The thing I miss the most since Rome 1 is looking at your cities on the battle map without an actual battle. Might be useless but I enjoyed it back then.
@@jakobschoning7355 assy siege battles are the worst disappointment of warhammer. Thankfully we have mods to fix that. No luck with hero action videos though, but I understand they would be a huge pain in the ass to do since there are a lot of factions with extremely different aesthetics/attitudes/cities.
I loved the general speeches in Rome 1, one time my best general (who was also complete insane) said “Brace yourselves men! The enemy will be angry at us, for I ate all their bees! They have not tasted honey in years and hate us for that!” Nearly cried because I was laughing so hard
Just to note, the generals in Shogun don't *just* speak in Japanese, they speak in period Japanese. Not necessarily ancient Japanese, but the sort of Japanese you tend to hear in a period drama. Nice little piece of attention to detail.
Needing a general to lead an army is the single biggest annoyance I had with the newer games. I loved that captains could earn a spot in the royal family due to outstanding military performance as well. Not only does it add to strategy but to immersion/roleplay as well.
Oh, yes i remember in Shogun 2 FOTS if i had a general i didnt like how he looked i would just create stacks with captains until I got one I liked and made him my best general, I miss that
Few days ago i was playing MTW2 and I was sending reinforcements for one of my english armies in france, but they got ambushed by a rebel army in caux. They managed to win, and the caltain was invited as a royal family member for his skill He's my best commander now, unbeaten in battle and now the heir to the throne. A real hero
The truth that is I don't like the fact that a promoted captain immediately becomes a family member, I say that because sometimes you get generals that are not family members, they're just called generals. They have to become a man of honour to become a family member. So a freshly promoted captain should become such a general first, then if he proves himself again he could become a family family then, if you wanted him to become one. Some generals are like that I think even though they have bodyguards and seem like a family member, that's just it they're just generals, not family members. I realize that this requires for newcomer generals more commitment, but that just proves my point of if you truly want to become family you have to earn that right first. I'm not talking about marrying your daughter to such a general, obviously this is a different story and such a general should become a family member right away.
I also hate how CA just removes features they can't fix. Having to have a general to have an army is super limiting. My favourite removed feature is the multiple layers of a siege. My fondest battle memories in Total War are the Medieval 2 citadel sieges where you'd have a running battle all the way through a castle, falling back and back until your last stand. Shogun 2 was the last game to have something like that
Trajan the Great as my first game was total warhammer i am so sad this doesnt exist in the newer installments, i would love to have the added layers of strategy/ any sort of chokepoint or interactive terrain in the game, shame they dont seem to want to put in the effort
Without having a general in army, campaign map was trash. Tonnes of armies were slowing down the pace of game. Yet the imperium was worse, totally unrealistic limitation of military power.
The general for an army is for balancing it's too easy just having double the half stacks without generals. Makes for more key decision making instead of just having many more armies since you are limited by your general amount and you have to leave cities vacant way more often.
i swear thrones of britannia has some of those tiered settlement sieges, and the only footage of that game i saw was on this channel. i think it was another top5 video, might have been after this one though.
A minor feature that I feel was really important to the game was being able to actually see any upgrades you applied to your units. For example if you upgrade the armor for a unit of Spearmen in Medieval II, their in-battle appearance changes and you're able to see them wearing chainmail or platemail instead of the leather garbs they start with.
Oh man that was super cool. You always remember that one shitty unit at the beginning which gained experience over your campain and you benefited them with better armour or weaponary. Like some sort of promotion. Damn,totally forgot how awesome that was.
@@jannike.87 they only problem I have with this feature is that a unit with an armor upgrade was nowhere near as good as a unit that came stock with the same armor upon recruitment. I'm talking about early units with no armor that can be upgraded up to 3 times, for example spear militia. A unit with same heavy mail for example the general's bodyguard has an armor value of 7, whereas an upgraded unit like spear militia has an armor value of 3 with the same level of armor which is heavy mail. The funny thing is that this could not have been the case as you can actually assign an armor value for each upgrade so in the end the developers could have made it so that an upgraded unit has the same armor value compared to a different unit carrying the same armor without armor upgrades..
LOTW replied to me! That's the second time this has happened. First was when I compared you to the leader of the Fourth Crusade, the Venetians who sacked Byzantium- and said the Doge should have taken tips from you :D Cheers, mate!
