The Red Herring of Total War's "Historical vs. Fantasy"

[@Volound]

fantasy or historical? or something else?

[@hubex_yt]

FIFA

[@Tighnari]

Troy & 3 Kingdoms

[@trabuco9]

Troy and 3 Kingdoms are something in between and they are not good at all

[@Tighnari]

@@trabuco9 the only 2 total war games i own XD

[@trabuco9]

@@Tighnari Test out Medieval 2, Historical peaked in quality there.

[@Takerith]

"Not clamoring for buttons on your screen. The clamoring is in your head, for a plan." This reminds me of the difference between TF2, released in 2007, and Overwatch, released in 2015. In TF2, there's a character called Soldier who has a rocket launcher and one of his main strengths was the mobility he could gain by rocket jumping. Anyone who's played Quake knows how powerful rocket jumping can be, and there's plenty of videos online for how powerful it can be in TF2. Overwatch has a character called Pharah, who also uses a rocket launcher and has high vertical mobility. But instead of rocket jumping, Pharah just presses Shift to launch herself upwards with a jetpack and can then glide slowly by holding Spacebar. This always bothered me because in TF2 rocket jumping was challenging, but not overly difficult, to learn but had an infinitely high skill ceiling. The fact that a similar mechanic was reduced to pressing two buttons in Overwatch was really sad, because it removed almost all the creativity that TF2 jumping allowed.

[@Volound]

yep ive had this experience in a lot of games. taking all of the ambition and magic out of it.

[@MasonDixonAutistic]

But why use the general game mechanics in a creative way when you can achieve the same effect with 'press button'? (This is what smooth-brains actually believe)

[@anderu2384]

@@MasonDixonAutistic Cuz you need to rely on your brain instead of a button?

[@Leiska86]

To be fair, an argument could be made that discharging an explosive at your own feet is thematically silly, and the jetpack was included to discourage rocket jumps for that reason.

[@addiction4062]

@@Leiska86 having a big dumb hamster rolling in a ball is even sillier thematically but thats a character in Overwatch.

[@Br0leg]

I personally dont mind the fantasy, but I really dont want it to replace historical. I love the warhammer games, but man I wish we would have a fully fledged historical game in between, I wouldnt call troy or 3K neither historical, nor fully fledged. I thought they would make Troy a mix of historical and fantasy with mythology, age of mythology style, but they ended up doing neither, its not fun for a historical game nor is it fun for a fantasy game, as they tried to keep it realistic, but they forced in fantasy elements like healthbars and single entities. I would really want medieval 3 to not have single entities or health bars, if it ever gets made. If their excuse is that history doesnt sell, are you really telling me medieval 3 wont sell well?

[@b1indmailman]

Seriously the attention that Medieval Kingdoms for Attila got alone should be a wake up call for a serious attempt at a historical game. Even the modding community for Medieval 2 still being active and still putting out updates is amazing when compared to Three Kingdoms whose most popular mods are reskins and slight modifications.

[@aquapendulum]

Isn't there straight-up magic in Troy? That should land it squarely in the fantasy category. It not having a Records mode like 3K is another giveaway sign.

[@GoonLagoon-f3i]

Hey man, please do total war game playthrough, maybe modded its your choice.

[@a_goblin22]

brobeg how did you get here silly

[@666Kaca]

I mean if you play records mode i fail to see how 3k is not a historical title.

[@Pilps]

I'm hoping this is what Manor Lords will be. "Traditional Total War" Wait and see!

[@Volound]

at dawn, look to the east! game is dangerously hyped but that in itself just goes to show - the demand is massive and an entire type of player is completely unsatisfied.

[@catdictator8647]

@@Volound Especially since its a solo developer who is also making a city building game along with what some would describe as Total War's rival or substitute. I'm very much looking forward to it's release but I worry about the developer. Hype is a dangerous thing and not all developers know how to handle it. I hope they don't give in to rushing things or making too many promises. Making such a... incredible sounding game... solo, is already likely quite the load.

[@Siptom369]

Can't wait till Manor Lords comes out

[@samwiserando]

@@catdictator8647 from his statements so far the manor lords Dev seems very down to earth and realistic. I think he has said no multiplayer on release but it's down the line in development.

[@olivemalteser]

I hope this is the case too CA have really made poor games in recent years

[@wizardcat7654]

People shouldn't be demanding fantasy or historical titles. They should just be demanding well made games. Fantasy, historical or otherwise. Why you would entetrench yourself in one camp or the other makes no sense to me. Prefering to play one type over the other is totaly fine. Leading you to want that type to get made. But that is ultimatey subjective and what genre the game is set in has nothing to do with its quality. I encourage you if you are in either camp. Maybe just start asking for better made games. I think CA needs to take a trip down memory lane and see what made their older titles so great. Lending to why they still get played today and will likely still get played years down the line. Bring many of those features back and build on them And if that is in a historical title or fantasy title. So be it.

[@notgoddhoward5972]

CA: "Nooo but we need to make sure below 50IQ normies can pay us the most ammount of cash on a well known brand and milk it with DLCrionos for years and years to come." Volund: "Hahah. What a story, Mark"

[@danielx8765]

Because then the CA fanboy who like the newer TW so much can strawman people who want a better game to be "anti fantasy/anti warhammer". And they can keep using argument like "total war was never realistic/historical". To say that your demand for a "historical" title is idiotic. But the truth is most people who complains is complaining about the arcady gameplay. By those CA fanboy definition. Operation flash point will be a fantasy FPS, because it is not a war that really happen in Real historical, it is fantasy. Battlefield 5 will be a historical FPS, because it is a war that happened in real world history, thus a historical title. But most sane players will son find this category of historical vs fantasy in game setting is extremely useless to describe the underlying tone/gameplay/style of game. Only CA fanboys keep using this category so they can keep saying "you just hate fantasy" "total war wasn't realistic so your complain is nonesese."

[@danielx8765]

@@justagamingbulldog9246 Don't get me wrong. It is not a bad argument if use properly. Total war was never any close to historical accuracy. But CA fanboy who defend TW's latest direction is always going for this "since it is not historical accurate then what is wrong to have single unity that can overpower thousands of men? What is wrong to head towards a more arcady gameplay ?" I think if you have been on reddit or official forum for a while you know those kinds of argument already.

[@numerouswarrl]

most total war games aren't even "historical", just historically inspired. it's always been about mechanics. the appeal of historical units, weapons, and armor is just a cherry on top, and not always necessary to creating the mechanics that made tw unique. i like your term "unit differentiation", which also applies to faction traits and agents. i don't care that samurai with nodachis weren't ever organized into a unit in feudal japan. i care that their function is unique and definite from their melee slugging counterparts. "historical" total war is a misnomer, we could nitpick tw games for historical irregularities for days and it wouldn't fix the problem we have now

[@torum6448]

Thank you, we’re talking about a title that depicted ptolomaic egypt as middle kingdom egypt

[@dishonorable_daimyo1498]

Yeah a truly historical total war would have you fight battles that last days if not weeks, with lots of skirmishing and manoeuvring that sometimes won't even lead anywhere. You also wouldn't be able to instantly give orders to any unit in the army, you'd have to send the message to the unit's officer and hope it gets there in time. The historical setting is merely a springboard for the gameplay, which is supposed to be tactically and strategically deep without dragging on for too long.

[@deriznohappehquite]

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 mount and blade is kind of like that sometimes.

[@m7ray]

Agreed. Especially first Rome with giant elephants and amazons.

[@wfr1108]

@@torum6448 that was 2005, games since napoleon have been decent at accuracy

[@DragonballBlack]

Tbh if Warhammer 3 implements the diplomacy and character interactions of 3K with the features lost from the classic Total War days as well as having avatar conquest I would be a happy boy indeed.

[@Volound]

they know what to do and how to make a great game, they just dont want to do it. cutting avatar out of the series with rome 2 was just offensive. that more than anything was when it hit me what we were dealing with.

[@unnamedshadow1866]

@@Volound Pretty sure Warhammer doesn't have Avatar conquest, because it would basically kill the actual Table Top game. Why waste hundreds of dollars if you can have your custom painted army and play with or against your friends for far less money. Warhammer Multiplayer is already the most popular Total War multiplayer. Add Army Painting and Avatar Conquest and Table Top is dead. Pretty sure Games Workshop doesn't want that. Since they have gone as far as reviving the Warhammer Fantasy Universe due to the success of Total War Warhammer.

