The Day Total War Died 

it's true that CA are messing things up , but can't help but be a fanboy of total war xD despite all it's a very unique game, no other strategy game will ever be on total war level .

"He who defends everything defends nothing" -- Frederick II maybe they should learn from their own loading screen quotes...

After having played it since Rome1 i honestly don't care if its fantasy or historical accurate. I think the reason total war is dying is because of the overoptimalisations that turned into dumbing down of mechanics. That and their lack of innovation. There used to be a time where each solider in any given unit was its own thing, having its own healthbar, blocking chance etc. It felt complex and real. Nowadays all units are one big bar that are represented by some guys on screen and its boring af

Another thing I miss is the overall vibe of earlier Total War games. Jeff van Dyck's music helped set a mood that was somber, dark, and gritty. The menus with their silhouette art and ominous music. It really shows in the art direction that spectacle and making big, bombastic, but ultimately empty set pieces is their new focus.

How could you not even mention Shogun 2? It was a masterpiece

It ended, when they made it harder and harder to mod it. I honestly believe that TW thrived on mod content, like the LotR mods etc.

The thing with Thrones of Britannia and why its ignored is because it is just Attila. It's an Attila mod basically. It's actually quite good it just came out at a weird time when people were hoping for a lot more.

There's a lot of unexplored territory for them to branch into for a solid historical foundation: The Wars of the Roses, English Civil War, 30 Years War, US Civil War, the Victorian era, and of course I've been patiently waiting over a decade for Empire 2

Medieval total war 2 still holds the title for best atmosphere and vibes. An absolute masterpiece. I hope we get a medieval 3 one day.

Eh, my biggest beef with this franchise is that they don't seem to try to expand the complexity and depth of these games. Some people believe that Shogun 2 was the pinnacle of new-engine TW series. I can see why. It has really easy to learn but hard to master mechanics. You had to utilize every mechanic in the game to win. That's not quite the same in WH2 or WH3, where you can basically ignore faction mechanics and just pump out units and conquer the world. Another thing is optimization which has been a menace in newer TW games. It reached its absolute peak in WH3 having major problems, especially in anything above 1080p. What really bothers me as well is that TW games have really, really poor AI. The amount of cheese you can inflict on the enemy is absolutely unimaginable. All the stuff you can make them do, it's like playing a puppet master. It only exacerbated the issue of artificial difficulty. AI, instead of actually doing all the clever things that are within the scope of their possibilities, it just gets more resources and higher stats to compensate the fact that you can troll them with single unit entities and heroes.

Historical titles is also very connected to ones fantasy. I've played hundreds of hours in Empire, Medieval, Rome and Atilla. I would lie if I wouldn't admit that a lot of my enjoyment is part of my ability to find myself imersed into the setting. I don't need dragons and demons for that.

For me it was after Shogun 2 that the game really started to feel different and not as fun.

Just a few words to say that Shogun 1 is still a very, very valid game. If you don't give a single damn about 2D troops and the absence of actual pathfinding (and I mean, it doesn't take that much...) it is still nowadays a great gaming experience.

did resonant just sneak in, "balls flying into their backsides, like me on a Friday evening...." ?? lmfao

I have multiple thousands of hours in Rome , Medieval 2, and shogun 2. Those were the peak for me

Rome 2 Total War was the most disappointing release I have ever experienced and was the tipping point for me. It took them two years to get the game into a state close to what they promised leading up to the game. I was following the hype pre release very closely and they straight up lied about features that would be in the game in addition to it not even being playable for most people like myself on release. It really was one of the early signs of things to come for the state of the video industry as whole becoming over reliant on releasing unfinished games with the hope they can patch them up later with updates.

