, each with many unique units. Many shared similarities, but they also had unique selling points, as well as starting points, that made them feel different. Warhammer has every faction feeling different and looking different. I feel like I can play as a gunpowder faction, as a skirmish faction, as a rush faction, as a grind it out faction, etc. Personally, I think Warhammer gets a bad rap from doomstacking, which came about as a result of the cheats on Legendary difficulty. If you don't play on legendary, you can play any unit of any faction. There are problems with modern Total Wars, including Warhammer. I think most of those problems are mitigated in Warhammer, because it is fantasy, yet those same problems are exacerbated in historical Total Wars. I don't want a historical game to have Single Entities, or magic. I want it to be historical. But I fear the historical market is more niche these days, and that CA has lost the ability to make a good historical Total War. Not everyone may care about Unit diversity, but I do. That's my biggest gripe with Shogun 2. It may handle like a dream and be balanced well, but that's not all I care about. Every faction seems the same except for a few that stand out, like the Otomo, who I main for their conversion mechanic and gunpowder orientation. In my view, instead of making Shogun or 3K, they should have had the East Asian theatre, with Japan, China, Korea, Vietnam, and the Mongols all on the map as unique factions. That would bring about faction diversity and unit diversity, like the European theatre in Rome 1 and Medieval 2. Oh, and that reminds me, I think unit diversity also is a function of faction diversity. In order for the factions to be different, their units must be different. Yes, there will be some similar units, but they need to look different, feel different, and play differently.

[@fsdds1488]

Faction diversity can be achieved even with Shogun series, just that CA has done insufficient research to make it diverse, people of varying regions has different traits, various factions has its own style of law and military system that affects its social construct as well as war potential, though they might not vary too much as with different countries, they are enough to diversify playstyles not by the small faction traits, but actual appearance, equipment, possible events and unit features as well as administration styles. The base units might look the same, but most prominent factions would have their own unique units that is distinguishable, just a few examples: Unit in eastern and northern region like Hojo and Uesugi should be wearing archaic Yoroi and hara-ate while western factions would have earlier access to more advanced plate armour, some of the armour in base game should also belongs to unique faction, but get distributed to everyone instead, Golden armour for hereos is actually limited to Otomo, which its prominent retainer Tachibana Dosetsu has a unit of gunner entirely dressed in gold and welding sliver plated katana, while red is mostly a unique colour of Takeda clan, only belongs to the Akazonae army due to the rarity of red dye, these in game elements are already enough for special units, not mentioning the various weird banners that different factions used.

[@bobbyjeffsupremelordofcraz3532]

This. This is unit diversity. I LOVE shogun 2, but the fact that every faction has more or less the same unit roster, and as a result more or less plays the same, is the one big downside Shogun 2 has. It's not even a problem with CA at this time, as most of the Japanese clans probably fought using very similar armies. But the fact that the 'staple army' of 2 different factions will be completely different in say, Rome or Medieval 2 is just so much nicer than in Shogun 2 where every faction will most likely use yari ashigaru, some light cavalry and some bow ashigaru (and later on matchlock ashigaru). I know that just about every army will boil down to spearmen, infantry, ranged and cavalry regardless of how they look, and that's why Total War works, but the individuality of factions is something that's big for me personally. It's not just a problem with Shogun 2, Empire and Napoleon also had it, with every european faction having the exact same 'line infantry' unit but in a different colour. There were only a couple of unique units for each faction, and even then they were mid-late game and were often shared with other factions.

[@gm2407]

In fairness Histatii and Principes are differentiated fairly well in RTW based on how they historically differentiated. IRL they were a little more experienced and had a little more armour, but were essentially the same troop type.

[@slinkerdeer]

This is a video I hadn't realised I was waiting for

[@bespoke555]

Hey Volound first time viewer I actually watched all your analysis on TW after this video. I’ve played all TW games beginning with Medieval 1 and took a hiatus from gaming in 2014 until 2020 and played Three Kingdoms. For some reason I found the battles in 3K boring and I thought maybe I just outgrew TW but after watching your vids I found it exactly why the battles were so boring. Since then I went back to Shogun 2 which was the best TW game I ever played and it still stands as the best TW game. I’m having such a blast enjoying it again and if it weren’t for you videos I would have never came back to playing TW. Thank you

[@totallynuts7595]

In the Shogun 2 campaign I managed to hold a city with only a few units against an army that far outnumbered mine (three to one at least). While I only had a small number of units, they are pretty varied and I managed to arrange them on the walls and at the gates, choking the enemies. I did lose at the end, but the enemy army was shredded to a handful of men. The differentiation is what made me think about where to place those units, to maximize their use.

[@Volound]

this is what made shogun 2 great.

[@HrHaakon]

I haven't taken part in the greater discussion outside of talking about the game with friends, but I would talk about unit diversity as a way to talk about units in the various games. But to me there's two parts to the idea of diversity: There's the looks of various units, and then there's the tasks or niches that the units fulfill. Now, I usually play on normal. Shogun is a game I play as a relaxing alternative to Starcraft, and thus I have perhaps a different view than most. Take the Yari Samurai that you start with. What can this unit do? He can stand in a line of battle. He can fight ashigaru units and come out on top. He can kill cavalry. He can move quickly. So in the early campaign, the yari samurai fulfills a few niches: - He's a fire brigade unit. You send him where things are about to go downhill to reinforce. His better-than-ashigaru stats and fast movement helps him there. - He's an earlygame elite unit. You send him where you NEED to win. If you need go get stuck in the enemy's right flank so that your light cav can get around the spearmen and hit the archers, the yari samurai is great at that. - He's clearly not supposed to chase down cavalry what the hell is this madness people are talking shite about my boi because he can't do something that nobody sane would expect him to do. Later in the game you get more units that can do these things better. Naginata samurai will hold a charge of demons. Katana samurai are better at grinding down ashigaru. (Ashigaru are still good don't get me wrong), heavier cavalry make better fast reinforcements, and so on and so the unit falls a bit by the wayside. So this one unit has two niches or tasks he can do well. Now, what about the best Total War game, Empire? (That stunned everyone right into silence, didn't it?) There you have line infantry. It stands in a line. It shoots. It fixes bayonets and forms into squares. It's singular role is to be an anchor you form your battle plan around. What about Rome? Well, you have spearmen that can't form phalanxes, good spearmen and a small intersection. Are you telling me that Mercenary Hoplites, Hoplites, Hoplite Militia, Germanic Spearbands, Those Egyptian Guys, Armoured Hoplites and Poeni Infantry are very different from one another? They wear different amounts of armour. They do the exact same thing. What about Total Warhammer? Well. You have your basic infantry, your elite infantry, your skirmishers, your archers (and handgunners are archers now because... IDK.), your cavs, your monsters... and they're pretty similar to one another. High Elf Spearmen in the tabletop could have its first three ranks attack, as opposed to only the first two ranks for everyone else because they were timeless masters of the arts of poking people with sticks. Empire State Troops (halberdiers, spearmen, handgunners, swordsmen) could have detachments that could automatically go and hit attackers in the flank, making them a different proposition to face than you'd first think. There were a lot of difference between how the unit works. But in the game, the high elves and empire both field Spearmen with slightly different stats and skins. It's not very diverse at all to be honest. It's no more different than Oda Ashigaru vs Ikko Ikki Ashigaru. But compare with Starcraft. Compare how every race have completely different units, that do different things, and you don't talk in terms of role as much as you'd do in Total War. For Terrans, the marines are mineral dumps. You have extra minerals? You can build some extra marines. They do good damage for the cost, and they can be upgraded. Zerg have zerglins and Protoss have Zealots. There are artillery units for all sides, the colossus, the tank and the broodlord. But they work and operate differently from one another. There are spellcasters. The ghost, the infestor and the High Templar. The are all used completely differently. If you want to talk about different units compare to games outside of Total War. That being said, Shogun 2 having similar units on all sides isn't a problem, because it's trying to put you in a civil war. Empire having units with the same sorts of roles looking very different from one another isn't a bad thing either, because it's trying to put you in 1700s Europe. And "dudes with guns and how do we make this work properly" is pretty accurate in many ways. Sorry for writing a wall of text. Maybe someone finds the comment interesting or entertaining.