[@ms_publisher7143]

@@unnamedshadow1866 yeah why should total war fans give two shits about the tabletop warhammer game though

[@gauthierlebout4625]

@@unnamedshadow1866 I don't agree with you. Yes it is unlikely that TW W3 will have Avatar conquest (because non of the recent titles had it among others reasons) but i think it would have quite the opposite effect on the sell of the tabletop game if they add Avatar to Warhammer 3. Video game and table top are NOT the same think, not the same rules, not the same feeling when playing, not the same experience when painting, not the same socialize way of meeting someone (irl vs online). As i see it, with the revie of warhammer tabletop due to TW Warhammer popularity, Avatar conquest would only bring more people to be interested ton investigated the tabletop. Have a nice day

[@tiborcsendes5269]

@@Volound I've started total war with shogun2 wich is still my favorite tw game, and immediately with the next TW i found out games can just devolve without any good reason...Even if i one of the many who wanted Warhammer Total War for years, when i sarted my frst campaign and look around it feelt halfassed, comaperd to shogun2. The animations, the interactions, small things what make the soilders unique and living.

[@Gapeagle]

Holy shit, looking at that old Third Age footage made me realize how far it has been progressed through Divide and Conquer.

[@WandererOfWorlds0]

Using a fantasy setting is no excuse for bad mechanics. The most magical thing in Warhammer is seeing bullets clip through city walls, not the actual spells in the game. A proper physics and collision system would solve the most glaring issues in modern TW games, at least on the battlefield.

[@srdjanvitorovic5795]

Wow man my thoughts exactly... third age tw submode Divide and conquer became my favorite tw game of all time... it's all about tactics in tatw...you can have Faramir with two units of spearman and four units of archers and hold Cair Andros against stacks of Mordor armies if you know how to play the game... stamina, fatigue morale...everything counts in this game and it's a fantasy setting...

[@Volound]

always a pleasure to find a fellow total war player in 2021.

[@FeHearts]

My favorite Total War mod is Call of Warhammer for Medieval 2. My problem with Warhammer TW is not that it's fantasy, I love Warhammer Fantasy, my problem is everything else. The single entity units, the change to how unit health is calculated as a collective unit instead of individual soldiers, the pathetic cavalry charges, the way settlements and buildings are done, etc.

[@Saif-vh2bj]

DONT CARE LOOKS KEWL....oh wait

[@BigSchim]

The one thing I will give Warhammer though, I do love the voice acting. It was never bad in these games, all the way from "Exellent news my lord! You have a son!" to "We'z gonna getcha! We'z gonna getcha! We'z gonna getcha!" and all the dwarfs swearing by the Damaz Kron for the the entirety of every fight that they'll kill all the urks and there's a grudge to settle and the master engineer happily stating that he's guild approved. Sure would be neat in the Warhammer games if missiles weren't the be all-end all and armor wasn't useless. Imagine having to get the Dawi off of a hill if archers couldn't hurt them, just like they barely hurt armored hoplites in Rome 1.

[@darkfireslide]

I think the core principles of classic Total War were rooted in an understanding and love of actual history. You constantly cite Sun Tzu as the inspiration for those games as well. So, yes, the older games are rooted in history, they are intrinsically linked to an understanding of principles of warfare in human history. One reason Lord of the Rings works so well with Total War is that the core concept of LotR is that there are very few legendary beings, because relative to Warhammer, it is a low-fantasy setting, so it makes sense that armies still have a purpose because even "heroes" are one stray arrow away from death. Warhammer is high fantasy, even though the world is gritty and dark. There are wizards that can cast army-destroying spells in Warhammer. There are singular entities in Warhammer that function much as they do in TWWH2. So making Total Warhammer heroes mortal, with bodyguards, is making Total Warhammer more historical. Much as trying to shove World War 2 combat into Total War wouldn't work, I don't think that applying the mechanics of classic, historical Total War would really ever work with Warhammer, either. Fans of Warhammer would feel betrayed that Karl Franz took 2 arrows from a goblin archer and bled out in a shallow grave, because that's not how it works in the tabletop game. In the current system, the only people that are happy are Warhammer fans, because TWWH feels much like tabletop Warhammer, and other RPG-style "tactical" games. The basis for historical tactics in a world with powerful single entity units and hero units and spellcasters are wholly incompatible. So yes, the issue is that Creative Assembly isn't actually making their games historical anymore. Troy and 3K are clearly just spin-offs using core principles from Warhammer, not from pre-Warhammer Total War, because they are trying to appeal to the larger market of players who enjoy Warhammer. When people say they want historical Total War, they want a return to form to the mechanics that resembled history, with units in reasonable formations, where the order of battle of infantry supported by skirmishers and cavalry and combined arms tactics win the day over brute force and sheer unit quality. Where Sun Tzu's principles of strategy and tactics can actually be applied. Where every unit type serves a meaningful purpose based on historical realities. That's what players mean when they say they want historical total war back. It's as much about the gameplay as it is about authenticity based on our understanding of history.

[@notgoddhoward5972]

Nah TW WH is 0% real tabletop warhammer. If that was so it would have looked like Field of Glory games, where your luck would be even worse because the dice would always give you 0.

[@darkfireslide]

@@notgoddhoward5972 so hero units and single entities aren't a huge part of Warhammer tabletop?

[@notgoddhoward5972]

@@darkfireslide Funny enough large units and big armies are better than just spamming dozens of heroes in tabletop. At least in earlier editions of rule sets that are worth their salt. Sure you can have your OP magic caster that costs the same as 2 boxes of plastic soldiers even though he costs 99% less plastic to produce. But he won't be able to kill a bunch enemies alone due to rules, luck and logic.

[@darkfireslide]

@@notgoddhoward5972 do the later rulesets abandon this logic? Is it possible TWWH is based more on those rulesets?

[@notgoddhoward5972]

@@darkfireslide I don't think they abandon much, they just change some stats in order to promote selling even more miniatures. Total warhammer is based on promoting braindead gameplay you would find in Clash of Clans or something and selling DLC's all year round.

[@handles_are_a_bit_rubbish]

The issue of the new mechanics not feeling reasilistic compared to those in the older games primarily derives from the unit statistics being calculated as a whole rather than per individual combatant, along with the removal of almost all the RNG out of the system which ironically removed almost all the realism. I know that in Rome & Medieval 2 missile damage was calculated via a randomly generated attack number (1 to Missile Attack value) and a randomly generated defense number (1 to sum of Armour + Shield) which actually worked very well, but this was later exchanged for a system where the missile does flat damage with a flat portion that ignores armour to a flat armour value with a flat chance for the missile to be deflected, and in this removal of RNG it allows for units to be reliably withered down over time thus resulting in the issues of Rome 2's testudos being useless from the front due this withering damage, an issue that didn't plague the original Rome due to the far better mechanics used for damage resistance. This ability to kill troops by the act of withering them down has resulted in the modern total war feeling of an arcade game rather than that of a battlefield simulator, in that a unit's numbers are more reliably useful than their timing or positioning and thus any unit with a ranged weapon, especially those with high armour peircing damage, are given an undue amount of importance due to their ability to destroy anything given enough time, thus making something that is supposedly a support element into the primary fighting arm of an army with the other units used to support them. I believe it is this mechanic that has resulted in the modern Total War games heavy focus on ranged units and cavalry as the main arms of an army, as the studio is unwilling to redesign the mechanics to give infantry their proper role they have decided to relegate them to a supporting role in favour of cavalry, archers and the various flavours of single entity monster units that plague the modern 'Total War' experience.

[@anthonyoruovo6733]

Agreed, except the part about calvary. Calvary are useless in tww except you are playing the brets

[@antonego9581]

its also just part of a whole paradigm shift that happened with Rome 2. older TW games were never striving for realism, but they did have a kind of simulation philosophy behind a lot of the gameplay both on the campaign map and the battle map. with Rome 2 that was discarded in favor of a board game style campaign with tons of arbitrary "gamey" mechanics, and a moba style battle layer that emphasized hard counters, on use abilities, and micro over strategy and formations and management of fatigue and such.

