Total War: The Art of War on the Past

My critiques: • Game Analysis & Tests
Discord full of chill gamers:
/ discord
Support my work and gain access to exclusive videos:
www.patreon.co...
Instagram:
/ hall_of_dishonor
Twitter:
/ dhiaalhanai
Dishonorable Merch: streamlabs.com...
My PC specs, capable of gaming at high resolutions and frame rates and chewing through video renders, with plenty of storage:
Intel Core i9 10900K
DeepCool Castle 240EX Liquid Cooler
ASUS TUF RTX3080 10GB
Gigabyte Aourus Elite Z590 Motherboard
32GB (2x16GB) Silicon Power RAM 3600MHz
Intel NVME SSD, 512GB
Samsung QVO 870 1TB (x2)
Samsung QVO 870 4TB (x2)
Crucial BX500 2TB (x2)
Seagate IronWolf 8TB HDD (x2)
Corsair RM850 Power Supply
Fractal Define 7 White Case, Solid Panel
Peripherals:
Drop ALT Mechanical Keyboard, with custom Samurai keycap set
Displays:
-ASUS VG27AQM (27", 280Hz, 1080p)
-ASUS ProArt PA248QV (24", 60Hz, 1200p)
Logitech G502 Lightspeed Mouse
Electro Voice RE20 Microphone
GoXLR Audio Interface
Corsair HS70 Bluetooth Gaming Headset
Logitech G560 Speakers
Canon EOS M200 DSLR Camera
Elgato Stream Deck XL
Elgato Keylight Air
AverMedia GC570D 4K Capture Card
Software used for making videos & thumbnails:
OBS
Davinci Resolve Studio
Canva
0:00 What We Lost
1:23 1. Hopes Restored & Dashed
8:33 2. The Late Game Challenge
11:08 3. Total Price: Barrier to Entry
12:24 4. Rewriting History
14:45 5. Sales will drop until Morale improves

[@Shepherd492]

Rome: Barbarian Invasion had the same family fail state as Shogun 1. It was actually really useful when fighting factions that were not hordes, but could become one if they lost their last settlement. If you wiped out the family tree while allowing them to keep at least 1 settlement, the faction would wipe out and turn into generic rebels with no opportunity to become a horde.

[@maycontainnuts3127]

renown medieval 2 exploit let you assassinate the entire family tree of a faction with assassin savescumming and their entire faction would turn into rebels lol

[@pastorofmuppets9346]

Makes for hilarious plays tho, like when i besieged the last vandal settlement with the remaining family members in it, killed everyone besides a battered spear militia unit and withdrew, causing the place to turn rebel with a few raiders inside. If i took the city i woulda had 4 full stacks spawned outta nowhere Or when i caught the last hun general with a small army but 2 full stacks as back up. Ran in like a madman with my entire force surrounded and destroyed the general and proceeded to run away as soon as he was dead. Got 70% of my army wiped out as they fled but the faction just miraculously decided to evaporate, leaving like 3 rebel units in place of the full stacks lol

[@Zhohan-]

Thanks to this channel, I’ve been working on my own mod for Rome 2 that’s meant to enhance it into an experience on par with Shogun 2. One thing I realized when looking through effects tables is the sheer number of options that are available to CA to make their games compelling. All the same options that existed in Shogun 2 are possible in Rome 2, but they didn’t even bother. It’s like they gave up on game design. If they had the time/creativity, there’s no excuse for not surpassing Shogun 2’s campaign map gameplay.

[@dishonorable_daimyo1498]

look at how guns worked in FotS, then look at how they work in WH they spend more effort removing things than if they just left them be

[@TheMuncyWolverine]

How did shogun mitigate more of the melee jank in warscape than rome2 did?

[@zrize101]

@@TheMuncyWolverine Better collision models and damage calculation were more chance based, not using bloated HP pools.

[@ashina2146]

@@zrize101 The HP pools seems to be a workaround for Armor Piercing Attacks, since there's no Armor Piercing in Empire and Shogun 2(Matchlocks just have very high damage/Kill Chance), there's a hidden Armor Piercing Melee Trait for units in Shogun 2 but only Kisho Ninjas have it and it doesn't seem to have any big impact when modded into other units. Damage Calculation in Rome 2 is far more Chance based, while in Shogun 2 it's a initiative roll where Melee attack increase the hit chance and Melee Defense decrease it, then adds in charge bonus, with finally armor being the saving grace if an attack succeeds In Rome 2 Melee Attack, Melee Defense and Charge bonus still acts the same, but the new Weapon Damage changed some stuff, Charge Bonus now adds into the Weapon Damage so a 10 Charge bonus of a 10 Weapon Damage(8 Base 2 AP) would add in 8 Base and 2 AP Bonus damage when charging, Armor in Rome 2 is split into Body and Shield Armor, Shield Armor are often quite high but is only for models receiving damage from the front, many early units such as Militia Hoplites having 55 Armor with 45 Armor being their Shield armor heavily rely on fighting the enemy head on as if they're flanked it would be pretty easy to rack up kills, on paper since it would take some time for the unit to adjust and turn. Armor in Rome 2 is also a roll between 0 to their Armor Stat so that 115 Armor Shield Bearers would have a 0 to 115 armor roll when attacked in the front and 0 to 70 armor when attacked in the rear or flank.

[@pvblivscornelivsscipio]

The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that Total War simply has no meaningful competition so they can get away with stripping away features or having the audacity to overhype "new" mechanics which are just castrated versions of mechanics already present in an older TW game. What game or series has a similar mix of real time tactics battles with overworld turn-based campaign strategy? The closest ones I can think of is Nobunaga's Ambition. The problem with Nobunaga's Ambition is that it's not popular at all in the West, it focuses way more on the campaign strategy side of things rather than the real time battles, and Koei insists on reinventing every game in the series so much that they don't feel like they're from the same series of games, so in some games battles are just terrible (like in Awakening, the newest one) and in some they're actually pretty decent (Sphere of Influence).