[@joshuasharpe7007]

I’ve heard the term unit diversity used in the context of the Warhammer tabletop game, so I reckon it entered the tabletop lexicon from there. As for what it means unit diversity is in my opinion the number of units with unique capabilities that directly correlates to an increase in the tactical options the player has. Taking medieval two for example the difference between spear levy and spear militia is minuscule whereas the difference between dismounted feudal knights and spear militia is huge and directly increases the potential tactical decisions the player can have by having these units on the battlefield. Warhammer has a lot of unit variety as one of the main draws of the tabletop game is having a diverse set of factions with different a wide variety of units within them and total war Warhammer has captured that pretty well though they had a good base to start from. In my opinion the main issue with Warhammer isn’t unit variety but its difficulty modifiers which give enemy units a 20% buff in almost every stat. This completely alters what units are capable and not capable of and destroys so many tactical options for the player mainly resulting in only “cheese” tactic being viable. In my opinion normal is the best difficulty for battles as there are no modifiers and it means the player has far more tactical options and can take advantage of all the units strengths and weaknesses. Warhammer suffers from a case of CA shooting itself in the foot by taking the biggest strength of Warhammer which is the unit variety and destroying it with combat modifiers. I also don’t think the shogun has poor unit diversity For background knowledge I’ve been playing total war since Rome 1 and have a decent amount of experience with the Warhammer tabletop

[@mehwhatever9726]

How does it work? Simple. It just works - it just works Little lies, stunning shows People buy, money flows It just works...

[@mehwhatever9726]

@@jaywerner8415 Well, Todd only made the terminology for this principle, it deserves a more in-depth study to determine it's origin in the gaming industry.

[@ascendedbro1828]

That's what is happening with TWW3 lol

[@SgtKaiden]

My interpretation of unit diversity: Warhammer 2 has different damage types: poison; magic; fire; physical; armor-piercing. In that there's different units that have different resistances, you still have the hard-counters in older Total War games assuming you don't play to cheese out doomstacks. So with Halberds taking out monsters and cavalry for example. Disintegrating units such as Vamp Counts or Tomb Kings further change it up, instead of routing they'd choose to fight to the death and it comes down to trying to keep your undead army intact rather than keeping them from routing, this opens up new strategies, some cheesy like corner-camping, others quite creative like spamming skeletons and casting invocation of nehek in a small space. Also it seems to me there's hard faction counters in TWW2 as with hard unit counters. I saw recently on a thread of a doomstack of sisters of avelorn come up against Harkon but, at least on the auto-resolve bar, appear to come out all the worse. This sort of hard counter from Harkon due to high magic resistance you tend not to see in older games where, while the counters are well-defined and obvious, there's not really many of them. It seems to me at least with this, with the inclusion of spells and abilities, even if a good deal of them are just modifier buffs/debuffs, "unit diversity" in TWW2 both helps contribute to making specific factions feel unique while maintaining a varied but coherent roster of units within each faction. While I think TWW2 is far from perfect (I tend to play with SFO grimhammer because the vanilla game has some serious balancing issues, campaigns aren't fleshed out for some factions, etc), TWW2 is probably the best CA has pumped out since the shift towards nuTotal War with Rome II. It may well be the last decent Total War game seeing the way Troy, Three Kingdoms and Britannia have gone. Keep pumping out these videos, they're fantastic and you put in words what most of us intuitively know.

[@doltBmB]

As Griesemer said, rock paper scissors is bad game design. Rock paper scissors lizard spock is worse game design. Units, abilities and weapons need to differentiate based on role and objective, not hard counters.

[@Pilps]

I think this is my favourite one yet! Shogun 2 > Everything Else

[@Volound]

gyazo.com/aec98beb3fffca445045238224f8caef

[@TheArestus]

Reinforcement from the CAT is here

[@user-zm1oe8tx6m]

Here ✊👋

[@user-vz6ju9yh9k]

Кот не хороший человек. Ридиска. Но тоталварщик знатный

[@roguewasbanned4746]

Getting meme’d by Donderbuss cavalry is exactly why I could never get into avatar conquest

[@5h0rgunn45]

I don't remember if I used the actual term "unit diversity," but what it makes me think of is the ability for different factions to be played differently. I commented on another video somewhere about the unit diversity in EB 1. It allows for a wide variety of gameplay options. Rome has a lot of heavy infantry options and plays like a tank faction. The Arverni and Aedui have a lot of lightly-armoured shock infantry and play like a shock-and-awe army. Hayastan has a lot of light infantry, skirmishers, slingers, and archers, and plays like a hit-and-run raiding faction (until you get some heavy infantry later on). The Sarmatians and other steppe factions have a huge cavalry roster and play like the Mongol horde. The successor kingdoms have pikemen and a huge variety of supporting units and play like a blacksmith beating every problem with his hammer and anvil. A lot of units in the mod are simply re-skins of one another (some of them literally have the exact same stats). I like that because it's aesthetically pleasing and it shows the differences between the different cultures. But that's not "unit diversity" because they're used tactically in exactly the same manner as tons of other units in the game. Unit diversity comes from the variety of units with different roles on the battlefield.

[@sirpatrick549]

I'm someone who does like my units to look cool and different. I loved in Medieval 2 to see my armor upgrades take effect on my units. I like watching them fight momentarily. The fantasy is broken when the units don't do what they're advertised, like any polearm unit in Medieval 2. Worse yet is when a unit appears to be an upgrade yet has no tangible difference, or is even worse than the more primitive unit. Functionality always beats appearance, the imagination can fill in the gaps of simple graphics.

[@gilbertthebushwacker8704]

What the polearm units didn't do?

[@sirpatrick549]

@@gilbertthebushwacker8704 Units such as halberdiers were meant to be the replacement to simple spear and shield units, but overall perform worse in melee and being shot at to make them worth the lengthy logistics of acquiring and retraining them. Pikemen don't even use their pikes 90% of the time because as soon as they're charged they pull out their swords and fall apart quicker than contemporary archers.

[@roadent217]

@@sirpatrick549 "Pikemen don't even use their pikes 90% of the time because as soon as they're charged they pull out their swords and fall apart quicker than contemporary archers." Take a pike militia unit out of spear-wall and charge a unit of seargeant spearmen. You'll find that the pike militia, with their swords, shred the shielded seargeant spearmen. Add to that their pikes (that, admittedly, they only use for a short period of time before dropping in favor of swords), and you'll find pikemen punching far above their weight in florin cost. And that's not to even mention that they walk way faster than other on foot units.

[@imnotbatman6968]

Since you are read every comment, KEEP UPLOADING! After basically years of mostly 10:01 minute “analysis videos” your work is a breathe of fresh IQ...

[@imnotbatman6968]

Though I guess when I say that I’m taking quality over quantity for granted. I wanna at least let you know that your videos are having a positive impact on me not simply because of an agreement of opinions, but on the such rare intellectual critique and analysis you provide.

[@snowgeese7292]

I'll be honest I totally forgot about Shogun 2s movies it play when you recruit a unit for the first time. In hindsight it really helped me differentiate between the different units.

[@reyxus9454]

I am not one of the others video commentors, but, in defense of warhammer: In a fantasy setting so large that leaves so much imagining, it would be ashame to not include all kinds of units. Most people don't do doomstacks(20 op units of the same type) anyway unless they are playing on legendary, so most armies for most player actually look flavorful and interesting. I'm not gonna pretend it's an hard game, it's much easier than other titles, but it's just fun, something 3k and troy aren't. This is because in a fantasy setting many things you complain about are much easier to handle (Such as legendary lords). In an historical title i much rather have very well balanced gameplay, but in a warhammer or fantasy games having tons of diverse units is part of the appeal. Also in warhammer the only copypasted units tend to be stuff like different types of giants, but most units are unique both in stats and in use. Obviously melee infantry is similar for various factions, that's because you can oly get so creative about a bunch of dudes with swords, and yet there is still uniqueness that differentiates Black orks from stormvermin.

