So I just played Shogun 2 for the first time...

[3 Ducks In a Man Suit]

And I've got to say, the Warhammer games feel like a HUGE step back in a lot of ways. How did they get this much worse at siege battles?

[Mr.Dark]

Something about SHogun feels better than Warhammer, it does make me wish Nippon would come too Warhammer.

[IonizedMercury]

Originally posted by 3 Ducks In a Man Suit:

And I've got to say, the Warhammer games feel like a HUGE step back in a lot of ways. How did they get this much worse at siege battles?

You know, at least in Warhammer they use ladders and don't just monkey-crawl up the walls. Especially not guys in heavy armor.

[SBA77]

Originally posted by 3 Ducks In a Man Suit:

And I've got to say, the Warhammer games feel like a HUGE step back in a lot of ways. How did they get this much worse at siege battles?

Yeah... I'm going to have to stop you right there and point out how much simpler the old games compared to the newer ones. Don't get me wrong there is value in that, there's something welcoming and reassuring going back to a simpler experience. But to claim that the old Total War games are better because they are more complex and deeper is a laughable argument.

[Eldi]

Pros and cons to both.

Sieges definitely one of the weak points to WH3 but you ain't got trolls in Shogun...

[SBA77]

Originally posted by Eldi:

Pros and cons to both.

Sieges definitely one of the weak points to WH3 but you ain't got trolls in Shogun... :cleanseal:

Well if we are discussing sieges.... then yeah they should have gone back to the old system from the classics like Rome and Medieval 2. People found the old one wall, linear sieges from TWW1 and 2 too simplistic, but the solution to that wasn't bringing but the old sieges, but giving the defenders buildable (and rebuildable) defenses, and bringing back multiple capture points because we saw how oh so well that worked out last time.

[Eldi]

Originally posted by SBA77:

Originally posted by Eldi:

Pros and cons to both.

Sieges definitely one of the weak points to WH3 but you ain't got trolls in Shogun...

Well if we are discussing sieges.... then yeah they should have gone back to the old system from the classics like Rome and Medieval 2. People found the old one wall, linear sieges from TWW1 and 2 too simplistic, but the solution to that wasn't bringing but the old sieges, but giving the defenders buildable (and rebuildable) defenses, and bringing back multiple capture points because we saw how oh so well that worked out last time.

Personally I Like that they tried new things and some of the ideas (multi points, locked points, etc) I even like the barricades but not building during a battle (at least not instantly). Though for barricades and the like there needs to be more placement points to pick from so you can really setup good choke points.

Path finding is also at times hard to deal with, love the maps but it created issues.

Not a deal breaker, they can sometimes still be fun but definitely the weak part in my opinion.

[SBA77]

Originally posted by Eldi:

Originally posted by SBA77:

Well if we are discussing sieges.... then yeah they should have gone back to the old system from the classics like Rome and Medieval 2. People found the old one wall, linear sieges from TWW1 and 2 too simplistic, but the solution to that wasn't bringing but the old sieges, but giving the defenders buildable (and rebuildable) defenses, and bringing back multiple capture points because we saw how oh so well that worked out last time.

Personally I Like that they tried new things and some of the ideas (multi points, locked points, etc) I even like the barricades but not building during a battle (at least not instantly). Though for barricades and the like there needs to be more placement points to pick from so you can really setup good choke points.

Path finding is also at times hard to deal with, love the maps but it created issues.

Not a deal breaker, they can sometimes still be fun but definitely the weak part in my opinion.

Yeah. I had to say for the most part the minor settlement battles didn't bother me much and were pretty tolerable, unlock what some other people claimed. What bothered me was the towers having overpowered range and damage (at least for the towers on the walls. I have a distinct memory Praag's towers breaking both starting Ice Guards and two shotting armored Kossars in one of my early Katarine campaigns), which they've addressed in the recent patches, and having to defend multiple victory points and losing shortly after you lose them all. The latter is realistic admittedly, especially when you're in a scenario where you fighting two armies and only focusing one while leaving the other one to it's own devices, but still isn't fun.

[pascal.difolco]

Sieges in historical TW games play better because there aren't any dragons, one man armies and mass murder magic, that's most of it

[Lamp]

My guy, wait till you play Three Kingdoms. You'll hate CA like I do.

There was so much from 3K that could have been used in WH3. Sieges that aren't a sardonic immersion trashing minigame, political and noble house systems, ropes and backpacks instead of magical buttladders, etc.

