Yes, Total War DOES have competition. And lots of it.

[SpiffyGonzales]

Inspired by a seperate post as well as dozens of youtube videos and hundreds of youtube comments seeming to suggest that total war either doesn't or has never had competition.

Firstly, yes. There ARE total war style games out there. Grand Tactician: The Civil War is better than Empire total war in literally every single way BUT graphics and diplomacy (cuz its the civil war). The Ultimate General Series is similar and plays far more tactically than any total war game in the last decade.

and thats just a couple of the nwer ones, there's Imperial Glory, there's Oriental Empires, there's Medieval Kingdom Wars, there's TONS of games that play just like total war, sometimes better. Grand Tactician The Civil War is my favorite example. In that game you manage supply lines, communication lines, you choose the outfits, color of outfits, types of guns your units have, their officers (chosen from REAL.HISTORICAL.FIGURES), you choose what state they're from, what army each individual unit joins, wether those units are conscripts or volunteers, you manage the chain of command, you can buy weapons from foreign powers, rather than some "increase the tax bar" nonesense you actually build federal buildings in certain areas to try to bolster the economy, you manage prison camps, and so so so much more. Plus they actually care about the history of it.

No, the style of turn based maps and rts battles is not originated in total war either. Lords of Magic (an amazing friggin game btw and if you can handle difficult games with old timey graphics i highly recommend it) was doing it before total war even existed, and they aren't even the first ones to do so.

My guess is that the myth of "no competition in total war" originated from the fact that total war became massive after medieval 2 and most people simply never bothered looking for other games. Moreover it only became mainstream with the warhammer series, so a lot of people probably are only experiencing this time of game the first time with this title. I could be wrong, but regardless, there is plenty of competition for this style of game, and NO. the supposed lack of it did not hurt total war. Medieval 2 and Empire (disregarding the terrible launch and bugs) were amazing despite there being less competition back in the day, and Shogun 2 is viewed as one of the most legendary total war games.

Regardless why you think TW has become so dissapointing, be you a warhammer fan, a fan of the shogun - empire games, or somewhere in between (personally I blame the midless consumerism of the warhammer fans)
Yes, Total War has, will have, and has always had a lot of competition.

EDIT: lots of laugh and clown emojis... but honestly I'm just happy other ppl shared games and ppl might be able to play em to get that old school historical feel thats totally missing today

[jonoliveira12]

TW does have plenty of competitors, it is just that they are all very basic, and very boring by comparison.
This is a classic case of a cornered market, not because CA is the only one doing this style of game, but because CA is the only one with the talent and budget to make it good enough, that it out-competes all others by a wide margin.

[SpiffyGonzales]

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

TW does have plenty of competitors, it is just that they are all very basic, and very boring by comparison.
This is a classic case of a cornered market, not because CA is the only one doing this style of game, but because CA is the only one with the talent and budget to make it good enough, that it out-competes all others by a wide margin.

look up grand tactician the civil war. tw is barebones in comparison

[jonoliveira12]

Originally posted by SpiffyGonzales:

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

TW does have plenty of competitors, it is just that they are all very basic, and very boring by comparison.
This is a classic case of a cornered market, not because CA is the only one doing this style of game, but because CA is the only one with the talent and budget to make it good enough, that it out-competes all others by a wide margin.

look up grand tactician the civil war. tw is barebones in comparison

Not when it comes to battles and campaign narrative.
Also, line infantry war is boring. Masses of block and line musket infantry firing at each other, from VERY STATIC positions, is AR material if there ever was some.

[SpiffyGonzales]

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

Originally posted by SpiffyGonzales:

look up grand tactician the civil war. tw is barebones in comparison

Not when it comes to battles and campaign narrative.
Also, line infantry war is boring. Masses of block and line musket infantry firing at each other, from VERY STATIC positions, is AR material if there ever was some.