[@evanbillington2585]

Sounds interesting, is it on Steam?

[@pvblivscornelivsscipio]

@@evanbillington2585 It is

[@UserV595]

The majority of the current Total War community has truly no idea of the past of the franchise, what made those older games successful, how their past success could be replicated in the present and the future and how to recognize a bad product by CA. A couple of weeks back there was a post on reddit that asked for a way to intercept enemy armies that pass near your zone of control. Quite a few people saw that post, they upvoted it and commented their own takes about a new ''intercept'' army stance and so on. Pretty much nobody knew that this wasn't something grounbreaking or innovative but actually a past dynamically occuring feature of Empire and Napoleon.

[@dusk6159]

Which is crazy, considering that I can remember the 2010/2011/2012 times, with Napoleon as the recent past and Shogun 2 being the main TW product, and with Rome and Medieval 2 not being that old Even the 2013 and 2014 times, although that was already Rome 2 wave territory

[@rangergxi]

People say they are struggling, but will happily thrown down 80 dollars for bad games that some even admit are not even as good as past games.

[@dishonorable_daimyo1498]

I think part of it is trying to recapture those sweet memories of going to the game store as a kid I still go to actual brick and mortar game shops every weekend or so just do check around, but im long long past the age of impulse buying shiny new toys

[@hoangvu7643]

I guess people can't resist the impulse. I find it hard to resist the impulse of buying something new when u know nothing about it. But for the recent total war game I stop caring about them since I know that they will never give me the sastifacfion of winning a samurai army with a bunch of peasant. So maybe ignorant of the past does has something to do with it, your standard is so low anyway so when they raise it a little bit u think it's drastic improvement. As for the Warhammer I bought the first game when it came out expecting alot but then for 2 I waited until it's on sale like 66% and I'm still waiting for 3 now haha. I buy for the Warhammer mostly.

[@Nasmr1]

"just obscure noun and stat bonuses, ill defined for new players and uninteresting for veterans" Let him COOK I'm stealing that line btw.

[@dishonorable_daimyo1498]

WHERE WERE YOU I WAS WAITING FOR YOU IN THE PREMIERE !!!!!!!

[@Nasmr1]

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 I shlept in, mb mb

[@Nelo736]

It‘s so unbelivabel how in Shogun 2 the Units actually fought with each other while in Warhammer 3 a Game with a higher Budget and way more advanced technology even fights between faction leaders are just just them doing ther basic battle animation no matter if they are fighting a dwarf or a litteral dragon

[@dishonorable_daimyo1498]

It's funny that warhammer fanboys will argue you can't have matched combat animations because of the differenf types of models When the vast majority of soldiers are humanoids Literally just give Greatswords the same animations that they already did for no dachi samurai

[@notgoddhoward5972]

Seeing Rome 2 UI again is just vomit inducing. A war crime against game design. Especially since when they did attila they fixed it perfectly in comparison.

[@darkfireslide]

It's interesting viewing this video in context with the general landscape of strategy games, which themselves have fallen out of favor and have largely been in limbo for so, so many years now. I was one of the many who thought that new technology in game design would allow for deeper simulation and nuance, but instead we've largely just been getting the same games that have existed since the late '90s/early '00s but with a fresh coat of paint. A fine example of this is tank combat in WW2 games. In real life, even non-penetrating shell hits would tend to cause damage, weakening the integrity of the hull (which could crack on subsequent hits, especially from high velocity rounds), or the spalling could kill crew members. I still have not seen a game simulate these realities, nor provide an option for armored vehicles to "button" by firing their machine guns at vision ports, and a stunning lack of smoke rounds available for tanks which historically had them, especially Allied ones. This is true even in games like Steel Division 2, which are far more "realistic" than games like Company of Heroes, yet lack this functionality entirely. Alas, until someone ambitious attempts to make a game, I think we will continue to wallow in mediocrity and cling to the past despite all the reasons we shouldn't have to.

[@dishonorable_daimyo1498]

more Total War players need to hear it though, i see all too frequently a belief that Total war is an "exception" to the trends we see in other genres, with the argument in favor being X game has Y amount of factions, Immortal Empires, etc.

[@weebpenguin1151]

You may already know of it, and I admit it isn't FULLY what you want, but you may want to look into thee game "Graviteam Tactics - Mius Front." There tanks buttoning up, and smoke rounds are a very common and necessary tactic. Combat Mission Shock Force 2, and Combat Mission Cold War are in similar veins, and have even been used for the training of officers in the U.K. and U.S. if I remember properly. In both series, the invidual crew members of tanks are even modelled, and can be killed/wounded during combat, but the tank still being operational and moving, though with damage and less crew. Both are a thousand times more realistic than Steel Division or Wargame series, though on a smaller scale at the Battalion level

[@ingold1470]

Compounding this the strategy genre has gained the worst possible resurgence, in mobile gaming, so that these modern map painters are making themselves look like Clash of Clans.

[@yabs9642]

Total war needs to reinvent itself and it needs to do it BADLY. im praying medieval 3 is the title they decide to actually get rid of the rome 2 province bullshit and actually decide to make something interesting. i crave a more fleshed out shogun 2 experience. i crave for a total war game but not anything they create nowadays. i constantly find myself putting a random total war game in my cart cuz i want something fresh then realize its a bad idea cuz its just a reskin of xyz game :')

[@Brandon-bc1fz]

Lots of mods have been keeping me replaying Med 2 for years now. Im worried that even if Med 3 comes along it might be terrible v.v

[@pvblivscornelivsscipio]

@@Brandon-bc1fz Yeah let's be honest, if they ever released Medieval 3 they're just gonna try to shove in pointless WH/3K/Troy mechanics into it. The 1212AD mod for Attila is probably the closest to what a decent Medieval 3 would look like.