[@MasonDixonAutistic]

'Tensegral Design' is a buzzword I came up with for explaining what I like from a game. It borrows the term 'tensegral' from tensegral structures; anything holding itself together through a continuous distribution of tension through it's internal structure, rather than being supported from outside by something under compression, is a tensegral structure. We can file this alongside Orthogonal Unit Differentiation as something which differentiates Classic Total War, where I see lots of tensegrity in design, from Nu Total War, which more resemble the complete opposite: a house of cards constantly needing propping up. I see a game as having Tensegral Design when it can have problems that don't hurt the core experience. CA blindly reintroduced elevation advantage for missiles in Warhammer 2, implementing it as a straightforward damage increase up to 30% the higher up the firing unit is from the target and up to 30% damage reduction the lower they are. This made flying units with ranged attacks considerably stronger compared the ranged units that were often necessary to take them out, and broke the balancing of units that were designed for Warhammer 1 when they were transferred over; they're considerably weaker than those introduced in WH2 and have needed adjustment, outside support, which not all have them have had.

[@jaspervanheycop9722]

Have you tried the Divide and Conquer submod for Third Age? It has become a full standalone now with just plain absurd levels of detail. Even a faction like the Dunlendings, that almost no-one cares about, has units that you can pull off completely unique tactics with. Where Third Age is an awesome mod, DaC is now just a game on it's own, and in my top 3 Total Wars.

[@Volound]

interesting, ill have to look at it. sounds well done.

[@Michaeltsui1189]

I've been telling my friends that enjoy warhammer total war like myself that It is first and foremost a warhammer game first that pretends to be a total war game. Because things like Swords beating Spears and spears beating cavalry goes out the window when you have dinosaurs fighting against dragons and overpowered spells that can single handily overturn a bad decision you've made on the battlefield. And while I have a lot of fun with TWW, I sometimes go back to playing shogun 2 when I need my total war fix.

[@notgoddhoward5972]

9:38 that's one mighty fart. 60 guys left dead of the battlefield. This is chemical warfare

[@user-om3wn4yb8q]

Oh my... You clearly didn't see what some "unbreakable" heroes/lords can do in Warhammer... (Almost every single one of them is a walking "screw you" to Geneva and all other conventions whatsoever)!

[@notgoddhoward5972]

@@user-om3wn4yb8q I have, my favourite is wind of death clearing 2000 worth of troops in 5 seconds. But in warhamer it at least was magic and stuff. Here a dude just farts and soldiers around him die instantly.

[@BrutusAlbion]

@@notgoddhoward5972 it was the mustard he ate ... it produced mustard gas ...

[@notgoddhoward5972]

@@BrutusAlbion This is both the best and worst sentence i've heard today.

[@Siptom369]

I like both Warhammer and the historical titles because they both have their ups and downs

[@smallpp727]

In my opinion, the biggest problem with total wars is that those games more resemble some kind of mmo than an actual rts game. I mean, when you play wh, for example, you are more focused on stats, looks, spells, items and other stuff than the utility of a certain unit on a battlefield. The serie has more and more in common with WoW than with its own older parts. Valuable gameplay mechanics have been sacrificed for visual content that's vapid as hell and in fact it differs really little from each other. That's pretty sad...

[@navilluscire2567]

Partly what I HATE about magic in the Warhammer Total War series is that things like terrain and positioning have ZERO impact on how effective or ineffective one's spells are. Another thing I think that would've been awesome would've been like environmental effects on magic, as in the time of the year, the seasons and even the current weather would effect different kinds of magic either positively or negatively or even cause 'chaotic' events. In fact I believe that this is something that exists in the lore that the winds of magic are effected by the times of day and seasons, waxing and wanning in power accordingly like the wind of fire, "Aqshy" grows dim during winter while Ulgol magic or the grey wind grows more powerful. I really liked the symbolism of the natural phenomenon and cycles of nature with each form of magic. Also I would've liked for more opportunity costs and risks of using magic like spell that say empower your forces (can hit harder) but at the cost of making them weaker in the since of making them slower which would effect their ability at repositioning or maneuvering.

[@TobyIKanoby]

I am a history freak so my first reaction on Warhammer when I didn't like it was exactly that. But after some time I realized the fantasy isn't the problem, I kind of like the lore and was ready to dive into it (I think 40K is a million times better but that's another discussion). It took me some time and probably some Volound videos, but yes it's not the fantasy but it is the gameplay that is the problem.

[@Volound]

good lad, and thanks for being subscribed for over 7 years. still around and still caring about gameplay. appreciate it.

[@akedus44]

"You have to earn every bit of your success here." *flashes back to every warhammer multiplayer game I won as greenskins because I brought night goblin fanatics and used their fanatics cast to delete even elite infantry and cav, basically winning me the game at that point.

[@aaronrowell6943]

Now that Warhammer 3 has released I'm coming back and rewatching these videos and they're even more applicable now I remember when I first played Rome one and it was a very rough experience I didn't understand everything and this was before the internet really had a lot of great guides particularly on Rome 1 itself I made a huge mistake as the Julii and threw my men at the enemy line like a battering ram and actually had a Cannae experience on the receiving end of it in my whole army was annihilated. I felt like an idiot because I did that however it's one of those things where while I thought the superior Roman units would win, tactically I lost and while obviously I felt stupid at the same time I at least understood what I did wrong and what to do next time to avoid such an error.

[@davids7773]

Have you considered playing TW Warhammer (and Britannia) campaign with a fresh perspective? My favorite videos of yours are the teardowns you did of Troy and 3K, and I would love to see you give detailed breakdowns on where the Warhammer/Britannia games did wrong.

[@johnrockwell5834]

Even fantasy should have as its base the mechanics of Historical accuracy. And how armies actually work. Fantasy is just add-ons to the base game. The foundations should remain as accurate as possible. RNG is crucial to all those Total War Games because it simulates realism which shows that even the most skilled Men are mortal.

[@kevinschmidt8101]

I'm a really huge fan of fantasy and I really love the warhammer games, but on the other hand I love it to take control over a historical country and to replay history or to change it. In my opinion they should find a compromise. They should alternate historical an fantasy titles

[@sunscape6241]

CA “Pure Historical Total War is Coming Soon” lol

[@Volound]

LOL that would be hilarious

[@Ascuded]

they trademarked "Medieval, something "historical" might be coming but most likely we are gonna get some nu shite and no gameplay what so ever.

[@notgoddhoward5972]

@@Ascuded I predict a mobie cookie clicker clone.

[@notgoddhoward5972]

@@Volound Imagine it's just another reskinned Three Kingdoms. That would be spicy.

[@thelonehuntsman1153]

@@notgoddhoward5972 can't wait to see King Harold zigzagging around the battlefield wasting all of the Norman archers ammo

[@prdalien0]

Good video and I hope this mindset spreads. There's nothing wrong with preferring some settings over others but the history vs fantasy anarchists are just stirring shit for CAs sake. Good gameplay is what matters.

[@johnrockwell5834]

I think the base gameplay should be as close to simulation of reality as possible. And fantasy mechanics are add-on's

[@foof811]

I used to play Third Age more than base M2TW lol. It was much better for custom battles. Divide and Conquer is a continuation of it and a rework essentially so it’s pretty great as well. I’m still surprised they never jumped on the LotR bandwagon and made an official game though. Feels like they left a lot of money on the table with that.

[@TheHusseinjoker]

Troy and Three Kingdoms are genuinely fantasy though lol. That is a fact. They’re based upon romantic stories where the soldiers killed hundreds/thousands of people on their own. That’s not fantasy?

[@Volound]

@Selkie i give reasons for not liking things. the reasons are either good or bad. so dishonest. what a fucking rat, lmao.

[@Volound]

who gives a shit.

[@Volound]

@@ArCSelkie37 never seen so much empty meandering whining. "arrogant opinyin disagree agree opinyin" could you be using any more fucking pointless meaningless frippery if you tried? fuck outta here. dishonest fucking rat.

[@Volound]

and "who gives a shit" was for the other guy. fuck off.

[@millerrotc1]

First time watching this particular video on your channel. Couldn't agree more. You've articulated what I think a lot of TW players felt. From Rome 2 on especially, there seems to have been a shift in game design towards achieving cool "cinematic" moments in battles vs actually developing strategies using in depth gameplay to achieve said moments as the player. Put a different way, classical total war was the little kid playing with toy soldiers and actually organizing them with supporting fields of fire, terrain advantage etc. Nu Total War is a kid coming along and picking up those toy soldiers and smashing them together while making explosion noises.

[@nathanrobinson1099]

Exactly! Feeling like a general, instead you’re having to do stupid basic officer level concepts like pressing a button to brace for charges, never mind the arcadey boosts. You make a great point that we dilute our arguments with Fantasy v History. There’s so much else wrong that what type of TW they put out is should be the last concern of the fans.