Thats the same argument people make about "historical" games. The issue there is that warhammer games are more arcade style while the older ones are more strategic. I play plenty of both of these games and can confirm that Grand Tactician is indeed more strategic, both in campaign and battle, than empire or medieval or shogun. Static? somewhat sure. But honestly comparing the number of times where ive been like "oh no theyre on my flank better alter my entire strategy" between the total war series and GT... its def not in total wars favor. Honestly its been AGES since i've ever decided to scout in a total war game. Not so otherwise.

[jonoliveira12]

Originally posted by SpiffyGonzales:

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

Not when it comes to battles and campaign narrative.
Also, line infantry war is boring. Masses of block and line musket infantry firing at each other, from VERY STATIC positions, is AR material if there ever was some.

Thats the same argument people make about "historical" games. The issue there is that warhammer games are more arcade style while the older ones are more strategic. I play plenty of both of these games and can confirm that Grand Tactician is indeed more strategic, both in campaign and battle, than empire or medieval or shogun. Static? somewhat sure. But honestly comparing the number of times where ive been like "oh no theyre on my flank better alter my entire strategy" between the total war series and GT... its def not in total wars favor. Honestly its been AGES since i've ever decided to scout in a total war game. Not so otherwise.

Except it is true.
Total war has managed to make it's real time battles (even for historical games) very interactive and varied.
Empire had the same issue GT has, line infantry warfare is static and has little gameplay, because all weapons have exceptional high lethality and range, so tactics are heavily based on firing lines, to the extreme.

[SpiffyGonzales]

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

Originally posted by SpiffyGonzales:

Thats the same argument people make about "historical" games. The issue there is that warhammer games are more arcade style while the older ones are more strategic. I play plenty of both of these games and can confirm that Grand Tactician is indeed more strategic, both in campaign and battle, than empire or medieval or shogun. Static? somewhat sure. But honestly comparing the number of times where ive been like "oh no theyre on my flank better alter my entire strategy" between the total war series and GT... its def not in total wars favor. Honestly its been AGES since i've ever decided to scout in a total war game. Not so otherwise.

Except it is true.
Total war has managed to make it's real time battles (even for historical games) very interactive and varied.
Empire had the same issue GT has, line infantry warfare is static and has little gameplay, because all weapons have exceptional high lethality and range, so tactics are heavily based on firing lines, to the extreme.

Im guesssing you havn't played too many multiplayer games or games on very hard or legendary for campaigns.

If you think that "make big line, much shoot" is the basics of strategy in Empire or Napoleon or even Grand Tacttician... you're wrong. Youve got numerous units that can do numerous things. Regarding Empire i typically main Prussia and bring skirmishers, line, and grenadiers. Ive won and lost against people who have heavy cav focuses, heavy skirmish, arty, or whatever else.

HOW you use the units in these types of games is far more important than WHAT you use. Something like a treeline can be a huge benifit or hinderence to what you do.

If the issue is that your units just shoot a lot... I mean yea... but you could argue the same thing about games ranging from call of duty to metal gear, but you'd hardly look at those and call them the same would you? yes. You command lines of infantry and move them around. No, its not as simple as making a big af line and that being it. What if the enemy had better range? what if they're more accurate? what if they have more men? What if they have more experienced men? what if they have cav support? what TYPE of cav support? what is artillary doing? what about the other flanks? what terrain is around? What formation are you in? are you skirmishing? are they? is your unit infantry, light infantry, dismounted cavalry, or something else? what range are you at? how much ammo do you have? and the list goes on and on and on.

[Ashley]

Don't forget they're competing with Elden Ring

[jonoliveira12]

Originally posted by SpiffyGonzales:

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

Except it is true.
Total war has managed to make it's real time battles (even for historical games) very interactive and varied.
Empire had the same issue GT has, line infantry warfare is static and has little gameplay, because all weapons have exceptional high lethality and range, so tactics are heavily based on firing lines, to the extreme.

Im guesssing you havn't played too many multiplayer games or games on very hard or legendary for campaigns.

