What's Veeky Forums's favorite Total War game?

RIX?

Attached: Nedes Nesamoi.png (191x280, 87K)

BOZ BOZ BOZ

Attached: 130000.png (1672x979, 1.72M)

Medieval 1 is the only good one.

It was FOTS for a long time but Rome 2 with the Divide et Impera mod is GOAT. Not as autistically as EB II but still challenging.
No fucking clue when Ancient Empires is gonna be released. It seems like the devs only have one codemoneky and tenthousand idea guys.

Warhmmer I/II > everything

>this thread again
I'd be remiss if I said I didn't enjoy the last one.
My favorite right now is Medieval 2. The graphics, combat, and "physics" (how units clash and move) is the best of all of them. Med 2 is the most realistic in this sense.
Rome total war (the first one) might have the most realistic battle dynamics the way the units fight is the most reminiscent of what real melee combat would be like. It also places the most emphasis on command and tactical superiority. A weak army can overtake a much stronger and numerically superior army if the weak army is commanded well.
one lion leading ten sheep is better than 100 lions led by one sheep.
Rome one takes the essence of that quote and has infused it with the combat system.

Rome II :Total War :Celtic Sword Spam edition is my most played, but its also among my least favorite.
I just dislike Warhammer even more.

Rome II: Total War: Attila: Shock Cavalry Spam edition, is much of the same as well.The battles are dominated by whoever brings more "meta units".
For Rome it's Sword Followers, Oathsworn, and Tribal warriors, honorable mention to Galatian legionaries and Fierce Swords (Suebi used to be good as well).
What about Cavalry, Elephants, and Chariots? Those should be good for countering infantry, or what about pike walls?
Well my good man, no self respecting Celt leaves his house without at least two count 'em TWO 31 damage Javelins.
*impales your cataphracts*

Now what about Attila? Surely they fixed it!
nope.
Cavalry, more specifically Shock Cavalry has become the new meta.
With their 200+ attack and damage, those 20 attack 40 damage infantry units can't compare.
Also, did I mention those spearmen, infantry, pikes, don't do AP damage but shock cavalry do?
But surely Melee cavalry is balanced and can take on shock cavalry.
No. Shock cavalry beats all, melee cavalry beats everything but shock cavalry.
What about pikes?
Yep, Tagmata, cheap melee cavalry can take armored elite pikes, HEAD ON/

Poor fucking Sweboz, their new voice acting is so fucking horrid that it drives me away from them
I mean god damn couldn't they at least get the guy a proper mic?

yeah the germanic voices ruined eb2 for me

Attached: 340000.png (1672x979, 1.91M)

Dude CA just need to bring out the same reskinned product on the same retarded engine with the same Rome 2 animations and the same damn broken mechanics year after year and people will swallow it up, all they need to do is add some annoying gimmicks to the campaign map and people think it's new.
Why should they bother actually putting effort into anything when it'll sell like hotcakes no matter what?

Attached: Rome_Army2.jpg (418x600, 43K)

Ja, harja to go?

Did they really hold their spears like that?

FLY LIKE THE WIND

Rome 1 and Rome 2 provided that they have been modded in some way.

Honorable mentions to Warhammer 1 and 2 plus assorted Medieval 2 mods I played over the years.

COME, COME

BE LIKE A SPEAR; HAVE A POINT, HAH!

Stop posting this thread every fucking week. Video games our for brainlets.

Attached: 1520085429789.jpg (640x640, 261K)

READY FOR BATTLE

Both overarm and underarm grips were definitely used historically.

If you're basing your statement on an old lindybeige video you need to take one thing into account:
Lloyd's quite a fucking wimp, of course he can't get it to work.
When HEMA practitioners or other historical combat related people who actually have the necessary musculature try overarm, it turns out to be pretty effective.

Here's Matt Easton's take on it in single combat:
youtube.com/watch?v=KdhJhhSUxOs

From a shield wall or phalanx perspective, it's much easier to deliver controlled thrusts from an overarm grip. If you're so tightly packed, going under the shield isn't all to practical and doing the underarm grip but poking over the shield is inefficient, so the EB2 team's decision to use overarm anims for many spear units makes plenty of sense. It's also a much better way to use a spear up close.

Shogun II by far. Has a great soundtrack too.