The reason I like fantasy is variety, great as shogun 2 may be to others I HATE the fact every army is the same until mid/late game I fell in love with tw warhammer because at the time I bought it the factions and their base units were: -empire, mixed, jack of all trades master of none, swordsmen -dwarfs, defensive, high armor, slow, no cavalry, amazing artillery, dwarf warriors -vampires, slow, weak, don't retreat, cause fear, cheap units meant to be cannon fodder, lords being key, skeletons -orks, fast, cheap, low armor, aggresive, ork boiz -bretonnians, shit cheap infantry, amazing expensive cavalry, men-at-arms/knights errant -chaos, high armor, aggresive, powerful baseline in general units, chaos warriors -beastmen, low armor aggresive units focused on devastating ambush charges, gors -wood elves, low armor but mixed/defensive units, big focus on archery, ambushes and stalk, glade guard

why'd you neglect the historical modes both 3K and Troy have? its wild people either refuse to mention them or say they're lack luster when they don't even play it themselves. though the 40 minutes of playtime you mentioned you had in Troy would explain that i guess

Interesting perspective. For me personally, the highlights were the first Medieval and later Shogun 2. The latter mostly for the beautiful art style and the duel animations. Going from a province-based movement map to a free move map made it unnecessarily hard for the AI. This wasn't an issue in MTW. Also the loyalty mechanic, and the fact that if a unit leader died someone else would come up having a name and traits and everything made for a good illusion that you're not commanding units, but men. I remember my largest campaign as the HRE, slowly expanding in the early stages, then beating and occupying France in a massive battle for Paris with several thousands of troops. Once I expanded to Spain, I met the Almohads which at this point had taken control of all of North Africa and the Middle East. That theatre saw a series of huge battles with them and me cranking out troops and sending them to Spain continously. Battles would take real life hours, with tens of thousands of men fighting. In comparison, all other Total War games seemed mundane and, oddly, much lacking in scale. Empire was my personal low point. Hyped to the max, in the end it offered very little gameplay-wise.

Shogun Total War wasn't random happenstance, the entire game series is based on an old board game also called Shogun, then Samurai Swords, and then Ikusa in its final iteration. So many staple elements of the Total War series we lifted directly from this board game. Things like armies having a fixed number of units in it, generals leveling up the more battles they fight, hiring assassins to kill enemy characters. Even the construction mechanic, random event cards, and building up province garrisons are straight from the original board game. CA didn't reinvent the wheel or have some groundbreaking idea, they were just the first to figure out how to digitize a boardgame that had been around since the 80's.

I think seeing Troy and Three Kingdoms as either Historical or fantasy is the issue. I see them as specifically Mythical games, rooted in our world but with characters who are larger than life, which was the exact reason that those stories became popular. RoTK became popular because of it's characters, The Illiad was classical because it was all about the "heroes" of that mythical war. I truly do believe CA nailed it in regards to honoring the source material for both games.

Im not sure we should be praising CA for bringing back mechanics that were already a mainstay in older titles, these games should be increasing in complexity rather than dumbing down.

And there we have it: Pharaoh was a total failure. Nothing changed.

Personally I loved the "Romanticized" take of Three Kingdoms. For alot of history, the way history was passed down and spread is through larger than life characters. There are many periods in history that people have no clue about, but you could mention a key person during those times and they would at least know of them (i.e very few people I know have heard of the Hundred Years War, but know Joanne d'Arc.) So to reflect a time in history that does indeed have a very romanticized version widely known, I personally see as an admiration to those who preserved that history, and would hopefully at least intrigue people into learning the true history behind it all. Now does every time period need this form of romanticization, not at all. But when applied correctly, I think it would provide a great chance for more to become intrigued.

gimme that renaissance - age of discovery - gunpowder - pike - gewalthaufen - landsknechte - thirty years war - musket and sabre - historical total war.

The people that say dynasty warriors and Total War Three Kingdoms are alike either they never played Dynasty or are biased .Three kingdoms is a historical game if you have a clue about chinese history and as a bonus the game offers you the choice to play full historical , as you can remove the general overpowered mechanic.

Did dude really just skip over the best Total War ever made Medieval 2

2:54 are you seriously just going to entirely skip Medieval one? The best historical total war game until Shogun2? 🤦

MEDIEVAL 3! All I'm going to say, For me, they can play around, with anything they want but if they can do a medieval 3 right and then maybe an Empire 2 after that then, only then will they regain the confidence of people in historical total war.