I miss the feature in Mediaval Total War 2 where if you upgrade your Armor, the change will be visible on the Battlefield. From Cloth to Leather, Cainmail and Heavy Plate Armor. Its a small feature for sure but it adds much more dynamic and a feeling of progression to the game. Pls excuse my poor English.
But the weird things is the unit's armor would only be upgraded 1 point, so you'd get some swordsmen in full plate but weaker armor stat than some spearmen in mail.
Also the upgraded units equivalent of the same armor looks different. For example if you upgrade mailed knights their heavy mail looks different that feudal knights heavy mail. This is just one example but this feature carries over to most armours that aren't padded I think.
One feature which still exists (I think) but is *MASSIVELY* dumbed down since R1/M2/S2 is the campaign maps geographic nature being effectively transplanted into the battles. You can think that you're in a forested area or a hilly area or on the side of a mountain on the campaign map but when you go to fight the battle it is nothing like you imagined and it really screws with your strategy.
I don't know that it still exists, I could fight a battle reasonably near to a previous one in Rome 2 (and maybe even Shogun 2) and get an identical map where in Rome 1 I know the map and contours would be slightly different based on the exact location of the battle.
@Claystead The amount of maps in Warhammer is absolutely deplorable, especially considering most players spend the first thirty turns confined to a single biome. It's like a coin flip between one of two maps for the entirety of the campaign.
This one is under rated but I miss the feature ( from Rome 1 I believe) where you could actually see your city without having to be in a battle, it added to the immersion when you’ve built something amazing in your city, but if you never get sieged, you wouldn’t see it in game, just a photo in the settlement details.
This was a really good video. You mentioned something that is very true: Rather than fix the bug, just remove the feature entirely. This really sticks in my mind and i is completely true. I got the feeling that because of those things, TW games are not progressing that well for those important stuff.
SOME of the onus for this should be on the publisher. Being pushed to meet deadlines sadly means that some features won't be what was envisioned, and bugs are killers for review score targets. Sad state of affairs in modern gaming, but unfortunately you get to a point of critical mass with your sales where you start being forced to act that way. TW should be like a Paradox game where it's designed to last it's players 10 years and will come out when it's ready.
Personally I miss the ability to trade regions via diplomacy. I get that it could be exploited but it was rather useful to be able to give/demand territory without having to go to war.
It was great to have such an option, whether or not you wanted to exploit it. You could always restrain yourself from exploiting the game consciously anyway so this feature was a nice cherry on top of a cheesecake.
The thing is that, Medieval 2, Rome 1 and Shogun 2 made every battle feel the empire's last stand. Other games treat every battle as a lifeless robot war.
Medieval 2: Oh shit i lost a battle/I barely won one. I have to be on the defensive now and take my time to rebuild Rome 2: Oh well, send in the next stack!
Yeah especially after Shogun 2, they became extremely arcade like for casuals. In Empire and Napoleon I didn't have any personal connection to my troops but the battles still raged for over an hour in some cases (with Darthmod).
@@markhenley3097 I actually had a connection with the units as they had names! I love that. "Ah, the 5th Infantry regiment, first regiment I trained and still never been wiped out
Well forts are still there, just that since you can't divide stacks it makes no sense to build them independently of the army. So instead you fortify the position
@@agustinl2302 it's right, but since in rome 1 and medieval 2 a fort had gates it needed to be sieged as at least a battering ram was required to attack it
@@Galda95 Meh. I mean we don't need battering rams for small towns either so I don't see that as a problem. Although I guess sieging might be possible, The thing is that I do think one should be able to reatreat, whether fortified or not, so sieges may not be a good idea
The combination of not being able to divide stacks and the removal of forts and watchtowers make Rome 2 unplayable and not fun. Some random army can just force march out of the fog of war with no way for you to know it was coming. And you can't leave behind extra garrison. So you basically just need to deal with the fact that you can randomly lose a settlement if the AI decides to attack.
Provacateur that's not as unreasonable as you make it out to be. Smaller skirmishes weren't an easy thing to do back in the day. Coordinating multiple maneuvable elements is a lot harder than one big one. That's part of why Napoleon Bonaparte was so dominant, he figured out a system to effectively break off his army into smaller blobs.