[@dusk6159]

Medieval 3 might be the biggest key for the franchise, despite Rome 2 being the most relevant as far as anticipation, size etc go (the sequel of MTW2 is of course right there behind it, it's just that it doesn't get more relevant for Total War than a Rome TW announced sequel - that sadly was actually their worst possible work and trend-setter lol - no matter what, especially because naturally Total War in 2013 was actually healthier and more followed than Total War in 2024-2025-2026, but it's not on Med2's lack of merit or even own fame)

[@IceniTotalWar]

@@Brandon-bc1fz Still so many great Med 2 mods being made even today, just installed 2 new one's this week. Been playing Total War since Shogun 1 released and honestly have no need to buy any more Total War titles as i couldn't even play all games/factions/mods that exist as of today.

[@riverblack565]

I play TW since Medieval 1,I din't like playing Warhammer,I tried the 1st one,never like it,never tried another...I'm not into historical accuracy,I can't dig that,it's my fantasy with historical factions if you want,I played very little 3K or Troy,the last one is unplayable to me due to crappy battles,I'll never buy a CA game ever,some coders which I had an argue with,told me games are like that cause their higher ups ask them that,the interest is as much money as possible with less investment ever....so, hope for good died

[@mark140363]

I hear you and I share your pain. I don't own Troy. The period interests me but, I watched some game-play and as soon as I saw the single entities I knew it wasn't for me - not even when it was being given away. I enjoy fantasy. I grew up with Lord of the Rings and the works of Michael Moorcock as my go to reading. Conceptually I do not like Warhammer, and I don't mean the game, I mean the business. They have built a business on the basis of borderline plagiarism of those that went before them. But that is not why I don't have any of the Warhammer games. I don't have them because they are not good games. The same goes for 3K. I almost cracked and picked it up in the summer sale. With the cursor poised over the Buy button, the image of someone's Let's Play flashed before my eyes, and I realised I was making a mistake. I hit cancel and experienced an unexpected sense of relief. I particularly like your reference to the naval battles in Empire. They were magnificent. But the series has never taken naval warfare to that depth since, which is crazy. I really don't know where the series goes from here.

[@Brutik5]

Ah... as someone who didn't even finish one Shogun 2 in 400H campaign that is probably most finishable of all franchises, I am never going to finish something like WH3, but at the same time I don't believe I need to. For me there is often a point that a game suddenly feels like a chore. Be it lack of challange or just being too tedious. And it's funny, that some challange at some point becomes a chore. My latest Shogun 2 campaign I just remember how I was about the endgame event where everybody declares war on you, there were only 3 players at that point. Me, My ally, and huge Enemy. And my ally just had so many units in my terriotry and me imagining how much annyoing it would be to deal with him I quit the campaign. When I was younger and didn't know about the event I usually lost the campaign to it.

[@MrGiglemesh]

I just miss cities feeling like cities. It used to be that you could invest in a small village and grow it over the course of the game. All the buildings felt impactful in some manner, and if you had the money you could build almost all the buildings in one city, meaning you can try to play tall. None of this only being able to have four or five building slots BS. In every game after shogun2, there was no reason to use at least half the buildings available since there were always a few must builds which took up all the slots, such that some buildings only ever got built once in a game, and that was only after you conquered a bunch of territory. At least in shogun2 they kept the amount of buildings low so you did use all of them. In rome2 and after, there are a bunch of buildings I have neve built, which just makes me feel like the game is teasing me with pointless depth. Also, the regional capital mechanic makes taking territory always feel unsatisfying, you always feel like your getting a bad deal with a minor settlement or spreading yourself too thin just to get a complete region. All this does is frustrate me. It never feels like the territory I take is every really mine unless I take the whole region, which just feels like the game is deciding for me how I expand. And the game penalizes you with not having complete regions. Minor settlements will always be minor settlements, with all sorts of restrictions. And even if you take a rational capital over the minor settlements, you still have restrictions, like not being able to build farms or some BS. It's all really immersion breaking, like constantly running into invisible walls.

[@thrandompug2254]

With our new resources and whatnot we have today, imagine how beautifully crafted we could make those muzzleloading reload animations! And yet, no reload animation for war hammer 1 2 and 3! I have to use MODS for a RELOAD ANIMATION!

[@thrandompug2254]

I love the Warhammer games and I will always love them, only because they're Warhammer. I fully admit the gameplay in those games is NOTICABLY worse than the old games, but the scale of Warhammer is a thing of beauty!

[@IceniTotalWar]

Indeed ! And considering what Shogun 2 gave us as far as there large tech tree covering the early modern period many of us thought that we would continue to see the CA policy of Revolutionary/Evolutionary game play carry us forward with titles like Victorian Era/WW1/WW2 and evenn modern period but we've had none of that. Seems Creative Assembly's creativity dried up or they gave up.

[@nms8397]

I would like to point out that the situation of Total War is very similar to the Madden franchise. Newer Madden games don't have anywhere near the features of the older games. They occasionally bring back old features and hype them up as if they are new.

[@hector_the_well_endowed]

So many franchises could be added to this list these days, the battlefield franchise being prime among them.

[@zrize101]

I'm curious. Why does the idea of WW1 keep getting brought up as a Total War setting? Why is it so appealing? I feel like WW1 and WW2 are just more fitting for different franchises. Different game models. I would totally be interested if CA actually got their shit together to expand into new franchises. I just think the control layout, the engine limitations etc. aren't fit for the movements and behaviours of WW1 era combat. Is it really that interesting to see WW1 represented in Total War? Or wouldn't we just rather see a WW1 setting in a new franchise with a focus on realism?