Probably call of duty modern warfare 2

Shogun 2 always keeps me busy.

But recently I've been playing a lot of Atila i like it, despite the graphics making me slightly motion sick.
I am considering buying the Charlemagne DLC cause I like the era, also to get access to the Three religions mod. Should I wait for a sale or buy it straight away Veeky Forums is it any good?

Attached: Denmark05.jpg (229x220, 10K)

>tfw get to remove norse en masse as a gaelic king soon

can't fucking wait desu

Attached: tut.jpg (373x330, 139K)

Modded Napoleon Total War

I turn it into the ultimate early 19th century order of battle LARPing game with massive battles with over 100 units in the field

Even with 100 units on the field, it would be far from being as big as a real battle of that era.

Rome II standard=shit
Rome II Divide et Impera mod=actually good

>Empire of Man
>Not Humanities

Fits right it desu

I got charlemagne just to play as croatia, but my god, it's such an unfinished dlc. Buy it from G2A or something, and mod it.

>BE LIKE A SPEAR AND HAVE A POINT... HA HAAA!

On sale, but the Three Religions mod is dope. There is another that makes the game like Medieval 3. It's custom battles only but it itches the scratch

Rome II. Had it since launch and by God has it come far. The mod scene keeps it fresh

Attached: General and his guard.jpg (3840x2160, 2.64M)

Which mod? I just started again with ntw3 and I've been very pleased. Also, rome 2 dei is legit.

rome 2 was so atrocious on launch that I didn't play any total war games for years out of autistic disgust. the game is good now but still crashes now and then and can't really load some saves without it crashing the next turn.

Eh, depends on where/when. I played with 40-unit armies and the largest unit sizes in the Italian campaign DLC, and some of the battles got to around 14,000 troops, which was close to some of the smaller battles in that campaign.

Haven't had an issue in years even with modding. Perhaps your rig is having trouble running it?

Attached: Holding the beaches against Celts.jpg (3840x2160, 3.28M)

OUR HORSES LUB BLUD :D

Attached: FotE Equites Comitati.jpg (1920x1080, 426K)

HAIL TO THE MOTHER :DDDDDDDDD

>our

Attached: 1_zps8ad077bc.png (699x1024, 305K)

>our for brainlets
clever

Attached: 1513371052242.jpg (219x240, 8K)

Pro-tip: You can't actually manage efficiently more than 40 units on the field so i'm ok with that. Also you don't get to enjoy the battle as much because you are completely focused on managing your countless units so shit doesn't happen

I once thought that i'd love to command hundreds and hundreds of units in the battlefield but that's simply impossible. Guess in some way that's comparable to actual real life battles where one commander can't do everything by himself.

I use Masters of Europe because I have a uniform fetish. I'd use NTW3 but I can't seem to get it to work properly, shame. Plus one minor tweak which enables Eagle standards for France

Attached: Napoleon 2018-02-01 03-55-08-70.png (1364x768, 1.78M)

And that's exactly why the TW series sucks. Somebody needs to make a good strategy game where you don't actually need to command every single unit yourself. Instead you would be giving orders to the officers under you, who themselves would be giving orders to people under them, in a massive AI chain of command. The game would also need to have lesser graphics so that it can have over 100 000 men on the battlefield and still run well.

There would be several problems with that, the first one is the limitations of the AI itself, how would you make it so the AI can actually get your order (i.e what you want to do) as you go down the chain of command? Micromanaging every order from the top to the bottom would also be a pain the ass in a real time battle, considering you would be playing as a Commander in Chief. Then, the graphical battle is very important for a huge amount of players who enjoy to observe the action they created.

IIRC, Histwar kind of attempts to give a good graphical battle while retaining a OOB system.
Otherwise, an improvised NTW is the best you get

>Micromanaging every order from the top to the bottom would also be a pain the ass in a real time battle, considering you would be playing as a Commander in Chief.
The point is you wouldn't have to micromanage, you could just give orders to the officers right below you. So for example, you tell your generals of divisions to take over a particular area. Then they themselves try to follow your order by ordering their brigadier generals around. Then the brigadier generals command the colonels, and etc.