Well while what you say is true, this would be done way better in giving bonuses to movement, replenisment, "anti attrition"or things like then that. Beside its just retarded that you cannot leave one unit behind to enforce the garrinison or to run over 2 miles to the next army. Or you wan't a halve stack at the front you better send a general with it, Oh yeah also. There is an added % of upkeep cost for all your troops on the world because of this general existing for 2 turns. I mean adding extra cost because you own more armies isn't something bad, but if you can't move troops around alone, you just end up having 20 stacks everywhere and there is just no reason to run a unit back even for 2 turns because the entire army has to follow. And it could be done way better by for examply also make it depending on how much units you own. Like in Paradox games where you have a forcelimit that can increase through all kinds of stuff and you get penalites if you go over it.
@@Mahfireballs oh yeah I totally agree there are better ways to do it, such as appointing a captain and taking some minor penalties to your half stacks movement or combat abilities or something. I'm just saying it's not as easy as "hey you three hundred guys, go that way kill those fools and come meet back with us"
My favourite feature I wanted to see again was also in Empire: Total War, which was the towns system. Every province had the main town, but also had a bunch of lesser, but incredibly important towns also dotted around the province that sustained a single building. What this meant was that turtling up had a price, and a strategic problem; when you were forced to back off and turtle in your main settlement, the enemy could go and burn down all those important, and expensive to repair, towns that were around the province if they couldn't or didn't want to face you down behind your walls.
How about actual city defense battles? In Warhammer the cities are so small with such large streets that its impossible to really strategize a real defense. Enemies routing through my city onto the capture point, walking right past my defenders, siege equipment simultaneously being made of paper and mithril while being so close to the walls that you have no chance of destroying them, magic ladders. Plus at no point in those battles do I ever stop and look around the city in awe of its majesty. Besieging Rome in Rome 2 was amazing, seeing the lighthouse of Alexandria and sailing my fleet around it, fighting hoplites to capture the Acropolis was awesome. In Warhammer they just tell you to be amazed and the city in the background behind that 150ft wall uphill that you should be defending rather then a suburb
I'm not a fan of sieges in Warhammer for several reasons like you say. Too small, you don't really fight in the city, you start the sieges in range of the towers so you have to just send your units (with ladders that they didn't spend time making) in right away. I like sieges in Rome 1, you can go around the entire city and choose which point to attack from if you want. Even Empire was good in that regard even if it was only a fort you could circle it and do some shenanigans, it wasn't just a straightforward slugfest of "here, all melee troops scale the walls!" like in Warhammer. I feel like CA has dumbed it down in favor of flashy spells and other stuff.
Yeah thats a big one. I still prefer the WH seige battles as the ai is decently competent in them. I loved Rome 2 Cities and the little pseudo-historical tour you could make around significant sights was adding so so much. BUT then again the AI was so bad while i played it, that it lost all the epicness the seige should have had. IDK if they fixed it but back in the day it ruined seiges for me to the point where i would often auto resolve them even though they should be kind of the climax of your campaigns.
What I appreciated was in RTW that your recruitment actually reduced population in the city, allowing you to populate certain areas and depopulate others. Also zooming into a battle map during peace time Only in RTW, not TWR2
I miss the ability to move units out of the general's army the most. In Napoleon as Britain I could send several small groups of cavalry alone into France and distract a sizable portion of the French's army. By attacking buildings then going back into hiding in the forests, the French were chasing ghosts while my small British force was able to fight Napoleon's alliance elsewhere. In every Total War up to Rome II, I also used the cavalry as a scouting force like they have been throughout history. If I was right next to an enemy army but out of movement points for the overall army, I could detach the general and cavalry and fight them while pulling in the infantry and arty as reinforcements. Some people call that cheap, I say it's a viable tactic that was certainly done before in warfare. Needing a general to lead even just one unit severely dented what I could do and is one of the biggest reasons I will play any of the total wars before Rome II over the newer ones anytime, even Empire.
Same here. In Empire the AI would send actual raiding parties of a few units into your territory to destroy your farms and smaller towns. It was annoying at times, as well as seeing huge armies without a general as the AI rarely seemed to recruit them, but it a million times better than not being allowed to send three units of reinforcement over to the next province without needing to create an entirely new army.
@P.S. to be honest I actually really liked that aspect of empire where there would be actual skirmishes around the place, rather than most other titles where you would only really fight around cities
Trade lanes and goods between your own cities on the map looked cool in Rome 1 and Medieval 2 Shame they were gone. I believe adding the imperium mechanic in terms of limiting your armies made you feel trapped in someways compared to the older total war games which you could muster as many armies as you wanted as long your economy could handle it. I truly feel that in Rome 1 and medieval 2 you felt like you had more freedom in the campaign and control of your faction and it’s destiny compared to the later total war games.