[@vinniciuselion4544]

The problem is that you can do a fucking doomstack. That shouldn't be possible.

[@falinrichard1394]

@@vinniciuselion4544, but you can still do a doomstack in beloved medieval 2. Just get all knights (dismounted (feudal) or mounted (all types, they are mostly reskins)) stack and you are golden.

[@Volound]

@Falin Richard dumb comment.

[@falinrichard1394]

@@Volound, proofs? It is almost undisputable that cav is supreme in field battles in med2. And shield-and-spear/shield-and-sword units are mostly preferrable to units with 2 handed weapons and no shields, and can fill in their role, having better arrow and melee protection at the expense of a bit worse melee capabilities. I don't say that med2 is bad, but you should not be blinded by nostalgia. Even if the recent games from CA are... Disappointing, to say the least.

[@Volound]

@@falinrichard1394 good and effective gameplay speaks for itself, and im as good a purveyor of it as anyone. ive covered medieval 2 in addition to other games. i havent said anything to you about nostalgia. all i did was point out that your comment was dumb.

[@brandonlee934]

I just want unit rosters to reflect what they historically had. I don't mind if there are a bunch of units that are the same

[@a.d2868]

You can couple the Historically accurate factor to the In game purpose of those units. Like the Roman hastati/Principes example. They've existed, they had a purpose, and a reason to be on the battlefield or even to be created in the first place. In the game they don't, which nullifies their historical and Gameplay purpose but also their authenticity as they end-up being a copy-paste of a unit they are supposed to be the better vesion.

[@Jupiter__001_]

@@FilipMoncrief The Roman army did create them. Things do not just pop into existence.

[@igormsh14bidevisualizacoes45]

How good it is to discover that i have so many brothers that also came back to Total War, saw Warhammer and the first thought was: "No.. this doesn't looks good, there is something wrong about this." Now we can describe what is the problem.

[@sephikong8323]

I was like that for the longest time, didn't really want to play the warhammer games because something didn't feel right about them, then one of my friends decided to pick one up and told me that he had a pretty fun time with it, so I took Warhammer 2 on sales a few months ago and I have never been so conflicted about a game. On the one hand, it has a legitimate fun factor to it that is hard to deny and factions do have unique characteristics about them but at the same time it has the most "fake" difficulty I have ever seen, the number of cheats the ai gets is just staggering (and I talk as someone who loves Attila, but in this game the cheats are part of the scope of the game, it is here to enhance the intended experience, being a survival game, rather than a bandaid to stop the ai from crumbling), most of the differences are just cosmetic (like the Lizardmen have some really cool looking dinosaur mounts and monsters, but they behave exactly like those the Elves or Chaos could muster, they don't differ by much except stats and maybe some characteristics like the fact they can go Berserk) ........ and I don't think that all of this justifies getting rid of siege battles to be honest (I mean yes they *exist* in the game, but minor settlements no longer have their own maps and for major settlements, well, walls took from the book of the units because they are purely cosmetics). I feel like Warhammer is a bad game but a bad game that is pretty fun to play (until you start to see the amount of cheat the ai gets and you get curbstomped turn 25 by a Skaven faction with a single settlement because they raised seven 15+ regiments armies when you could barely afford two armies of the same size and you have two entire regions and a couple more settlements at your disposal. Am not talking from experience here .......)

[@FramesGone]

As always, a good, nuanced, in-depth video. I've been watching this series for a while now, and I've found myself agreeing with a lot of your points of critique, on the mess that is modern totalt war. I was one of those that thought that Shougun 2 lack a variety in units, and the game got a bit stale because of it. I was coming from Napoleon, with its many neat reskins of basically the same line infantry, so i missed my gunpowder, and the fancy, easily distinguishable units. My point of view has since changed(even before watching this video), and i find myself resonating with many of your points. It's a shame so much of the community has put you in the naughty box, and wont even acknowledge your point of view. I think your inputs works towards a better discussion, with more depth than "Don't care, looks cool, your opinion doesn't matter". Looking forward to your next video :)

[@Volound]

part of why i made this video is that once upon a time i couldve probably fallen for the same apologetic. superficially it is plausible but under any amount of scrutiny, completely crumbles. thanks meng. 💪

[@ivanvoronov3871]

@@Volound you do realise that mechanics are only one part of a game. Why do you think people spend hours to unlock cosmetics in game. Total war games in many ways are rpg games. Sure many units in say medival 2 are the basics the same e.g. Scottish noble swords and armoured English swordsmen but that's OK. The flavour text and skin is what provides the immersion. When you play shogun 2 and both the mori and shimazu fied broadly similar armies it's hard to get invested into one faction over another.

[@Volound]

@Ivan Voronov im not sure how it could be expected of me to read your comment and not instantly recall 13:55 and then immediately write your comment off as pure nonsense. if you can think of a way for me to do that, id appreciate it.

[@dishonorable_daimyo1498]

@@ivanvoronov3871 if you watched his video you'd know that he never says aesthetics do not matter, but that ultimately they are secondary to mechanics. In shogun 2 all the factions share the same culture so it makes sense that they share their units.

[@ivanvoronov3871]

@@Volound easily. You make the claim,( not based on any evidence apart from your own feeling) that despite the effort put into warhammer models no one wants to look at them because they are "useless " gameplay wise. That is based on nothing. Wahammer 2 is the most popular total war game by far. So the idea no one like the beautiful models is wrong. You might, but don't that assume for everyone else. Total war has always been about immersion and RPG elements. That's why the advisor talks to you not as a player but as a General or faction leader. So you are invested in the faction. Warhammer takes that to the next level. Furthermore, I want to challenge the assumption that warhammer lacks gameplay. Have you ever played or watch warhammer multilayer tournaments? Try watching some on Turin's KZbin channel. Each faction plays very very differently. To the extent that many players have only one " main" faction because it is so differicult to learn new ones. In shogun 2 you may be a chosokabe main but that won't mean t much compared to being a woodelf main in Warhammer due to the diverse faction gameplay that it offers

[@painsorrow3062]

Shogun 2 has a similar issue to Med2 that you brought up. Most armies are yari ashigaru based throughout the entire campaign, where those yari are the most passive and static unit that's all about finding a good spot to hunker down. Having a sword unit available from the start would've helped this.

[@dishonorable_daimyo1498]

I agree but that deficiency is mostly to do with the campaign and not the units themselves. In the campaign monk units and matchlocks are so far down the tech and building tree (and never mind that you need to spend turns researching farm upgrades), unless you choose to switch to Christianity to get early gunpowder. In your average campaign monk and matchlock units will rarely have a meaningful impact, especially if it's a short campaign. This means that without matchlocks you won't have any hard counter towards heavily armored units, and because cavalry aren't all that common in the early game, spears don't have anything to counter directly, and need to be used as melee infantry in place of swords as well. It's still fine and works well in the campaign, but it's only in custom battles and avatar conquest where you can fully experience the inter-play between units since you're no longer bound to a tech -tree.

[@jorgedasilva7665]

This reminds me of Rome Total Realism and how you could only recruit roman troops in Italy proper, outside of Italy you could recruit auxiliary troops.

[@thefutureisnowoldman7653]

I thought you were gonna talk about what precentage of my field armys were LGBT. I feel cheated

[@Urlocallordandsavior]

Unit diversity has always been a meme in the Total War franchise, saying this as someone who's played tons of Empire vanilla and Shogun 2 as well, perhaps the two most obvious TW games with the most criticism for its lack of unit diversity.

