CA let emperor & empress lead armies

[Aizawa]

In mandate of heaven that is, otherwise what is the point?

[tanhan]

I wish they would let the emperor lead army hopefully they might change their mind and enable it

[Haddon]

The point is specifically that you cannot. It is different from other campaigns. That is the point of the campaign; you are playing as an entirely ineffectual leader. Emperor Ling was a weak, idiot who never set foot on a battlefield, and probably never held a weapon other than ceremonially. The point of the campaign is to play as the emperor, keeping control over the He, the Eunuchs/bureaucrats, and your warlords while dealing with a massive insurrection. The goal is "can you stop history from happening by not being useless as a politician and controlling all these various factions, even with a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ leader?"

I don't understand why people want the emperor to lead armies. That is the point of He Jin; the He clan controlled the military, which is why He Jin very seriously thought about usurping the Han. It is the exact same situation as happened multiple times during the Era of Disunity; ineffectual Emperor marries daughter of powerful clan, powerful clan become the commanders of the army, and thus in truth the real power behind the throne. Except in those cases, several times there were outright usurpations, or replacements of the Emperor with children that would act as puppets. He Jin is almost like a Shogun; why didn't anybody have issue with not playing as the Emperor in any of the Shogun campaigns, but they want to play as an equally useless emperor in this one?

[Aizawa]

It's actually really easy to understand.

The game isn't historically accurate at all so let people play the way they feel like.

If you, for example, want to play an historically accurate Emperor not leading armies then you can do so, but don't restrict those that want to play differently!

If we want to play as Emperor and Empress leading battles then we should be able to!

[Haddon]

Originally posted by Nymph:

It's actually really easy to understand.

The game isn't historically accurate at all so let people play the way they feel like.

If you, for example, want to play an historically accurate Emperor not leading armies then you can do so, but don't restrict those that want to play differently!

If we want to play as Emperor and Empress leading battles then we should be able to!

The game absolutely is historically accurate in a LOT of things. TW always, since S1, has had a balance between historicity and fiction. If you don't care about historicity, why even play a historical title?

If you want to play as the Emperor and Empress, mod it in. Stop being so entitled. You have reasons, historical and game design reasons, not to play as the Emperor. Shouldn't even be able to play as an empress anyway, unless they make Wu Zetian part of a DLC at some point.

[Aizawa]

Imagine thinking that any total war game is a historical title and calling others entitled for asking for gameplay choices, the nerve :D

[tanhan]

Nymph I understand where he is coming from but every character ingame can lead armies why not just let the new unique characters like Liu Hong lead too

[Aizawa]

I know right, and I get it too, but in my opinion he's completely wrong about this game being historically accurate.

In my 1st campaign, when my Bandit Queen married Lu Bu, killed Diao Chan and became empress after annihilating everyone else, was that historically accurate? NO, it was a series of gameplay options in a rather fun campaign.

In my 2nd campaign when I won as the yellow turbans, that was historically accurate too, right? Nope! Again gameplay options.

So let us have the gameplay option to lead armies with Emperor and Empress! If you have to then make it so that they cannot be executed, if they're bound to in game events and that's the reasoning behind the restriction. Otherwise I just don't see it any different than the many other equally non-historically accurate choices that are already in the game.

[Qwertykov]

Well Diao Chan is revealed a strategist...

[Jerroser]

Originally posted by qwertykov:

Well Diao Chan is revealed a strategist...

She was technically in the base game already, just as a generic strategist that only appeared if you were playing as Dong Zhou.

Given that they have essentially made it so every character is usable on the battlefield I don't seen the harm in it. Although do feel the need to be a bit of kill joy and say he should be given a trait makes him notably weaker as a leader on the battlefield to make up for the fact that he wasn't really the most competent of individuals. Maybe one that will go away if you win enough battles with him.

[tanhan]

lets hope CA see this now and decide to make the character usable

[Poljanan]

It gets even better. Liu Hong and the empress actually have unique skill sets, like Liu Hong having access to flaming arrows despite being a commander, and yet they can't use it due to being undeployable.

I'm sure it will be very easy to mod them to be playable.

As for the game being historical, this game mind you is the same game where Taishi Ci can fire a barrage of laser beams. Keep that stuff in records mode if you want it so.

[Haddon]

Originally posted by Nymph:

Imagine thinking that any total war game is a historical title and calling others entitled for asking for gameplay choices, the nerve :D

It...IS a historical title. CA has even called 3K their "latest historical title", and call the historical TW games "the historical TW series".

And you are entitled in that you expect CA to change their entire design philosophy for the campaign because YOU want to play as the emperor. That is entitlement. "Otherwise what's the point"? THe entire thing that has been explained to you, and that CA explains in their gameplay video!

