New total war game concept art released

Well didn't all germanics share the same units besides elite cav and spear men
>Creative Assembly teamed up with BBC and the writer of the last kingdom to make squad based total war as a test for their ww1 game

LUSTY JACK SAVING HISTORY 1 DLC AT A TIME LADS

You sure this is hat their Facebook said
>we're working on a large Campaign Pack DLC for one of our more recent historical releases and our plans for a new stand-alone historical title have come to fruition, and this team are now in full production on an exciting new release.

azads and cataphracts would have these ornate face covers and it is a nice way of differentiating units on the MP

The Last Kingdom is a pretty good book, at least it makes an honest effort in showing the ups and downs of Viking Age England society.

([spoiler]Picking up Book 3 today, finished the Pale Horseman. That final chapter was raw ;_;[/spoiler])

...that's literally just their Vercingetorix model from Arena. They're probably taking some of the higher poly assets from that and dumping them into Rome 2

Mang, I just want them to fix the issues with Rome 2 and make it into a new Medieval total war game.

its called attila TW.
rome 2 has higher poly models than arena.

The first Rome total war is unashamedly pretty much my favourite game ever made. I love the city, family and frontier management stuff but the fighting itself is really fun as it isn't just a game of statistics and sheer numbers. It takes finesse to win battles with minimal casualties. The game really rewards you for using real Roman battle strategy so I would say it's fairly realistic in that sense. e.g using the checker boxes formation and swapping units in and out greatly I proves troop morale and fighting ability. I barely ever used the pre Marian elite troops (triarii etc) unless I was in deep shit.

I've had some ridiculous battles where I have been outnumbered fourfold and still managed to win through sheer strategic prowess and of course Fortuna. Id love to hear your epic battle stories.

user, the only reason it took finesse was because you didn't know how exactly the game worked.
>RtW
>real roman strategies.
no. The way the barracks were divided meant that by the time you were able to get triarii, you were well on your way to get a huge city which automatically triggered the marian reform. Early rome had pitiful access to client states as well.

>what is maximum difficulty setting?

You're right I don't know much about the games actual deep mechanics.

It was a tongue in cheek joke about the Roman expression "it has come down to triarii" i.e the final rank was barely ever used unless you were utterly fucked and they were your last line. Trying to play through a campaign while only using actual Roman tactics was a real fun experiment.

I tried using that but the problem was that the battles would go by so extremely quick that it was basically useless. I found the parthians to be extremely fun personally.

Not the face cover but the coif face, why is that better than a normal helm
How good is it compared to the books because in the show he's a Mary Sue. Also you know the writer did it just to WEWUZ

Yeh Atilla is best base game, now to just mod the map

>Historical content
CA is such a meme studio

it helps the unit stand out more. It's supposed to be an agent type I think.

I know it stands out. But in the real world why would you pick a thin coif over a helmet

>through sheer strategic prowess
It's called tactics.

you would pick both.

>strategy

The word you're looking for is tactics.

All the strategy in a total war game happens on the campaign map. All movement on a battlefield or leading up to one is tactical. Strategy is long term goals with long term moves, tactics is the various micro-level attempts at gaining advantages on a battlefield.

sometimes strategy and tactics blur in a total war game. RTW mercenaries like cretan archers had a strategic component to them because they couldn' be retrained but were great specialist troops. making sure your more veteran troops are in great shape is a strategic consideration.

The books are significantly more detailed in establishing Uhtred as a character, he's an intolerable prick in the first book and first half of the second, but then again he was a very angry, broody teenager at the time and a redheaded whore (Leofric's crush, is she in the show?) in the second book puts him in place by making him realize how much of a sociopathic asshole he is. He's an excellent warrior, but he's not really treated as the focus of a fight - he doesn't kill Svein, he isn't the reason they won against Guthrum and his victory against Ubba at Cynuit is kind of hollow.

I'd tell you I'm enjoying the books, but I'd also say Uhtred is more a vessel for the author to showcase historical characters or Anglo-Saxon/Danish society than a deep character.

Ragnar, Steapa and Guthrum are much more fun, especially the latter. Alfred really is The Great and the author does a good job making him feel tiresome with the endless praises to God.

Nah you're just failing to distinguish the difference in each instance, there is very little "blur."

Recruiting a military unit is a strategic move because you are preparing a force for future conflict. That happened on the campaign map, as I specificed. Actually using that unit, and keeping them alive is a tactical move. It is redundant to say that tactics help strategy because the whole point of tactics is to help your strategy, they are still clearly-defined terms.

Let me simplify this for you: If your goal is to win a battle, the tools you use are tactics. If your goal is to conquer europe, then the tools you use are battles. See how that works? Tactics are for winning battles, strategy is for using those victories to achieve larger goals, among other things. Strategy is merely a concept for thinking long term and having a goal.