It was always kind of annoying to have basic things like bayonets be research exclusive but it did make playing the Ottomans feel great pulling yourself out of the technological dark ages. Plus the upkeep increase for military techs felt great
@@mackmasters325 when your provinces barely turn a profit, and the only thing your units have going for them is a decent melee attack thats not much a leg up
Medieval I I believe was the last total war to have the ability to turn on your allies in mid battle. I'm really not sure of that was ever done afterwards. I loved that feature - a wonderful slice of backstabbery.
I recall in the shogun 2 demo, its most likely scripted, your ally assisting in the demo battle turns on you. That was wild, I thought I was crazy when I tried to do it in the main game and didnt work
it's not only bridge battles it's battlemaps themselves as well, like when you fight near a settlement or a wonder or any landmark(like bridges that you mentioned) visible on the campaign map, it is also present on the battlemap and even position in relation to your army as well, making it so immersive, unlike in newer TW games were you just given random generic battlemap that only somewhat looks like the location you army's at (like foresty, deserty area etc) and all the settlements look generic as well but that's also issue with the building system on the campaign map
One thing I liked in the older total war games is that every settlement looked different. Whatever buildings you built in your cities showed up on the battlefield and I miss that.
I always wished that you could keep generals and family members as prisoners that you could keep over time. Maybe you capture their faction leader and battle but they can't pay for immediately, so you can keep him until they save up, or you can make them make payments each turn to get him back. That would've been really, fun and that was a big thing in the middle ages. Important generals and royal family members captured in battle would sometimes spend years as prisoners until their kingdoms saved up enough to ransom them.
@@21Arrozito Either that or if the enemy couldn't pay you had the option to convert him to your side, maybe by paying the ransom yourself. Not really historically accurate but it'd be cool
Being able to split armies is the most important of these imo, it seems really lame having a strategy game then being shackled because you can't split up your forces tactically. And it's not like it was an unbalanced mechanic: weaker armies were more likely to get caught out, having small armies reinforcing mean you couldn't set them up, have a much higher chance to defect which was a really nice use of the general and faction leader management, severe morale penalties if you're away from the general. It was just really nice to have some more flexibility but with a cost attached.
Agreed. In my opinion the most annoying part is that the game forces you to hire generals in situations where you would rather not. For example if you end up losing a battle and the army retreats into hostile territory, it's often a good idea to disband the army just to save the general...
@@RobertP2000 Yeah and you can recruit that general next turn. No penalties at all. Would me much more meaningful to get him out of that hostile territory by yourself.
2:22 I agree, the old Total Wars had a lot of little features like that. Same with the cutscenes too. Its like they put a lot more time into little details.
smaller, less renowned companies care more about their buyers. CA is a huge brand now, so they can shit out whatever they want and print money. same with activision. older Cods were actually decent games. now just copy & paste
The height of naval battles was Shogun 2 I think. Especially in Fall of the Samurai. It was the most fun out of all the games that had naval combat. Blowing up a boiler and seeing an enemy ship engulfed in a huge explosion as it split in two and sunk was incredibly satisfying.
Naval battles in fots could have been great but they just didn’t make different behaviour for modern ships and you had them acting like old cannon bunes or like they had archers or something
Multi-layered sieges, units showing upgrades on the field, buildings are limited only by the amount of buildings there are and not by slots, the AI actually expanding, and long timeframe gameplay. Region gifting would be on there as well, but I mostly want that for HOI.
Also the constructed building show during the battle map from the very same settlement. I don't think that mods do this as well, I have never played a mod long enough to find out.
@@07jaworski07 I'm somewhat fine without that but its probably not that much work to code in a series of variable buildings so it's one of those "why remove this?" kind of things.
In RomeI (and MedII?) the strategic map feels more "alive" thanks to the special effects: you are in a forest zone? you hear birds chipping; in a desert? wind breezing; on a mountain? wind howling; near the sea? wave hitting the beach.