The series died the second they started making wr hammer games and adding stupid elements like heroes and magic.

I have a friend who works in the CA Sofia studio. I wouldn't hold my breath for Pharaoh as it's production is near identical to Troy's, a skeleton crew with a relatively small budget being forced to finish a game months before they can actually finish it

I think people just really really want another Medeval Total War. Knights, longbows an Mongols. For me I would love if they did a Asia version of the Medeval time period. The mogols rise to power, the neighbouring nations, chinese dynasties, Korea etc.

3K was my first TW game, which I got due to my love of that period of history. Knowing the historical figures definitely helps make it more appealing, but I think that game has much better mechanics than the other titles. Everything feels so half baked in the other titles, like they want to give the illusion of mechanics that don’t really matter. The biggest issue that all TW games have is that winning battles feels meaningless. Crush 30 enemy armies? Maybe you move forward and take a couple plots of land…and more armies are already there. That frustrated me in Shogun 2, but it also feels like the games really want you play in a very specific style. In shogun 2, the unit types were just obnoxious. To be fair, 3K has the same issue of most units being pointless, but at least in that game there weren’t constant doom stacks everywhere. Troy was just…balls. It’s such a struggle to take one tiny bit of land, the administration system nerfing your economy was dumb, and enemy armies could move way too far in a single turn. TW games pretend like you have a lot of options, but it always ends up feeling like dynasty warriors, except less fun. Supplies should matter. They sort of do for like the first 10 turns in 3K…and then never again. If I kill 100k soldiers, it should have SOME effect on the enemy. Low population from recruiting should limit their options. If my opponent just gets another full stack next turn, and now the land I took is yet another side to defend…it just feels like I’m being punished for winning. I do wish 3K’s records mode had more love put into it, but until battles stop being meaningless grinds, it seems like a waste to me. And the diplomacy…it seems basically nonexistent to me in titles other than 3K. Maybe I just don’t get the more standard TW titles, but it feels so one note and intentionally roadblocked to waste time that I don’t even view them as strategy games. I guess a lot of ‘strategy’ games suffer from this, but when the game is more about trying to abuse dodgy game mechanics instead of planning a military campaign, I tune out.

Huh? How is 3K not historical TW? The only problem there was hero duels - and you had the option to turn them off and make heroes normal generals like in all other TW games. Rest of the game was perfectly down to earth and historical as total war ever was.

This video didn't age well, especially after the release of Pharaoh and it becoming very clear (Even though this was obvious before release) that this was a Troy reskin.

Every single time I see one of these videos, I always imagine a customer going to a restaurant. This restaurant has served sublime food, decades ago. Every single time this customer goes now all he gets a small pile of slop, maybe a chunk of rat or two if he bribes the waiter. He vomits after taking three bites and leaves. then he returns a few days later for another order of slop, hoping one day that if he orders his ten thousandth pound of slop, he may just once more get that food he once had.

I think Three Kingdoms romance mode was the best blend of fantasy and historical since the generals and hero characters are single powerful units but don't have magic have any monsters.

In Rome 1 if a big battle was fought on the campaign map it would leave behind a historical marker telling you who fought there, and who won, and who lost. That gave battles abit more of significance to the player, and made actions across the entirety of the map feel more meaningful, and in ways mysterious. It was nice to run across historical markers across the map as you progressed as it gave nostalgia of your previous struggles, and victories that may have seem to be so long ago by that point in the game, but you kind of got a glimpse of the past. The General you used, and the soldiers that were there - your emotions, and ambitions, and worries of the time. Historical Markers were a nice touch, and should of been continued throughout the Total War series.

“The day total war died” *proceeds to have more active players then any other total war released”

I don't get how people who fell in love in Total War also loved Warhammer. The reason I loved Total War from the beginning, was precisely because it doesn't have dragons and orcs. Thats what got me into the game, that it is trying to be historicaly accurate. There were plenty of fantasy strategy games at the time, but there was only one Total War! Now there isn't any.