Let's take starcraft for example. Tactics is all the micro and battles you fight against the other guy. However, your strategy, and the reason they call it "real time strategy" is whatever plan you have to win. "I'm going marine+medivac and attacking his economy so I can beat him before his economy can build up" is a strategy. "I'm going to go left, then hide, then wait for him to pass, then attack his economy with a medivac drop of marines behind his mineral line" is the TACTICS you use to fulfill the STRATEGY of destroying your enemy's means of production.

Just Downloaded Europa Barbarorum the other day. Its a bit overwhelming

why tho

Attila is pretty amazing with some fertility mods to fix the retarded climate system. I don't see any reason to keep playing rome 1 when there is an ancient empires mod for Attila unless your pc is a calculator. At the very least play EB2 for medieval 2.

I can`t play total war since i started playing hoi4 and eu4. It feels way too simple. Feelsbadman.

I like to think strategy is everything that you do outside of battles, and tactics is what you do during battles.

Fair play, I know the difference. Mea Culpa.

Strategy is key too in terms of projected troop movements, supply lines and choosing where to winter your troops. Nothing worse than when you are moving a small group of soldiers towards a main army and they get ambushed en route by a random rebel army

Creative Assembly is based in the same town as me in Sussex, I've gone to local life drawing classes with some members of staff there. I think the artists are told to stick to strict, stylised briefs, as the people I chatted to were not from a historical background, and I doubt their department gains much information from the researchers other than to point out something that is grossly inaccurate.

rome 2 has shitty unit collision

that's an easy way to think about it but it is not all encompassing because while tactics are always in the pursuit of battlefield victory, strategy is far more broad and can include things that have nothing to do with battle, like marriage, politics, religion, appeals to the masses, etc. At the time, strategy can involve decisions on the tacticap level on a battlefield, for instance when alexander decided to save his left flank instead of chasing Darius, he made a tactical decision that was also a strategic decision because it was a tactical move that determined the strategy that would bring the war to an end. It was tactics to wheel around and save his left. It was strategy to sacrifuce the capture of darius in order to preserve his army for future conflicts. Tactics is the realm of generals captains, etc. Strategy is the realm of heads of state, but when your head of state is also in charge of tactics then they mesh in the sense that his decisions are fulfilling tactical and strategic goals simultaneously.

I'm talking attila, and they both have better unit collision than their predecessors. Units have weight and mass in the new games and don't blobe together. In Rome 1 units didn't actually have mass or weight, they clip through each other

epin

Not him but the guy is playing EB2 which has GOAT colonisation mechanics

>I know the difference

No you don't

Which is the best Total War? Newfag here.

attila with mods

helpful reminder hostile spies in RTW and MTWII lower public order

Question then. Playing MTWII as Russia and have Byzantine and Poland as allies. I've beat back Hungary and took some of their land as tribute for not destroying them, and I'm helping the Byzantine destroy the Turks (the Venetians have Constantinople, so I'm hoping they attack me soon so I can take it). The question is why haven't my allies attacked me yet? It's been about 40 turns give or take (I'm playing it slow and easy, just having fun) and nothing. If I was Spain or France, my allies would of already attacked me. It's vanilla MTWII, so no AI mods.

Medieval 2 because :
>Optimization
>Various units and weapons, which follows that there are many tactics possible
>Epic Sieges
>Americas
>Mods (be advised : DL sources tend to die and have become rare)
>No over-the-top hollywood-filter lighting effects
>No arbitrary technology tree: you get what you build for
>Beautiful cities and castles
>Mountains
>Historical events (no spoiler)
>PILLAGE!!!
>Pre-battle speeches and roasts

My only problem with medieval 2 is the preponderance of campaign map agents who the AI always feels the need to endlessly shuffle around. Even with AI moves sped up it still takes forever, and if you turn off view AI moves it's only a matter of time until you get fucked for not noticing something.

you can run it in windowed mode and funpost here during the turn phases

I miss the engine and control improvements of the new games when I play the old, which is a shame because the campaign map is actually a lot better in medieval 2, you can do all sorts of fun stuff like population management, custom garrisons, forts, all sorts of agents, more realistic replenishment and troop recruitment (especially in stainless steel, which to this day is still the best game for crusader LARPing. )

