Total War

[RedRalph]

I know theres a sub-forum but no ones ever on it.

I'm thinking of getting the game and wanted to ask a few questions. I got HoI2 recently and was dissappointed in it, I (wrongly) assumed that its wasnt practically 100% focused on war, I thought5 form the Wiki entry it was quite similar to civ re: Diplomacy and economy, but I found it to be a simple race to produce the most units. Before I by any total war title could people tell me, is the turn based part of the game central, would it even take up say 40% of the time playing, how important is diplomacy etc? Is it a race to produce units or is it more in depth like civ? what I really want is Civ 5 but at the earliest thats at least a year away, so out of all the games availible, would total war be closest?

 

[Patroklos]

As the name implies, you economic management is for the sole purpose of supporting as many, or the best, units possible to wage war with.

Try EU2/EU3, it seems to be what your looking for.

 

[RedRalph]

As the name implies, you economic management is for the sole purpose of supporting as many, or the best, units possible to wage war with.

Try EU2/EU3, it seems to be what your looking for.

thanks for the tip, but isnt that more or less Hearts of Iron set in the old(er) days? Is it as focussed on diplomacy and economy as civ is?

 

[brennan]

I've played Medieval and Medieval II - both great games IMO.

The total war games are essentially a pure battle game with a turn based strategy map tagged on, your actions on the strategy map determine what troops you have available and where and who you fight (And in a much more involved way than in some of the RTS games like Rise of Legends, which have pretty forgettable campaign maps) . But successive iterations of the franchise have lead to this part of the game actually being a lot of fun. Sneaking spies around can be amusing, and the cut scenes for the various agents are quite humourous.

The let downs are really that the AI is quite weak tactically during the battles, and some of the strategic agents (especially the merchants on Medieval II) are handled poorly.

 

[Lozzy_Ozzy]

Well I don't know about the other guys but half the time I just use the campaign on MTWII for the turn based empire running. If I want to fight I normally make a custom battle.

 

[Patroklos]

thanks for the tip, but isnt that more or less Hearts of Iron set in the old(er) days?

It uses the same engine as HOI but the premise is different. HOI is centered around one specific conflict, so it should not be suprising that most of its gameplay is centered around one specific conflict.

EU2 just puts you in a time frame, and you can do whatever you want from there. Now when you start a game using one of the historic scenarios you are still subject to whatever the real political and military circumstances were for that power were at that time, but from the instant you take command your decisions, as far as they are different from what the power actually did or the AIs reactions to the same events differ from game to game, alter the game world.

So for example, if you want to do something other than fight I suggest not playing Austria or Saxony, because the simple fact is their geopolitical position means they are going to end up fighting no matter what. OTOH, is is possible to play England without fighting anyone at all unless dragged into a war via alliances, assuming you didn't sever ties with countries you had alliances with at the beginning of the game, or that severing said alliances doesn't trigger wars itself.

 

[RedRalph]

It uses the same engine as HOI but the premise is different. HOI is centered around one specific conflict, so it should not be suprising that most of its gameplay is centered around one specific conflict.

EU2 just puts you in a time frame, and you can do whatever you want from there. Now when you start a game using one of the historic scenarios you are still subject to whatever the real political and military circumstances were for that power were at that time, but from the instant you take command your decisions, as far as they are different from what the power actually did or the AIs reactions to the same events differ from game to game, alter the game world.

do you start generally (non scenario) with an already built nation, like with the boundaries and cities the nation had in your start year, or is there opportunites to build the nation from scratch?

 

[Patroklos]

do you start generally (non scenario) with an already built nation, like with the boundaries and cities the nation had in your start year, or is there opportunites to build the nation from scratch?

For the most part, because of the scale of the world, all the pre developed starts are, well, predeveloped. It would be hard to fit in a new completely new nation into Europe circa 1750 because it would leave a hole in the framework of the continent, not to mention you would have to remove a current state to make room for yours.

What you can do in a historical scenario is pick a minor nation what has minimal political obigations like one of the smaller German states or something off the wall like Aden or the newly independant America, which is basically starting from scratch for all intents and purposes.

Also, there is a fantasia scenario where you start out as on of only 8 states in the whole world, and from scratch (one territory, no infrustructure) spread out and interact as you wish.

 

[Italian Celtic]

The let downs are really that the AI is quite weak tactically during the battles, and some of the strategic agents (especially the merchants on Medieval II) are handled poorly.

the problems you have mentioned don't depend on games features but by level of difficulty

get level "hard"

 

[RedRalph]

For the most part, because of the scale of the world, all the pre developed starts are, well, predeveloped. It would be hard to fit in a new completely new nation into Europe circa 1750 because it would leave a hole in the framework of the continent, not to mention you would have to remove a current state to make room for yours.