Its funny that the legendary RU-vidr volound already said this since at least 5 years ago.

I think CA Sofia deserves more credit. The bodyguard upgrade mechanic is something I’ve wanted to see for years.

If you don't understand why Three Kingdoms' Romance mode makes perfect sense as an option then you're literally just being stubborn.

CA didn't die from Troy and Three Kingdoms. CA lost there historical fans by not catering to them. There has not been a serious historical game for some time. Yes they have essentially tried to pacify both communities by making Troy and Three Kingdoms. What I don't understand is why people think CA making generals hero units would be the intended idea going forwards. Frankly speaking both Troy and 3k are essentially marvel stories where you favorite hero meets another of your favorite heroes and they have a big battle. Troy is littered with amazing heroes of legend said to be blessed by gods fighting each other and seeing who would win. 3k has deified there generals through the fictional novel telling a biased take on historical events. Both settings have true historical context. Personally I think both Troy and 3k did exactly what I wanted them to do. Where my Generals win through formations and the heroics of individuals. Saying all that let me be clear. Historical fans have reason to be upset since the last good historical title has been Rome 2. (I dont know how good Rome 2 is in comparison to Shogun 2 and Mediaeval 2). I think CA is trying to find a historical setting people would truly be interested in going forward. Since they can just keep making Rom3456, Shogun3456, and Medieval 3456. Perhaps they go into WW1 or retry a setting they did not do well at (thrones of Britannia).

As a former highly competitive TW player (playing since Med2), the day TW died was when they abandoned the multiplayer system of Shogun 2 (the map, the league system, the customization of your general as well as your units). It was what made people play the game for so long. You could find hundreds of clans with many players in it. The MP never worked again in a single game, and the WH3 scene is a joke compared to Shogun 2 in terms of how many players are into it.

i can't put my finger on it, but something about Warhammer 3 feels very different from 2. I remember playing the tutorial and getting very excited when I watched my elemental bear climb over a ledge to get at some archers. Hundreds of hours later, and I have not seen anything even half as cool as that. The gate bug has been in Warhammer since the first iteration, AND THEY STILL HAVEN'T BOTHERED FIXING IT! I'm sorry CA, but there's only so many passes you get from me.

I'm someone who technically has played TW in the past, Warhammer 1 was when I really actually became a fan of the franchise, and despite that I have been bitterly disappointed with the recent historical entries and their lack of being historical. I Don't want a fantasy game without dragons and monsters in it, I want it to be a good solid historical title. Honestly, I'd like them to make an Empire 2 or something equivalent to that, that has you focus 2 or 3 times as much on the economic and diplomatic side of it, rather than the battles. Make it really complex and deep, something that takes forever to really master. Even with warhammer, I'm beginning to be disappointed that the game still lacks much of any depth, and is really just an engine that showcases the now defunct Warhammer fantasy battles' miniatures more than anything else.

They should make a new TW Empire...really! And I played it since the first TW came out. Loved It. A new Empire and a new Medieval. What I miss, like in Empire is the visible progress in research and progress. I don't like too many statistical advantages, I need to visibly see them.

three kingdoms is pretty true to the source material the romance of the three kingdoms which has a lot of emphasis on the powerness of legendary characters. Which is what dynasty warriors are also based on when one general can hold on thousands of troops.

Throne of Britannia to me is a good game in which I have a good few hundred hours on,it is a real pity that it was abandoned, thankfully molders took care of it (especially the 1066 mod )

I've said it for years, the instant that TWW1 dropped, historical TW titles were dead. There was no way CA would EVER go back to history in any serious way. Everything I've heard for TW3K, and Troy, the only options are "fantasy" and "fantasy-light." Thrones was nothing more than a half-assed throwaway that gives a focused part of Age of Charlemagne. The money that CA has been able to rake in for the fantasy titles and be able to use more creative liberties that are permissible in fantasy, but not in history, means that for the history titles aren't something the fans of that aspect will come flocking toward.