Merchants were a mixed bag. Taking Medievil 2 as an example, if you were say Milan then merchants were great,you got a merchants guild early because it is a banking and trading nation and lots of nearby factions to "buyout" their merchants. On the other hand, some of the Eastern factions had limited resource nodes and other nations nearby to build them up by farming other merchants. Also that percentage was horseshit, but w/e they could make good money but not usually. Only real area to safely make big money was South Sahara Africa where they had slaves, gold and ivory down there and with a few good merchants you could pull in well over 5000 florins a turn with no risk of them being bought out.I think one game I had like 12,000 per turn(I know you can go even higher than that if you really get lucky and focus on merchants) for awhile with some high level merchants with Spain after I conquered the Moors. Speaking of the Moors, you really needed that area if you ever played them on highest difficulty because while you had good units,you had THE worst settlements for trade and everything was spread out with religion and distance to capital penalties causing corruption and of course rebels in the middle of nowhere causing devastation that you could not be arsed to clean up because it was 8 turns away sometimes and too costly and you really needed that supplemented income from the merchants.
@@OSYofRR i ussualy rarly bothered with merchants because the only time they can bring me a justifaing profit is end game (the part where i am already wining the game and money is no longer an issue ) the reason for that is simple, you have to not only pay for the merhant hiring but also his upkeep, and ofc early game his stats are shit kuz i dont have the infrastrucutre to make good merchents, + otside of gold mines and ivory there is not rly a resurce woth for him, so even if i put him on the highest resurese income that i can find in the imidiate vecinity you will find that with some basic math that the cost of hiring + the upkeep is higher than what the merchant brings in every turn so in fact i could make more money by NOT HIRING THEM, and by the time they start getting traits to bring in more money they die of old age resulting in them barly brakeing even, and even if you made a B line for a gold mine it would either had a merchant on it that you would had no chance of overtakeing, or yours will be overtaken in a few turn by some other op merchant, at the end of the day i found that investing the money in your army will end up makeing you more money due to beeing able to have more citys with that beeing said i would like to have them back, and change the management building system ( makeing important building req certein luxury res, thus giveng you a better insentiv to go for a more divers resurse colection, kuz let's all be honest, unless you were trading gold, ivory and maby spices, than your merchant was ussualy bringing you less $ than it would have cost for his upkeep + hiring )
Being able to build literally everything makes it a lot less strategical though. Having to make choices and priorities gives it more depth and also forces you to specialize different settlements for different things. Just building everything everywhere is pretty mindless
@@pewienpanzmiasta6292 because that's what people did in real life. Building caps are stupid. They were alright when they were first properly introduced in Shogun 2 cause you can't fit that much in a castle, but once it was actual cities it just became silly. Ancient Rome had every single building on its tree with duplicates historically.
The dispatch feature also prevents you from running reinforcements from the heartland to the front. Instead you have to run a logistics general or leave the front to reinforce.
The inability to separate units really hurts when it comes to recruitment, especially when it comes to region-specific recruitment bonuses, like extra recruit experience. You need to move your entire army to the region with the bonuses, which is a huge waste of time.
I mainly miss two things from all the games past medieval 2; 1. Fighting to the death when surrounded 2. The random delay to unit movement/actions. A few smaller things include the fancy formation/unit behavior in the old engine games, say, ordering a unit to move through another unit, the lads in front will form into lines to allow the unit behind them to pass. The firing drills for the ranged units was also nice, mainly the fire-by-rank in medieval 2 (granted, it would have been a lot better if it didn't have the "everybody has to be in perfect formation to fire" syndrome.). Finally, as much as I hated dealing with it, disasters like the plague, in retrospect were pretty fun, and added a bit of depth to the campaign mode. Also, they removed naval battles? Thats a bloody shame, and a big step backwards.
I mean to be fair the vast majority of the gameplay will take place in mainland China. The only place there you would be on water would be on rivers and maybe occasional small lakes. I don't know how impactful the coast will be as a region to traverse. Maybe if they add the Korean peninsula as a part of the campaign map in the future it'd make more sense, but as is I reckon 99% of all battles in Three Kingdoms would be land battles regardless so they probably didn't think it was worth the effort of implementing naval battles when it'd see very little practical use
CA Medieval 2 team: let's flesh out the game and put some love into it. CA nowadays: minimize effort, maximalize profits. Anything we can get away with removing, we will.
I actually miss the fog of war on the main campaign map even when owning a settlement. You could build watch towers to have a new area of sight. I'm sure they could improve on this idea with newer versions of the game but I thought this was a lot cooler to have on the campaign map. It made it more surprising when the enemy would March an army into one of your settlements that you had no vision over. But I might be alone in this one
I miss the titles of the original Medieval Total War, as well as the incest, as well as the recruitable inquisitors. I also miss the fact that some units required multiple buildings to be present to be recruitable.