What you can do in a historical scenario is pick a minor nation what has minimal political obigations like one of the smaller German states or something off the wall like Aden or the newly independant America, which is basically starting from scratch for all intents and purposes.

Also, there is a fantasia scenario where you start out as on of only 8 states in the whole world, and from scratch (one territory, no infrustructure) spread out and interact as you wish.

OK thanks man, I appreciate it. one more thing: I found in HoI 2 I had to pause every couple of seconds or else couldnt keep track of anything, and was inundated with pop-ups which really bugged me. this the case in EU3?

also is there any new land to settle? Like if you play as, say, England, can you sail off to shores unknown and find some uninhabited land to settle or is it all conquest?

 

[Patroklos]

OK thanks man, I appreciate it. one more thing: I found in HoI 2 I had to pause every couple of seconds or else couldnt keep track of anything, and was inundated with pop-ups which really bugged me. this the case in EU3?

I have only played HOI and EU2, and both of those were message intensive. You can, however, change the message settings to only display the messages you want to see. Also, if your not a warmonger with armies leaving/arriving/attacking/defending/etc. and enemies leaving/arriving/attacking/defending constantly that message mess will be less.

also is there any new land to settle? Like if you play as, say, England, can you sail off to shores unknown and find some uninhabited land to settle or is it all conquest?

That all depends on the time frame you play. If you start at 1500 North America is a blank slate (besides the locals). If you start at 1750 North America is settled to the extent it was at that time.

 

[Fëanor]

thanks for the tip, but isnt that more or less Hearts of Iron set in the old(er) days? Is it as focussed on diplomacy and economy as civ is?

If you want more Resource management i suggest you play Crusader Kings or Victoria instead of EU or HoI

 

[Demetrias]

Don't play Crusader Kings. You can't beat the Mongols and the Muslims for some reason can conquer territory in the Middle of Europe without fight the territories between. Victoria is much better about resource management but EU2or3 gives you more time to develop a really impressive Empire. Also if you want to play as America play Victoria. If you want to play a more historically accurate version of EU2 download AGGEP. You can get it off the Paradox web site. It has more historic events especially for the minor powers.

 

[MobBoss]

I played Rome:Total War fairly extensively and enjoyed it a lot.

 

[Fëanor]

Don't play Crusader Kings. You can't beat the Mongols and the Muslims for some reason can conquer territory in the Middle of Europe without fight the territories between. V

LOL, don't play a game because it is Hard?
I assure you that they can be beaten, it can be extremely hard especially if you play a decaying empire like the Byzantines but there a tons of strong factions you can take and make into kingdoms or even empires.

 

[Masquerouge]

I will second Patroklos' suggestion of Europa Universalis. I only played 1 and 2, but I think 3 is in the same vein.
They're not focused solely on military power. You can also explore/colonize, you can develop your economy, you can spread and use religion, you can diplo to improve relations with other countries (and maybe peacefully annex them!).

Yes, the pop-ups can get overwhelming but you can change the settings, and yes, you'll often press space to think about what your army is doing, but it's a terrific game that I highly recommend, mostly because it gives that sense of being able to change history. What if you tried to conquer all Europe with the Papal States? Or for a challenge, play a Native American tribe and try to see if you can fend of Europe coming to grab your land? Or play the Byzantium empire and try to recreate the Roman empire? etc.

 

[RedRalph]

OK, I think I might give EU3 a go. thansk lads, appreciate it

 

[Demetrias]

LOL, don't play a game because it is Hard?
I assure you that they can be beaten, it can be extremely hard especially if you play a decaying empire like the Byzantines but there a tons of strong factions you can take and make into kingdoms or even empires.

I don't know what you where playing but a country that doesn't suffer attrition and will not except peace terms sounds unbeatable to me. I would defeat the mongols in battle and lose half my army to attrition while they would come back with the same number of troops. Also its reall annoying to conquer half the middle east and have the fatmid caliphate take over Hungary behind your back. You should not be able to just walk over hostile territory when your not at war with that person. Also I had no trouble making a strong united empire out of the Byzantines its actually easier because of their +10 royal territories. It's not because the game is hard but because parts of the game are wrong. The culture of the Iberian Penisula shouldn't be all Arabic. Yes the southern most parts would have been but the majority of the population would have still been Castilian(Iberian) even if they had converted. This would piss me off as spain because I would unify spain but it would still be a muslim arabic country and then my leaders would slowly turn into muslims arabs. I had one of my sons marry an arab girl and all his heirs were Arab. I wanted to create a Christian Spain but instead just created a Castilian Caliphate. And while I did that the Fatimids conquered Hungary again.

 

[Murky]

I think it's worth playing. It is not a builder's game. It's a war game, hence the name "Total war."

The best builder's games are the civilization series and the simcities series.

 

[Fëanor]

@Demetrias
Have you tried the Deus Vult expansion?