[@jurgenhuisman5756]

I discovered total war by watching pixelated Apollo third age content and I couldn’t get enough of it. After 3 years of watching third age content I finally built my first pc and downloaded medieval two total war and the sub mid Divide and conquer. I have played the base game and mod extensively. I wasn’t disappointed when I got finally got first hand experience of the game. The next total war game I got was Warhammer 2 which I bought maybe a month ago on sale. I like WH2 but to me it was completely different visually but also the fundamental way you play it is different to medieval 2. I wouldn’t call myself a dedicated total war player, the real reason I got med 2 was for the mods but playing the base game gave me an idea of what to expect from other total war games or that’s what I thought. I guess what I’m saying is Warhammer style has lost the charm that made med 2. Med 2. The mod Dac for med 2 still retains that charm or style and when I play Warhammer I don’t think to myself “these guys who made this game must have made med2 because despite being fantasy it feels similar in a good way”. So yes I definitely agree with this vid, it is not fantasy vs historical it is original vs new. And personally if they made Warhammer 2 the same way they made med2 I would be happy to be able to hold a line with troops

[@v_artra5399]

Definitely true the divide is more about the current dumbed down trend of TW games and nit about historical or fantasy. Imagine all the amazing mechanics of Shogun 2 that allowed for true generalship and then ask, what if you just added spells or monsters and stuff. I don't think there's any reason why those things couldn't be added. Spells, abilities, single entities, these aren't the main problems it's hos they were put in the games that makes them feel arcade-like. You can be tactical and feel like a general while still having a tornado of doom conjured up IF it is done in a way that allows for creative solutions and tactics to win the day like you can see in multiplayer matches of warhammer games.

[@TheMrearl1]

Former Tabletop Warhammer fantasy player here. I was super excited to first hear about total war Warhammer at first as I really wanted something more akin to shogun 2 but with Warhammer stuff in it. My biggest issue is that total war Warhammer doesn't even remotely feel like tabletop or total war, its a weird shooty game about cheese and magic. Tabletop was all about decisive infantry engagements where hero's, missle units, monsters and cavalry could turn the tide of battle. Now the game has simply devolved into a mess of single entity abuse and sheer avoidance of melee combat. Even on tabletop the best hero units would get stomped if they faced a block of infantry alone. Shogun was actually a game in which the fate of the battle was decided by the foot man, assisted by missles and cavalry, and thus is actually a more faithful recreation of tabletop than the modern total war Warhammer.

[@danielx8765]

Try dominion 5 with warhammer mods. A better warhammer PC wargames than total war warhammer. The hero system in Dominion is more like old total war where a single high skill hero can die by one single arrow but he might be so good at melee and parrying that he can fight 1 vs 3~5 enemies without much problem but once surrounded he will die easily and less protected by extremely powerful spell or magic item. A common commander will die like a regular soldiers and the army he is leading will flee.

[@feuerderveranderung6056]

To be honest, I played the Shogun II campaign on release with only archers and decimated the AI. Since then I never really played Shogun and I can't understand why it is held in such high regards.

[@timlewis_fm266]

Empire 2, made much more in the style of Shogun 2 would be absolutely epic.

[@armagananteplioglu9031]

I usually dont watch these videos but checked this one. I am very impressed with how passionate you are to add your thought to this topic but I also cant stop thinking how insignificant it is. You are making good points and some people agree. But at the end these companies are there to make money and they make tons of money with these games. I checked the stocks of Sega for the last two years and they are flying high. They will never change their basic philosophies at this point and unfortunately the same compromise from quality in order to access larger and more casual audience is becoming widespread not only for Total War but for entire entertainment sector, like your example Game of Thrones. Games, fantasy, science fiction etc all these things were amateur spirited love childs created by geeks for geeks, it was a small initiative but great for its niche audience. With the involvement of big corporations things will never go back. I lost my hope and dropped all my expectations from big players of the entertainment industry and dont even bother with analyzing what they do. The golden age of gaming is over. Because that casual audience don't care about any of the points you mentioned, hell there are people who buy FIFA games every year for tons of money and those games are copies of each other. I still appreciate that there are people like you voicing their opinions and demands from the industry and it may incentivize some companies to create games for people who think like you do and might help people to appreciate finer details of video games. But CA/SEGA will never change.

[@Volound]

you would want to check the balance sheet of CA. they are sitting on something like 25-50M. SEGA stock is pretty much irrelevant to total war. and of course i have absolutely no hope for CA and total war. i checked out in 2013 and came back to examine 3K which seemed to be another fluke like shogun 2 was (everything since medieval 2 has been garbage except shogun 2).

[@MasonDixonAutistic]

Remember what Sun Tzu said: When the enemy general is excessive with rewards, they are probably desperate, and when they're excessive with punishments, they are at the end of their resources. CA ballsed up Empire: they offered a nostalgic return to Shogun. CA mega-ballsed up Rome 2: they hang Warhammer under our noses, knowing the cross-base appeal. Now, ToB bombed, Troy was a disaster waiting to happen without the Epic deal and although 3K broke records, it now has a quarter of the active players of WH2; it has retained few whales to buy DLC. So now and only now, with the original expiry for the license ending next year, do they come back with WH3 and are promising 6 core starting races, yet 9 legendary lords divided among them means most of them are going to have just one each. There is zero reason for that arrangement, except that they simply didn't have the resources. See also how they treat youtube partners: here is both excessive rewards and excessive punishment. Desperation, and exhaustion.

[@danielx8765]

You are right. Honestly, I think it is futile to hope TW/CA will be "good" again as it is mainly targeting the ultra mainstream audience now. Even my colleague who doesn't play game much play total war warhammer and three kingdoms. He just play it like a moba game and he doesn't care about any immersion or gameplay details, at least not to the level of the geeks and nerds do. He is the main audience of CA and it won't change much in foreseeable future. Personally, I already jump to play other more niche and hardcore wargames and doesn't play any TW game now. But I think video like this and complain towards CA is still needed, as to show the sentiment of player who was left behind by this endless lust for broadening audience and profits. It also helps people who are doing niche and indie/A/AA games to grasp what kinds of games those left over player want.

[@megaoptamas759]

I’ve seen the new Lord of the Rings mod for shogun 2 that’s being looked at, and i’m VERY excited for it, because it looks like the modder understands what makes Total War GOOD

[@Hironite]

I subscribed to your channel because I need to see another point of view and a more critique one in terms of gameplay in the TW series. I have 1200 hours on shogun 2, but i play warhammer 2 with the same passion as shogun. I recognise the flaws of WH2 (switched from very hard to normal battle difficulty, one of many) but i think i am a simple man, because i like flashy spells and magic. I will continue to follow your videos to learn the differences of TW games.

[@Hironite]

@@volodymyrboitchouk I don't like the multiplayer in WH2, nothing will beat the shogun 2 multiplayer system

[@LawlTwins]

Hey dude, im 2 years late but if you are still alive, what is it about the WH battles you like? Is it just flashy spells and magic like you said or is there more? I hate it and think the game's are destroying TW. I have played WH 1+2 also and to me the battles were over so fast, you could never get any enjoyment from them. There are just spells and animations happening everywhere that look terrible (to me). It plays like a clusterfuck. I just genuinely want some feedback from someone who likes the games but their opinion isn't biased. As you said, you can see the flaws. Is the spells and magic really all that keep you playing? Thanks for reading mate.

[@lordedmundblackadder9321]

idk is Troy was fantasy when this came out, but it certainly is now.

[@doltBmB]

I'm actually quite fond of the semi-historical settings like Troy and Three Kingdoms, infused with some level of myth but not too much. The problem of course, being the implementation.

[@KittJT2]

I think the reason you get the distinction between 'fantasy' and 'historical' is that the wargammer games are actually really good, diverse, and tactical games that not only keep all the best parts of older total war games that we all used to love, but they also expand the formula, and really make it work. They are games that are lovingly crafted, well balanced (for the most part), and generally have been great. On the other hand thrones of britannia, 3 kingdoms, and troy have generally been panned. I was very anti-warhammer until i played it. Got it on steam sale, and fell in love. Havent played the 3 others since then, but i havent really been interested. I also skipped attila mind you. Seemed like a rome 2 mod more than anything.