And of COURSE the game isn't historically accurate at all after playing sandbox mode! But the SETTING is historical, and the characters, except the make-believe bandit queen that never existed and Diao Chan (though at least she exists in the novel), are also historical; the warriors are warriors, the non-warriors are strategists and commanders. The emperor leading armies isn't just historically inaccurate, it is the absolute opposite of historicity; Ling was pathetic. Your average peasant would have been a better battlefield commander.

Originally posted by Jerroser:

Originally posted by qwertykov:

Well Diao Chan is revealed a strategist...

She was technically in the base game already, just as a generic strategist that only appeared if you were playing as Dong Zhou.

Given that they have essentially made it so every character is usable on the battlefield I don't seen the harm in it. Although do feel the need to be a bit of kill joy and say he should be given a trait makes him notably weaker as a leader on the battlefield to make up for the fact that he wasn't really the most competent of individuals. Maybe one that will go away if you win enough battles with him.

He wasn't just "not the most competent", he was an absolute moron and weakling. He was one of the most ineffectual rulers of the entire Western Han. Wanting him to lead armies is sillier than wanting Julia to be playable in Caesar in Gaul.

[Poljanan]

Originally posted by Haddon:

Originally posted by Nymph:

Imagine thinking that any total war game is a historical title and calling others entitled for asking for gameplay choices, the nerve :D

It...IS a historical title. CA has even called 3K their "latest historical title", and call the historical TW games "the historical TW series".

And you are entitled in that you expect CA to change their entire design philosophy for the campaign because YOU want to play as the emperor. That is entitlement. "Otherwise what's the point"? THe entire thing that has been explained to you, and that CA explains in their gameplay video!

And of COURSE the game isn't historically accurate at all after playing sandbox mode! But the SETTING is historical, and the characters, except the make-believe bandit queen that never existed and Diao Chan (though at least she exists in the novel), are also historical; the warriors are warriors, the non-warriors are strategists and commanders. The emperor leading armies isn't just historically inaccurate, it is the absolute opposite of historicity; Ling was pathetic. Your average peasant would have been a better battlefield commander.

Originally posted by Jerroser:

She was technically in the base game already, just as a generic strategist that only appeared if you were playing as Dong Zhou.

Given that they have essentially made it so every character is usable on the battlefield I don't seen the harm in it. Although do feel the need to be a bit of kill joy and say he should be given a trait makes him notably weaker as a leader on the battlefield to make up for the fact that he wasn't really the most competent of individuals. Maybe one that will go away if you win enough battles with him.

He wasn't just "not the most competent", he was an absolute moron and weakling. He was one of the most ineffectual rulers of the entire Western Han. Wanting him to lead armies is sillier than wanting Julia to be playable in Caesar in Gaul.

All that talk and yet nothing stops you from having a 90 year old woman defeat Lu Bu in a duel if she has strong enough equipment.
Your argument is moot.

[Poljanan]

Also, I forgot the last time I read RoTK and it had Yellow Turbans wearing heavy metal armor and had more elite troops than the han army.

[Haddon]

Originally posted by Poljanan:

Originally posted by Haddon:

It...IS a historical title. CA has even called 3K their "latest historical title", and call the historical TW games "the historical TW series".

And you are entitled in that you expect CA to change their entire design philosophy for the campaign because YOU want to play as the emperor. That is entitlement. "Otherwise what's the point"? THe entire thing that has been explained to you, and that CA explains in their gameplay video!

And of COURSE the game isn't historically accurate at all after playing sandbox mode! But the SETTING is historical, and the characters, except the make-believe bandit queen that never existed and Diao Chan (though at least she exists in the novel), are also historical; the warriors are warriors, the non-warriors are strategists and commanders. The emperor leading armies isn't just historically inaccurate, it is the absolute opposite of historicity; Ling was pathetic. Your average peasant would have been a better battlefield commander.




He wasn't just "not the most competent", he was an absolute moron and weakling. He was one of the most ineffectual rulers of the entire Western Han. Wanting him to lead armies is sillier than wanting Julia to be playable in Caesar in Gaul.

All that talk and yet nothing stops you from having a 90 year old woman defeat Lu Bu in a duel if she has strong enough equipment.
Your argument is moot.

That doesn't make the point moot. Once again, for like the 8th time with you, historical TW tows a line between historicity and fun. Going too far to one direction or the other WILL LOSE customers. Why do I have to keep explaining this to you? If you don't care at all about historicity, what is to stop CA from putting samurai into 3K? Or tanks? Space ships? Rome? Planet of the Apes invasion?

Originally posted by Poljanan:

Also, I forgot the last time I read RoTK and it had Yellow Turbans wearing heavy metal armor and had more elite troops than the han army.

Umm...no. I think you mean "the last time I played Dynasty Warriors" because it is clear from your posts on this board you have never actually read RoTK. You are wrong almost every time you bring it up.