However, sieges in m2 are pretty shit because pathfinding is terrible, invisible walls are everywhere, and the units just go absolutely insane and completely break, where some guys get stuck and others keep going so you get a single unit that is literally all over the map. Controls are really unresponsive and I miss the starcraft-style order chain where you can give a series of orders instead of having to micro everything, also group attack is really useful so you don't have to individually tell every unit in your line to attack the unit in front of it. Unit collision and mass are better programed, cavalry feels more responsive and the charges have more weight and actually feel like a cavalry charge instead of what m2 has where the cav slowly trots into the enemy and engages in single melee. If you charge lances into a unit that isn't braced in attila, the horses literally steamroll over the men and they go flying everywhere, the charge actually feels like a fucking charge finally. Furthermore the alt-key movements are extremely useful, you can set up your army formation and just drag it somewhere else and they keep the formation as they move.

med2 was famous fo it's ott charges

cavalry was overpowered but it wasn't realistic. They just had a shit ton of hit points so they could melee their way through most things. Attila fixes this by making them extremely weak in melee and extremely powerful on the charge. You can kill 200 people in like 10 seconds in attila, but then after about 10 seconds you stop getting kills and start losing men, and then it's over in a minute. In m2 you charge in, get maybe 10 kills on the charge, then fight in melee for 3 minutes and eventually win. It's totally different and it means that cavalry in attila must be used how it realistically should be, no more slaughtering fullstacks with 2 generals bodyguard units.

nearly every unit in med2 had 1 hp. the only multiple hp units were sherwood archers, late era generals and elefuns.

Attila's problem is that you lose cavalry the second your charge bonus wears out. Attila handles the charges better visually, yes.

>Post tfw still no Victoria total war from 1815-1914 with a global map, colonialism, better alliance systems, and different tech tree paths to represent ideologies. Starting directly in reconstruction of Europe after the Napoleonic wars and finishing on the eve of The First World War with soldiers still fighting in line with coloured uniforms (France especially) but new more destructive small arms and machine guns, wood transforming to steel ships and technology rapidly changing creating a International Political Economy and IR system of Balance of powers where you have to call a meeting of diplomats to prevent the whole world plunging into chaos.
J U S T
U
S
T

If you like Europe then Medieval 2 is the most fun TW game I've played. If you don't particularly care what region it's in, then the best is probably Shogun 2.

I never really got the chance to get to like Attila because my computer can't run it even on lowest settings, and my computer has a fairly new graphics card and an i5 processor. It's just VERY poorly optimized and runs like hot garbage.

>that pic
How, exactly, does one identify a soldier from his naked posterior?

...Did venetian soldiers have a mandatory tatoo?

If you're into history like deep deep autism mode, then "Europa Barbarorum" is for you. I only played the first one but I played it for like 8 years. It has 20+ civs to choose and all of them are unique. I never managed to taste them all since I was having a lot of fun with the OP Romans.

The winged helmet guy is very confusing, the armour is a mixture of classical roman era and late even post roman armour, which really makes no sense historically.

>The game really rewards you for using real Roman battle strategy so I would say it's fairly realistic in that sense. e.g using the checker boxes formation and swapping units in and out greatly I proves troop morale and fighting ability. I barely ever used the pre Marian elite troops (triarii etc) unless I was in deep shit.
The game is a fucking retarded clunky piece of shit with battles between about 400 people, take off your god dam tinted glasses.

I loved it too but nostalgia goes too far

this old meme

>400
no

For that matter
>venetians are all bankers
Trading and banking are different kinds of business and Venice was more into the first than the second. Banking was more a genoese and florentine kind of activity.

You know in that video the cavalry is shown literally blowing away the first line, and before contact too. It's not really a great example of realistic collisions.

It looks racist.

>Still playing Total war
Why haven't you graduated to Paradox games yet?

fuck off johan. At least CA makes fun games with good mod support that have gameplay
>le ebin diceroll combat where tactics are a 0.1% damage modifier

Yeah, the controls aren't great. What's worse: they can't be customized.

>group attack is really useful so you don't have to individually tell every unit in your line to attack the unit in front of it.
Medieval 2 has that. The units have to be grouped (Ctrl+G) prior to attacking.

>Furthermore the alt-key movements are extremely useful, you can set up your army formation and just drag it somewhere else and they keep the formation as they move.
Medieval 2 has that. Grouped units will move in formation.

>Unit collision and mass are better programed
I agree, cavalry charges feels more realistic. But the Warscape engine is terrible for melee combat regardless. I wish they kept the old engine.

What's the point in comparing them? People play Total War for the tactical aspect, which is absent in Paradox games which are exclusively strategy games.

>mana management is strategy.

It's not fluid or realistic though, the first line just falls over, M2 and R1 have much simpler collision mechanics than the current games, such an annoying meme. None of them are fully realistic, but apparently they are working on proper ragdoll physical collisions for the next games.

Because i dont want to spend $1000 to have a complete game while people wank themselves to death around me looking at paradox logo just after they've complained about CA's DLC policy.

fuck off with your engine meming. everyone was fine with the engine until rome 2 which had too many elaborate animations.