I currently play Third Age Total war Divide and Conquer Sub mod for Medievil total war 2. Still greatest total game for me and is all fantasy but is just done so well through free lance amazing people from coders to graphic artists. New games the only things I appreciated was the graphics everything else I disliked. I will say somehow even units in Third age total war the units look absolutely amazing. Just fits the Narrative that game companies cant make good games anymore the biggest example recently was DIablo4 with that forgetting all the good things about D3 and nothing like D2 which is what most people enjoyed and grew up on. Honestly just sad as a gamer to see this and makes me not excited about anything new from game titles I grew up with.

The case where they could make basically everyone happy with a fantasy + realistic "history" + established appreciated title would be "Total War: Game of Thrones" There are established factions, families, regions, units, lore, basically everything you could ask for - I was surprised there was never an announcement for such a game tbh.

The Third Age mod for Medieval 2 is for me still peak Total War. Sadly CA is equally unable to count to 3 like Gabe. -.-

Despite the fact that I personally enjoy playing Warhammer 2-3 TW I can NOT wrap my head around that those games, and the ones that came after do NOT have any terrain buffs. I mean something that is SO obvious in ANY strategic game, CA simply removed it from their games completely. Their games literally became "upgrade to higher tier unit to win battles". This is a dead end in development of a strategy game!

All they need to do is make Medieval 3 with the old campaign and building system with updated battles. The province system just doesn't feel like I'm growing my empire. I can't zoom in to the city to see the new building and people walking about.

I really loved the historical total war series. I stumbled onto Manor Lords, which is about city building, economy, politicing with neighbors, and real time combat based on the citizens of your towns/cities. It's not done, but it's well underway and there was a preview demo that was a fully playable settlement game. I'm looking forwards intensely to seeing it develop and release.

Looking at how their outrageous DLC pricing for Warhammer 3, it has died for a large part of the fan base pretty quickly

I skipped 3 kingdoms entirely because I was still playing TW:WH relentlessly, love that game and I'll never be completely done playing it

You could argue It died on launch of Rome II or the engine change with Empire. Attila was just a magnificent attempt to revive Rome 2 as not being a colossal failure.

3 Kingdoms was a perfect setting for a mix of the real and fantastic. Told in a larger than life Chinese legendary style. Then having the option to turn off the fantastic abilities of the heroes, what’s the problem?

Tw is only months older than i am, never really got into it that much beyond rtw but its like watching a brother go down a dark path over the years

This video is really well argued and I completely agree with your takes, apart from my cynicism of Pharaoh. Worst thing is CA completely broke my trust with Rome 2 and I still don’t trust them anymore. I’ve never liked the engine since Rome 2, it just feels unrealistic, and weak compared to the old games (apart from the musket ones which it was made for). But anyway it’s all good, I’ve got Rome remastered RTR Imperium Surrectum until they release a good historical again! 😅

They should start making Shogun 3 total war. It would bring the fans back

It would be great if the historical players finally got a game they loved, so we can all get back to the battles that matters like screaming about the unit cards.

Rome I was the first ever startegy game i've played, got it when i was 8. since then strategy has become my favorite genre and i have put thousands of hours into it. No matter how shit the games are being managed nowadays total war will forever have a special place in my heart

Great video. Took me back in time quite a bit. I started my journey of the TW-series with Rome 1 and Medieval 2. Played them a lot. Empire was the first one I didn't get soon after launch, but rather a couple of years later. Rather, I followed the release through fans' descriptions of the game. It's great. My story with Rome 2 and Attila was quite similar: Followed the hype of the games through the internet and Let's Plays, and only got to play them after some years when my laptops caught up with the technical side of things. Can't believe it's 10 years ago already - it makes my nostalgic. But by now I really love these two titles as well. Today, I'm kinda out of Total War - my PCs are just not capable of running the modern titles. But I'm not sure I'd like the direction the series is going, if they didn't make a proper historical title again.

I started with Shogun, way ahead of it's time, but the announcement of Pharaoh scares the hell out of me, your vid says it all.