So when WH3 came out and was dumbed down in literally every way, yeah, it was disappointing. The years that followed where they simply let it stagnate, also very disappointing.

The fact that they've been scummy corpo greedmongers the whole time on top of all that was the driving force in what lead to backlash. They were even spending tens of millions on a drag queen themed FPS no one wanted that was cancelled before release. The boiling point being when CA released a half ass SoC DLC for a premium price. Then they went into damage control, made a bunch of alien-like failed attempts at PR, fake apologized profusely, polished SoC and started focusing entirely on making flashy DLC's to distract from the ever increasingly broken base game.

Anyways, you should try out Three Kingdoms. It might be the last TW that actually had care and innovation for the TW series put into it. Stuff that WH3 didn't use at all- except for quickdeal.

[Seraphiel]

Agree, Shogun 2 is still the high water mark of the TW series for me. The soundtrack was great, the AI was actually a threat (it's the only TW that I sometimes lose on Legendary), the AI was actually aggressive, the campaign map was well designed and the graphics still stand up.

Originally posted by Lamp:

Anyways, you should try out Three Kingdoms. It might be the last TW that actually had care and innovation for the TW series put into it. Stuff that WH3 didn't use at all- except for quickdeal.

Generally agree but, recently, Pharaoh also has some new good ideas.

I like the new outpost system.
I like the "push forward" and "give ground" orders which you can give to your troops.
I like the dynamic weather in battles.

The main thing that lets Pharaoh down is that the time period just is not very interesting.

[Big Moustache]

Originally posted by pascal.difolco:

Sieges in historical TW games play better because there aren't any dragons, one man armies and mass murder magic, that's most of it

And no bugged gates, ass ladders or wasting all ammo by shooting the walls. AI that actually knows how to defend or attack during sieges.

Generals, heirs and faction leaders can easy die during battles, not respawn next turn with the same ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ doomstack cheated in. TW AI not even have cooldown on ROR units when losing them! A stack-spam Arcade game can not be compared to good strategy game like Shogun 2 imo

[Chiller]

Originally posted by IonizedMercury:

Originally posted by 3 Ducks In a Man Suit:

And I've got to say, the Warhammer games feel like a HUGE step back in a lot of ways. How did they get this much worse at siege battles?

You know, at least in Warhammer they use ladders and don't just monkey-crawl up the walls. Especially not guys in heavy armor.

monkey-crawl is more advantageous than ladders since it prevents the defenders from pushing an entire column off the wall and getting many killed.
Also, japanese heavy armor was lighter and more comfortable than your typical european can.

[Kharn the Bloody]

One of the worst step BACKWARDS in the Total War franchise was then CA allowed ALL INFANTRY in Empire Total War to become rope climbing ninjas, doing away with the need for at least one turn to build ladders. That's right folks, 1700's Line Infantry were all rope climbing ninjas that could climb any wall with ninja ropes the same turn they lay siege. Not special units. ALL INFANTRY UNITS were ninjas. Absolute GARBAGE.

The original Rome TW had 1 turn minimum for building ladders. The troops aren't marching for miles on end with ladders. They set up their siege camp, forage for wood and build ladders = 1 turn. I feel this was a logical and fair implementation for ladders. Rome also had the tunneling mechanic where you could tunnel towards the wall, undermine a wall, and bring down a wall section. Again, a great mechanic that's fair and LOGICAL.

[bearfieldlee]

Shogun 2 would be my favourite but it CTD's fairly regularly when right in the middle of big battles or at any random time when you really don't want it to. The fact that WH3 doesn't makes it superior on that factor alone I'm afraid.

[Aleera]

Originally posted by Kharn the Bloody:

One of the worst step BACKWARDS in the Total War franchise was then CA allowed ALL INFANTRY in Empire Total War to become rope climbing ninjas, doing away with the need for at least one turn to build ladders. That's right folks, 1700's Line Infantry were all rope climbing ninjas that could climb any wall with ninja ropes the same turn they lay siege. Not special units. ALL INFANTRY UNITS were ninjas. Absolute GARBAGE.

The original Rome TW had 1 turn minimum for building ladders. The troops aren't marching for miles on end with ladders. They set up their siege camp, forage for wood and build ladders = 1 turn. I feel this was a logical and fair implementation for ladders. Rome also had the tunneling mechanic where you could tunnel towards the wall, undermine a wall, and bring down a wall section. Again, a great mechanic that's fair and LOGICAL.

Hot take, making these ladders cost less time then a turn. Could be easily pre fabricated that only has to be connected together. Carried with the army on normal carts.