If you think that "make big line, much shoot" is the basics of strategy in Empire or Napoleon or even Grand Tacttician... you're wrong. Youve got numerous units that can do numerous things. Regarding Empire i typically main Prussia and bring skirmishers, line, and grenadiers. Ive won and lost against people who have heavy cav focuses, heavy skirmish, arty, or whatever else.

HOW you use the units in these types of games is far more important than WHAT you use. Something like a treeline can be a huge benifit or hinderence to what you do.

If the issue is that your units just shoot a lot... I mean yea... but you could argue the same thing about games ranging from call of duty to metal gear, but you'd hardly look at those and call them the same would you? yes. You command lines of infantry and move them around. No, its not as simple as making a big af line and that being it. What if the enemy had better range? what if they're more accurate? what if they have more men? What if they have more experienced men? what if they have cav support? what TYPE of cav support? what is artillary doing? what about the other flanks? what terrain is around? What formation are you in? are you skirmishing? are they? is your unit infantry, light infantry, dismounted cavalry, or something else? what range are you at? how much ammo do you have? and the list goes on and on and on.

I played enough MP games back in my Brood War and RA2 days.
I absolutely do not care about MP nowadays, nor for MP balance.

You are trying to run around my argument that TW was the only series that managed to make historical combat fun (AoE and Cossacks did it too, but they are even more arcadey) and that line infantry combat is boring by default.

My two arguments still stand. You will also find the world at large does not care much for the American Civil War.
What type of units you use, and how you use them, is critical in even the basest of modern strategy games. That is not a huge feat.
Lining up my men around the terrain to watch as they gun down the enemy (and are gunned down by the enemy) quickly grows boring, due to lack of activity on behalf of the player.

Core of the matter is that TW DOES HAVE many competitors, but none of them manage to deliver such a good SP experience, and these games are almost universally played as SP-absolutist experiences, with a VERY SMALL MP playerbase.

[SpiffyGonzales]

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

Originally posted by SpiffyGonzales:

Im guesssing you havn't played too many multiplayer games or games on very hard or legendary for campaigns.

If you think that "make big line, much shoot" is the basics of strategy in Empire or Napoleon or even Grand Tacttician... you're wrong. Youve got numerous units that can do numerous things. Regarding Empire i typically main Prussia and bring skirmishers, line, and grenadiers. Ive won and lost against people who have heavy cav focuses, heavy skirmish, arty, or whatever else.

HOW you use the units in these types of games is far more important than WHAT you use. Something like a treeline can be a huge benifit or hinderence to what you do.

If the issue is that your units just shoot a lot... I mean yea... but you could argue the same thing about games ranging from call of duty to metal gear, but you'd hardly look at those and call them the same would you? yes. You command lines of infantry and move them around. No, its not as simple as making a big af line and that being it. What if the enemy had better range? what if they're more accurate? what if they have more men? What if they have more experienced men? what if they have cav support? what TYPE of cav support? what is artillary doing? what about the other flanks? what terrain is around? What formation are you in? are you skirmishing? are they? is your unit infantry, light infantry, dismounted cavalry, or something else? what range are you at? how much ammo do you have? and the list goes on and on and on.

I played enough MP games back in my Brood War and RA2 days.
I absolutely do not care about MP nowadays, nor for MP balance.

You are trying to run around my argument that TW was the only series that managed to make historical combat fun (AoE and Cossacks did it too, but they are even more arcadey) and that line infantry combat is boring by default.

My two arguments still stand. You will also find the world at large does not care much for the American Civil War.
What type of units you use, and how you use them, is critical in even the basest of modern strategy games. That is not a huge feat.
Lining up my men around the terrain to watch as they gun down the enemy (and are gunned down by the enemy) quickly grows boring, due to lack of activity on behalf of the player.