[@hoangvu7643]

I also find it weird too since total war game is base on the 'cohort' system which is like how real battle were fought until they invented the machine gun and big ass arty which will mow down closely pack formation or the cohort. WW1 and 2 work much better on the squad base system like company of heroes franchise. I don't see how total war battle style will fit in to WW1&2

[@dishonorable_daimyo1498]

When they did napoleon and later FotS it was just assumed that they would cover more recent time periods Mike simspon in an interview at the time said they were seriously considering 20th century Warfare

[@ashina2146]

not only that, the army management of Early Modern(17th to 18th century), World War 1 and World War 2 is extremely different due to the change in Organization and tactics. Not every battle in World War 1 is the Battle of Verdun and no battles in World War 2 is Vakyria Chronicles 4 Cinematic Cutscenes.

[@hector_the_well_endowed]

Agreed, WW1 saw the birth of small unit tactics on a grand scale, which I think would be a poor fit for the franchise. Also how to make the grand campaign feel authentic while reflecting the staticness of the western front?

[@davidcirovic8620]

that might be exactly why so many people want ww1 total war. Because if the make it they just cant puke our a new eomw 2 clone. They will have to build it from the ground up and actually innovate, wich hasnt happend for 15 years now.

[@jameswisslead4533]

I have played all TW games except WH3, and as much as people diss Rome 2 for some reason I really enjoy playing it.

[@IceniTotalWar]

Been playing Total War since Shogun 1 released, i consider myself more of an Historical Vs Fantasy player but have all Warhammer titles. I got more enjoyment out of Warhammer 1 Vs 2 and more from 2 Vs 3 . Supposedly as each game got bigger and more divers in characters/races/mechanics they should have become better but i swear Warhammer 3's release has been the worst.

[@helly7385]

The Late game challenge is so true, every game I have played other than Shogun 2 and Fall of the Samurai have literal very boring end games cause there’s no challenge or money issues left after capturing a certain amount of settlements and you just need to grind through battles for just having to complete that campaign, that’s the reason I leave off 90% campaigns in other Tw games cause I knew I have won, but only fots and especially shogun 2 has that feeling of victory when you complete the campaign against all odds

[@Quwertyn007]

Have you played medieval 2? Maybe I was just bad because I was a kid but I remember the Mongols being hardcore

[@helly7385]

@@Quwertyn007 yes I have almost played all campaigns of medieval 2 and I have left like 90% of them without winning right when I was a superpower and there was literally no one to oppose me, mongols are only a threat if you are playing Egypt, or Turks and yea that was one of the time I completed the campaign because mongols were there late game, it was pretty fun as Egypt, but anything other than those factions there’s literally nothing in late game

[@blight1934]

I played oda legendary campaign, this one was easier than otomo campaign on really hard difficulty due to religious tension but it's still challenging nevertheless. Having to fight literally everybody just because you own fertile province and being the weakest one due to chadishigaru spam and everyone having samurais. Even when you own 20 province, there's someone declaring war at you because you're weak. I learned in this campaign that military alliance isn't entirely useless. As long as you take out Ashikaga shogunate before realm divide and make military alliance with major clan like shimazu, you can make them help you take the heat of 2 front war for about 5-10 turns before they declare war on you. giving you enough time to divide and conquer all other provinces against you with your weaker units. because you don't have the finances to field large amounts of katana samurai or naginata samurai without going bankrupted. So it still feels like you haven't completely won until you crushed all who oppose you during the endgame.

[@ashina2146]

And I'm still somewhat Salty that FoTS didn't have a second Realm Divide where once you finished the Campaign as the Shogunate or Imperial Vanguard you can have your non-Family Member Highest Ranking General to rebel like Saigo Takamori historically, being put back into square one with only one province being your Capital but now fighting the entirety of the Shogunate or Imperial force who won the Boshin War, with the biggest danger being your former Faction which now become your enemy.

[@GateCaptain]

I wouldn't call myself a total war fan, I played medieval 1 and 2 like crazy back in elementary and middle school. I remember one desperate siege when I sacrificed a unit of forlorn to hold back the enemy at one of the city gates while I brought in reinforcements from across the city. Halting their advance and allowing my archers enough time to use up all of their ammunition, turning what I thought was going to be a tragic defeat into a victory which crippled the enemy doomstack. Or the time I played the HRE and the Russians broke out alliance and declared war, attacking my emperor while he was in a fort guarded by his bodyguard and a unit of spearmen, his last stand being so significant that the game put a little marker there to commemorate it. While I did play Rome 2, it wasn't a game that I was particularly fond of after the novelty of playing Carthage and destroying Rome wore off. Recently I've gotten into Three Kingdoms because I'd always been a fan of the Romance, my favorite faction being the Yellow Turbans despite them being little more than a footnote in historical records. I just hate how they implemented them, the Yellow Turbans were known for raising peasant armies numbering in the hundreds of thousands. But in the game, while you are at war with every other faction, you can't really raise large armies, because you can't get new heroes. You don't get candidates to recruit, you can't recruit captured heroes, the only way to recruit new officers is by 'attracting talent', in which you lose one of your precious few officers for 5-6 whole turns for a 50% chance of getting a new one. If you chose the Romance mode your officers have huge combat debuff compared to other faction officers. So the large hordes which swept across the Ji and Yu provinces are just three armies of the lowest tier units in the game desperately holding off against an endless wave of doom stacks led by superpowered heroes. Not to mention the issues with the rest of your allies, complete missions and you can get another faction to spring up to help even the odds and divert attention away, only for them to be wiped out the same turn they spawned in, or use fervor to instigate revolts and potentially take over settlements without having to sacrifice any of your own forces, but 90% of the time they spawn in territories you already captured and attack your forces. And if you somehow survive the onslaught and start to make gains, your allies are constantly trying to kick each other out of the faction, or leave to join a coalition so you get weird situations where Zhang Bao joins Yuan Shao and declares war on his brother Zhang Liang As much as I try to like these newer games, they just drift away too much from the old games. Pointless army limits, battles centered around heroes instead of strategy, a terrible 'captain' system, even when you play a faction that can use diplomacy it's pointless because everyone else hates you and refuse any deals you try to make with them. If you completely surround a faction whose only territory is a single farm, you have 5-6 fully armies while they only have 5-6 units, you have a trade deal, family relations, a non-aggression pact, etc. they will still refuse to ally or form a coalition with you because it's an 'outrageous offer'

[@CapitalTeeth]

After I saw the siege 'rework' trailer for Warhammer 3, it pretty much removed all doubt in my mind that TW has gotten to the 'live long enough to see yourself become the villain' phase. They were hyping up something that we had so many games ago. Towers, units scaling walls, whatever the fuck multi layered defense even means, etc. Except it was all dumbed down behind lazy stat percentage increases.

