A Long Term Total War Gamer's Perspective

[dajarvi]

[I previously posted this on a Steam Forum)

I've played the demo. I am really excited for this game to be released, in that, so far, it appears much better than Empire. To begin, I'll list my credentials as a Total War gamer: I've played since Medieval Total War 1. Currently, I play Rome Total War with Europa Barbarorum, and Medieval 2 Kingdoms with Stainless Steel. If you don't have Rome or Medieval 2 Kingdoms, get them, and try those mods.

Shogun 2 has a better interface, campaign and battle map designs than previous versions, and cool graphics. I like it. The battle map moves too fast, however, and it does feel more immediate action oriented instead of long term strategic oriented. The units move way too fast, which make the animations appear choppy. I have a very powerful computer, so it isn't my computer. It is the animation.

That is fine. However, a modder's touch could really smooth out the game for Old Timers in the genre, allowing changes to be made to units and script, but also leave room for the New Comers to enjoy CA's ever-changing vision. In all Total War games, I've never enjoyed vanilla--no offence CA. You guys create the game. Without the game, I could never enjoy the modifications done by the community. That is part of the fun and excitement of Total War.

I so far like the campaign map...it feels like a map. I did not like Medieval 2's campaign map, nor Empires. Rome was the best (under the influence of Europa Barbarorum).

However, given what I've seen, I do want to wait for Gamespot's review, along with fan reviews. Fan reviews are most important. I find fan reviews at Gamespot reliable.

I might not purchase the game on release unless they also release modding tools. Such is the way of Total War games, as I stated above. Europa Barbaroum II is in development for Medieval 2 Total War, and I can wait for that.

However, I think Shogun 2 has potential. After Empire, I'm just not sure what to expect. I do hope the best. Cheers!

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I do want to wait for Gamespot's review

93% - improved AI, "return to form"

[sugam]

I don't like the rock paper scissors thing too much. Particularly the spear units. I know that in very close quarters they should not be as effective as katana units but its staggeringly different, they will basically get own hands down. Logically, that makes little scene to me. They taught the yari to everyone as the basis of martial war. It takes a master of the katana a life time of discipline and sacrifice, but in 3 weeks in training, 3 yari armed peasants could kill one. That and now there are "middle" units too. Monks are one of them. They use to be fearsome units in melee, but not anymore. Now, they are "ok units but with no real weakness's".

I don't mind some form of RPS to mold the units, but it should not be so extreme, makes the game less fun and most obvious to what to do :(

[crpcarrot]

realism aside the rock paper scissors of the original STW worked very well. we dont know how expereince will play a part in the units fighitng ability so we will ahve to wait and see. re game speed i have a feeling that the the processor speeds may have had an affect cos they movement seems fine on my old C2D PC.

[gollum]

All TW games have RPS gameplay - it can't be otherwise. Just some of them have it less pronounced.

When the RPS is played down with many units of multiple roles, crtain units are way better than others and teh AI who can;t tell that performs badly with them. As long as the game keeps historical plausibility to a dignified level, gameplay considerations should prevail imo. After all, playing the game you are having fun outmeneuvering and outsmarting the opponent within a historically plausible scenario. Recreating conditions 1:1 is often hurtful for gameplay and the two have to go together, not against one another to have a good game.

[Nelson]

As long as the game keeps historical plausibility to a dignified level, gameplay considerations should prevail imo.

There is an underlying assumption here that is misplaced IMO. Who says game play is at odds with historical accuracy? They are unrelated. The issue is this: What kind of game do you want to play? Supposing that a game about real soldiers would make for bad game play is monstrously presumptuous, is it not?

If units do not behave as they did historically then "historical plausibility" in a tactical sense is not possible. The former enables the latter.

There have always been fans who prefer fictitious unit abilities to historic abilities (in the interest of some sort of "balance") just as there have always been fans like myself who prefer the most realistic behavior possible from the troops. For anyone who has read a lot of history it is alarming when soldiers that you have studied do not behave in a manner consistent with real evidence.

What do the modders do first every time? They put in historic unit capacities as best they can because that is what players want to be changed the most.