It died when computers apparently weren't good enough to do unit vs unit combat instead of squad vs squad.

Eh, Fantasy fans are still eating good with WH3. Thank you very much

Warhammer series revived the total war series I don’t understand why people are complaining, historical was cool yeah but getting old, what else were we gonna get Egypt? Yeah I’m all set, they needed a bigger platform to work off of. If anything moving into fantasy ushers in much more opportunity for total war in general and allows the devs to have a little more creative freedom then being locked in a box that is historical focus….. take into account the modding communities for these games, most popular, and top mods are fantasy mods… CA and games workshop figuratively and literally pushed the Boundaries of the total war series’s to a whole new scale and if you haven’t played warhammer 3 you’re missing out on some of that, if you aren’t a fan of the warhammer series, these features should and will make you very excited for upcoming historical games..(Debby downer note) have fun playing your already used IP aka Rome, Europe in general, or Asia in general losers.

i dont have too much time in the other total war games, but one thing that really stood out to me was the diplomacy in tw3k, like, getting paid to peace out with an ai faction when your winning and being able to literally just buy/trade your way into owning china was very unique and hella fun for me. my only problem was that it crashed pretty frequently when playing with mods but otherwise a very solid game

I very much enjoyed the video. Historical, Fantasy, or mixed, makes absolutely zero difference to me. It's about the game itself. Earlier CA games had depth & complexity that required thinking and decision making by the player. They required your full attention to play & survive. Now, a common description used to describe their games, "dumbed down". They've become simplistic point & click action games that require very little attention or strategy. Both in the campaign & real time battles. My kid's FREE Roblox games are more in depth. Pharoah, sadly looks no different. For some people, that may be what they like. Maybe, that is the direction CA feels will make them more money. For me, sadly, I'm not interested. But, I will continue to look at their future projects in hope of finding that same magic I once found with CA.

RoTK is part history and part fantasy. The way the game is described, actually means they did a good job of adopting the material. I can't take this critique seriously.

The only historical total war games I havent played are shogun 1, medival 1/2 and empire. (I dont consider troy historical) 800 hours in Atilla and 450 hours on Rome 2, I remember as a kid being able to roleplay with rome 1 that I was a real spartan general holding the line against the enemy but now Total war keep getting smaller instead of bigger. They are trying not to get repetative but we all want the same old thing. Maybe update the towns/buildings, technologys, textures but we all love Rome, Carathage, Prussia, France, The Ottomans, The holy roman empire.

In my opinion, it died when they completely switched to arcade style gameplay the likes we had in 3K and Troy. Poorly designed map with little terrain obstruction, sieges where you ask yourself: "Why even have walls?", too much focus on abilities and dumbing down the mechanics, you could list any number of flaws. The switch started at Rome2, but it was caused by Empire performing poorly. Although there were great titles made based off that "arcade" style, like Warhammer2. Sadly, as it got more popular, it seeped its game elements into historical titles, which just made for terrible games. They need to go back to their roots if they ever want to make a good historical TW title again.

Napoleon far better game than Empire. Empire only have Bigger map that is it. Napoleon wins in everything Else.

Staggering strictly historical releases with strictly fictional ones would be a good approach. Dawn of War and the Company of Heroes franchises are made by the same company. I'm a fan of both but I don't know anyone else who plays both.

am not gonna hold my breath on it. pharaoh looks like a repackaged troy, aand sounds like a 60 dollar saga game. and it sounds like they trying to sell us that each leader is a seperate faction, even though many are from the same society. also how historical is it when each of these pharaohs ruled at different times? I don't remember of the top of my head but I think one was the first member of the dynasty and another the last. I would prefer them abandoning the leader focus altogether. much like it was with empire or rome one.

Back when the first Warhammer released I was among the concerned history-fan crowd that thought that this would be it for historical Total War... I remember that we were reassured that there was a entire different team working on historical titles. Well, in hindsight, history fans were correct to be concerned. I haven't seen a proper historical title release since Attila Total War, excluding the semi historical "Three Kingdoms". Seeing the performance of Pharaoh, I'm really concerned about the future of traditional Historical Total War titles.

