Over the last 10 years, The Creative Assembly has released eight major games and a plethora of smaller downloadable contents, including Total War: Warhammer 2, Total War Three Kingdoms, and Total War Rome 2. These games are conventionally divided into two large categories: historical and fantasy, with the popular Warhammer franchise occupying the latter role. In this article, I question whether that is a useful categorization, and whether it's more useful to divide the franchise into a tripartite division: historical, fantasy, and mythic.
Total War Troy, which takes inspiration from The Iliad and retells the story of the Trojan War, releases today after months of anticipation. Is the game a good game, however? Does it offer a compelling strategy experience and immersive gameplay in the world of its inspirations? Or does Total War Troy come close but ultimately fail to deliver? Disclosure: A copy of the game was provided to me by the developer.
Total War Troy has called its design philosophy the "truth behind the myth." But what is that "truth?" And do you even need to find the "truth" behind a myth? Or would the game be much better if it embraced the myth, instead? These are my impressions on Total War: Troy from its trailers and blog posts.
The foundation of this sense of danger must be an existential threat, a looming disaster, confronting the player. This can be achieved by implementing 3 changes to the grand campaign as found in Attila, the most current Total War: making the AI more aggressive, giving more meaning to alliances, and eliminating the sacking/razing mechanic.
I recently started playing Shogun 2 again on my channel as a part of my "Legacies of Total War" series. I was absolutely amazed by it. Going back to it from Attila, I immediately noticed how much more fun I was having. Don't get me wrong: I don't hate Attila, nor do I think it's necessarily a bad game. It's just that Shogun 2 is so much better. I would go so far as to say that it is, in fact, the best Total War game ever designed. That doesn't necessarily mean it's everyone's favorite Total War game, but it is fantastically well made.
I remember the transition from single player to multiplayer. The overwhelming emotion was confusion: so many units, so many faction, so many statistics, and so many tactics. How does one even begin? My first post in this series will focus on the most important thing of all: how to think about multiplayer.
Rome II's multiplayer is not broken. It's enjoyable and fast paced fun; but it is deeply flawed, enjoyable and fast paced fun. The main problem, as I can see it, is the prevalence of elite units and the difficulty, almost uselessness, of cavalry tactics. Here's a List of changes that I believe will go a … Continue reading How to Fix Rome II’s Multiplayer
As a note, much has been made of Total War: Rome II's bugs and glitches. While these will factor into the overall grade, I won't spend too much time talking about them, as I feel that, with the passing of time, they will be less and less relevant to the readership. This review will focus more … Continue reading The Course of Total War Never Did Run Smooth — A Total War: Rome II Review by AdmiralPrice
I love horses. I love archers. I love horse archers. And cataphracts. I love the mobility and speed. That's the primary reason I started a Parthia LP. Check it out!
From the get go, many of us cavalry lovers have noticed the very niche role of cavalry play. The game mechanics are such that cavalry units lose an inane number of men when disengaging from the fight. Also, many of us have noticed some cavalry imbalance. This post will not be a rage against both … Continue reading Balancing Cavalry in Total War: Rome II