@@teoruckbelt5590 of course I did. why, did I say something wrong? It was gone in Empire+Napoleon. And for Shogun I think it was only important for monks or cavalry, and I am not certain about cavalry. I believe it was not present in Empire or Rome II, I cannot say anything about Napoleon, Attila and warhammer since I never played any of those. It is present in Warhammer II, as I said and in Thrones of Britannia you dont need any buildings for units. Ye again cant say anything about three kingdoms. The thing is in my household both me and my father enjoy strategy games a lot, but we got Empire after ShogunII, so I always feel like Empire is newer.
@@Apokalypse456 well i wanted to point out that it didn't jump from medieval to warhammer after all those years, since I remember shogun 2 having this feature for many units, most of them being fairly useful, including the monk warriors you mentioned above. After that neither I can remember any other game that included this. Sorry if this seemed like a hating message or something like that.
#2 is the feature I miss the most. It's so crazy to me and immersion killing to not be to perform a task so fundamental to warfare. From a game play standpoint, I HATE the cat and mousing game you now have to do with a full doom stack to chase defeated enemy forces.
In addition to naval battles, I genuinely miss coastal battles. In WHFB there are so many factions that rely on viking style raiding and slaving. I think the battles would be fantastic. I always liked the idea of keeping a few units in reserve in the ships, and then pushing them up onto the docks to get a few elite units right into the city once the defenders were suitably occupied.
Empire, 3 continents + several trade zones. So i thought holy crap when WH2 comes out and they are going to merge the maps its gonna be HUGE !!... And then they cut out half of lustria it was a sad day for me.
I really missed that damaged buildings in the tactical battle would be shown as damaged in the strategic map, a feature that was present in Rome 1 and Medieval 2. You could also literally set a besieged city on fire in Rome 1 if you brought enough onagers, as the fire would easily spread to other buildings if they were close enough, which was the case with Roman, Carthaginian, Eastern, and Hellenistic factions. It was just pleasing to watch the city burn with smoke and fire from a distance. Also, a little feature that I have seen no one talk about from Rome 1, was where if you disembarked on the coast and fought a battle, you could see the ships in the distance on the battle map. This also happened during sieges, or with battles close to a settlement, as you could actually see the settlement in the background during the battle, and you would be able to infer which direction the enemy reinforcements were coming from. The ships and settlements looked the same for all factions, but it was just really neat to see it being tied together with the strategic map.
@@bobthetop3242 Specifically the loss of Legacy Tech for Romans when progressing through the game. Yup Romans definitely forgot how aqueducts and such worked, makes complete sense (total sarcasm here).
Top five expansions (for Kingdoms, all campaigns as stand-alones, for example: 1. Americas 2.Barbarian Invasion (RTW) 3.Teutonic 4.Alexander (RTW) 5.Britannia or something like that)
yes, however I think he might have put that one into his top five DLCs list already, I'm only talking about expansions EDIT: yep it's in his top five DLCs vid
@@modarnwarfare2rull agreed lol, my list was just an example my actual list would probably be 1.Teutonic 2.Britannia 3.Barbarian Invasion 4.Americas 5.Crusades
@@Totalwar2Medieval Britannia really? Americas was so much more fun fighting the Spanish with the unstoppable Aztec swarm. Although forming the Hansetic League and Kalmar Union was really cool
Re: Detaching units: That was a (missing) feature that really struck me as odd when I started playing TW: Warhammer (I missed TW: Rome. it just didn't really grab me at the time). Even if they restricted it to you having to have a hero (or even a hero of a particular type, maybe the generic 'noble/knight/captain) analogue, it would have worked. Hell, if they limited the size of the army that such a hero could lead (say, to 5 units or level, whichever was higher, with a maximum cap of 20) that would work well.
Yeah I miss most the ability to split armies into smaller groups. Historically the Roman Legions did this all the time so it would make sense to have it in the game. They should have allowed smaller detachments to operate within a certain range of the main force or something like that then return immediately when the action is complete.
Laurence Morales the reason they did that in game was because the AI was so stupid it would literally just send around lone units across the breadth of it lands that it would kill performance. the AI turn time slowdown in ETW is the most famous case of it, where the ottomans would send single units across from anotolia to constantinople and vice verser
@@indieWellie The Maratha's were awful about doing that too, they'd have 60+ little stacks of one or two regiments along with all their actual armies just futzing around India because nobody would try attack them and they'd keep making more and more of them as time went on.