[@SuperSamorodov]

Today I learned a new word...warhammerization :)

[@elcream7018]

Writing before the start of the video and unit diversity is what makes a unit work in different situations like pike against cavalry or shock infantry against regular infantry

[@thedeviousgreek1540]

Been a total war fan since Rome 1 and still playing total war games to this day. Didnt have a clue who you were until i stumbled on a reddit thread lynch mob against you. Since then ive been seeing some of your criticisms on the series and i totally understand your point of view. Thing is, this type of arguments would have the majority of the player base agree when rome 2 came out but now, the fanbase has swell with new players that dont actually understand the features of old, as they came in the franchise with warhammer, and the actual impact it had on your overall experience with the game. New units, new factions, new mechanics new dlcs, new animations is what the franchise is clearly going for and its unfortunately what most people seem to want. Id give back ''unit diversity'' for player freedom any day.

[@jamielindsay6795]

Thank you so much for coming back man we needed you. I remember when you were "THE" Total War guy, its so sad that people like you that actually care about the player base are being harassed while those people are colluding with CA to drive their own viewership. I hope you continue to publish videos despite what lies toxic online gatekeepers and their brainless goons have to sling your way.

[@Person01234]

"appear out of nowhere" This has literally been a core point being made by the community since certainly as long as I've been playing total war. I'm not sure why you think "unit diversity" not appearing outside of total war is a "big red flag". Total war is and has been pretty much uncontested in it's genre so yeah, the term isn't spreading around random other genres. There are a few smaller games that sometimes have similar formats but in those, I see the SAME sentiment expressed even if the words "unit diversity" aren't specifically used. Look at the wargame series which whilst primarily a battle simulator, has some grand strategy elements in the campaign, albeit on a much smaller scale. Each iteration increased and boasted about how many different units were available and the community always supported more options. This is actually a common boasting point in many strategy games in general. I think you're off the mark. Even your google searches in the video are showing numerous non-total war related posts using the term. Whilst warhammer does carry many of the negatives of modern total war games, it's actually a pretty good total war game that has implemented a lot of new ideas and unit diversity IS a big strong point for it. I do think it's among the best in the entries built on the post-rome engine along with shogun 2. However, these are good for different reasons and you may well like one and hate the other. I don't think they have to "stick it to each other" (and I'm not sure why you feel the need to shit talk warhammer without having played it, unless something changed). Now when it comes to Unit Diversity, personally I don't like unit diversity for the sake of it. If there's a fallacy to be had it's this. I think some mods go too far in adding large numbers of units that nobody really cares about. There might be too much focus on differentiating between units and factions that only really big history buffs would even recognise and the vast majority of everyone just ends up with a cluttered interface and only recruiting one type of unit. But I do like unit diversity when it matters. This is where warhammer shines because not only is there lore that most players are going to care about behind every unit in the game, many of the units play very differently and have different abilities in line with the source material. Having an army of skeletons and undead bat beasts and vampires facing off against an army full of dwarfs, with an emphasis on firepower and holding the line, then in the next battle fighting a bunch of goblins and orcs and giant spiders that are heavy melee hitters with magic backup, it offers both diversity in gameplay and nice visual diversity and most players are going to be able to differentiate and know each different unit. A vargheist isn't the same thing as an empire swordsman. Now, again, with the caveat that warhammer still has the issues most of the games post-empire have had with combat being a bit chaotic and such, though warhammer is actually fairly well polished (though as the games get things added to them they tend to become unbalanced, we'll see how WHIII goes in that regard - the Single unit doomstack is a problem of balancing and one that I do think needs addressing, hopefully they will do so). As far as success goes, the Warhammer series has been a success. I don't really care if it suits your playstyle or if you think fantasy total war is silly, it's been a success. Too much of one in fact in that CA are learning all the wrong things and bring in things to the historical games that don't belong (as I think everyone knew they would) and relabelling them as these ""legendary" or "mythical" style games that nobody wanted. And it's not all about unit diversity, there are a number of good things about the Warhammer series. I don't think it "takes down" shogun 2 though and I would love new historical Total War games that weren't shit (though I believe WHIII will probably be my last purchase of a TW game and I secretly expect them to fuck it up), but it's a good game in it's own right and you don't need an excuse to play it over the older games. If you prefer Shogun 2, have at it.

[@lordsneek2660]

Thank You

[@eastonthealbanian7895]

Anime PFP, opinion invalid

[@MrPyroCrab]

I think CA have just forgotten how to make historical TW honestly, hence the recent string of pseudo fantasy games like Troy and 3K. I've always held the opinion Warhammer is too much of a different beast to be compared to historical TW, not inherently better or worse but just different. I think the problem is less Warhammer itself and more Warhammer bleeding back into historical total war. 3k's a weird one because I really like the campaign mechanics but the battles are just really underwhelming. I think the solution to the doomstacks is quite easy and im not sure why CA haven't implemented it yet, because there's a bajillion mods which do it: I should mention I'm generally against the arguement of "it made money therefore its good".

[@gertskekuttekop2334]

I think core gameplay is more important than unit variety. My favorite game is Napoleon total war. It has little unit variety but the core gameplay is good so it doesn’t matter that their is less variety than for example Rome 2. The core gameplay is in my opinion better so i prefer napoleon total war.

[@BittermanAndy]

I tried to play Napoleon TW again recently. Because it's missing some of the improved movement controls of the newer games, I found it unplayable (though I loved it when it first came out). If they would just patch it so I can Alt+drag units to make them move in formation, I would be all over it. Without that, even simple movement is a chore, and when the most basic activity in the game is a chore, nothing else makes up for it.

[@Burgermeister1836]

Additionally, mods like LME4 add the missing unit diversity from vanilla while keeping the excellent base mechanics. The only reason I no longer play NTW is its limited scale; Empire with Napoleon's gameplay would take weeks of my life if it existed.

[@DaBestEmperor]

Here before video is live. Here is my opinions on this subject. I think unit diversity represents the variety of units that fit specific roles. In that the more units that offer unique, useful, and/or practical purpose to an army and thus the game as a whole, the more unit diversity it has. For example different types of units; javelin throwers, archers, cavalry, infantry, artillery, etc. These classes of units all add unit diversity as they all (in theory) add to your army and add various different tactical options for the player. The removal or redundancy of any of these general unit classes would thus reduce or even remove unit diversity. By extension if one wanted to increase unit diversity they would need to add units that offered their own unique playstyle/usage or role to the over all gameplay without being imbalanced as to prevent making other units redundant. An argument might also be able to be made in having different quality of these unit classes as to add an element of quatity vs quality. However, this would apply to campaign only in the case of Total War. All that being said I think what Total War's idea of unit diversity is nowadays is simply reskins of current units. What I mean by that is they will have many different units that fill the exact same role (Heavy Infantry for example) and can all fill the roll with very similar levels compitency, essentially making the only difference between these units is the type/style of their armor with only slight discrepencies between thier stats. Either that or there is simply one suprior option of unit that trumps all others; removing any sense of unit diversity as there are only becomes the useful unit and everything else is junk. This offers ZERO diversity to the game other than some fancy colors. A perfect example of this would be Shogun 2 vs Warhammer. Warhammer may have fancy units with realy cool designs and such but the playstyle of the units and tactical options they present are near nothing. Whilst Shogun 2 with much less numbers of different units than Warhammer has more diversity of plastyle and tactical options because almost every unit can offer something to the general in charge. Whilst Warhmmer has a set meta and way the game is meant to be played. Diversity comes not from amount of units, but amount of tactical options. That being said I do love cosmetics and adore having a bunch of alternate themes and looks for my units. But gameplay comes first. Especially when modders can so easily do it, there is no need for the devs to sell reskinned units with such awful tactical diversity. Especially when modders can do it better! Anyway this went longer than I expected, I just really adore REAL unit diversity, not whatever these newer games are guving us. Besides Im sure Volound will explain it better than I can.

