Total War: Three Kingdoms Discussion Thread

Discussion of other Three Kingdoms games (e.g. Destiny of an Emperor and Dynasty Tactics) and other games by Koei (e.g. Samurai Warriors).

Re: Total War: Three Kingdoms Discussion Thread

Unread postby Mikhail » Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:29 pm

Gray Riders wrote:*Will every faction have their own units or will it be Shogun 2 style?

I'm thinking they go Shogun style, though I'm not well versed in the military compositions of the time. They will most likely have some faction specialties to add uniqueness like Wu having better navies, etc., or just have straight up special units per faction like the Regiments of Renown in Warhammer.

*How will they handle the general system? Will people like Song Xian be in the game or just the rulers and a few of their more notable generals with a bunch of randomly named generics?

If they stick with their formula, it will probably be just the main faction rulers and a few main generals. They've never allowed any faction to be playable in the older games (without mods) so I don't expect that to change. I'm just hoping that they are more inclusive with generals than not. Having only like 3-4 heroic generals per faction is gonna cut so many people out! Imagine the possibility of not even having someone like Zhao Yun in a Shu faction.

*What rulers will be playable from the start and which will be DLC? Total War seems to have long ago given up on letting you play as everyone on the map.

This one is kind of tricky. I'm definitely thinking that all the major guys would be covered that would be in a 190 start. I'm just hoping that they have more than like 4 or 5 factions to start with. If that's the case, maybe we'll see the Yuans, the Suns, the Liu, the Cao, and the Dong faction most likely.

*How will they handle the timeline? If it starts in 190 there's basically no chance of seeing things like Chi Bi or iconic figures like Zhuge Liang. Will multiple starting periods return?

I'd love multiple starting periods. Did they ever do that in the main series before?
For Chi Bi and stuff, they will probably have historical battles in the quick battle section where you could find most of the major battles of the time.
As for like Zhuge Liang, I'm assuming he'll either be ready from the get go, or you'll need a Tier 5 building to be able to recruit him so that enough turns/time will pass by that it wouldn't be out of place.
Soweneul Malhaebwa (Tell me your wish).
User avatar
Mikhail
Great Sage Equaling Heaven
 
Posts: 2618
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:15 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Total War: Three Kingdoms Discussion Thread

Unread postby Gray Riders » Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:42 pm

Mikhail wrote:I'd love multiple starting periods. Did they ever do that in the main series before?

They did, but it was dropped quickly. Medieval I had three; I believe they were 1086, 1205, and 1320 (should be accurate give or take a few years)--Medieval I used an "era" period where units were restricted by the period and not just what you had built--you simply couldn't build Chivalric Knights until the "High" period rolled around--and some units disappeared later, too, like the Varangian Guard. So they let you start in any of the periods with different starting characters--France in the High period has Philip II "Augustus" as King while England had King John (yes, the one from Robin Hood), for example.

I think the first Shogun had several as well but I didn't play it as much.
Gray Riders
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1957
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:02 am

Re: Total War: Three Kingdoms Discussion Thread

Unread postby Jia Nanfeng » Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:40 pm

The trailer very much has a Romance vibe. Not complaining, since I love the novel, but I think it's going to be yet another 3K product that brings newcomers into the era with false understandings about certain events and people.

A time for teaching, at least. Maybe this will cause a new surge in interest and we'll get more books translated for the West! :P
User avatar
Jia Nanfeng
Initiate
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:30 pm

Re: Total War: Three Kingdoms Discussion Thread

Unread postby Zyzyfer » Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:08 am

Gray Riders wrote:*Why isn't Wu in the trailer? Just kidding we all know they're saving the best kingdom for last.


:lol:

*Will it be okay to pursue Lu Bu?


DON'T PURSUE LU BU.

Jia Nanfeng wrote:The trailer very much has a Romance vibe. Not complaining, since I love the novel, but I think it's going to be yet another 3K product that brings newcomers into the era with false understandings about certain events and people.


