Some concerns about the campaign report

[NagatsukaShumi]

To be honest, the fact that the strategy/campaign part looks to be fantastic is very exicting for me as building empires, getting my own memorable characters etc are what makes me get the most enjoyment from the game.

[tibilicus]

Well it's not meant to be entirely historical is it?

How boring would it be just playing through historical events without getting the chance to do thinks your own way. For example maybe as Britain I don't want to be at war with France, maybe we could ally and destroy the world.

This is just speaking for me but I like a game that revolves around history, not one which forces me to play history.

[Husar]

Well it's not meant to be entirely historical is it?

How boring would it be just playing through historical events without getting the chance to do thinks your own way. For example maybe as Britain I don't want to be at war with France, maybe we could ally and destroy the world.

This is just speaking for me but I like a game that revolves around history, not one which forces me to play history.

I agree, too much history and I can just as well buy a movie.
player: "Oh, look, the battle of soandso, let's move that unit here...why doesn't it work?"
advisor: "Sorry, you cannot move that unit around the left flank as historically it moved around the right flank..."

[ByzanKing]

Well it's not meant to be entirely historical is it?

How boring would it be just playing through historical events without getting the chance to do thinks your own way. For example maybe as Britain I don't want to be at war with France, maybe we could ally and destroy the world.

This is just speaking for me but I like a game that revolves around history, not one which forces me to play history.

I totally agree with this point. How boring would it be if everything was scripted to happen the same as it did in real life. The replay to me would not be there if things always happened historically accurate. After all this is a game and we need to forge our own EMPIRES.

[ArtillerySmoke]

Yeah if things were scripted like that, especially from the start of the game, this just wouldn't be a Total War game.

The entire point of TW is to establish the global situation the way it was right at the start time of the campaign, but add nothing that automatically (linearly) leads to the same events over and over.

You'll start the campaign and have your typical faction starting position, strengths and weaknesses, etc. What you do from that point forward is all rewriting history...and creating your own. The game doesn't automatically establish wars and alliances because that's going to happen on it's own during the course of a campaign, and a different way almost every time. That's the true meat and potatoes of Total War: Giving you total control and freedom to build your Empire as you see fit.

[Kalle]

I think some of the last posters are putting words in my mouth that I did not say with my initial post.

The last poster even manages to contradict himself in those few lines he write, so eager to critisize me that he does not see what we ask for is the absolute same thing, I.E.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

global situation as it was and then freedom of action!

I did not ask for everything to be scripted, not anything at all actually exept from the startingpositions which should correspond to the real historical situation imo and that was confirmed to at least partially be that way by Jack. Thank you!

For those who think I wanted the entire timephrame of the game to be scripted, I do not! However I would like to see for instance that playing lets say Russia you should get awarded extra prestigepoints when/if you accomplish things that this particular faction did accomplish in history. You do not have to do these things but if you do you get bonus prestige. An example could be to conquer Ingria (St:Petersburg) as that is what the entire Great northern was was about and the most important objective for Peter (the Great).

This is almost exactly corresponding to the golden achievements of original medieval total war I just wish it was even more developed then it was in MTW I.

Again, that does NOT mean you HAVE to do those things. You can earn your prestigepoints in other ways, trade, conquer and so on, whatever the criteria for earning prestige will be, which is the same for each and every faction but to add some specific objectives to the diffrent factions would only add flavour and

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

is also in line with total war tradition from mtw I.

These special objectives that I would like to see would have to be based on what the faction did historically or what else would they be based on? Having a special objective for France to capture Crimea would make no sense. Having an objective for the French to throw Britain out of North America would make sense. Still that would not stop a player from taking Crimea with the French, it only means that does not constitute any further prestige then normal conquest maybe will.

The above is my wish and hope for the TW-game. It takes nothing away from your freedom to do what you want. It adds soul and meaning to playing each faction. Basically this exist in rtw and mtwII as well as you recieve missions from the senate and nobles in those games. However that system did not really satisfye me and the missons were basically the same whatever faction you played.

Kalle

[ArtillerySmoke]

I think some of the last posters are putting words in my mouth that I did not say with my initial post.

The last poster even manages to contradict himself in those few lines he write, so eager to critisize me that he does not see what we ask for is the absolute same thing, I.E.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

global situation as it was and then freedom of action!

I did not ask for everything to be scripted, not anything at all actually exept from the startingpositions which should correspond to the real historical situation imo and that was confirmed to at least partially be that way by Jack. Thank you!

For those who think I wanted the entire timephrame of the game to be scripted, I do not! However I would like to see for instance that playing lets say Russia you should get awarded extra prestigepoints when/if you accomplish things that this particular faction did accomplish in history. You do not have to do these things but if you do you get bonus prestige. An example could be to conquer Ingria (St:Petersburg) as that is what the entire Great northern was was about and the most important objective for Peter (the Great).

This is almost exactly corresponding to the golden achievements of original medieval total war I just wish it was even more developed then it was in MTW I.

Again, that does NOT mean you HAVE to do those things. You can earn your prestigepoints in other ways, trade, conquer and so on, whatever the criteria for earning prestige will be, which is the same for each and every faction but to add some specific objectives to the diffrent factions would only add flavour and

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

is also in line with total war tradition from mtw I.

These special objectives that I would like to see would have to be based on what the faction did historically or what else would they be based on? Having a special objective for France to capture Crimea would make no sense. Having an objective for the French to throw Britain out of North America would make sense. Still that would not stop a player from taking Crimea with the French, it only means that does not constitute any further prestige then normal conquest maybe will.

The above is my wish and hope for the TW-game. It takes nothing away from your freedom to do what you want. It adds soul and meaning to playing each faction. Basically this exist in rtw and mtwII as well as you recieve missions from the senate and nobles in those games. However that system did not really satisfye me and the missons were basically the same whatever faction you played.

Kalle

1) Relax...nobody's attacking you or criticising you.

2) You're describing a game that goes against everything that is Total War for the past 7+ years. The game you are describing is NOT a Total War game. That's why nobody is really agreeing with you.

Have you played Total War titles before?

[KozaK13]

I agree with Kalle because if you read what he has typed it makes sense. If you ever played Europa Barbarorum, he is basically saying the start should kind of be like that, all the alliances etc. from the start.

Plus i would like a system rewarding historic objectives, but the freedom to choose whether to do it, as Kalle has kinda said.

[Megas Methuselah]

2) You're describing a game that goes against everything that is Total War for the past 7+ years. The game you are describing is NOT a Total War game. That's why nobody is really agreeing with you.

No, he isn't. Every faction had different win conditions in M2TW and RTW, too. Also, there were preset diplomatic relations at the start of each game in the other TW titles.

1) Relax...nobody's attacking you or criticising you.

Uh... Yes, you are. Deliberate sarcasm, see below:

Have you played Total War titles before?

[Sol Invictus]

To be honest, the fact that the strategy/campaign part looks to be fantastic is very exicting for me as building empires, getting my own memorable characters etc are what makes me get the most enjoyment from the game.

Agreed, I am much more intererested in the Strategic gameplay than the battles and ETW sounds like the deepest TW game to date by far.