[@perkl1234]

First two games had the best tactical combat. Commanding units was stiff, you needed to understand from a distance how the units would line up. First Rome made formations too fluid and it's been that more or less ever since. There was also a certain "hands off"-feeling once units engaged which made the setup all the more important. Campaigns, however, have never been good. They all fall down after you have to manage a certain number of places. They're all too fiddly and choosing buildings per city/province is silly. This game would have benefited a lot from taking a good hard look at the economy of first Master of Orion. Mask it behind a commander/leader system and you'd be telling people what you want instead of dragging sliders. Even if the game had a building system I'd much rather say "these provinces concentrate on economy, these build units, I want especially this sort of unit" and concentrate on fighting the innovative and fun tactical battles.

[@perkl1234]

Addendum: for a game that claims to have taken inspiration from The Art of War it sure feels like they missed the main point. A general is first and foremost a leader of men. Getting others to do what you want is prerequisite of any great ruler. Interfacing through people would have made so much sense instead of what we got.

[@ingold1470]

I wonder if CA really is "adapting to the times", as in they can no longer retain the kind of talent they had when they made Shogun 2. You see it in other industries, airlines switching to a higher-turbulence descent method because they have to cut fuel costs and pretending it's for the environment.

[@samt9468]

For strategy games, late game mechanics that make the game interesting are few and far between. Two others aside from realm divide I have seen are the vassalage system in the chaos galaxy series and corruption on eador. Chaos galaxy has the ai set up so each ai faction is focused on their "survival" either their faction surviving, conquering the galaxy, or being peacefully incorporated into another faction. Therefore weaker factions will quickly join up with stronger factions as wars occur resulting in a map that has 2-3 superpowers of equal size and power which you are hopefully one of. Your opponents only get more powerful as you progress through the game. Eador genesis has corruption. A system that while it has a lot of fine details comes down to more territory results in more corruption which significantly reduces your income and increases the more territory you take over. Also the further you train units from your starting province, the more the unit costs up front. Combining the costs of garrisons as well and you are looking at a severe logistical situation where you are actually weaker than the smaller factions. This leaves you with two options, reorganize your logistics for your new size which costs a lot of time letting your opponent ready themselves properly or just charge at the opponent with worse logistics than them, relying on your skill at tactics and strategy to win the day. These two mechanics are notably also ones total war could have had in their pocket for games where realm divide didn't fit the setting. The fact all three mechanics can be worked around is not a flaw either as presenting a puzzle that can be solved in many different ways is the core appeal of strategy games.

[@leh2012]

Eador is amazing! I am pleasantly surprised to see this obscure game mentioned though...

[@TiGGowich]

It's truly baffling how a franchise that in 2004 had less than 10% of its current market capitalization made a game like Rome 1... I don't understand how a company justifies their poor decisions to itself and its leaders and staff. Like how can a game series become more buggy, less complex, less interesting as the games become bigger and bigger? It's so crazy to think that's actually possible... the scale of these games has easily quadrupled over the past decade, but in terms of quality (besides visuals maybe) the games have never been worse. I just don't understand how that happens. It's like if I started to learn football now and continuously played it for 10 years, and after 10 years I am suddenly worse than when I started? It's so nonsensical. Their core game mechanics have been completely broken, outdated, or just not challenging or intuitive enought for at least 10 years... just a few examples: - horrible AI - both in battles and on the campaign map - shallow and nonsensical diplomacy system - no naval battles - horrible unit collision and fight animations (including the "poking" each other 10 times until a unit dies) - terrible, boring sieges - a resource system in Troy (hell yeah) - but completely pointless and inconsequential - missing campaign long time motivation and so many more. I don't know how CA can produce such bad games. They literally have dozens of amazing content creators on youtube at their hand that they could involve in the development of their games from the start. They have one of the most vocal and creative communities... I can spend 15 minutes on the various subreddits and the ideas for game mechanics and overhauling the core game principles is astounding. How CA has managed to become worse over time while simultaneously growing bigger and bigger is a mystery to me. I hope that with Pharaoh they have hit rock bottom and will finally make some changes...

[@manosoikonomidis9126]

I've been playing Total War games since Shogun 1. Leave all other arguments aside. WH3 sieges aren't just bad, they're totally broken. I really can't understand why as a paying customer I shouldn't complain about a pricey and faulty product??? And as for variety, we were all pleading for Renaissance Total War after Shogun 2. Same period, same gunpowder, similar tactics, a wealth of diverging factions. By the way, great video!

[@marxel4444]

Even in Lategame Napoleon or Empire Total war with 15-20k a turn. You find yourself lacking in money to keep upgrading the high level buildings..AND I GO ECO FIRST AND HARD. The money you need to upgrade lategame america as the british with 30k income is so lacking...you have to actively choose between more income or keep fighting a war on the other side of the world because the army just eats 5-8k after a battle and needs 2 rounds to be reinforced OR GET STACKWIPED!