I think in terms of battle stuff in a game like this, the novel offers far more exciting opportunities.

-----

I am lukewarm on the character designs, not that Koei's are better (the portraits are great, the models are always bleh), but since I've grown up seeing Koei's spin on the characters over the years, this would take some getting used to. Not too much, but some. And I would hope that at a minimum they at least include the hero base from whatever recent Dynasty Warriors.

Stoked that these new options have been popping up recently. Koei has been like the WWE of Three Kingdoms crap for a while, so some competition would be nice. Hopefully a big battle game without all the bisho stuff going on draws in a new and fresh crowd. Just think of the pages and pages of debates on the Symposium! :lol:
Gamefaqs: KongZhou
Steam: heinous_won
User avatar
Zyzyfer
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 3155
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 1:17 pm
Location: South Korea

Re: Total War: Three Kingdoms Discussion Thread

Unread postby Bush Leagues » Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:34 am

I'm quite excited for it.

I'm a veteran of Medieval I, II, and Rome I, so I know and like Total War, although I am behind the times on the games. But I can dig the games themselves and like real-time strategy fine, so the fact that it's a favorite period of mine just makes it an easy purchase. It'll be the first new game (as in, bought at or near release) for me in a long time.

I liked the models and the trailer fine, although no gameplay footage. But then it's Totar War, can't be too different than what I've seen from Warhammer.
Currently playing: Android: Netrunner LCG , Shadowrun (tabletop), and Warhammer Ancient Battle.

Pan Feng can destroy this Hua Xiong! A Han Fu ROTK IX After-Action Report.
One of the best posts ever about Pan Feng.
Bush Leagues
Scholar
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:12 am
Location: New Iberia. LA

Re: Total War: Three Kingdoms Discussion Thread

Unread postby Gray Riders » Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:19 am

I am wondering if generals are going to go around with bodyguard units like most Total War or run around alone like in Warhammer. I'd honestly prefer the former because Warhammer demonstrated that single entity units screw with the game balance when the different unit size options come into play.

Zyzyfer wrote:Stoked that these new options have been popping up recently. Koei has been like the WWE of Three Kingdoms crap for a while, so some competition would be nice. Hopefully a big battle game without all the bisho stuff going on draws in a new and fresh crowd. Just think of the pages and pages of debates on the Symposium! :lol:

I'd thought about this, even if I end up skipping the game itself some competition in the ROTK strategy game category would be good.

Bush Leagues wrote:I'm quite excited for it.

I'm a veteran of Medieval I, II, and Rome I, so I know and like Total War, although I am behind the times on the games. But I can dig the games themselves and like real-time strategy fine, so the fact that it's a favorite period of mine just makes it an easy purchase. It'll be the first new game (as in, bought at or near release) for me in a long time.

I liked the models and the trailer fine, although no gameplay footage. But then it's Totar War, can't be too different than what I've seen from Warhammer.

Campaign is really what I'm worried about. Total War's battles are pretty much always good but I find CA is most likely to fumble with the campaign gameplay. Warhammer in particular made some choices that seem really unpopular, one of which they doubled down on one in part 2.
Gray Riders
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1957
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:02 am

Re: Total War: Three Kingdoms Discussion Thread

Unread postby Sun Fin » Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:20 am

Gray Riders wrote:Some of the outrage over not getting Medieval 3 is hilarious.


Is that on the Total War boards?

Gray Riders wrote:*Will every faction have their own units or will it be Shogun 2 style?


I hope there are some special units, like Wuhuan cavalry where you have occupy certain territories to be able to build them, for example.

Gray Riders wrote:*How will they handle the timeline? If it starts in 190 there's basically no chance of seeing things like Chi Bi or iconic figures like Zhuge Liang. Will multiple starting periods return?


I would imagine multiple timelines however I guess the advantage to Dong Zhuo as a starting point is that most factions are in at that point.