>but apparently they are working on proper ragdoll physical collisions for the next games.
oh great, just what people need. The game needs bigger battles where you have limited space to maneuver.

>everyone was fine with the engine until rome 2 which had too many elaborate animations.
No, the constant 1v1 in melee was ridiculous even for Empire.
And the idea that the Samurais fought battles in 1v1 is the actual meme, here.

Then they cut down the synchronised animations to please the whiners, then people whined about the loss of animations in WH

>being proud of ottomans
The only good game is MEIOU modded with pops

It certainly is.
Ahistorical, totally unrealistic resource management is still strategy, no matter how shit it is.
Mana is just a bad approximation of political capital, how is political capital management not strategy?
Also why the fuck is captcha so fixated on belts recently?

>That blood

>where you have limited space to maneuver.
explain. Most battles on mods at least already go to the edge of the map, historically imaginary lines didnt exist, but i do find that when there is an edge it encourages tactics other than making as long a line as possible and trying to get cavalry around it ,especially with the useless AI.

...

Logistics and administrating actually plays a role in Paradox games. Its not realistic to just shit out 1000 units and make a custom army. like TW . soldiers most of the time period that they cover were raised as levies often from local lords. Also alliances and trade means fuck all in TW

Mods Maketh the Collision

Same game, previous was a mod, this is the vanilla. All the values are changeable, you can make people fly 100 feet or stop a horse dead on impact

Total War is a tactics game with a layer of strategy to justify the battles.

Thats why we have mods with intricate supply systems.

further collision webm

>trade in paradox
you mean where all roads read to venice?
>logistics
ayylmao. there is barely any concept of supply chains in EU4.
basically what you said. I had a battle with 4 late era Stainless steel armies on the campaign map. 2 were turk and I was leading 2 english stacks. Due to the limited space to maneuver the AI was able to be far more competent because I couldn't hammer and anvil it and win like your regular battle. I had to specifically target and rout enemy infantry formations by destroying them with artillery and then sending in infantry to widen the breach. I realised then that what total war needs is larger battles.

Later total war games have fuckhuge campaign maps with tiny armies. I mod armies to have 50 units now and have some actual big battles where I have enough forces to retreat and act as reserves.

gonna go back home for holi, shits gonna be cahs yo.

Also the DEI supply system is better than whatever paradox has come up with.

The issue is with the weird gigantic empty field maps that dont exist in real life outside of like steppes, and that forests even though they provide debuffs, you can still pretty much move an army through them, you just didnt do that historically barring light troops.
You have no real choice of battlefield, just the tile the two armies meet on.

It should give you, if you're the defender, a choice of area with like one flank protected by a cliff or river etc, i mean you should get to choose a good battlefield in the area, not just the tile you've landed on.

see, I have no problem with the tile, but something that is lacking in older total war is the field fortifications. Empire total war had that cool thing where if you were holding in a position for more than a turn you could deploy trenches and caltrops.

PARTY HARD
A
R
T
Y

H
A
R
D

you got the total weed general image?

It's not supposed to be accurate, it's a roast.

If you're fighting germans for instance they call them something along the lines of "Sausage eating, beer swilling savages."

>Medieval 2 has that. The units have to be grouped (Ctrl+G) prior to attacking.

um, no it doesnt? That was specifically added in Rome 2 I know for a fact it is not in the previous games. You can create control groups, but they don't individually select targets on the attack. Post-R2 you can see their "attack lines" individually target whatever is in front of them, you have to manually attack order in m2 for each unit in your front line or they will literally run/walk into the enemy without attacking.

>Medieval 2 has that. Grouped units will move in formation

once again you miss the point, the alt-key movement was added in Rome 2, it does not exist in other games. You cannot Alt click and "drag" a formation somewhere else, you have to literally redraw the formation. Post-R2 you select your whole army, alt-drag, and place it down somewhere else and they move. You can even alter the direction of the formation, swinging it in 360 degrees before you "place" it. In m2 you select your group and "redrag" it where you want it, post-R2 you just alt click your army and drag it, much faster and easier.

A quick and dirty way to do it in med 2 is just walking your army into theirs.
As todd would say, IT JUST WERKS

>forthcoming campaign pack

it's dlc for their shitty f2p game

>literally says it's for a previously released total war title.
nice

Warhammer
Not even memeing

eh, not really. The campaign map is way too shallow. It never feels like you are defending the empire of man or reclaiming your ancient holds. There's no population or food to take care of. You can raze cities like talabheim to the ground and rebuild it.

Large in their mind is a map pack at best.

Theese guys tried to sell a camping game along with a plastic catapult remember.