[@dishonorable_daimyo1498]

If you've played anything from Rome 1, Medieval 2, Shogun 2, and to some extent even Empire, you would instantly notice all of the stripped features, horrible design decisions, and lack of polish in WH 1 & 2, which by the way began with Rome 2. I am referring to the requirement to have a general leading each army, having an arbitrary limit on how many armies you can have, and supply lines. These three changes heavily restrict the player's options, and make the game tedious to play, especially during the later phases of a campaign. It's a big reason the newer games are described as arcadey, because you are highly incentivized to churn out doomstacks; in older games you would be punished for even trying to field full stacks of elite units, either by longer recruitment times and higher costs, or by a smart players with a numbers advantage and who could utilize terrain and movement effectively. Relying on one unit also meant you were open to being easily countered by other army compositions. You can have fun with WH all you want, and Volound isn't saying you have to enjoy a certain title or hate on others; but you can't prove that WH is mechanically equal or better than the older games when you have the issues listed above (and there are probably a whole lot of other ones I haven't mentioned).

[@KittJT2]

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 yeah, ive put countless hours into empire, and a decent amount into rome and shogun 2. The change to requiring armies to have a general, and recruiting units to an army not only keeps a lot of tedium out (by spending ages recruiting units, and then merging stacks), but also does strip some freedom. Its not that one system is worse. I personally dont like games that mean that optimal play is super tedious. Overworld gameplay has also improved a lot. Factions tend to grow and consolidate power in newer titles, meaning that the player will tend to have a lategamr rival, whereas in older titles, factions tended to sit more idle. Diplomacy had improved a lot. Feels a lot more akin to diplomacy in civ, than old total war titles where higher difficulty just means everybody declares on you. The warhammer games arent perfect. Unit scales messes up balance something fierce siege battles lack a certain amount of variety, and the game is susceptable to 'doomstack and the ai cant win' sure, but you can also just not build doomstacks. As someone who was a historical diehard before, they are, for all their failings, good games.

[@dishonorable_daimyo1498]

@@KittJT2 the older system was only tedious if you failed to properly plan out your settlements. The game would reward or punish you depending on what buildings you invested in and where. It had tons of risk/reward and opportunity costs that left you with multiple strategies and in turn tons of replay value. The current system removes much of that thought because it is no longer possible to reinforce your armies or swap out units and phase them out. This was an attempt to streamline the game but it only made it unsatisfying and shallow because there is little room for innovation, which only gets worse when you factor in the supply lines. It also makes agents a lot less useful because a general is instantly replaced upon assassination. It was a basic risk-reward in the old system: having a general would make the stack less susceptible to agents and better in battle, but you had a limited supply of generals. You had to weigh the benefits of raising more units vs the risk of them being sabotaged so they would be useless while still costing you upkeep, or being bribed to fight against you. In the current system none of these considerations are present. Good gameplay is about meaningful decision-making, and any change that reduces and removes that is objectively bad for the game's design. On top of that, the army cap means that in the late game you cannot respond effectively to threats even from smaller armies on borders away from your frontline, and it also meant that after conquering a province you would have to tie down an entire army to handle public order problems. In past games you could simply recruit more units or leave a few behind for repression. The system brought in Rome 2 made warfare slow and indecisive, because it made it much harder to capitalize on poorly defended provinces, because you would face an imminent counter-attack if you stayed, but if you pressed on you would lose the settlements to rebels. To sum up, starting with Rome 2 they removed a lot of the meaningful decisions from gameplay, while also making it impossible to properly defend your territories. This is before we even consider the changes they made to battles themselves.

[@KittJT2]

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 well, agree to disagree i suppose

[@S1monBay]

Regarding the clip from LegendofTotalWar, which I'm sure you have seen, addressing this exact issue (kzbin.info/www/bejne/laXElIp6qLt7mrM at 3:46:00). Although I agree that the simplification that either you're a historical-, or a Fantasy Total War fan is a rather uninformed and inaccurate description, I feel it is difficult to precisely define the fundamental aspects which facilitate a successful Total War game, from a pure gameplay perspective. Each player has their own perspective on which aspects of gameplay they consider essential to the complexity of Total War, and thereby its technical superiority. Some would argue that melee-dominated battles mainly devolve into watching frontlines statically fighting it out until one side retreats, just as you would argue the opposite. This difference in perspective, Legend postulates, is what essentially has lead to the currently fractured "Historically" focused, or more accurately "Gameplay" focused community, in which CA is incapable of creating a gameplay-focused title that satisfies all members of the community. Shogun 2 is undoubtedly one of my favorite Total War games of all time, but everyone in the community has their own favorites. Although I would like to have another Total War game which basically equates to Shogun 3, I do not believe that the entire "Gameplay" community would be satisfied with such a game. Therefore CA does not have sufficient financial incentive to create a game for such a fractured community. I think it is a shame, but an unfortunate inevitability that CA will keep producing games in-line with Warhammer or Troy.

[@SweArdaia]

I don't think you're quite right in that assessment though. What I usually see when people clamor for the day of good old TW games is Rome, Medieval 2 and Shogun 2. These games are quite different when it comes to both battle and campaign mechanics (Shogun 2 more so than the other two) but the "historical" community has mostly coagulated around them and any outliers have been, in my experience, in the vast minority. The difficult part is to quantify what exactly made these games good and why people like them so much. Volund is doing a good job spotlighting certain things but I think a more concentrated effort is necessary from the fanbase as a whole. Exactly what parts of these games should be carried over to make a good final product? No doubt there will be disagreement but I don't think it'll be the deal breaker you think it could be.

[@S1monBay]

@@SweArdaia Your assessment that the communities of those old games have coagulated may be accurate, i think it is hard to know though. The vast majority of players that enjoyed those 3 classics, and thereby contributed to their financial success, do not actively participate in the discussion regarding the future of TW, and the discussion may thereby not accurately reflect the true underlying reason behind the success of them. The current Rome, Medieval 2 and Shogun 2 players who take part in these discussion are diehard fans who have spent hundred or thousands of hours in these games. Rome 2, i believe, was an attempt to satisfy the desire of the community by going back to pre Empire TW era. CA knows that they did not success, but i do not think they know why. The recent financial success of the Warhammer series likely means they will not be attempting to recreate classics again.

[@SweArdaia]

@@S1monBay I think there might be potential though. There's a lot of discontent brewing against CA lately and a lot of it stems from the games being streamlined and honestly dumbed down, there might be someone at CA looking at older games for inspiration. I've also heard that CA had applied to copyright "Medieval", so M3 might be on the horizon. I can't find anything through google though so treat it as an unsubstantiated rumor if anything. M3 would be an interesting case since the main crowd which the game would catch interest with would be the old fans who actually played M2 or god forbid M1. I'm feeling pretty dumb now, but I think it was in this video where a screenshot was shown of Pixellated Apollo claiming that the design team at CA hadn't even played their older titles. That's pretty damning and should put a damper on many expectations though.

[@S1monBay]

@@SweArdaia I might simply be cynical bastard, too disappointed by Rome 2 to ever hope to relive the days with TW during my childhood with a new CA title. Warhammer isn't a bad game in my eyes, i do have fun playing it occasionally, but it, and any future CA games, won't be like the classics. Hopefully M3 won't be the game I suspect it will be 😅

[@wfr1108]

Troy and 3k weren’t “historical”, they were literally a joke in that aspect. Troy literally had mythical beasts, and three kingdoms targeted a Chinese audience and was ridiculously dramatized and silly. I don’t think asking for historical accuracy is bad, it’s a very clear and concise demand

[@Lobster_Lars]

The romance of the three kingdoms is as historical as robin hood. Its almost completely made up.

[@wfr1108]

@@Lobster_Lars which is unfortunate cause i bet it couldve been atleast sort of interesting if they made it accurate. Not sure why they felt inclined to make those two pseudo-historical titles

[@toniferra418]

And even with all the bad things in both style of game I love them and I enjoy them. I will never forget the classics and I don't want CA to make more Warhammer style games, except for Warhammer of course. I wish we could get back on the Shogun II TW kind of game.

[@OtterMusician]

Just found this. I absolutely agree. It's why I'm not excited by Pharaoh despite being interested in the setting. Even if it's a 'Historical' title, it's still a new age TW title.

[@tomflaherty2371]

I'm a fan of what they've done in TW 3k... everywhere but on the battlefield. Depth of diplomacy that doesn't arbitrarily force conflict, making character relationships based on shared values and experiences meaningful in terms of satisfaction, creating methods for hampering enemy resupply ability, attaching units to their leaders because you cannot simply reshuffle the elites of one general to another, fleshing out an espionage system that unifies intelligence, sabotage, betrayal, satisfaction, and character relationships. But even in records mode, the decision to make millennia-old artillery, available to any strategist at start, as accurate as late-game Fall of the Samurai cannons... totally scrapped the need for deep, terrain based tactical work. Outshoot the enemy from trebuchet range, see them wavering and dead before they reach your lines, move on, repeat. The battles become cookie cutter, even with the rework of ambush battles and the addition of encampment battles. If CA could unify the strategy-layer mechanics of 3K with classical tactics that make fatigue and terrain more relevant, and marginalize artillery (later game access, limited numbers, more army speed penalties, etc) such a title would blow everything prior out of the water.

[@harvsterg5939]

Hey Volound you checked the submod for third age Divide and Conquer? It is honestly a must play if you like third age it adds more units and factions to the campaign map plus custom scripts.

[@mootedtols4865]

Good points. I agree, I was never into any fantasy settings, but you're right. That's not the real issue.

[@eugenioderevell3826]

Daily reminder to check up manor lords and knights of honor 2: sovereign

[@dragonforks93]

Thanks for making these, I find these videos very cathartic.

[@user-it3gp4vm1z]

The only thing I like about Warhammer Total War is that the setting creates some really unique and interesting units that could never exist historically

[@Jigachader]

the only bad thing about this vid is that you shouted out third age total war but not the divide and conquer submod for it (now a completely separate mod) which is like 10x better

[@Volound]

dont worry, had plenty of people put this forward in the comments here, so it got the acknowledgement it was due. and thanks for the catch just in case.

[@Jigachader]

@@Volound damn dude you really do read every comment lol. you should problably be like the community manager at ca if they ever fix themselves, i got muted for 5 minutes today on their discord for saying that your video seems alright ( i didnt know you until they started hating on you in the chat )

[@dwighttriesgaming5875]

As someone who only got into total war because of the warhammer franchise, I used to think total warhammer was the best game ever. But then I started watching pixelated apollo's Rome sieges and thought to myself "huh, that actually looks nice". So i tried Attila and Rome 2, and I could never look at Warhammer 2 the same. The classic total war games just has so much more depth and tactical opportunities. But I understand CA for dumbing down warhammer 1 & 2. They needed to cast a wide net to catch as many players as possible. I can also surmise that the reason for SFO/CTT or The End Times mod being so popular on the warhammer 2 workshop is because of classic total war players wanting a bit less of the arcadeyness of the new games. I doubt CA will ever return to their more strategic roots. But hopefully, modders will be there to fill the gap and provide the classic total war experience the remaining few still crave.

[@diegomedina2359]

hey Volound, have you tried the Attila Medieval 1212 mod? what do you think?

[@a_goblin22]

11 pm my time , "my soul has left my body"

[@taoerche]

Same man.

[@a_goblin22]

@Pro Tengu what is real?

[@a_goblin22]

@Pro Tengu are they even real, how do you know they are real.

[@a_goblin22]

@Pro Tengu how do you know that I am real?

[@a_goblin22]

@Pro Tengu but I’m not standing right next to you

[@trivo4675]

Off topic here, but it seems like you never tried dwarf against beastmen or green skins. I high quality dwarf infantry(even tier 1) can hold for quite a long time twwh2.

[@Volound]

doesnt matter, hidden combat modifiers make melee pointless. also i state in the video that ive never played warhammer.

[@Maurinusa]

Whether you prefer historical or fantasy, we should all agree that in depth mechanics are important. I really enjoy TW: Warhammer but I still agree that it's sad the depth and complexity that has been lost in TW games.

[@PerfectJayDread]

As a tabletop fan, can confirm Warhammer is dope.

[@Titan360]

You know, I've been thinking about how to balance magic (and to a lesser extend, monsters) for classical Total war, where most soldiers have one hit point and no ability has a cooldown timer. Instead of using "Winds of Magic" points, which is a creation made just for the computer games because the tabletop rules don't translate to an RTS well, Mages should have to worry about taking backfiring damage in addition to losing stamina. The mage can keep spamming the same spell, but will get progressively more tired and lose more health from miscasts until they die, so a wise general will have a mage rest before casting again. Area of effect spells should operate kind of like a volley of projectile weapons, or a charge from a cavalry unit, only resisted by some kind "magic defense" stat. This means that a lot of the time, even soldiers that are "hit" resist taking damage. This magic resistance can be increased by standing in a wizard's (or Battle priests, or Runesmith's, etc etc) command radius, to simulate "dispel dice" from the tabletop. You could even attach single entity characters like mages to a unit with similar movement to act in a similar to a general's bodyguard. (On that note, there is absolutely no stinking reason that ANY legendary lord -the FACTION LEADER- smaller than KHOLEK SUNEATER shouldn't have bodyguards unless they on a big, awkward mount...) Wizards generally should have multiple hit points (not too many, still in the single digits) with most attacks doing one point of damage, but with lower defense and armor than other "hero" units, but a lot of them have swords so maybe their attack skill is higher. Monsters, by contrast, should just be a double-digit bag of hit points and have clumsy (but splashy) attacks and work a bit like elephants. (And possibly there is a cap on how many can join an army, along with suffering worse morale penalties from army losses. You need food and handlers and the intimidation factor of an entire real army to manage these things!) Because I am depressed at how giants get shot down by cheap archers, I'm giving non-flying monsters a bronze shield at medium unit size, silver at large, and gold at ultra, and say that artillery, magic, and melee heroes (or, if you have honestly no better solution, just swarming it with several units of infantry to make it route) are much better solutions for killing monsters. Arrows still work, it just takes a volleys and volleys of them.... Monsters are good for seeding terror and tearing up entire units of infantry quicker than other options, or possibly slowing down the advance of another monster, but become sluggish when tired and take forever to get their stamina back (especially if they've been snacking on enemy soldiers that haven't properly digested yet. belch.) However, if the monster routes, it gets a little adrenaline pumping in its veins and it moves faster again all of a sudden in spite of its exhaustion, to get off of the map. If the army retreats, you can kiss your monsters goodbye as they retreat into the wild to live what is an objectively easier life. Monsters and Mages should be cool, but they should also be really, really, really big targets that can be wastefully lost in short order by new players.

[@maxgillatt4277]

I think a big issue with the Warhammer series was the continuation of dumbed-down economics, trying to maximize your economic return from investment was one of my favorite things to do in between conflict in medieval. In the warhammer setting one of the greatest threats the empire faced was a plague that wiped out such a large swathe of it's population that when the Skaven invaded the empire lost most of its farmland without a fight and soon started to starve and a noble managed to save them through great organization and tactical engagements. this could have been an amazing dlc campaign but can't work under the simplified system. While battle mechanics are going down the shitter the economy cannot be forgotten I don't play a battle simulator I like being able to grind my enemies to dust because I prepared a war economy. You also think that in Warhammer with the end times coming that the game would have mechanics for emergency measures, not just building a pub to keep people to drunk to become cultists.

[@realthings5821]

Personally I think the only improvement to the Total War series since RTW that CA have made is S2TW. The highpoint of the entire franchise is player made mods for M2TW (DLV+BB, SS ,TATW). S2TW is an odd blip in the development of the series; field battles actually improved! Sieges though... The castles became a lot easier for the AI to navigate. The AI can suck even more than it did in M2TW but still handle the layout of castles and settlements better. I'm not knocking S2TW for that. If as a developer you can't make an AI good enough then you have to remake the game around the AI you have.

[@Koelebig]

I agree, but I just don't understand this praise that Shogun 2 is getting from that same perspective. I mean for a warscape-era Total War game Shogun 2 is maybe one of the best, but I feel that if CA had used the same engine or same inner battle mechanics of M2TW for that game, it would easily surpass it. I mean, look at the click spamming and constantly giving orders and realigning formations and (most importantly) units reacting instantly to it in Shogun 2. It's quite detrimental to the tactical gameplay' that's being praised in this video. I love how in M2TW there's a slight delay between giving orders and your orders getting implemented.

[@Volound]

you have a point about click spamming and constantly giving orders. formations in shogun 2 hold better than in any post medieval 2 game, but it still isnt good. the delayed order thing is interesting but you should never want a worse performing and less tactile experience. its a weird situation of zero-sum trading of immersion for gameplay.

[@Koelebig]

@@Volound True, totally unresponsive units isn't what you want either. However, the slight delay does require the player to plan a little more ahead tactically. It might also catch a player off-guard, because he might get enveloped/outflanked every now and then, which would be much easier to evade if units react instantly to your orders. A fine line indeed but something that I think should be explored further.

[@vostex87]

Wery well said man. I mean what use does flanking and positioning on a high ground have, wenn i leveld up hero can destroy your small army singlehandedly. I mean i play and often enjoy warhammer 2, but it's not a total war experience. It's Warhammer experience. If i wish to play tactical game and feel like a general I play Shogun 2, because there is no better alternative unfotunatly.

[@nicholasgillies8557]

I think with the massive global map that the warhammer games have introduced, the ability is there to do something massive for a game set in like the 15th century onwards. I know people want Medieval 3, but taking the scale of EU4 and making a Total War game of it would be cool - won’t happen I know, but I feel the scale Warhammer has introduced to Total War needs to be carried over to historical games.

[@jooasalmi730]

I was actually one of those people who really loved warhammer and was a huge fan of total war however I never really got that into total war warhammer. Which is odd because I instantly fell in love with three kingdoms (despite it's numerous flaws and bizarre design choices) as despite being a departure from the usual style of total war games still felt like I was playing total war. Warhammer never got me that experience as I was immediately put off by the lackluster performance of units compared to the giant monsters and insanely powerful magic...

[@Mr_D_OG]

if uou like medieval 2 gameplay,i recomend playing botet mod or even check the warhammer mod for rome 1 if you dont mind graphics and a little unstable mod

[@quentinplummer2339]

‘Being a dwarf was enough.’

[@STARGUN8687]

Playing Third Age to this day. At this point i started to modify txt files and experiment with them. But nonetheless great addon for M2TW.

[@olivemalteser]

I think they peaked at Med 2. Shogun 2 and Rome 2 were fun but I feel that Med 2 had so much more replay ability.

[@dave83k]

If someone attempts a drinking game for every time you say Dwarf in this video, RIP Lad.

[@paulmuntean1459]

To be honest, 3K and Troy aren't really historical. For both games, they used a motive to turn them in some sort of fantasy. For 3k they used the romance novel as an excuse to make the heroes. And troy is more mythological than historical with demigods and beasts and etc so the hero mechanic was just right there for the use. I guess it works for these game to be a stand alone hero in the army because it would've been weird of Achilles to be just thrown in a unit with bodyguards. But anyway... my point is this would definitely not work at all for a fully historical game. I think Attila was the last (not talking about Sagas) full historical game and that was in 2015. 6 years ago. Which is really sad in my opinion. The veterans of Total War Series were mocked. But other than that, yes, you made good points. It is not about historical or fantasy. It is about gameplay. I tried to play Warhammer for the first time recently. God damn it, the battles are so fucking annoying. What is the use for epic creatures and races to fight one another if i don't even get to enjoy any of the battles. When units clash against each other, one of them break almost instantly. I don't get to enjoy anything or get to make some tactics. They just bombard each other with ridiculously effective artillery, gunshots, arrows and spells. I don't even get to see one second of a battle or to make some manouvres cuz it is over before I realize what is going on in the field. It is so fucking anticlimatic

[@ryandavis4936]

This is the kind of content i subbed for also the impossible battles. that orthagonal vid you cited was fantastic

[@entspannter]

It´s very obvious that CA took the careful approach with warhammer, delivering the first game with minimal mechanical depth and focusing on the visuals. Warhammer II in it´s current iteration is infinitly better then warhammer I at launch and the trend is still pointing towards more improvements. It seems CA has taken the approach of fleshing out each race as individually as possible, as indicated by the 3 Skaven faction DLC´s. Warhammer still lacks a certain depth, but that can be fixed. That CA borrowed ideas from warhammer, because it worked well there, is another story tho...

[@flipneleanor7370]

I have over 2k hours in total warhammer 2, and I'm done with it. The straw that broke my back was a game where a crumy dark elf master (a single entity hero) on a flying mount, nearly solo'd 4 of my high elf units. Every game feels the exact same, combat is fun, but those single entities just break any form of strategy and fun. Also you dont get to build, paint or customize anything...

[@cashewsinacup2438]

I reckon CA did a pretty good job on Warhammer. How do you think a dinosaur or a legendary hero blessed by the gods would go against some random infantry? They had to do the single entity thing otherwise how would they realistically behave when fighting some basic units. Also, the button pressing for things to happen makes sense because that's what those characters did, same with magic. These arguments against three kingdoms and troy are fine, but not really against Warhammer. I like those mechanics in Warhammer, but not in other stuff unless it makes sense(which it doesn't in 3kingdoms and troy)

[@BittermanAndy]

100% agree. It works for Warhammer, it's right for Warhammer. In 3K and Troy the same thing is a complete failure. Both statements can be (and IMO are) true.

[@BittermanAndy]

​@@ArCSelkie37 sure, fine, maybe it works in Romance mode, and maybe to people who've read the books, that might matter. I don't think that applies to a lot of players, let's just say that.

[@BittermanAndy]

Yes, the problem persists in that mode (if not to the same extreme). If it didn't, then there wouldn't even be a conversation here. And I don't mean this in a rude way, but I don't know how else to word it, it's kinda on the developer to let players know what to expect. If they make a game that appears to be about historical warfare in ancient China, and tell everyone "just so you know, Romance is fantasy, but Records mode is realistic", then people who play Records mode should reasonably be able to expect a plausibly realistic game of historical warfare in ancient China... not something that's slightly-less fantastical than Romance. I'm only going by what CA told me. If their marketing team screwed up, that's on them. There are thousands of games made every year that don't appeal to me, and that's fine, I don't play them, and I don't get annoyed about them - why would I? But if CA are going to make a game that they say is one thing, and charge me money for it, then it turns out to be something else entirely, that's not on me as the player.

[@autistegaming6937]

Someone (maybe rep of play) said that the warscape engine only affects the graphics. The battle mechanics are a different thing. In warhammer you can see that the unit collision is actually working. The units actually have weight to them, but they are silly and keep flying around. The problems probably come from infantry being too weak, so they can not hold the lines. The spells are so powerful that you should never even try to hold a line. And the artillery NEVER misses so you should not even think about having a infantry line. And the archers and gunners shoot extremely fast without having to spend time on reloading. Add to that the new armour mechanics where you always take small amount of damage compared to the old system where armour either blocks the attack or you die.

[@Volound]

yeah but nobody knows what the fuck you mean if you say "TW3". say "warscape" and everyone immediately understands what you are referencing.

[@handles_are_a_bit_rubbish]

The issue is with that is that those mechanics don't feel reasilistic compared to those in the older games since the unit statistics are calculated as a whole rather than per individual combatant, along with the removal of almost all the RNG out of the system which ironically removed almost all the realism. I know that in Rome & Medieval 2 missile damage was calculated via a randomly generated attack number (1 to Missile Attack value) and a randomly generated defense number (1 to sum of Armour + Shield) which actually worked very well, but this was later exchanged for a system where the missile does flat damage with a flat damage that ignores armour to a flat armour value with a flat chance for the missile to be deflected, and in this removal of RNG it allows for units to be reliably withered down over time thus resulting in the issues of Rome 2's testudos being useless from the front due this withering damage, an issue that didn't plague the original Rome due to the far better mechanics used for damage resistance.

[@k.k.518]

100% agree. We need a traditional... may I say “hardcore” total war.

[@commandert5]

To the heavy infantry discussion, I would honestly add line infantry slugging it out in Napoleonic Total War 3 mod

[@Catalyst-xi6um]

So i am watching your vids for a while now because your perspective is really interesting and you genuinely talk about alot of flaws total war got to this day. Now in this video if i understand correctly you pitch some of the older total war games against the newer ones, you use the metaphor "gameplay" and "arcade". If i had to break this into simple terms i would say the older total war games got ALOT more essence and strategy into it and the newer one become more an more hollow, with most of its focus on spectacle. Now hear me out; Is this change really a bad thing? I mean the games still got alot of audience and alot of people sink thousands of hours into them (talking about Warhammer and/or ThreeKingdoms)

[@Volound]

yes. the entire point of gaming as a medium is interactivity. they permit and utilise player interaction. the whole point of games is putting a challenge to the player and giving them the tools to solve it. a game that is nothing but a spectacle is a bad game, if it can even becalled one. a game that gives players no challenge is a bad game. a game that gives players broken tools to confront challenge is a bad game. a game that is built on always sacrificing gameplay for spectacle is a game without integrity and that appeals to lowest common denominator. you even use the word "hollow" yourself, so you see how damning it is. modern total was games present little/no challenge and then, they give the player a poor set of tools to navigate the challenge, only letting them approach it in a very limited way.