Gray Riders wrote:They did, but it was dropped quickly. Medieval I had three; I believe they were 1086, 1205, and 1320 (should be accurate give or take a few years)--Medieval I used an "era" period where units were restricted by the period and not just what you had built--you simply couldn't build Chivalric Knights until the "High" period rolled around--and some units disappeared later, too, like the Varangian Guard. So they let you start in any of the periods with different starting characters--France in the High period has Philip II "Augustus" as King while England had King John (yes, the one from Robin Hood), for example.

I think the first Shogun had several as well but I didn't play it as much.


I’d forgotten that Medieval 2 didn’t have periods. I played so much of no. 1 I presumed they all did!

Gray Riders wrote:Campaign is really what I'm worried about. Total War's battles are pretty much always good but I find CA is most likely to fumble with the campaign gameplay. Warhammer in particular made some choices that seem really unpopular, one of which they doubled down on one in part 2.


Do you mind recapping what those unpopular choices were for those of us who haven’t played the Warhammer one?

Zyzyfer wrote:I am lukewarm on the character designs, not that Koei's are better (the portraits are great, the models are always bleh), but since I've grown up seeing Koei's spin on the characters over the years, this would take some getting used to. Not too much, but some. And I would hope that at a minimum they at least include the hero base from whatever recent Dynasty Warriors.


I agree, Dong Zhuo was instantly recognisable and looked a bit like his DW models and the three brothers were obvious as there were three of them but then I got a bit lost! I'm not opposed to some different images though, it'll be good to shake up our conceptions of these historical figures.

Zyzyfer wrote:Stoked that these new options have been popping up recently. Koei has been like the WWE of Three Kingdoms crap for a while, so some competition would be nice. Hopefully a big battle game without all the bisho stuff going on draws in a new and fresh crowd. Just think of the pages and pages of debates on the Symposium! :lol:


I agree! Hopefully it'll force Koei to step up. Although I suspect it won't. Instead they'll rely on the publicity for the period that Total War generates and not bother to make their own product better!
Interested in the history behind the novel? Find a list of english language Three Kingdom sources here.
User avatar
Sun Fin
Librarian of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 7034
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The birthplace of radio

Re: Total War: Three Kingdoms Discussion Thread

Unread postby Gray Riders » Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:52 pm

Sun Fin wrote:Is that on the Total War boards?

I'm too scared to check the official forums, but Reddit and especially Steam (although a number of steam's forums are awful in general) have a few very, very angry people who wanted either Medival 3 or Pike and Shot.
There's also some people angry because they wanted a historical game and this is clearly based off the novel.

I hope there are some special units, like Wuhuan cavalry where you have occupy certain territories to be able to build them, for example.

This would be a great chance to bring back "area of recruitment" units from the original Medieval (surely everyone who played it remembers Swiss Armoured Pikemen?). That would be better then, say, Cao Cao always has Wuhuan cavalry and no one else ever does no matter what.

I’d forgotten that Medieval 2 didn’t have periods. I played so much of no. 1 I presumed they all did!

A few great features from Medieval 1 were removed from later games. Dismounting units had a long absence, too.

Do you mind recapping what those unpopular choices were for those of us who haven’t played the Warhammer one?

The two big ones:
*Every time you recruit a new general (for most factions) the upkeep of every unit you owns increases. It had a few defenders in game 1, though early on a few were based off the assumption that the AI was affected and it avoided the issue from some of them where the AI would have a large number of tiny armies running around being annoying (the AI doesn't have it and will, in fact, occasionally create three or four tiny armies and sit them around--it mostly seems to happen to factions on an island from what I've seen), but later on was mostly said to stop snowballing (something I am not convinced is a good idea since it can cause campaign to drag on forever).
In game 2 the player has a general upkeep penalty on higher difficulties (didn't in game 1), and the extra "per general" penalty was increased singificantly--from 5% per army on the highest difficulty to 15% per army. This was really, REALLY bad for factions that rely on lots of weak units, as you can guess, and leads to realistic armies of a few elites and mostly regular troops being unworkable on Very Hard or Legendary.
*Power Creep has led to the earliest races being barebone in campaign features compared to the later ones, to the point that later races are getting features earlier races should have had--probably the most recurring specific complaint is the Dwarfs not having a crafting system despite (the best way to represent their "runes" from the tabletop game), while later races are getting one. Game 2 races also have significantly better "skill trees" for their generals, and the one advantage game 1 races had was removed.