I understood the point, the issue I presented was how would the AI behave regarding orders down the chain of command without one assigning them. You could argue that it could emulate the problem of an actual CiC where not every of your orders is carried successfully, but considering that games should be enjoyable, that would be very frustrating for a big part of players. I guess such game would cater to a niche.

>You could argue that it could emulate the problem of an actual CiC where not every of your orders is carried successfully
Exactly. It would solve the problem of the player becoming good enough that he can win every battle effortlessly like in TW. It would be especially interesting if there were also a ton of different AI personalities coded in so that the choices of who you appoint really matter and can lead to a ton of different results in battle.

I don't believe there is an AI that developed yet though not is there even an effort to develop one.

Most game AI these days is really fucking dated and still follow basic trigger responses.

It's not THAT big of a problem.

Always makes me kek that a 'total war game' was made around a period that has been called a bloodless revolution by modern historians.
Anyone who treats these games as anything more then an abstract war game with some period features needs to get off this taiwanese kaiserposting imageboard

Attached: Capture.png (316x519, 20K)

>no Shogun 2
shit list

Falcon 4 more specifically Falcon BMS, not total war but its persistant dynamic campaign is literally unmatched and will never be.

go play a dice roll game, and role play.

It looks like a flying sim. Uninteresting.
No, I hate dice.

I doubt Greek phalanxes were all that compact. Most people assume they're packed because they think the Greeks fought in a shieldwall of overlapping shields. However because hoplites ran into combat it's doubtful they could've maintained a shield wall on the move and our sources confirm that they lost their order on the move. There's also times when hoplites assume a tighter formation. On top of all that you don't need your buddy's shield for protection, the aspis provides pretty good protection by itself. There's also the statement of Thucydides about men looking for protection by density of formation but he doesn't actually tell us how dense a formation needs to be. At Leuctra the Spartans managed to get their wounded king away from the front lines so their formation probably wasn't tightly packed.

Polybios in the 2nd century BC writes that men would need 6 feet of space to properly wield thrusting and slashing weapons.

There's some books going into detail via experiments done by reenactors and some other tests that try to piece it together and that includes the whole overarm vs underhand debate. I know of Storm of Spears by Christopher Matthews and Hoplites at War by Paul M. Bardunias.

Fall of the samurai
Attila was also pretty good, as was Shogun 2
The old games are hilariously overrated by nostalgiafags

Attached: 1391213001917.png (403x634, 462K)

Total war games have a lot of hard-coded limits that effect modding negatively. Like not being able to dismount cavalry in Medieval 2, or how many weapons a unit can carry. Details like ordering a Hoplite faction to loose or tighter hoplite formations is a feature that has never been in a total war game.

It sucks because, for example, Alexander's Phalangites were also trained to be skirmishes and assault infantry in case they needed to be. So some tactical flexibility is sacrificed in total war games for no reason.

The Hellenistic-era spear-men for instance would historically have been able to tighten up into a proper phalanx if needed, but since it's impossible for a phalanx unit to also have javelins in Total-war games so far, that isn't represented.

Attached: Thureophoroi.jpg (640x480, 189K)

1/10 made me respong

He's not wrong though. Mechanically, they are the best games yet. I'm hoping they implement their mechanics to whatever historical title they come out with after 3 Kingdoms.

Age of Mythology

EMPIRE does it for me since I'm a Polishboo and Prussianboo.

Attached: 1516600396747.jpg (1280x1920, 506K)

I will remove the Norse menace with extreme prejudice when Thrones of Britannia comes out

Attached: 1521751015808.jpg (477x619, 129K)

Prostagma

Currently playing a moded venison of Shogun 2 with all of East Asia starting directly after the murder of Oda Nobunaga, here is a screenshot from my Aisin Gioro campaign about to best the Ming Emperor in battle.

Attached: 20180311235433_1.jpg (2560x1440, 595K)

medieval 2, but warhammer sure did introduce some new ways to break up the heavy infantry dead lock that I enjoy.

Mod name?

Can't get over that everyone in the game has the most dopey expression.

So like a cross between total war and hearts of iron?

This

Try the scourge of war series. They have a game on waterloo

The only great thing about the older games was the modding capability.

even so there were some hardcoded limitations in Rome 1 for instance. It was impossible to add more than 20 factions, which meant that any campaign map was going to feel "empty".