[@lecoutcritique8854]

all we need is... better gameplay

[@IceniTotalWar]

All we need is CA getting a kick up their backsides with some competition and the threat of them losing players and their monopoly.

[@georgimihalkov9678]

A World War I TW wouldn't work not due to the vehicles, but due to the nature of the warfare at the time. Trench warfare which went for kilometers and whole "battle fronts" were hunders of kilometers long. How can you translate that to a "Total War" battle? You can do some kind of a battle, but not in the TW formula

[@ivanthehighman177]

6:12 I'll say it again like I've been saying. Empire is when things started to go downhill and that youtuber who made the video on it. Why Empire Total War Failed. Legit predicted all of this.

[@dusk6159]

Shogun 2 and Napoleon are arguably the best of Total War so that conflicts with the time frame. Empire was never a big hit for the quality of TW and its successors. The thought that only Rome and Med2 were good is not true, TW was great from Rome up to the end of Shogun 2 and Fots with Rome 2, 2013- is bad

[@Orendiz]

In the case of 3k and it's building bonuses + other total wars that do this. Shogun 2's map has probably less then half the settelments that future total wars have. When you look at 3k's map and how many settelment/provinces you own in the mid to late game there. You start to understand that those bonuses are there to stack for the late game when you have 1000 of those buildings that give you small % of this or that. In shogun 2 it's much more rewarding and down to buisness becouse you don't have so many provinces, you cant have as small of a bonus for all of your buildings when you don't own that many and take longer to upgrades new slots. Also in 3k you unlock units through the tech tree rather the buildings which is fucking stupid but that also why.

[@TiGGowich]

I would like if you made a video about all the features a new - true historic - Total War needs to include. I am currently in the process of mapping out all features that I would like to see and how they can interact with each other, map interdependencies etc. The goal is what CA used to be so great at: Complexity through simplicity. If you are up for it, I would be honored to discuss this with you some time...

[@crazycat4211]

a-fucking-men for most of these points, CA forums is a place where the dumbest fan bois will say the dumbest things to defend CA in some weird hope to get something from them, and accept LESS content and pay MORE, asking for some extra growth on the forums is always met with some wild defense that pretends to root itself as fact e.g [asking for coop campaigns before shogun2 was met with negativity by fans claiming its just NOT feasible, later on asking for more than 2 player coop before wh3 was also just "UNFEASIBLE".] Then there's Removing good features the older games had and then the naval battles or just not fixing them in rome2 and beyond was a big negative. The reason for the "useless" dlc in shogun2 was mainly for the pvp-life in shogun2, you might call it useless but that shit was PAY 2 WIN for most of the unit dlcs. Though I noticed you talk more about FOTS dlc and vanilla shogun 2 but I never actually hear anything about the rise of the samurai dlc, whats your opinions on that one? I honestly think that one was a huge mistake and a let down compared to what was expected and being "advertised" 3K didnt deserve to get killed off by CA but their DLC for 3K were such let downs, 8 princes, extra timelines, the map design was great mainly for the "main" factions while for other "less important" factions the map felt empty. But overall the direction for 3K was great compared to any game after shogun 2, if they kept the concept of 1 general instead of 3 generals per army, it would have been so much better.

[@dishonorable_daimyo1498]

i was always turned away by RotS levy units being garbage tier that you just spend the first 5-10 turns doing nothing but tech rushing samurai (or you just pick minamoto and get samurai turn 1) I liked the addition of the allegiance mechanic but that exists in FotS, too RotS seems to exist in this weird no-man's land

[@pdc4930]

What I have issue with the criticisms of New Total War is that I like the Warhammer Games, they were my first games. I went back and played Shogun 2, Napoleon, and Medevil 2. There are mechanics like being to split your army in two and spread out and the unit spawning at settlements rather than arbitrary wait times. Then again I like the RPG mechanics of the Warhammer games as well.

[@jaywerner8415]

"Know your History, or be doomed to repeat it" a Phrase that should send chills down anyones spine. CA, has clearly forgotten their history and Total War Suffers as a result. Total War has Changed, the "strategy" has hit an ALL TIME LOW in this so called "strategy" game. Like, for god sake look at Zercoviche's videos for "tactics" you can use in WH TW, some of those SHOULD NOT WORK! But they do....cus reasons. Ask anyone which TW game they want next, the answer will ether be Medieval 3 or Empire 2. Of the two, i want Empire 2 and CA probably should too. Cus a Empire 2/Victorian TW is more about GUN combat then Melee combat, so they don't have to worry too much about the melee animations looking like crap. All CA would have to do is MAKE GUNS GRATE AGAIN! and add back in that "unit autonomy" from Empire where they just DO the firing drills with no input on your part. A Total War game set in WW1 Can totally work with the tools CA has RIGHT NOW. Hell you could Reskin Warhammer into a WW1 game (and i think people have actually) and i doubt anyone would notice. Or hell, how about STEAM PUNK TOTAL WAR! Honestly, and call me a syndic if you want, I CAN NOT WAIT to watch the TW Community get reduced to ASHES and RIP CA a NEW ASSHOLE when they BOTCH Medieval 3! And anyone that TRIES to defend them at that point is on some SERIOUS COPIUM! But that is something to look forward too in the future, not the present.

[@mcsmash4905]

the first part of your comment is so ridiculous and over the top its making me genuinely cringe , total war was never this hyper realistic battle simulator where certain tactics should/shouldnt work , dont get me started on the comedy of corner camping that has been a part of the series for ages you are playing a video game you are not doing it for real , moronic argumetns and comments like this one is why nobody listens to the constantly bitching ˝historical community˝ or the ˝real fans˝ . a bunch of whiny clowns nothing more nothing less

[@eggmin8967]

14:00 him saying he biased cus hes nostalgic to total war shogun 2 i recently came back cus it doesnt have some of the frustrations of the other total war games mainly the terrible annoying constant seiges and the stretched thin and replenishment issues

[@dishonorable_daimyo1498]

Yea also "youre biased" is a weak ass weasel argument because yea, i am biased towards good games...so?