Outside of campaign people are generally unhappy with sieges. If I recall correctly, the devs admitted they're designed to force the attacker to charge the walls immediately and be fast paced (which, to me, seems the opposite of how a siege battle should be) by giving the towers better range than siege weapons and murderous power. This and Total War's standard poor pathfinding during sieges has led to them being significantly less fun than field battles (by which I mean many people find they're not fun. At all). Game 2 left them mostly the same, except with added glitches.
Gray Riders
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1957
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:02 am

Re: Total War: Three Kingdoms Discussion Thread

Unread postby Sun Fin » Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:02 pm

Gray Riders wrote:I'm too scared to check the official forums, but Reddit and especially Steam (although a number of steam's forums are awful in general) have a few very, very angry people who wanted either Medival 3 or Pike and Shot.
There's also some people angry because they wanted a historical game and this is clearly based off the novel.


Hopefully they might be appeased by the announcement of Total Wars: Alfred the Great which is similar to the expansion of Medieval 1 - another feature I loved!

Gray Riders wrote:This would be a great chance to bring back "area of recruitment" units from the original Medieval (surely everyone who played it remembers Swiss Armoured Pikemen?). That would be better then, say, Cao Cao always has Wuhuan cavalry and no one else ever does no matter what.


Exactly as both Yuan Shao and Gongsun Zan had Wuhuan fight for them at different points!


Gray Riders wrote:The two big ones:
*Every time you recruit a new general (for most factions) the upkeep of every unit you owns increases. It had a few defenders in game 1, though early on a few were based off the assumption that the AI was affected and it avoided the issue from some of them where the AI would have a large number of tiny armies running around being annoying (the AI doesn't have it and will, in fact, occasionally create three or four tiny armies and sit them around--it mostly seems to happen to factions on an island from what I've seen), but later on was mostly said to stop snowballing (something I am not convinced is a good idea since it can cause campaign to drag on forever).


This does sound annoying. i hope they scrap it for the new ones although I can see on this game why someone thought about it. Realistically how many 3K factions fought battles on various fronts simultaneously?

Gray Riders wrote:Outside of campaign people are generally unhappy with sieges. If I recall correctly, the devs admitted they're designed to force the attacker to charge the walls immediately and be fast paced (which, to me, seems the opposite of how a siege battle should be) by giving the towers better range than siege weapons and murderous power. This and Total War's standard poor pathfinding during sieges has led to them being significantly less fun than field battles (by which I mean many people find they're not fun. At all). Game 2 left them mostly the same, except with added glitches.


I never liked sieges on the Medieval games either so i'm not optimistic about them on this one.
Interested in the history behind the novel? Find a list of english language Three Kingdom sources here.
User avatar
Sun Fin
Librarian of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 7034
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The birthplace of radio

Re: Total War: Three Kingdoms Discussion Thread

Unread postby Gray Riders » Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:26 pm

Sun Fin wrote:I never liked sieges on the Medieval games either so i'm not optimistic about them on this one.

Yeah sieges have usually been the series' weak point. Warhammer I just combined them being particularly bad with less field battles then previous games because the AI was incredibly cautious and avoided them like the plague if they looked remotely even. Part II did fix that--the AI attacks you in the field a lot more though a few factions still seem to love turtling up.
Gray Riders
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1957
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:02 am

PreviousNext

Return to Other Three Kingdoms and Koei Games

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved