Looks like their next game is “Total War: Atilla.” Seems ok but I was hoping for the Warhammer Fantasy game they hinted at last year.
Nope and it’s infuriating. If you tilt the camera or pan the camera it resets the height!
My understanding was that Atilla isn’t really the next iteration in the series, it’s more of an expandalone using the Rome 2 engine, much in the same way Napoleon was for Empire. The Huns won’t even be a playable faction in Attila according to Creative Assembly, instead they will be “like a force of nature” that all factions have to contend with.
Your guess is as good as mine as to what the next iteration of the Total War franchise will be. Ancient China? That would be cool. Maybe a more focused in geographical scale and time period game (similar to Shogun 2) like the Dark Ages with Vikings invading Britain and Northern Europe? Maybe a return to the age of gunpowder with Empire 2? They even have rights to work on a Warhammer game, so Total Warhammer isn’t completely out of the question (though I’d hate to see the series veer away from the historical settings that make it so interesting).
They got several needed remakes, most urgently is medieval 3, however warhammer would satisfy that itch, last I’d say empire 2 but it is probably way off.
When it comes to historical and accuracy, their battles depict archery and cavalry totally wrong, I’m not 100 % sure, but very confident those two branches of soldiers fought completely different.
The problem with archers in the TW games is that their ability to attack in indirect fire at distance is massively overmodeled in the games, but I don’t think they’ve ever gotten skirmishing troops quite right. The overmodeling of archers tends to cause them to edge out pretty much everything else at range.
I think warring states period China is ripe for a Total War. Honestly we’ve got 2x Shogun, 2x Rome, 2x Medieval–lets do some new territory! I also think Total Warhammer would be pretty great. Then all those people who complain about “realism” can go… complain somewhere else.
I agree, it’s not important to have serious realism, but the way they model archers leaves them so easily overpowered, but I will give a few thought. First, price, being lightly armored and such, they are priced very cheap, but it’s wrong, archers were really expensive stuff, ammo cost were high, and frankly mastering the bow was a lot harder than any sword. Such men were hard to train and would be costly to field, last, that quote from bravehearth, arrows cost money, the dead cost nothing…hehe. Last, horses, also expensive, but also the charge was rarely performed, it was way too dangerous.
Writing on iPad is bleh
I wouldn’t mind a Warring States Total War game, but I doubt they’ll go that direction. I don’t think a game about medieval China is as marketable as a game about things that are already in popular culture, like samurai, knights, or Rome. This is, of course, assuming the West is their biggest target market. I don’t know how well Total War games sell in China.
As was already mentioned, a more focused game like Shogun would be cool. I’d be all about a Viking Total War.
My experience in Rome 2 is that western archers suck (rarely use them and rarely miss them), but once I had a full stack of high level roman units (don´t remember which ones, but probably praetors) obliterated by a full stack of steppe horse archers. So it seems somewhat realistic to me. Also, slingers are more effective than archers (which seems to be historical in republican/early empire).
What difficulty level do you all like to play on?
Campaign-map vs. Battlemap
Hard/Normal. A lot of the mods break down when battle AI is changed, apparently.
Is archer/spear thrower friendly fire no longer a problem?
I always had to micro my archers in Shogun to make sure they weren’t firing into a friendly attack. Can I just let them keep firing in Rome 2 with no/insignificant losses to my friendly units?
Friendly fire doesn’t seem to be significant. Better positioning is more for the extra DMG you can do on enemies. I also do not know if accuracy is much better.
Anyway you can test it in combat. Look at your army losses and subtract enemy kills. Rest is friendly fire.
Hard / Normal as well. I don’t use mods, but the tactical battles get stupid when the units have different stats.
Total Warhammer seems like such a natural pairing. I really wish this would happen.
You guys just saved my butt. I’d started doing H/VH and was getting annihilated.
I do agree with this. The “attitude” (for lack of a better word) of a Total War game would pair exactly with the Warhammer culture. I mean, heck, it’s even called “Total War”! And they really try to shoehorn unit diversity in there to make the game interesting (I mean really, how many different kinds of samurai were ever actually on the field at once? And the ninja unit? Give me a break!), whereas that’s part and parcel to the Warhammer universe. In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only… Total War!
I suppose it’s their next game, after the stop gap that is Attila.
Just tested a defensive battle last night. I had a line of pikemen far ahead, giant ballista and archers behind it. I didn’t bother repositioning archers to the side. I let AI take my mercenaries and just charge in. After I routed the general I mostly left the ballista/archers do their own thing.
I lost 500 men, out of which 50 were friendly fire. It’s not a big deal. By contrast, the enemy lost 1500 men, and a large proportion of those were to my ranged units. I’d say 10% friendly fire? I’ll guess most of them were mercenary expendables anyway, so that’s ok :p
Let med say this, archers inn rome used right are seriously powerful, but try to flank units first. As for friendly fire, they will try to avoid hitting their own, but perhaps the general should manage his units better.Once the front line gets dug in, manage your support and watch the effect…