can't say i am particularly interested in playing samurai across what looks to be a very limited map fighting virtual carbon copy factions, even if there have been some graphical improvements since the days of r:tw.
i can respect that this is a game that harkens back to the total war roots, but eh...just don't care about this period of japanese history much at all.
--
There is no shame in not knowing; the shame lies in not finding out
Ainoxi posted... So are the battles in this game based upon actual history? If so this just got more interesting (is minoring in Japanese history.)
There are battles in the game that you can play that are based on the historical battles, but the main game doesn't necessarily follow the history in the same way. You can take the Takeda clan and reunite Japan, even if it didn't happen that way in real life.
-- "When I was a young man, I had liberty, but I did not see it. I had time, but I did not know it."
Sengoku jidai has always been the best period for Total War,
What is this nonsense.
Whatever Shogun 2's merits (it seems to have finally solved TW's issue of dull endgames), Japan is pretty objectively the most limited when it comes to variety. Medieval covers a bigger range of technology and environments, while Rome had a staggering degree of faction diversity (and EB adds even more; seriously EB might be the best mod ever).
--
SubDeity wants to vote for Calvin Coolidge. [Evil Republican] Play Der Langrisser.
I actually prefer the relative simplicity and uniformity that Japan as a single country offers versus the expansiveness of the other games. I'm also a big fan of Japanese history, so that hits a good spot with me. Rome is nice, though; I have nothing against it. After Shogun 1/2, it's next in line as my favorite. Can't say I've played the EB mod, though.
-- "When I was a young man, I had liberty, but I did not see it. I had time, but I did not know it."
SubDeity posted... Sengoku jidai has always been the best period for Total War,
What is this nonsense.
Whatever Shogun 2's merits (it seems to have finally solved TW's issue of dull endgames), Japan is pretty objectively the most limited when it comes to variety. Medieval covers a bigger range of technology and environments, while Rome had a staggering degree of faction diversity (and EB adds even more; seriously EB might be the best mod ever).
The problem with Medieval and Rome is that while variety is nice from a historical perspective, it's bad from a gameplay perspective. You see this huge army your enemy has and you literally don't know what it does or how to beat it other than to throw more stuff at it. This is just plain bad on a strategic level. You need to have some idea of "this army can beat that army efficiently". You simply don't want to continously throw stuff into the meat grinder because you got a whole bunch of other stuff to worry about.
Strategy gamers get into this trap of thinking more features + more stuff = better. It's just plain wrong, as most game designers will tell you. At best, once you get past a very low threshold, there is no correlation. In fact, most will generally tell you there's a NEGATIVE correlation between how good your game is and how many features it has and its scope. Take something like... Settlers of Catan. Very small scale, very few options. Very good nonetheless because it's well designed.
I probably care more about roleplaying a kingdom when playing TW than anything else. I actually autoresolve most battles, except for ones I think I'll lose with autoresolve but would probably win playing, because otherwise the campaign would take too long to finish (it takes quite a long time as is).
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
From: ZFS | #015 There are battles in the game that you can play that are based on the historical battles, but the main game doesn't necessarily follow the history in the same way. You can take the Takeda clan and reunite Japan, even if it didn't happen that way in real life.
The problem with Medieval and Rome is that while variety is nice from a historical perspective, it's bad from a gameplay perspective. You see this huge army your enemy has and you literally don't know what it does or how to beat it other than to throw more stuff at it. This is just plain bad on a strategic level. You need to have some idea of "this army can beat that army efficiently". You simply don't want to continously throw stuff into the meat grinder because you got a whole bunch of other stuff to worry about.
I don't really think this is true. This isn't set in space, where you'll have no idea what a unit does unless you see it or it's described. This is historical and most units break down into basic types. Sure, all the European countries have different kinds of heavy cavalry in Medieval 2, but it doesn't take a genius to know that Chivalric Knights and Polish Retainers do the same basic thing. Then handful of genuinely unique units can be a fun challenge when encountered randomly and in any case you can read a detailed explanation of every unit before a battle.
In addition, I would add that since one does not fight reactively in Total War (you fight with the army you have, you don't muster a new one when a threat arrives), the strategic aspect come from constructing the best army you can out of your faction's selection and shepherding its strength, not from creating an army that efficiently beats a particular enemy army. This is especially the case in Europa Barbarorum, which uses recruitment zones and thus prevents you from reinforcing an army that is far afield with anything besides expensive mercenaries or weak local levies.
Lastly, I would just say that Total War is a historical game, not pure strategy. Having a lot of historical units adds to the fun and diversity of things, and helps keep things from getting old as your blasting through the backwards difficulty curve. Butchering another carbon-copy army for the 80th time in Shogun frankly gets a bit old.
--
SubDeity wants to vote for Calvin Coolidge. [Evil Republican] Play Der Langrisser.
The lack of variety in Shogun 2 turns me off. I just haven't been able to get into it despite it's incredible design
I'm a terrible Eurocentrist in my history loving though
--
The box says "Online Gameplay not rated by ESRB", I should be able to trade my phallic named Wobbufetts to a bunch of 8 year olds. - MarvelousGerbil
Well, that sucks. My PC can run Witcher 2 on high, yet it can't even handle battles on lowest graphic specs without constant framerate dips... its pretty much unplayable. Oh well.