[@eggmin8967]

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 I mean "your biased" does have some merit like a lot of people don't like the fast battles of shogun where u often have to move really fast before ur line breaks like there are some specific parts that u like that others don't. Example u like morale having a much stronger effect while I like the extra staying power of a line of defense. New players also like the staying in battle for longer cus it gives them more time as they are getting used to the controlling there armies as I have witnessed first hand Edit:also in saying that I only really like this system in the warhammer titles in historical it is to weird that u can full charge A blob of units and barely does anything

[@jedinathan]

Personally I've really given up on CA being competent after the disaster with the Shadows of Change DLC, I will say the real villains at CA aren't the Devs it's the execs and always has been along with people that think cutting content is a good idea, the real issue is that it's unnecessary cuts as the engine has NOT changed since Empire which that unto itself is another can of worms as they honestly need a new engine at this point. That said I've not played a Total War game vanilla in a VERY long time outside of the older titles and Warhammer 3 when it launched as mod support was yet to come., any of the newer games I've played modded, CA really cannot make a vanilla game worth a damn these days where I just buy the game and immediately mod it up, I've had fun with modded Total Wars in new games, but the real issues remain with the company, I really should NOT have to rely on Modders to do what CA should have done, that said I will use mods to make the game fun since they are there as an option. But they 100% should not have to do CA's job for them especially since most do it without being paid. I agree though I refuse to think that we should accept games that are worst then previous titles we should always keep our expectations for any game to a higher standard, or a modest standard, at minimum the game MUST work at launch and should have as few bugs as possible if they have to delay releases for better results than do so, honestly Warhammer 3 could have stood for another year in the oven even though it was delayed. Also, definitely a bad faith argument is Fantasy vs Historical, that should not exist and let me honest when there really isn't a 100% historical total war as Total War is a sandbox game any campaign is functionally historical fiction and definitely fantastical in some aspects as in real history would often not happen. That out of the way it also ignores the some of the most successful mods for previous titles which are fantasy especially Third Age and its successor Divide and Conquer. This whole argument for ignoring the past is just- lazy but also pretty much anti-history and also just a justification for ignoring the past and ignoring the present problems with games. Also the Three Kingdoms axing 100% the worst thing CA ever did, straight up say what you will about Three Kingdoms and its faults the game did NOT deserve to be axed in the way they decided to do so, it was flat out an insult to the fanbase for it and Total War as whole, especially when there was A LOT of content that should have been added as DLC we weren't even in actual Three Kingdoms Era yet just the buildup; also no way CA is getting the Taiwanese market back after that decision (I say Taiwanese because let's be honest you can't actually play a Total War game legally in mainland China the CCP is VERY restrictive and so authoritarian that it makes North Korea look free and fair by comparison if you actually look under the surface but that is neither here or there point being the Chinese player base is either Taiwanese or from Hong Kong though that latter will decrease as the CCP exerts more control over Hong Kong) utter disgrace and the worst thing they've ever done even worse then Rome II's launch because at least they gave Rome II a sizeable amount of support and did their best to fix the problems even if there are still issues years later with Three Kingdoms the game was successful and good and was just axed out of the blue for reasons that we still don't know to this day. All that said we need to hold CA to account for their disgraceful behavior or as a Shogun 2 announcer would say "Shameful Display!" of product management the only good things they've managed is to lay foundations for games that are at best decent at worst a mess many years later and really again only shine when modded. I will still enjoy my modded experiences with the newer titles and will always enjoy the older games both modded and vanilla; I played hundreds of hours of Rome 1 vanilla and a fair amount of vanilla Med 2 and a large amount of Shogun 2 and Empire. I hope for the best and pray for the best. I don't expect perfection in the games as nothing in this world is perfect, I expect the best though and that is a reasonable expectation and if that isn't good is fine better is better and best is the best.

[@NebLleb]

I actually recently installed Total War Shogun 1 onto my system and might install Rome, too. I did the tutorials, I began a playthrough on easy, but I still fucked up with the turn-based worldmap and got my ass handed to me. Because the art of classic strategy war is something every self-respecting PC player should experience, I have questions: Will you provide tips on getting started in the older Total War games (Shogun - Shogun II/Rome Remastered)? And on a more funny note, which version of Rome should I install considering you get both Vanilla and Remaster in a single purchase?

[@dishonorable_daimyo1498]

i don't really have any beginner guides, i have considered doing some but it's very, very difficult to not fall into talking about the more advanced stuff (like pillage trains, siege assault tricks, etc.) The only tips I can offer to a beginner to get them up to speed as fast as possible: 1) always keep your army on the move; the game does not reward defensive play. 2) get ready to lose provinces. What matters is that you take more than you lose. Don't try to consolidate everything every time. Keeping your armies intact and your generals alive is way, way more important than keeping any 1 province that can be retaken. If you're not on discord: discord.com/invite/W4vn46EAqf

[@redking5788]

What was so bad about the Rome 1 medieval 2 engine? It ran on one core. One. These new engines just make battles look uncontrollable with little to no collision mechanics. What's the point of strategy if its just run in and stab every fucking time. In Rome 1 mods you have to flank, you have to skirmish and you have to rotate out tired units or you simply can't win.

[@ivanthehighman177]

9:35 Medieval 2 had it too?