[@Volound]

you were on the mark. we have concordance. good shared methodology arriving at the same truth.

[@DaBestEmperor]

@@jaywerner8415 Yup

[@DaBestEmperor]

@@jaywerner8415 Agreed, Tomb Kings are the best example imo. They feel very different than other factions. Although there are even reskinned or rather renamed factions mechanics in the game too, e.g the Underway. There is like 4 different races with some variation of it.

[@jonnyringo7136]

I like unit diversity because of the different visual appearances of the units. I know, thats quite a shallow reason to like diverse units, but i get immense joy seeing different armies with different armour styles and weapons colliding on the battlefield. But thats it, a really minor influence on my enjoyment.

[@shorewall]

I enjoy that too. It's not the only thing or even the primary thing I enjoy. But I do enjoy it. :D

[@manafish8732]

“unit diversity” is just having variations of the types of units for a role imo. for example, both dragons and cavalry in WH are for flanking and attacking exposed units, but there are some meaningful differences between them that you have to consider in game. dragons can fly which make them really good for disengaging, but are much more expensive and susceptible to missile weapons/ magic due to being a single entity. due to being a fantasy game WH has a lot more opportunity to provide this variation between different unit roles, this along with how distinct the factions are on the campaign map and in battles compared to previous TW games is why people go on about “diversity” and “variety” so much, even if the core fundamentals of campaign/combat are weaker than something like shogun 2

[@anthonyoruovo6733]

Infantry is useless in Warhammer

[@aldrane7484]

@@anthonyoruovo6733 tell that to Warriors of Chaos

[@anthonyoruovo6733]

@@aldrane7484 Only if they you're going against them from hard difficulty and above

[@heliosjollywolf9552]

@@anthonyoruovo6733 if you dont use infantry how will you protect everything else?

[@petrorlov2599]

@@heliosjollywolf9552 summons and heroes :D

[@randman1551]

I understand that it’s not really the point of this video, but I would encourage players to try out warhammer 2’s multiplayer if they want to see it’s unit variety in action. There are almost no units in multiplayer that have 0 value.

[@unai_asecas9070]

For me unit diversity is what ads depth to a battle making each unit interact in a unique way with the rest of the troops. This means that flying wizards in WH e.g. don’t add that much depth to the gameplay as it reduces the spear, sword and cavalry units to a single plane where they can be dealt with all in the same manner. IMO

[@ingold1470]

Except Cavalry, having lower entity density, takes less damage from most spells because the damage is per-entity. The horses are fire retardant apparently.

[@crayonyum]

I recently discovered that I'm not in a group of people that CA is really marketing to, mostly because i only enjoy their older games. Heck Medieval 2 was one of the games that used to play a lot when I was a kid mostly because it was working on my potato laptop. Thanks to this I now avoid total war games that were made after Shogun 2 (only exception was Attila, I played it with my brother). Also recently i installed original Rome 1, I found it on cd but never before decided to give it a try. I must say sounds are the best thing in this game.

[@alexdks8134]

First of all, I love your videos, you're really answering the elephant in the room and voicing many people's feelings. For me, I play total war for the historical accuracy and being able to play out the 'what if' of history as a general of a historical nation. the enjoyment comes from being able to control and change your nations path in as many ways as possible and get really in depth into such tools total war battles are definitely really boring now. They are not difficult nor interesting. I really hope they can bring back the franchise in a historical title that is accurate, realistic and engaging.

[@shorewall]

@Pro Tengu If they have single entities in a Historical Total War, I am out. 100%. I can't behind that. I enjoy Warhammer Total War, but that's because it is fantasy. A lot of the things it does, I would not enjoy in a historical game. Personally, I question if CA can even make a good historical Total War anymore. I have not seen anything to suggest they have what it takes anymore. They may be best served going on in the fantasy genre.

[@d-fens5866]

I wasted months trying to figure out how you were supposed to compose armies in Rome2. Turns out the correct answer is just as many of the best infantry you can afford. I had hastarti and pricipes working together for the longest time before I realized the hastarti are just meat shields. Kinda disappointing.

[@jakobschoning7355]

Again modders blow out of the park what CA fails to achieve. In Divide et Impera (even tough it is ofc not perfect) there basically is a use for all units, its the only time for example where I really had to rely on auxilia units for my armies

[@serathaevistille995]

For the Hestates/Principes, I wonder if one way they could have done it differently is by merging the two and using experience to transform them. To explain, basically, once a Hestate unit earns enough experience/has seen enough combat, it upgrades into the Principe varient. This gives it a uniqueness in the game that both units lack, and the difference could remain exactly the same as it is now. Just a neat little attention to detail of the game showing how your units have become veterans and gotten, 'older.' It was just a thought for this old video, I've been loving watching these. Good work!

[@gabbo7101]

In europa barbarom 1 and 2, the location of where your recruiting is important and determines your strategy and what you use. There might be equivalences in certain regions, but in other areas there might be units of note. Many regions have some form of light spearman which are very similar to eachother when compared, but you wont be able to recruit them all in one place. This has the effect of making your armies look and be as diverse as the regions your conquering. But, what makes this regional recruitment system stand out, is the units that ARE of note. For example, just about nothing comes close to indian elephants when it comes to other elephants; this will make you want to have these elephants, but they are recruited accross the map, and will have to be physically brought to wherever you want them. This has the effect of making you wonder if its worth bringing them over to wherever, and this kinda stuff makes you think about this realistically. These features, like the whole mod, makes things historically accurate. This also makes it extra interesting and fun, and has the effect of making your large empire's armies look diverse and exotic and shows your power as you progress. You also have the benefit of having an aesthetically diverse army, without bloat due to the regional recruitment system. Sure, if you break it down to a core mechanical level, there are countless units with similarities, but you wont find them in one place. Though, I guess if you really dont care for history and are purely concerned with video-gamey aesthetics and mechanics, then I guess you wouldnt like this system tl;dr play eb2, its really good and achieves aesthetic diversity without making the game feel bloated

[@spannerspotter4398]

'Unit diversity' means a range of units which are functionally different from one another. They have various strengths and weaknesses, enabling the rock-paper-scissors gameplay which makes Total War interesting to play in the first place. This means a blend of highly specialised units which are exceptional at one job but weak in other circumstances (phalanx in Rome, matchlocks in Shogun 2) combined with versatile, jack-of-all trades units which can do many things but don't excel at any of them (archers who can fight in melee, infantry who can throw javelins, etc.). The result is that by combining units whose strengths complement each other and whose weaknesses are mitigated by each other, you can create an army of 'force multipliers' which is more than the sum of its parts. Against most threats you are therefore best off combining different units to take advantage of unit diversity, as opposed to spamming one unit many times over in a doomstack, which is often the optimal strategy in Warhammer 2 where synergy between units rarely matters. You don't need an enormous number of units in the faction rosters to achieve unit diversity. Shogun 2 has relatively few units but excellent unit diversity because each one is functionally distinct. Warhammer 2 has vastly more units but is no better off in terms of diversity (aside from magic users) because most of them are functionally identical but with slightly different stats. This creates the illusion of diversity because you can fill your army with a huge range of different unit models even if they don't actually do anything differently to each other. This reflects Games Workshop's approach to miniature sales whereby they have saturated the tabletop game with new and expensive new units which don't add anything to your tactical options during play, but do look lovely on the shelf.