It was so dry and emotionless. Didn't sound like a General rallying the men at all, they sounded more like a bunch of depressed poets about to kill themselves.
Being able to take a stack of men out of your general is the feature I miss the most. Like you said it would be nice to send a small force to defeat another small force rather than to send an entire army, but also it let you send some extra men without the need to have another general. And lastly just enables you to manually increase your garrison of men at strategic points that could also be sent to reinforce other generals or towns. Another thing that I miss from TW Empire is the ability to make a fort.
honestly, Rome I's AI was better than I expected it to be. pretty aggressive and used troops for the roles they were meant to be used for. not good by any means and still exploitable, but more capable than the newer ones
Being able to view my cities on the battle map at any time in Rome was lovely. You even got little civilians walking around! I found it really motivating to actually see the buildings I'd constructed going up, watching my culture's buildings appear among the native ones after a conquest, and I loved visiting my towns after they'd upgraded to the next size level. No idea why they removed that feature, it's trivial to implement and really helped to make the settlements feel less like abstract game pieces.
Loved the speeches and feck was definitely fun. I remember in Medieval 2 one of my generals had insane at level 2 and in one of his speeches he said the enemy general was going to be a problem but he didn’t have the moonchildren backing him up which was good as he lost his nice hat to defend against them...legendary man right there.
These features were all well and good, but the real one which is missing is the ability to trade territory as a part of diplomacy. Made negotiating a peace deal a lot more fun imo, not to mention just being able to buy regions rather than commit to a war
Newer total wars don't have immersive characters and/or generals. In Rome 1, and medieval 2 (I have not played shogun 2 yet), I pay attention to every family member and general and 'look after them'. I like to role play and occasionally give generals a break every now and then from campaigning and give them a city to manage, and vice versa. And the way traits and skills develop is organic and very nice. You can influence them but you have no direct control over them. For example in Rome 1 you can send a character to manage a city and they may improve their management. There is also a chance it back fires and they gain harmful traits in which case I send them to be a commander or if they are bad, just a front line fighter. Similar things happen to generals/commanders. Also if you use the general in melee in battles they gain traits such as bloody, increased health etc. If you keep them back they have a less chance of developing those but more chance of developing traits like 'strategic'. If a general routs they may become 'cowardly'. Another cool thing is that if you retire a general to a city they usually gain management and management traits but may loose their command ranking. When you send them to battles again they slowly loose management and gain command points. This is one of the biggest things that separates older total wars from the newer ones. The newer total wars has character levels which makes it feel so gamey. The characters are dull and boring and I hardly pay attention to them or care about them. This is a major reason why older total wars are so much better. I know this is a long paragraph but I had to get it off my chest. I hope total war 3 kingdoms does better in this aspect.
More time your general being away from cities, less chance of having a child. Bloodline traits. Having a ugly/bad wife which reduces public order or the chance of having a child. Choosing your own militia. For what reason the game should choose my roster. I dont sure but I think they removed terrain factors, where charging down from a hill has attack+morale bonuses etc. Because of these little things I couldnt move on beyond m2tw. I insta win with all factions but still more enjoyable than rome 2.
Having numerous traits and ancillaries per character. I miss the RPG element of Total War that made the characters feel more human and less about min-maxing stats.
Ship battles would be amazing in Warhammer Total War. A major DLC dedicated to it would be great, particularly if they introduce pirate factions from other races, like Clan Skurvy, a Skaven Pirate Clan. Yes, that is a real clan.
my Take on Fixing the Army Separation(Taken from Steam Discussion) Battalions. Basically An Army is Made out of 4 Battalion, each battalion will have 1 Commander Unit, and 4 Units, Battalion can be merged and separated, plus when you have 2 Army Cap, a Faction that uses Battalion have 8 Battalion Cap.
That sounds so cool! In addition maybe decentralise the Army. Like you have you main army and these Battailions can only move in a particular distance to it, when you move the main body all the detatched battailons move automatically but ceep their distance. Also they will fight together but come in like reinforcements maybe with a battailion late because of Officer trait. And if you want a second main Army you could promote a battailion commander.
@@annatar844 I'm more thinking that these Battalions are not a part of an army, so they can leave the army to garrison a settlement and such. Also if you Merge 2 Battalion, the Army Commander is the one who are not moved into, for example: Battalion 2 will merge into Battalion 1, The Commander of the 1st Battalion will be the Army Commander.