Core of the matter is that TW DOES HAVE many competitors, but none of them manage to deliver such a good SP experience, and these games are almost universally played as SP-absolutist experiences, with a VERY SMALL MP playerbase.

my statement wasnt walking around it, it was a response to it. You suggest that somehow the gameplay is boring... and yet its the type of gameplay that literally built total war as a series. You suggest that total war is the only one who has managed to make that style of combat interesting, so I explained why its not. My post about the type of combat wasnt about empire, it was about grand tactician. Also saying the rest of the world doesnt care about the civil war is like saying people outside of japan dont care about the boshin war.

[jonoliveira12]

Originally posted by SpiffyGonzales:

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

I played enough MP games back in my Brood War and RA2 days.
I absolutely do not care about MP nowadays, nor for MP balance.

You are trying to run around my argument that TW was the only series that managed to make historical combat fun (AoE and Cossacks did it too, but they are even more arcadey) and that line infantry combat is boring by default.

My two arguments still stand. You will also find the world at large does not care much for the American Civil War.
What type of units you use, and how you use them, is critical in even the basest of modern strategy games. That is not a huge feat.
Lining up my men around the terrain to watch as they gun down the enemy (and are gunned down by the enemy) quickly grows boring, due to lack of activity on behalf of the player.

Core of the matter is that TW DOES HAVE many competitors, but none of them manage to deliver such a good SP experience, and these games are almost universally played as SP-absolutist experiences, with a VERY SMALL MP playerbase.

my statement wasnt walking around it, it was a response to it. You suggest that somehow the gameplay is boring... and yet its the type of gameplay that literally built total war as a series. You suggest that total war is the only one who has managed to make that style of combat interesting, so I explained why its not. My post about the type of combat wasnt about empire, it was about grand tactician. Also saying the rest of the world doesnt care about the civil war is like saying people outside of japan dont care about the boshin war.

No, the type of gameplay that built TW as a series, is far closer to Medeival and Late Antiquity combat, with lots of tanky units taht can take punishment, big morale dependant units, lots of close quarter combat, a huge reliance on spears and shields...

TW was started by a a Shogun title, and guns were not overwhelmingly powerful or prevalent in it, then moved to Medival, and then Rome. None of those titles offered line infantry combat.

More people outside of Japan care about the Boshin War (and other japanese wars), than they care about the American Civil War.
Japan is hip and cool, nowadays, and people generally like medieval-style combat and drama.
ACW is a boring affair, that happened on America, for almost no reason. My own country banned slavery in 1775, with no civil wars, we just killed every slaver that did not immediately released the slaves, by royal decree.

[SBA77]

Originally posted by Ashley:

Don't forget they're competing with Elden Ring

And Baldur's Gate III, and Cyberpunk Phantom Liberty and of course Armored Core.

[Raymond]

Originally posted by SpiffyGonzales:

Firstly, yes. There ARE total war style games out there. Grand Tactician: The Civil War is better than Empire total war in literally every single way BUT graphics and diplomacy (cuz its the civil war). The Ultimate General Series is similar and plays far more tactically than any total war game in the last decade.

I mean, ultimate general/grand tactician games are nice and Empire is bad and all, but this a very bold statement, considering UG/GT games barely have a functional path finding. All their units share the same health pool, zero collision, routing is absolutely broken asf and the models in a unit does not even represent their entire unit number. They don't even have sandbox campaign map, just essentially a list of missions you have to go through. As much as I agree with the point you are trying to make, you must be insane if you think these games have better campaign/battle than FotS, Napoleon or even Empire.

[Merque]

Thanks for taking that much time to prove that there is - indeed - no competitor in this genre.

[jonoliveira12]

Originally posted by Merque:

Thanks for taking that much time to prove that there is - indeed - no competitor in this genre.

There are TONS!
They are just not as good.

[Merque]

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

Originally posted by Merque:

Thanks for taking that much time to prove that there is - indeed - no competitor in this genre.

There are TONS!
They are just not as good.

Sorry but comparing these games to TW is like saying that your no-name grocery store around the corner is a competitor to Amazon.

You might find that store attractive due to its proximity but in the larger scale of things, it doesn't matter.