[@KillaKris239]

I personally disagree, when I play shogun 2, I just spam ashigaru with a few bowman and can practically win the entire game that way, specially if I’m playing as Oda. I do agree that warhammer is guilty of doom stacks, but you don’t HAVE to play that way to win. You can have multiple different makeups of armies which vast range of races, units, monsters, heroes, lords who are all unique and different. In shogun 2, there’s almost 0 difference between one clan and another and there’s 0 difference between unit rosters until late game snd there’s 0 difference between generals and their capabilities in terms of battle and leading armies. With that said, I absolutely love shogun 2

[@KillaKris239]

@Pro Tengu yeah I agree, as total war players we know all about cheesing the AI. In terms of faction differences in shogun 2, it’s mainly like okay this is the faction with superior horses, this faction has superior archers, this faction has superior boats, this faction has superior spears etc.... Where as the diversity in something like warhammer 2 differs vastly even within the same race. For instance, my alith anar army is going to look different than my alarielle army which will look different than my eltharion army even though all 3 of those lords are apart of the High Elf race.

[@KillaKris239]

@Pro Tengu so what do you care about? The conversation is about unit diversity and so far you’ve admitted that even though each faction plays differently in shogun 2, you’re still using the same units which is the exact opposite of unit diversity

[@KillaKris239]

@Pro Tengu When I was saying those 3 high elf armies would look different I didn’t mean aesthetically, I mean in terms of units I recruit. Like the unit composition would look differently.

[@KillaKris239]

@Pro Tengu well the real problem with combat (in my opinion) is that they balance the game around multiplayer battles which never translates well to the campaign where I’m sure the mass majority of players play....so they are making a few high ranking MP players happy at the cost of thousands of SP campaign players.

[@bigj9942]

I do disagree to some extend with the dlc model of warhammer, as many of the additions not only add units that often change how a faction plays, but also add campaign unique mechanics a thing that older titles lacked extensively, with only some exceptions like the Ikko Ikki. Otherwise great vid.

[@Lucco183]

I'm glad I'm not the only one struggling to kill 24 light horses even though they charged into a wall of 100+ pikes

[@flavivsaetivs5738]

Everyone: *makes different types of units Me: me see infantry line, me train infantry line

[@akedus44]

What I don't get is why people feel the need to justify that modern Total War games are better than they actually are. I like playing the Warhammer games, both multiplayer and single player. But that's because I've come to terms with the starcraft-esque click fest that they have become for the multiplayer and because I like maximising efficiency in singleplayer which is why idm the doomstack problem. I like my popcorn entertainment.

[@TimmacTR]

The only diversity that counts is context diversity. Basically, applying the system to different contexts: terrain, situations, unit mix etc..

[@CaptainSully101]

Oh boy I bet Volound is so happy about the new announcement for another fantasy total war game!

[@Volound]

>paying attention to pre-release in 2021.

[@CaptainSully101]

@@Volound Respectable also keep up the good work your videos are great

[@SGWeber]

I know this isn’t the point of the video, but I have the opposite view on the Hastati/Principes question. What’s the point of Principes in campaign when they cost more, require more time building barracks, and by the time you have them your Hastati will be so experienced that they’re actually more effective? And Triarii are completely pointless to recruit. I just use Hastati and get the Marian reforms ASAP because the only worthwhile upgrade from Hastati is legionnaires in my opinion.

[@SGWeber]

But I agree on the possible fixes

[@maxmagnus3793]

Love how you barely had to talk about warhammer and still dismantled their unit diversity argument. And it's true. On very hard battle difficulty Warhammer factions can be reduced to their best missile unit, their best single entity monster, their best shock cav and/or their best magic user.

[@grimreaper492]

And Shogun 2 can be reduced to what, Ashigaru bowmen and ashigaru spearmen?

[@thereynaldosan7695]

​@@grimreaper492 Yari Ashigaru

[@reidzalewski4563]

The term we used to use in the warhammer tabletop community for how Total War's factions are built is "Monobuild". When the choices presented to you so obviously favor a single (or small selection) of paths, and using anything other than those results in a substantially less than optimal army. The end result is other options existing, but never being used because there is never any purpose to doing so.

[@soberano6141]

Total war warhammer should be the most diverse game in the franchise. They got guns, orcs, elves, pirates, monsters, wizards, vampires, flying machines, tanks, dwarfs, dinosaurs, minotaurs, rats, and a fuckton more Why all units are like: Front line, ranged attack and big monster?

[@CaptainCorneliusArgo]

I've only ever had two problems with "unit diversity" and they're not explained withing the term itself. First example is Attila, a game that I greatly enjoyed played and still do. There isn't great "unit diversity" in that game, most of the units are variations of spears, but what there are makes enough of a difference to keep it interesting. The main problem here isn't that CA put too few differing units into the game, it's that the setting is just not good for that sort of thing. It's easier making a stick with a metal tip, than an actual sword, and so spears where just more common. The other example is Warhammer, where there are tons of different units, but that doesn't matter because you end up only using 1-4 types in your armies. How often have I not played that game and rushed some late game unit to then only (or nearly only) build that because it's good and easy. Btw I haven't touched Warhammer in a year or so, it is still my most played TW, but I started noticing how irritating it was to play. For me the term is to do with options, yes Warhammer has a lot of unit options, but most of them are pure flaming garbage, yes Attila is mostly spears, but they are not carbon copies of each other and have their own strengths. The difference here is that there might be less options, but they're more viable. It's giving the player the possibility to choose, instead of waiting for them to figure out the meta (note, not multiplayer meta, don't play a lot of multiplayer). I have played more TW games than those two, but they are the ones that just came to mind.

[@pinoarias8601]

I disagree, I have over 2000 hours on both TWWH games, and it's not necessary to restrict your armies to 4 elite unit types at all. I find it much more fun to use ALL of the roster in differently themed armies. The game is solid in that regard, not every unit has to be optimal for its use to be justified.

[@ingold1470]

The latest patch nerfed settlement growth rate so you can't get the elites until turn 80 or so.

[@adamkazar2995]

What I would mean by using the term "unit diversity" would be: having more units to play with. For example in Rome 2, Macedon, compared to other greek factions, has more types of pikemen, more types of shock cav etc. Maybe you won't use some of those units, but you can still play around, of course, you might be inclined to use the same unit for the whole game, but it gets repetative in my opinion. Good options are Medieval 2 where you advance through the ages and have different units. Or Rome faction in Rome 2 where you research reforms and have different types of legionaries. (Rome 1 same here) thats my opinion about the term.

[@adamkazar2995]

I posted the original comment on 4:00 , just finished the video and it is actually quite eye opening. You got some interesting points there.

[@Volound]

thanks for the comments. you gave a pretty good description and one that is very typical of RTT/RTS players. its good that i couldve helped you think about it better. ideally youll look at your units differently from now on, with more scrutiny and attention given to truly differentiating properties - ones that affect usage meaningfully, for the sake of better gameplay. cheers.

[@adamkazar2995]

@@Volound there is also the fact that right after the posting you said a term "unit variety" in the video and then it hit me, that is far better term to use for the example I mentioned, yet alas my grasp of english language is not on the "native" level so sometimes the words just dont come.