[@Haggard3152]

It is, because it's meant to be a game, not a show. Gameplay is what makes video game an art, not just some new way to make cinema, write books or paint or perform. The developers making a game are expected to give players the tools to produce their own pieces, their own performances within the limits and rules of the game, through interaction, through gameplay, not following the paths the devs expected you to follow or watching the show they wanted you yo see. The player is both the orchestra AND the conductor, the devs provides the room and the instruments, nothing more, nothing less.

[@BB-ce5ev]

@@Haggard3152 if i want my game to also be a show. What then? Your opinion is subjective. As is warhammer fans. Difference is their subjective opinion seems to outnumber yours.

[@Haggard3152]

@@BB-ce5ev This isn't an opinion nor is it subjective. I was explaining what video games are as an art form/medium and how that fact was going against what op said in his comment. If you want a game to be a show then good for you, I'd suggest you watch movies since I think, subjectively that these will always be better shows than what video games could be but you do you. However you can not deny the fact that gameplay is unique to video games hence considered as its defining element which is why Volound, and others, judge a video game by this criteria since great gameplay = great game and great sounds = great album, great graphics = great movie, great art direction = great paintings, great story = great books etc Edit: Basically if you have good gameplay you have a good game so why bother with the rest if we're comparing video games, the rest just adds up on top of that foundation, it adds value only if the foundation is solid enough to support the weight.

[@deriznohappehquite]

Game of Thrones had been collapsing since season 5 IMO. It just culminated in Season 8, IMO.

[@wladyslawderstreiter9078]

9:00 - 9:10 lmao excellent thoughts overall Volound. Wen want good gameplay, because its gonna make sure in the end, you have a good game, regardless of the scenario it plays in. 12:30 yeah man, my man! Its oblivious to me why they still use this engine. Soemthing about it feels wrong, units soemtimes fell they move and fight on rails. The only reason i can think of is complacency, why switch it up and invest money, if people still buy.

[@richardbell7629]

I still say they should do a space empire one...use the system from empire and use spaceships instead of sail and make countries planets.but with a 3 or 4 territory inside them..set up trade lanes and spacestations etc...

[@nedo6018]

Volound have you played third age reforged or divide and conquer? Their outstanding mods for medieval 2

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

My biggest issue with the newer Total wars is not the setting, but the gameplay itself, the battles have become a clown show where special powers and heroes and missile alone dominate the field and all other troops don't even deserve the bother. The engine used as well is becoming an issue since it does not handle melee combat well and units cannot have weight or feel to them. I mean in new total wars you might as well not bother with any melee infantry at all, the main stay of armies in history and even in fictional works the infantry has no real place in modern total war battles there useless.

[@unnamedshadow1866]

The thing is, while its true currently the only Fantasy game for CA is the Warhammer Franchise. That does not mean they won't do more Fantasy games. The fact that it was such an success economically, and their DLC are far less prone to create controversy, CA will likely add more Fantasy games to the Fantasy side of Total War once Warhammer 3 is done. Hell 3 Kingdoms and Troy and pseudo-fantasy in a way. So i wouldn't be surprised if CA decides to go Full Fantasy for a game set in Historical Myth. Ala Age of Mythology.

[@idontknow970]

Couldn't agree more. Total War is not defined by the costume it wears; it's defined by the mechanics of the gameplay (maybe with a sprinkling of spectacle but you can see what happens when only the spectacle remains). Total War ceases to be if the mechanics are abandoned in place of a less coherent, casualization of what once was. The setting is irrelevant from a gameplay standpoint; good gameplay is good gameplay. A Total War set within fantasy actually has an abundance of potential so long as it is executed in a more "traditional" fashion. Now with this in mind, it is of the utmost importance that those dissatisfied with what CA has rolled out since Rome 2 refuse to allow the source of their contempt to be muddled. We need to be articulate when entering the discourse about the franchises direction. Our displeasure does not stem from something as trivial as setting, but from a far more deeply rooted deviation in core gameplay mechanics.

[@Shiro-mv7xh]

Minotaur historical confirmed

[@saltmedicaldoctor2771]

One thing that I think is important to note is that Warhammer takes a different kind of skill such as magic buffs, passive abilities as well as a different mindset when it comes to clashing units it's not just spear beats horse, sword beats spear. I don't see it as more casual I see it as more competitive mostly referring to the multiplayer community. I think the trilogy is doing wonders, but everyone has their preferences, Warhammer is good fun I recommend a campaign on legendary and battle difficulty normal.

[@thomaseriksen6885]

The reason they switched to nerdhammer is those freaks will spend 1000's to have every collectable figurine

[@commandert5]

Thank you for this. I've always agreed with you, but I've definitely been guilty of making this distinction, even while still hating Rome 2 on games

[@akiramasashi9317]

I don't mean to nitpick, but Troy is 100% fantasy and should definitely be categorized as such. It's based on the Illiad, which was pure fiction. It was the Lord of the Rings of the ancient world.

[@akiramasashi9317]

@@ArCSelkie37 True, but at the very least 3 Kingdoms is set in a sort of semi-reality based fiction, whereas Achilles was just ancient Aragorn.

[@isaacshultz8128]

I want to see a total war set in the Peloponnesian wars with good gameplay

[@thadsul]

I don't know if you consider Rome tw to have a good gameplay, but the mod "Hegemonia" is basically it (actually starts before the persian wars but goes on after that)

[@thadsul]

And yes, I know you mean a new game but mods are a way to get us what we want and don't have

[@isaacshultz8128]

@@thadsul cool! I was imagining a new tw game but honestly rome tw is better than anything that's come out of CA for a while. They'd probably mess up a Peloponnesian war game. I'll definitely try out that mod.

[@isaacshultz8128]

@@thadsul for sure :)

[@stampolaoc]

medieval 2 total war with third age total war's bowstring animation > everything else

[@AlexaRobin21]

Apparently Record Mode and Historical Mode in Three Kingdoms and Troy are the least popular modes. CA has announced that they will remove record Mode entirely from the next Three Kingdoms game.

[@levimalone4433]

The whole thing with troy is it's not either historical or fantasy they try to include the mythology in a "real" way. But to my knowledge the minotaur was a singular beast fought and killed by a demigod. Armies didnt field dozens f these things in myth or historical accounts. Same with giants and on and on. The heroes were just great men who were unmatched in skill but 2 or 3 arrows would put them down easily if caught out in the open. Such as the account of Achilles. It's just stupid to have a game sitting in the middle. I wish we could get a fully historical bronze age game but am afraid we missed our chance. The horrible reception of troy will make CA think no one wants that era, when in reality they ruined it with their indecision.

[@Manda-LORE]

Good points all around. My only disagreement is what to classify Troy as, because I woldnt be so quick to label it as "historical" when its more based on greek myths and the poetry of Homer which historians still argue wheater the Trojan war actually happened let alone the date it supposedly happened. As for the "fantasy vs historical" I am a casual enjoyer of the WHTW games but I definitely prefer the historical titles for setting and gameplay. I'm in the same boat as you though with my love of third age total war but that also comes down to my familiarity with the setting of middle earth vs the warhammer world which I know little about compaired to warhammer 40,000, though that wouldnt work as a total war game. What I truely want though is a total war game with a more modern setting that finally gets the pike and shot or napoleonic style tactics combat correct. I would love for them to do a Empire II total war and do it right this time as the first one is so terrible, the only way to enjoy it is with Darthmod. Id also really like a victorian era game and have been hoping for one ever since shogun 2 fall of the samurai brought us the closest we've ever been. I've had my taste of breachloaders, gatling guns, railways, and dreadnoughts and I want moar.

[@Volound]

its not a meaningful distinction. it is arbitrary and has no descriptive utility. it only has internal usage (warhammer and not-warhammer development teams), and has been co-opted by the players to engage in an unproductive factionalist tribalism that sees players poke one another horizontally instead of directing their gripes and frustrations upwards at CA, where it can be actually productive and efficacious.

[@lcdcstudios]

totally agree, I found total war through pixelated apollos third age content, the only reason I play warhammer is for when I just want to chill and massacre 500 units with one click (aka spell) to this day, personally nothing beats divide and conquer the third age standalone mod for med 2

[@vulcanjoe8258]

Third Age / fantasy based / with good TW mechanics = amazing I like both historical and fantasy. I don’t hate Warhammer or the period in three kingdoms, I hate how the games are so Arcady and presented.