You use to be able to thwart full stack attackers with a tiny force just by destroying all seige equipments or bottlenecking them to those ladders only. Good old heroic defense memories....
Hey, Legend, thanks for reminding me of Avatar mode. I completely forgot about it, but after watching this I decided to check it out again. Was really cool seeing my Avatar and all the old Veteran Units again. At the time FOTS came out I was starting to really get into the American Civil War, so I took a unit of veteran 150 range US Marines, gave them a grey Uniform and named them the "Stonewall Brigade". Fun times.
Two things I miss... Naval, and mobile units... It wasn't even a matter of being able to split a force, to send some unit here, some units there. It's the fact, I now, have to plan around when one army passes by a region with the required millitary building for a certain unit, stop by for a turn, recruit how ever many, then move on towards the army I actually want that unit in. Then I have to get those armies side by side. Just today in Attila, I had an army North Africa, and the second catching up from Arabia, who I stopped off in Alexandrite and Paraetonium for a couple of turns. I needed to A) get the second army to the south, to defend Garama, AND B) drop of the fresh cavalry off by the coast where it turns north towards Hadrumentum, for the African cluster f*** I desperately wanted to nuke while the army was sea born just outside port, and while they were tired from forced rowing, and the navy sitting in the port.... The coast was more critical, which meant him meeting up half way from Sabrata to Hadrumentum, before heading half way back. Onky a turn late, and me having to reclaim Garama from The ex Africa rebels, rather than defend it. I lost a hell of a lot of really nice garrison units, whom I'm very proud of for defeating the odd for about 2 years straight :/ RiP Garama's first Garrison... 405-412AD Okay fine... The AI is buggy, and doesn't know how to handle single units very well (because they rey to move them at max movement, which means the ones behind, can't join up, hence the many many single or small stacks of units in Empire and Napoleon (to be honest, it really never bothered me. Even with mild Asbergers, it never bothered me...)), but I'd still like to be able to select one unit, and select to "send" them to another within "range" perhaps, say 50% max movement of said unit? That would genuinly be epic! That is one of my the two single biggest complaints I have with the latest TW titles...
The shogun 2 speeches would include some mythology and omens. Like if the army was facing a certain direction, the general would say stuff about demons and devils coming either at the enemy, or behind you. You could also have speeches based on the persons standing in the clan. The brother of the hier would say how his brother would rule, the hier would say how he would rule, and the daimyo could say how this battle will advance the plan to give him the shogunate
People say merchants are bad, but diplomats were retarded as agents. The fact that it could take a decade for your messenger to talk to someone halfway across the map was ridiculous.
Taking over a faction by marriage of your heir to one of their princesses. It was possible to do this in MTW I . I recall one game where playing as England I gained control over Denmark, I controlled their territory, economy and millitary. You know like the UK between James VI and I and Queen Anne of Great Britain. As I recall once that particular monarch died the Kingdom split again... but it was interesting. Also in MTW I playing as the Almohades I expanded to cover all of western Europe. Then a rebellion in Britain arose which was like a completely Islamized England. Had the red faction color but islamic culture in every way. This was eventually patched so that even if you took England converted everyone to Islam for however long England rebelling would be Christian England. I immagine the same happened the other way. i.e. Take the middle east and Christianize it then somehow Islam rises again. Both of these things made it feel like what we did really changed society in a way that was enduring... like it really mattered for the LONG term who won a big battle.
I miss Medieval Family Trees. Sure they had them in Shogun 2 and Rome 2 and Attila, but it was no where near as large or intricate generation-wise. I enjoyed growing my family and having generals marry into my family. It was a really great feature.
I think Rome 2 and Attila have bad naval battles because there isn't any need for a navy in those games. Empire and Napoleon you had trade nodes and transportation. Also I think population was essentially removed after Napoleon since it stopped having an impact on the game.
I liked the traits that would get attached to your generals. Even in shogun 1, having a general lead from the front or rear would give a trait, and many other situational ones. I know that’s less important with the superhero generals, but there was some fun risk-reward there
You forgot about the cities you could build in Rome 1, each building you choose was visible inside of your city. You could even go to observe the city and look how its changing. Each level of your building made the city look different. You could also see the construction sites of the building youre constructing at the time when fighting a battle or observing.
