Anyone expecting this one? Should be released in March, for PC . I've only discover the series myself in the last year or so, and I find the game-play very addictive, it must be the inner conquer/ruling instinct man has.

Expecting it to be good as Medieval II I'm playing at the moment, where the only thing I hate (so far) is the Pope, as he doesn't let me teach the damn French some manners, I made you Pope show some respect and be a puppet! Well, the AI is a bit passive in battles, but it just might be me being impatient.

More than a Pope free environment, and maybe a better AI. I'm really really interested to see how firearms and unit formations work (or worked) on the battlefield, I've always thought it as the silliest way to have a fight, standing there waiting to be shot at. I just can't wait to see how it's like. Also, as a totally new feature it has naval battles, as those were a important aspect on 18th to 19th century warfare, should also be interesting and spectacular, and very heavy on your machine I guess.

Any thoughts?

And here is a link to wikipedia if you don't have any idea what is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_War_(series)

Cant wait. I loved Rome:Total war and this looks like it should be awesome. Trouble is i find these games far too addictive and end up not racing for weeks at a time.

Just noticed that the release date is confirmed to be 4th of March, Steam release is on 3rd.

^Yeah, it's addictive, haven't touched LFS since we finished the after-24H race party madness Sunday morning.

So, almost a hundred views and only one person has any idea about the game?

Is this why PC gaming is going down the drain then, people don't know a potentially awesome game if it sat on them? Or are strategy games just dead as a genre? I guess this won't be a huge hit then, damned kids with their Nintendos.

Quote from Blackout :

I guess this won't be a huge hit then,

I think it will do just fine, just as the rest of the series have. But you right... the console generation just don't seem to have the sort of attention span for games that require you to spend some time actually planning and thinking.

That means I'm playing old people's games then.

Quote from Blackout :

That means I'm playing old people's games then.

Yes, and you should consider growing a beard as well

That is because the console generation think that using a keyboard and mouse to play games is wrong.


I just find them tedious, my Uber Micro Skillz are not good enough to pwn n00bs at RTS.

Quote from The Moose :

Yes, and you should consider growing a beard as well

I only grow beard on my throat and not my face. Some day maybe.

Quote from Bean0 :

I just find them tedious, my Uber Micro Skillz are not good enough to pwn n00bs at RTS.

I suck at normal RTS games usually, I like them, but in all games you need quickly press buttons to produce more and more troops I suck. Total War games suit me because it has both real time battles and turn based strategy. It's like simplified Civilizations with real time battles.

edit. This is really turning in to a CR fest now...well, that was inevitable and matter of time. :P

CR-C-C-C-Combobreaker! I tried Rome: TW, but I didn't find it fun. I've always liked the concept though, will probably have a go at some point.

I personally loved the series and played everyone since Shogun Total War ,with the exception of Medieval Total War 1. Can't wait for it since I love the idea of having sea battles and having more effective guns.

Although I remember another 16 century Total War-like game. Played the demo but unfortunately forgot it's name so I never had the chance to buy it

I havent played this before but i think i might buy it since most of you like it

I never liked the concept of the TW series because it's a hybrid of TBS and RTS.
I found Knights of Honor far superior in terms of gameplay-flow. Also it has a much larger focus on diplomacy and a global expansion-strategy beyond warfare.
Though of course by now it's an old game. I've seen screenshots of a yet unnamed sequel though.

So actually, I'm looking down on the TW players because of their lack of attention span and focus on blunt warfare.

Vain

P.S.: Wikipedia link

I liked Rome:TW but after a while I got disappointed with the battle screen AI. It was too easy to win even when outnumbered 3:1 if you had a decent general on the field.

When the remake of Medieval came out I saw all the stuff about the improved graphics but no mention of improved AI so I didn't bother with it. I can imagine the latest one will be more of the same, but prettier.

Yeah, the weirdest thing is that the battle advisor mentions about the enemy trying to flank you and to how to deal with that, but they never even try!

Need to have a go on hard difficulty I guess.

Weird, I remember the AI trying to flank me, but I believe that the game was set on hard. In normal and easy mod, it's quite easy to win even when there's a ration of 3:1 as said above.

But the AI would really need a bit more I in the AI An example of this from Rome Total War: Expedition to Egypt, I take over Alexandria, the pharaoh doesn't like it so he bring a huge army in front of Alexandria's gates. I'm left only with 6 generals and their bodyguards and 2 cohorts. Cohorts stay in Alexandria, generals go outside and attack the pharaoh and his phalanx bodyguards who are positioned quite reasonable ,for me, in front of a huge army formed by phalanx units and carriages. Pharaoh dies so the entire army, which could have still won without even breaking a sweat, runs away and a big part of it gets killed while running.

On the other hand that makes perfect sense as the Pharaoh was considered as god, and if someone comes and puts a sword in your god, you'd be scared.

I was actually going to post that as an edit, but I have high doubts regarding the fact that the AI is that intelligent

Quote from BAMBO :

Weird, I remember the AI trying to flank me, but I believe that the game was set on hard. In normal and easy mod, it's quite easy to win even when there's a ration of 3:1 as said above.

The AI doesn't change on the hard/very hard settings, it just gets morale bonuses IIRC. And they also get economic bonuses on the map screen so they can raise bigger armies more quickly.

I remember taking a full-stack army to siege Rome (defended by a full-stack army) and two other enemy AI full-stack armies turned up to kick me out. There wasn't any terrain worth defending in my set-up area but I still managed to fight them all off. They did arrive in waves, but while I had time to re-organise my line between waves all my men were exhausted after the first fight but still somehow managed to beat the crap out a load of fresh men.

The AI will also do stupid stuff like letting you have a height advantage when they're supposed to be defending, charging you up steep hills, charging chariots into phalanxes, etc.

Sorry about the misunderstanding Kev (I can call you that way, right?)

What you quoted was a reference to Medieval Total War 2 but I can be wrong there as well, I played it about a year ago.

Although I used to spent hours in campaign mod, multiplayer was the option if you really wanted a "total war". It was pretty much like a chess match, the only difference being a lot more pawns.

Quote from BAMBO :

Although I used to spent hours in campaign mod, multiplayer was the option if you really wanted a "total war". It was pretty much like a chess match, the only difference being a lot more pawns.

I tried the multiplayer in Rome:TW a few times but it was pretty poor - on every server the host had silly rules about what units you could use, basically to restrict you from having any units that might be useful against the units he was going to use.

I really wanted the campaign game to be good but as I said the battle AI was very predictable and too easy to beat, and the map screen strategy was limited by bloody "squalor" - expansion became just a constant struggle to keep squalor levels down. I'm sure that's not what really restricts the size of empires!

Quote from thisnameistaken :

I tried the multiplayer in Rome:TW a few times but it was pretty poor - on every server the host had silly rules about what units you could use, basically to restrict you from having any units that might be useful against the units he was going to use

Yeah, I forgot about that but from what I remember the host usually didn't allowed ballistic units. And it was a challenge in itself to pick a faction with units better this his.

Bump

Anyone tried it yet? Waiting my own copy, buying blind, didn't test the demo from steam.

Talked about it with few mates in school, one of them has his dad pick it up today (both big fans) so he will tell me how it is. Probably going to get it too, loved the past games

Never played the earlier titles, but got this as soon as I hear about it. I've played a few hours so far, and I love it! I need to get better at tactics and finding out what works and what doeasn't, but that's part of the fun!

And it looks gorgeous too, and runs pretty well on my aging machine.