I like the fantasy settings, I like the historical settings, I like the half-way mythical settings. What I don't like are bugs, over-simplistic, poor balancing and tedium. I have recently gone back to a modded MTW2 and my god was it buggy as hell when it came to trying to move your troops around. Trying to just get the troops to do what you told them was a nightmare. Things like diplomats on the map as characters, having to return to specific cities to replenish troops etc, it was all tedious and added nothing to the game. Ultimately I don't mind what direction CA take, as long as the games are ultimately enjoyable. I don't think TW has died, it's just had some rocky patches. Nearly every franchise with as many games as TW will go through this as they try to keep things interesting. Some new ideas hit, some miss. Everyone was saying Empire and Warhammer would be absolute failures for daring to deviate from the tried and tested and yet both were successful. The worst thing CA can do is to just keep churning out the same thing over and over again without trying new ideas. On balance, I'd still say the games are good.

The last title I played was Rome 2, which, after the mid life upgrades, got to be quite solid. I would love to see a Medieval 3: Total War.

For me, the moment they introduced fantasy and RPG elements like hero characters was the moment I lost interest. TW without a realistic historical setting is no TW at all, and RPG just doesn't work well with grand strategy imo. They screwed up again with Rome 2 and limiting the number of armies you could build, tying it to your "imperium" status, which destroyed the flexibility of being able to work with lots of small armies rather than a few big ones that I loved in the original Rome. To me, TW isn't the type of game that needs constant innovation. The original Rome worked best of them all, and there's no reason to deviate for the formula. All that is needed are sequels with huge maps and lots of factions in a different historical era.

It's not because you make a total war game set in a fantasy universe that it must have a heroic fantasy gameplay, look at the Divide and conquer mod for Medieval 2 : it has a fantasy setting and an "historical" gameplay

I remember screen recording the epic intro to rome 1 and put 'the pretender' by the foo fighters as a cover for my arts class and got a B+ and my teacher commented how cinematic it looked...geezer didnt know it took me 5 minutes haha

i Have hundreads of hours in medieval 2 and i still play to this game because to me, its the best game of all. It is a very simple and intuitive game to play and at the same time very fun to play. The new games are just filled with crap that to me it isnt fun at all! I would love to see medieval 3, a 100% historical game, focused on the essencials, simple and fun like the medieval 2, probably it will never be created but there are some hope.

The day Total War died was the day they announced day 1 DLC for Rome 2. That is the day they made it clear to the fans that they viewed them as cattle to be milked, and so would have profit making as their primary motivator behind any decision, over any possible artistic merit.

Perfect overview of everything. So grateful you mentioned Thrones even if only briefly 😅 I still have huge doubts about Pharaoh. We'll see what they do with Medieval III.

“ like me on a Friday evening” 👀

Personally I don't mind if they release a fantasy DLC for historical titles later on, in fact I enjoyed troy mythos a lot but the basic historical game MUST be strictly historical no intermediate crap like "truth behind the myth" stuff in Troy or romance style in Three kingdoms.

How is Total War dead? Ive played more Warhammer Total War than all the other historical titles combined. Maybe the scene is updating and your preferred games are a genre of the past.

I do not see the problem. I saw the decision with two different modes as good. They can do historical for historical mode and fantasy for fantasy mode.

No matter what the "hard core fans" say, Warhammer 1 was the best game ever. It was so well made and groundbreaking.