[@Northraider123]

A couple years late i know but still... unit diversity to me means I'll have several units that "do the same job" but they do it in different ways. Perfect example would be spear, pike and halberd units all 3 would be anti cav units but halberds would be useful againt infantry but too slow to chase after cav, pikes would be basically immune to melee in general but EXTREMELY vulnerable to ranged and spearmen would be somewhere in the middle with a added resistance to arrows because they have shields. Throw in tiers for levy, Men-at-arms and nobles and thats 6-9 versions of a single unit type just focused in different areas and with fairly unique quirks Quite similar to your example of the shogun 2 spear units if a tad more crude

[@patchcuratolo5201]

i was playing warhammer 2 today and noticed after i route a unit that is completely surrounded i cant kill of the routing units they all bunch up into a blob and non of the animations work back in the day if a unit routed while surrounded it would get eaten in seconds, now it literally can t be hurt cause they just bunch up and the game cant handle it

[@seconddesign]

I know this Video is about unit diversity, and as always I agree 100% with you but I think a very interesting theme for the next Vid might be actual faction diversity. I haven't played the newer TWs for obvious reasons so I'd love to hear your opinion on the new factions they've made, as to this day the different factions in Shogun 2 gave and will continue to give me always different campaigns and experiences that I actually remember. Feel free to share some of your campaign experiences :)

[@lucasavelli2945]

Hi Volound, good video as always. To me "unit diversity" means something significant that makes you select a unit instead of another one, and makes you use them according to your strategy, so the rock paiper scissors system, and why not, after this, some good historical skins (since I study ancient History I like this aspect) . I remember years ago when Rome II was out watching Heir of Carthage talking strategy, but what I will never forget was Maximus Decimus Meridius and his immense work on Rome II mechanics and units. Unfortunately everything was useless because of the bugs and mechanics. But I respected him so much. I think the study I was putting in the game improved my strategy without ruining the immersion. At the time this made me love Rome II so much, but everything fell apart too soon. What do you think about this, RTS where you study the game in order to think strategies? I think it should be both intuitive as it is in real life, for Total War games, but it should also reward he who puts himself to the test in order to think a strategy and implement tactics. Being an Age of Empires II player I think this is very important and it was fantastic to experience this in Rome II, which having ancient history as theme is obviously the most promising for unit variety in each faction, being the cultures so diverse. Sorry for the bad English, I hope I have explained myself. Keep up the good work!

[@leonrobinson2053]

The TW games I play are diverse. There's light and heavy infantry, different type of missile troops, light and heavy cavalry, artillery, etc

[@clone3249]

This guy needs to take over CA. The old guard want their game back. we want solid history and tactics back into the games not this fuckin shit

[@MrRunner45]

Maybe a take out of left field, but the thing I actually like about Napoleon TW and Empire TW is that there is little pretense about unit diversity since historically a lot of equipment was the same throughout Europe. I actually find the battles in these games to be some of the most enjoyable.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

i think you are mixing up faction variety with unit variety...

[@ludaMerlin69]

Oh hell yeah. I've long been disappointed at the "diversity" of units in total war, rome2 and onwards. Looking forward to your thoughts To me, unit diversity is each unit having a different role, purpose and style, which may differ depending on the situation. True diversity enables the player to have agency over what they want to achieve, tactically, or strategically. And then to balance this against what is achievable/ affordable. Tldr: player agency!

[@bernardi5919]

Slight correction on the triplex acies as I understand it: By Caesar's time, Marius' military reforms had rendered the triplex acies obsolete as Rome had replaced its hastati, principes, and triarii with just legionaries armed with gladii. I could be wrong but I'm like 90% sure that Caesar didn't use the pre-Marian triplex acies. He may have done something similar with his legionaries for all I know though

[@connoragnewmusic]

I think you’d like the DEI mod for Rome II. The units that are re-skinned superficially are only so for historical accuracy’s sake, but there are true different unit types with very different roles. Heavy phalanx units hold the middle and are basically invulnerable from the front, but have low attack and are vulnerable to flanking manoeuvres. Light spears are good for plugging gaps and are highly mobile, but must be supported otherwise they will fail. Heavy swords are excellent all ‘round units with high attack, but are expensive and vulnerable to missile fire, and light swords are real glass cannon units. There’s also the differentiation between melee cavalry, shock cavalry, light cavalry and missile cavalry, all serving very different roles. I could go on, but it goes to show the genuine and thought out ‘unit diversity’ which is extremely functional and not at all superficial.

[@Imperator_Gr]

unit diversity would probably mean having a lot of units that perform simular roles but they are somewhat distinct from each other, for example differing in pricing, quality, speed etc

[@indianpotatofarmer6508]

Total war warhammer 2 gets too much love and the historical total wars don’t get any 😔😔

[@Rokiriko]

Well Volound some of us come from different angles, I dislike the lazy Warhammer reskins too, but I love EB2 and Divide Et Impera approach, where they create scarcity of units and thus simulate a real army since you are forced to use various units from your empire, you don't have the luxury of perfect clone armies, where every units is the possible it can be for its task. I really like that immersive approach and lots of the fanbase(not all, some just wanted pointless challenge cranked up). I feel like just taking Hannibal for example and conquering Italy does not make it cool in itself, I do not feel a connection to this time and him, but when you can simulate the reasons why Hannibal's army was so well "diverse" and varied, that is one step closer.

[@skelo9033]

And here I thought unit diversity meant people looking different in a unit

[@aude-y8571]

''Unit-diversity'' is a talking-point to sustain fallacious groundworks in insecure group-dynamics. Also new video!! absolutely

[@Volound]

ty audi, hope youre doing well.

[@gordoncrutchfield3453]

I started following you when I was stumbling around trying to win above easy in Shogun 2. One of your best campaigns was your Shingen campaign. I learned so much watching you abuse the routing mechanics and ground terrain while building your stats on your units to refine them to a single purpose. I also found your critique of Rome 2 a masterpiece. I was excited for Warhammer Total War until I looked at it and realized they took all the terrible Ideas from Rome 2 gameplay wise. There are some cool ideas they added. But the money grabbing tactics really turned me off. My favourite was having an entire faction as a pre order bonus. If they looked at any trends besides sales and adapted any lessons they learned from Shogun 2 and listened to there worst critics they could have had a solid loyal fanbase with a decent multiplayer. But I've moved on to different games, Your demonization in the community is a result of the tribalism that has resulted due to social media and the loudspeaker for stupidity that is an unfortunate side effect. Keep on trucking though maybe if not CA but another company will notice.

[@Volound]

thanks meng. always a unique kind of delight to have veterans return from the 2012/2013 days to say their piece. and as usual, i fully agree with you as i always do with all of them. thanks for the comment.

[@taylorturant8567]

Shogun 2 Fall of the Samurai had three pre-order bonus factions. And blood DLC. Just sayin'

[@Hans013]

as Empire/Napoleon player every nation have line infantry, but they have different base stats for each nation except generic

[@TheTommiiTooWss]

It's quite funny you ask about what would i define as the term "unit diversity" since two minutes ago when you critiqued it i paused the video and thought about that same question to myself. When i think about "unit diversity" i'm refering to having different gameplay and flavor options in a battle, i think about really big strenghts and really big weaknesses, that in my opinion is "good unit diversity". My favourite game in the franchise might be Medieval 2 but something truly amazing with Warhammer 2 is that every race feels completly different from one another, not only playing as them but figthing against them also. Its not just a bonus to cavalry or a discount on archers, a faction might not have missile units at all causing it to have to charge almost straigh away or it might have gatling machine guns and mini atomic bombs. Its absolute madness, which creates very interesting strategic dylemmas. I really like history, so much so that im actually going for a degree in it, but the gameplay in Warhammer 2 is phenomenal and i think its a contender for best in the series. Is it a perfect game? ABSOLUTELY NOT but neither is Rome 1 and i love them both. I agree with most of what you say in your videos as i see myself going back to replaying older games instead of the newer ones but i cannot help to feel like some of the things that are the bane of the newer titles actually work in Warhammer 2. I may have gotten a little off of topic but that was my 2 cents

[@Tymekew]

I regret buying warhammer, couldn’t refund it since 6 hours-played. 2 hours isn’t enough time for total war and also doesn’t help load times are crap

[@cartern5471]

In the past you've expressed your disappointment with Empire. I've been playing Empire for awhile, and it feels a lot better to me than the more recent games. I'm probably just missing something, so would you mind explaining why you dislike Empire?

[@benjaminloyd6056]

I played empire but returned it. The game was cool, but the UI and pathing made it a headache. Have you played any other tw games?

[@cartern5471]

@@benjaminloyd6056 Oh yeah, I've played Rome, Shogun 2, and medieval 2 extensively. I just didn't see anything super bad with Empire, but I understand the issues you have with it since I've noticed how not good the UI is.

[@5h0rgunn45]

The main things I dislike about Empire are: 1. Units aren't responsive enough. Try having a lancer unit charge the enemy, and then try pulling them back so they can do another charge. It doesn't work very well, because it seems like one entity being stuck in melee prevents the entire unit from disengaging (or makes it more difficult), which makes it hard to do multiple charges. 2. Units can't fire as long as a single entity is still moving. This means you'll have guys sauntering around at one end of the line so the rest of them just stand around while they're getting shot at. Also, horse-archers can't shoot while moving. WHAT KIND OF HORSE-ARCHERS CAN'T SHOOT WHILE MOVING?! 3. Cavalry don't have pistols. This means you can't do a caracole maneuvre (I think that's what it's called), where you have your cavalry charge up to the infantry, fire their pistols, and then fall back to reload so they can go for another pass. 4. Dragoons take way too long to dismount and line up, so I always end up only using them as garrison forces. 5. Militia, conscripts, and comparable units aren't cheap enough to justify how much they suck. All that being said, I've still put quite a few enjoyable hours into Empire. I got the mod that makes all nations playable and had a very enjoyable campaign conquering India as the Iroquois Confederacy. I'll never forget my world conquest campaign as Poland (conquered the entire world EXCEPT for that one tiny province all the way up in the northwestern corner of the North America theatre). I just think it's not as good as it could've been, and it's not as good as older titles, though it's better than some of the newer titles.

[@cartern5471]

@@5h0rgunn45 I completely agree that it's not as good as some older tw games, and yeah the units can feel very clunky at times.

[@thephoenixking2380]

No word said about how broken cavalry was in Medieval 2? I agree with WH SP being just SE and ranged spam but there is a difference between MP and SP ;)

[@OneofInfinity.]

That peasant power at the end 👍🏼

[@rrai1999]

these videos are superb edit: felt like I needed to add more here, I've considered your thoughts and agree wholeheartedly; I just love the warhammer theme, and wish they'd bring it up to the standards of the games from 15 fucking years ago.

[@Annatar]

There is one reason and one reason only that I've kept plating total war games: the modding community. And it's starting to not be enough to cover up how shit these games have gotten

[@jakobschoning7355]

While I would disagree with the last part of your statement - I think that the Modding comunity for Warhammer has been making great strides lately - it really is the case that modders are what makes TW still a great series for many people. I for example would have stopped playing Rome 2 ages ago if not for DEI. And it really is a shame that CA does not really seem to be honoring that fact, looking at how they keep restricting the modding tools seemingly with every release

[@BigMackWitSauce]

Starcraft 1 and 2 have always been some of my favorite RTS and I think they really nailed unit diversity. Three factions, each unit is used in a different way from the others. Not just within one faction, but between factions as well every units gameplay is a little different

[@ivan55599]

There is a reason l use sometimes concept of "spearman spam" - not in sense of quantity of units, but quality of them.

[@blanetamez532]

Ah yes unit diversity. Shogun 2: Yari Samurai vs Yari Levy. One is a mobile infantry unit that can be effective early game against AI or out of positions players exploiting holes in the enemies lines or seizeing critical positions. Yari levy are a weak infantry formation, but when using a spear wall they are more effective than their Samurai counter parts at holding a position/maintaining a battle line. Warhammer: All Calvary units. Utterly useless and exactly the same, they are crap against the stuff their supposed to counter on very hard or legendary difficulty meaning you don’t use Calvary unless your Bertonia with all their magical buffs. The diversity in Warhammer is simply superficial and is only diverse because rid the various races but the actual core units and their use no matter the quality function exactly the same. In Shogun 2 their is an actual choice to be made between even the most basic of units lie the humble spear men.

[@Volound]

exactamundo.

[@BlingLingification]

To elaborate on the Warhammer point: Even when excluding the difficulty bonuses (which basically throw game balance out of the window in every TW game), here are examples of how unit diversity doesn't really exist in Warhammer: Lizardmen faction: Stated distinguishing characteristic is strong infantry Lizardmen spears: Higher weapon strength than all other spear units in the game. Use: Sit still and hold the line. Empire (human spears): Significantly lower weapon strength. The Empire is known for its gunpowder units. Use: Sit still and hold the line Bretonnia peasant spears: Lowest weapon strength and morale of all spear units in the game. Bretonnia is known for its cavalry. Use: Sit still and hold the line Same pattern for sword infantry. Same pattern for cavalry (all melee cavalry are better used for hammer and anvil strikes). Only one faction in Warhammer has strike infantry, the Wood Elves, but you should never use the strike infantry. Why? Because they have better and faster cavalry, so use that for hammer and anvil strikes. So what niche do the Wood Elf strike infantry fill? None. They're redundant.

[@evren6261]

@@BlingLingification fr, i find it sad that despite all the various melee units across all the races with their different weapons and supposed roles on the battlefield, the only viable way to use them is to simply “hold the line” (usually for your ranged units to just do all the dps).

[@fabiosordo5313]

Units are tools, it's up to you to use them as you see fit, yes most factions have very similar units (basic spears, basic infantry) but they are still used differently because of the rest of the roster: High elves spearmen: shields, good discipline, low health decent combat stats. Role: hold the line for the ranged firepower. Lizardmen saurus spearmen: high damage but lower melee attack and decent armor piercing. Role: pressure the enemy, since lizardmen ranged choices are either mobile or independent, enough you don't play defensively. they can punch above theyr weight with magic buffs. Skaven clanrats with spears: Cheap, big unit size, bad combat stats, low discipline, quite fast. Role: meatshielding for ranged units, they will run after a while but skaven ranged troops deal theyr damage fast. They are fast enough to also flank and tie up ranged troops. Three similar units that fall under the same category but different enough to both feel and play different. Every faction has a preferred playstyle with strengths and weaknesses in theyr roster and must tailor the build to the faction they are facing. To be fair most units cover a role or a niche in the army and there is not much redundancy.

[@blanetamez532]

@@fabiosordo5313 everything you have just said is totally fair, on normal difficulty. I personally have always enjoyed Total war on hard to legendary difficulty. The issue with warhammer, is that once you start playing on very hard or legendary, strategy for every faction goes out the window. As Legend of total-war has shown definitively their is an optimal strategy and army composition for every single faction in the game and using any other would be objectively weaker on said difficulty. And this is what me and others point out about the role for warhammer units comes from. Yes their is some differentiation among the various unit types for each faction. However, objectively on very hard or legendary difficulty their are only 5 types of units good hero’s, bad hero’s, line holders, range units aka almost every factions damage dealer, and monsters. Note that I didn’t say Calvary because objectionably monsters are better and are what you should be using as your hammers. But if you watch any of legends videos on warhammer legendary you see that for each faction strategy falls into one of two. First combination of line holders, ranges units whose job is to do all the damage, some hero’s to help you hold do damage and support your range units. The other is a doom stack made of a single unit type and a general because using anything else for that faction would be weaker. And so battles largely just fall into a micro intensive, but ultimately static and passive style of gameplay. And this is the issue on higher difficulty. The nuance of each of these units that you pointed out, simply goes away. As ever factions standard spearman/swordsmen/infantry’s used in the same way not to out maneuver, surprise or tie down a unit for a flank but to simply keep the enemy in place for your ranged units to lay into them. And these two base strategies on lower difficulty are even more effective because the AI doesn’t get as many buffs. But my point is that a game shouldn’t box you into a strategy just for playing on higher difficulty, but instead force you to get more creative and bold to deal with a relentless AI.

[@thangvitanh]

Blame DotA, turned a RTS with armies into a mudfest where only the generals matter.

[@captainschmichael7568]

On the definition of diversity: “1. the state of being diverse; variety. "there was considerable diversity in the style of the reports" a range of different things. plural noun: diversities "newspapers were obliged to allow a diversity of views to be printed" “ -Oxford Dictionary

[@stephenhartley2853]

the warhammer dlc for skaven essentially makes skaven unplayable without it

[@pallascat6767]

This is great. I knew it was only illusion. I want to cry. It's fine though I guess, I'm a simple boy.