[@mrsherman2906]

Gonna leave a comment here to help with the algorithm, keep em coming. Your video probably going to attract some hate so i hope you prepare for that. Cheers for 3k subs🎉

[@TheWujuStyle]

Great analysis until point 5, where you unfortunately fall down the antifan copium well. The very steam charts you've dug through in some misguided, desperate attempt to show that CA can't be getting away with their bullshit have all the information you need to realize warhammer was incredibly unreasonably profitable off the launch sales on steam alone. This is not a multiplayer game (despite there being an mp aspect and small community that engages in it), nor is it that kind of live service game - they give 0 shits about how many people play on any given day, only how many people show up to buy the next DLC, which is also plainly shown on steamcharts to be a considerable amount of people, especially when you consider how trivial and cheap making the DLC is under their model. Even the Troy thing is pure cope - approximately nobody cares how well that game is received because CA sold off the exclusive to Epic and got paid no matter how many people just clicked add to library and then never even installed it (epic doesn't care either because they're not buying some amazing game to profit off of it's sales but just trying to buy market share by creating artificial scarcity with any exclusives they can drum up). The truth is this shit works. The real test will come after Pharaoh, if that game does reasonably well with it's scuffed budget and recycled code/assets from Troy, CA proper might try to come out with a real new historical title (ie not something carried by the warhammer IP). I'm reasonably confident that they will simply never try to do that again, as long as partners like GW exist from whom the ability to print money can be licensed. The most obvious trajectory for the next decade or two is CA making warhammer 40k, age of sigmar, warhammer total war the second trilogy etc etc and CA sofia pooping out low budget historical titles every once in a while. The come to jesus moment you're hoping for where another Rome 2 happens and CA learns their lesson and changes their ways is simply never going to happen.

[@dishonorable_daimyo1498]

the point isn't to try and portray that Total War has been a commercial failure, though. Simply to point out that the commercial success and popularity arguments are flimsy, at best. And the numbers show 2 very important things: that Rome 2 did indeed have lasting damage on the franchise, and that Warhammer's sales success almost certainly comes down to the WH element. We can split hairs over these things but as you already implied, their ability to sell a Total War game without a gimmick (specific setting, popular IP) is definitely looking precarious.

[@dishonorable_daimyo1498]

also I will reiterate: one of the biggest question marks over WH3's commercial success is the distinct *lack* of any media material on the matter. Studios and publishers are very quick to capitalize on well-performing games (look at Elden Ring, Zelda Tears of the Kingdom) and CA has done this in the past with Rome 2's pre-order records and 3K's sales records; they have not issued any remarks of such kind on WH3. Especially for a publicly traded company that has an obligation to its shareholders, that raises a few questions regarding the financial performance of the game.

[@georgimihalkov9678]

CA does give a damn how many players show up to play the game. If there's a large player base, there would be more interest in DLC. That's why ToB with its 200 players doesn't have DLC lol

[@bumchod2511]

Another critique video, as always, a shameful display. The jumps to conclusions, the poor logic. The ability to sound like you know what you're talking about with conviction doesnt mean it's a strong argument. Shogun 2 is great, yes. I prefer it when you make good content for the game. Not when you do your corny Volound-lite videos like this.

[@Tom_Quixote]

Why not show some footage of the actual games you are talking about instead of those shooters? Your points are good but it's pretty distracting looking at a completely different game at the same time. Do young people have such short attention spans these days that we need another video to entertain us while watching the video?

[@dishonorable_daimyo1498]

most of the points im making in this one arent really gameplay related though? It was a general response to the most common fallacies I get in my comments section. if you watch most of my other critiques 80-90% of the footage is from Total War because the points in those videos are mostly directly tied to the gameplay.

[@LauftFafa]

rome isnt a terrible game that is your opinion . it demolished Rome1 in every field you would wish to discuss and it surpassed attila and outlived 3 kingdoms and it was the most played historical title for past 10 years with 3 kingdoms being ahead of it only for a brief period post launch but i suppose you are still one of those who think its bad just because of a bad release that was fixed in less than a year anyway some 9 years ago . one of the problem of this community is hypocrisy , blind nostalgia , toxicity . hypocrisy is like with empire , a game so hated and suddenly so beloved past 2 years just because it became like a trend mood to like it . toxicity like with 3 kingdoms and pharaoh with peoples judging them and being blind about all good things about them and pretending that no one asking for them nostalgia is basically peoples who think shogun and rome 1 or empire are the best just because of memories when in reality i have see more instability and trash from shogun and rome1 than i ever saw in your supposedly bad and terrible rome2 that you all love to hate and trash for 10 years .

[@dishonorable_daimyo1498]

wow man there is so much rage here it raised my body temperature by 2 degrees also you can kindly check the critiques playlist that i linked in the description; two of those videos go into campaign and battle mechanics and how Rome 2 is utter garbage in that regard it is my opinion but you should maybe consider that it's possible to have a right or wrong opinion, otherwise there is no point in having a discussion. If it's just my opinion then why are you so intent on changing it? But, anyway, keep seething and never amounting to anything because you made a video game the center of your personality, lol

[@SuperCrumpets]

Shut up normie, your blatant holocaust denier lies don't work and rome 2 was never fixed either

[@darkfireslide]

so stability is the only thing that matters to you in a game? lol

[@dishonorable_daimyo1498]

dark do you hate game developers, they are trying their best ok?

[@Nasmr1]

Bro, you guys clutch to the tired "ur just nostlagic for the old games. rose tinted glasses!" argument like a safety blanket. There's no merit to this. Daimyo and volound have time and time again displayed practical tests to showcase how the tactical options of this game are near non existance. How the games have gone from striving for simulation, to regression using modifiers and stat based "gameplay" as a crutch. So far in that tactical superiority of hitting side flanks with infantry, and rear charges with cavalry are meaningless if they're aren't the "correct" units, correct being whether or not their stats are high enough. This is obvious nonsense in a game design to simulate antique battles of old. The romans didn't tank out the carthigians in cannae when surrounded because there were more heavy infantry, the spartans didn't win out a war of attrition grind when surrounded by the persians because they were heavier infantry, this game is a poor attempt at what it tries to recreate. Rome 2 is not better, far from it.