I was going to type this as a reply to someone but I feel like it needs to be said more openly: "The worst thing CA can do is to just keep churning out the same thing over and over again without trying new ideas".... So exactly what they've been doing for years now, especially with that goddamn overpraised Warhammer series that's pleasing mostly fantasy Warhammer fans while actual Total War fans get left behind.... It's like Activision "accidentally" developing a Battlefield title in the midst of their Call of Duty series; Sure there would be a lot of people that would love Battlefield and ultimatelly preffer it but the core audience the company cultivated is left scratching their heads as to why the change and what's the overall benefit of mixing things up like that. This is the situation we find ourselves in currently between Warhammer and historical Total War. As good as Warhammer might be (as a standalone saga) I despise it for that very same reason (being such a surprise golden pot for CA). Ever since Warhammer1 launched it's been nothing but downhill and further dumbing down of core TW mechanics launch after launch (with the exception of W2 and W3 of course, CA's new golden baby). Rome2 might be trashed by many but there's an equal cult following it developed over the years; Atilla was a decent TW title, not great but not a mess like Empire was and Empire was only seen so negative thanks to the bugs and jankiness not its overall gameplay... then came W1 and W2 (skipping thrones because it's an Atilla mod for all intents and purposes) and subsequently 3K and boy oh boy was Three Kingdoms the embodiment of what CA learned over the years... with the Warhammer series. Three Kingdoms is more Warhammer than people like to admit; outside the vastly better implemented diplomacy compared to just about anything else it's pretty much copy paste of Warhammer in every regard right down to how unit combat plays out and the existence of commanders/heroes on the field. (ugh).... And somehow people seem to love Three Kingdoms... well can't say I'm surprised since its fanbase are pretty much carry-overs from the success that was Warhammer1 and 2 as far as I can tell from snooping around peoples profiles on steam from the 3K discussion board ...Then we have Troy and Pharaoh, both being absolute turds as far as I can tell. And I got a very weird tingly sensation that Warhammer4 might be on the radar if not already in development. Just screw Warhammer, honestly. Why was CA brought to make it and not some side company already affiliated with Games Workshop?! Warhammer's success doomed the TW franchise and CA needs to wake up and realise they are fidling with two entirelly different audiences that don't mix too well even if the games look vaguelly, very vaguelly, similar in concept.

Bring back the old devs so we can have medieval III and empire 2 please

with over 1000 hours on attila and 1500 hours on Shogun 2, i am so fuckin hype if they are bringing back old mechanics

We just need them to make an epic Medieval 3 with a shiny new engine and all the cool historical characters. The Medieval period is the most interesting war time based on the units weapons and armor of the time.

The issue for me is not that we want a good historical OR fantasy total war, we just want a GOOD total war. One that doesn't launch as a broken mess, one where the units and ranged attacks have impact and feel like they hit hard. Compare an archer unit fireing in three kingdoms to longbowmen in medieval 2. One sounds and looks like wet noodles the otherone feels like balistas going off. Cavalry charges look pathetic in the latest entries... It says a lot when the physics in rome from 2004 look better than its successor 10 years later. Also why did we get rid of those pre battle speeches? Why is any general in 3 kingdoms that isnt a historical figure useless? When i put love and care into one of my generals in rome 1 i could create my very own alexander the great and it felt so much more rewarding for it. CA, if you're reading this, it doesn't matter how many fancy things you put on top of your food, how many fancy herbs and spices, it doesn't matter how many mechanics you add to your game, if your food is burned/ the foundation of your game is shakey its never gonna be good. I personally feel like the reason why ppl fall in love with a total war game are immersive battles and a sand-box campaign experience. So what they in my eyes need to do is actually reduce the numbers of random sidefactors that the ai considers, so it doesn't derp out as much anymore, make tactics count again (a +5 attack against infantry doesn't matter if units have 50 attack)... i loved the fact that you could mass-rout an enemy in rome and medieval 2 if you did it right, or that you could defeat an army of elite samurai with yari ashigaru in shogun 2. And secondly make the sandbox campaign experience more sandbox again. Don't force me to play one specific way. Let me create my own heros and generals. Let historical figures die in an upsetting way, let me do the thing in medieval 2 where i just send an army to rome and kill and replace the pope cause the bastard excommunicated me. Let me have fun again and don't tell me how I'm supposed to have fun.

Update: Pharoah is doing awful, more people are playing the older historical titles

spot on video. I agree with almost everything you mentioned. However I do not have ANY hope for Pharoh, but I do admire your optimism.