i seriously dont understand why people complained about sagas...

[Salmon Sashimi 刺身]

I love the hyper focus on smaller areas of the map. its like Kingdoms campaigns but more fleshed out. i never understood the hate. I LOVE stuff like this

[BastardSword]

Imo it was confusing and misleading marketing. I can finish a domination campaign in Shogun 2 in about 8 hours, but it takes me at least two or three times longer to finish an ultimate victory campaign in TOB. So for me TOB feels plenty big enough. Compared to Troy and FOTS it is a lot more polished and feels way more finished, but it's definitely not quite as polished as Shogun 2.

[vincent.riere]

Didn't play the others ones but indeed TOB is really good one. I can say that only now tho because I understand the hate towards this game when it came out. Now with mods it's really enjoyable but the main game has some issues that could be fixed, I think, easily and game developpers didn't do much about it, leaving a feeling of an unfinished game.
Also for me the price of games are way too high for what it is. It's the main reason I didn't buy the other ones. For me paying almost the same price for a Saga and for a Total war Attila (for exemple) is a bit scandalous. Otherwise I agree that Total war saga receive too much hate and is underrated.

[easytarget]

There's likely no one still hanging about this steam forum that disagrees with you.

[elixEtneicnA]

Originally posted by easytarget:

There's likely no one still hanging about this steam forum that disagrees with you.

Loool so true..... Anyways, quite a few grumbled when it first came out about little things such as not being able to mass spam armies due to the food requirement and not having any type of mercenaries in the game. After a few hours you learn how to manage army composition vs food availability. The unique estate traits and bonuses for general loyalty or your own leader's influence was a new feature that many early grumblers at launch didn't like. Personally, I found the interface refreshing and the overall game fun and immersive. They could've at least made a few more of factions playable with unique traits and stuff. I agree with Bastard that the game was marketed inaccurately portrayed as a quick campaign style when it's a lot more than that. I mean, I was very impressed with the game overall. Now the new Pharoah/Pharaoh game is just utter horrid trash.......

[theselfishgene]

My problem with TOB was that it was actually too big. "Total War Battles" sounds like a cheaper, more concise game with a faster campaign, and hopefully, a game that takes some risks and tries new things.

Instead we have a ridonkulously big map, it feels like as large as Rome 2, with hundreds of settlements nobody cares about, with dozens of factions nobody cares about. All this period should have been is Heptarchy, plus Vikings, and maybe a couple of edge factions. It doesn't feel like i'm playing in 878 AD, it feels like i'm playing in Total War Attila with tiny England being forced to provide a few dozen factions.

It just occurred to me maybe something like Empire's map would have been more appropriate.

Anyway, moment to moment its fine. It's fine enough just abstractly. But... it doesn't feel like 878 ad, or anywhere close.

[Salmon Sashimi 刺身]

Originally posted by theselfishgene:

My problem with TOB was that it was actually too big. "Total War Battles" sounds like a cheaper, more concise game with a faster campaign, and hopefully, a game that takes some risks and tries new things.

Instead we have a ridonkulously big map, it feels like as large as Rome 2, with hundreds of settlements nobody cares about, with dozens of factions nobody cares about. All this period should have been is Heptarchy, plus Vikings, and maybe a couple of edge factions. It doesn't feel like i'm playing in 878 AD, it feels like i'm playing in Total War Attila with tiny England being forced to provide a few dozen factions.

It just occurred to me maybe something like Empire's map would have been more appropriate.

Anyway, moment to moment its fine. It's fine enough just abstractly. But... it doesn't feel like 878 ad, or anywhere close.

i kinda like lots of factions on a zoomed in island. Its like shogun 2 in a way

[MF]

Originally posted by BastardSword:

Imo it was confusing and misleading marketing. I can finish a domination campaign in Shogun 2 in about 8 hours, but it takes me at least two or three times longer to finish an ultimate victory campaign in TOB. So for me TOB feels plenty big enough. Compared to Troy and FOTS it is a lot more polished and feels way more finished, but it's definitely not quite as polished as Shogun 2.

LMAO - just finished watching a LoTW vid in which he labels ToB as the 'worst' TW title. Makes me want to play it more, especially in light of your comment regarding it being more 'polished' than Troy. I cut my teeth on Troy and absolutely adored it.

[Gootsu]

well I was not playing this game when it launch but I heard that there was many issues with the game back then, and this game has received a lot of patches and reworks of systems, the developers had poured a lot of love into this game and you can see now that the game is actually very good, I think it has the same flaws as older total wars like not been able to trade regions and I feel that the description of what the buildings do could be better explained but overall it is really fun. Maybe people say that it is the worst compared to the other titles but the worst does not mean that is bad, overall I think this game is a 7/10, if this game had the diplomacy of 3 kingdoms it would have been much much better and there are weird mechanics like the influence that I don't quite like the way it works.

[Drunk Rambo {The Dirty Dozen}]

Originally posted by Yorokobe Shounen:

I love the hyper focus on smaller areas of the map. its like Kingdoms campaigns but more fleshed out. i never understood the hate. I LOVE stuff like this

I play this pretty much daily. It's one of the best TW games. Has anyone played Atilla? It's on sale RN. IS it a good game?

[BastardSword]

Originally posted by Gootsu:

overall I think this game is a 7/10, if this game had the diplomacy of 3 kingdoms it would have been much much better and there are weird mechanics like the influence that I don't quite like the way it works.

Three Kingdoms has a very complicated diplomacy system but a lot of the options don't do what you expect them to do, so you end up only using a few options. Then there's the spy system which is total crap.

TOB strikes a good balance between that and the simpler but more brute force system of Shogun 2. You can actually make alliances and vassals whenever you want and not expect them to double-cross you most of the time, and they will actually help you out.

[Gootsu]

On three kingdoms at least you can trade provinces with your vassals, here you have literally no option, you say that they help you but they also take free provinces when you are invading an enemy and you can not stop them from doing so, even if the game say that they are your puppets, the only option you have is to go to war with them which sucks as diplomacy or another example is if you have a rebellion and the rebels take one of your regions and then a vassal take them, then the vassal will take your region for them so yeah very helpful.
Another thing is this game has the food as a resource to make your armies currently and you can not trade this resource like on 3 kingdoms which is a waste of a chance, when going to war against someone it is more reasonable to negotiate for peace on 3 kingdoms than on this total war so I strongly disagree with your opinion that 3K is complicated, TOB diplomacy is basic a very limited. And I didn't mention anything about the spy system.