Kleaper complains about Total War: Troy having no naval combat. Thing is, if you read the Illiad, you'll find that the Trojan War was basically fought entirely on land. The Greeks literally just used their navy to reach Troy.
@@winchelseabeach4863Greeks still would've used ship to ship warfare. It's just Troy can't really fight against a thousand ships. Though I don't think Pharoah would have ships, but I haven't brushed up on my ancient Egyptian military lore. It does seem odd they would have much of a fleet but I could be wrong.
@@anzaca1 But in historical events there were battles at sea. We've seen it in later times during the Greek-Persian war, but that was also apparent even before the Iliad, which still uses the same ships. Same kind of ship tech the Romans in Rome Total War used.
4:41 no that wasn't a full edit lol your troops can scale castle walls with their bare hands, but that does come at the cost of some of them falling to their.. demise.. 😬
Shogun is a very well-preserved game in the series, and the shootings is particularly good. Archers use GIANT Japanese arrows + and compared to other games in the series, this arrows feel heavier, travel slower, and are released in a more uniform volley. In the add-on about the fall of the samurai, was added cinematic smoke effects. As units fire, smoke accumulates in waves above them and rolls down the slopes of the hills, gradually covering the battlefield If you're interested in the gameplay point of view. Compared to Warhammer, all of Shogun's units feel like glass cannons, which is why battles happen very quickly. Protection and armor seem to have a significant impact on survivability, but a heavily armored samurai in Shogun feels more “glassy” than a dwarven slayer (Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that during the charge, the units in Shogun "penetrate" each other better and fight not only in the front line?) However, Shogun will be easier than Warhammer, mainly due to the much less advanced AI. In most cases, you can simply attack with a strip of infantry and calmly defeat twice the number of the enemy, since in ancient times the bot did not know how to use archers and cavalry at all, even without abuse of stealth or separation of the army, the AI is almost unable to make a normal formation, which is quite deadly with such glassy units Also in Shogun, your armies will almost never include anything other than archers and melee infantry (and very rarely cavalry), so fewer core unit types, less microcontrol. There are also no flying units, monsters or single entities that often require babysitting. In Shogun there are “specialist” units, but by the time you get them the campaign is often over, although ninjas and guys with rockets are worthy of the title of “doomstacks” And in the shogun, ashigaru with spears (standard peasants) are broken. Without the need to research technology, they have a “wall of spears” available, which allows them to defeat twice as expensive samurai units (samurai are also blocked behind technology). From above, you can buff this ashigaru extremely, thus getting one of the strongest “doomstacks” in the game (and the cheapest one) The bot does not use this formation at all, which also greatly affects the difficulty of the game Of all the games in the series besides Warhammer, I would probably recommend trying Shogun the most, as it had a special old feel to it without feeling like an overly old game. Next in place is the Three Kingdoms due to its interesting system of politics, diplomacy and social links system.
Cavalry rare? What the fuck game did you play? The first half sounded like Shogun, but the second half sounded nothing like Shogun. @TheLegitWeebs Take this description of the game with a giant grain of salt.
@TheLegitWeebs That doomstack of Yari Ashigaru is made even more broken if you are using the Oda clan, who not only provide clan buffs for ashigaru units (making them a strong early-game faction,) but also providing the clan-specific "Oda Long Yari Ashigaru," which has even longer reach than normal yari. Combine this reach with the aforementioned "Yari wall" formation, and good luck any samurai getting into melee reach of them. As an aside, I believe the downside of the long yari ashigaru outside of the spear wall is slightly less melee defense compared to the normal yari unit. Oh, and being packed together in the yari wall makes the unit slower moving and a bit more vulnerable to ranged units. Felt that should be added.
Shogun 2 had imo the best naval combat i even managed to enjoy them slightly. I normally hate naval combat. Which says a lot. And in terms of skills careying over. Using of units is fairly similar. But there are a lot of differences too and there are less tips showing you in the right direction (the short descriptors about strengths and weaknesses of units for example) so you kinda have to test or know. Based on the stat sheet alone. But overall i think xero would do well because army controls are well. The same just lacking magic and single entity shenanigans
Guns in Shogun 2 really are that deadly. I think the only unit that doesn't die as quickly are the Date(?) "bulletproof" samurai who have a shitload of armor. Also most units don't have health in the same way that Warhammer does. Each individual soldier actually represents that soldier, and whether they die or not is more down to getting a killing blow than wearing down health. Player bias isn't really a thing in the old games. At least not on the campaign map. In the really old games it's a bit random rather than targeted. Enemies will become allies and vice versa in pretty schizophrenic fashion. They'll usually only declare war if they border you though. This is the Fall of the Samurai campaign, so the campaign AI is a bit different due to the scenario, but they're targeting him because he's in the opposite faction (imperial vs shogun), not because he's a player. Also yes, guys will fall off a wall when climbing it. There are no ladders in this game. Japanese castles have a very different design philosophy from European ones. The siege battles in Shogun 2 are some of the best in the entire series. The original Rome Total War and Attila are in second for me. None of the Warhammer games have anything even approaching a proper siege battle. There's no city to attack, just a disembodied wall with a generic area behind it. Regarding the battles, the numbers involved can be a LOT higher than Warhammer ever gets, especially if you use Ultra unit sizes.
Siege battle in shogun 2 are nice both vanilla and modded, often times its down to how many yari ashigaru you have defending that make or break a defensive battle since they’re capable of being an additional ”wall” to stop invaders from climbing further up. While your more offensive units can pick off the ones that do get through. The downside(if you call it that) is that these battles are very micro intensive and have the most casualties compared to a normal battle out on the field. This is due to the buff archers/matchlocks get if they man the walls (faster fire rate/reload) AND the fact that almost all the time defending units will fight to the death rather than retreat and abandon the fort. They’ll still route, specially with a small garrison, but not as easily. Even if they’re surrounded they will prolong the fight before they start breaking. Meaning you really have to capture the victory point or risk losing more men to some very zealous farmers. Of course this also works the other way around meaning you can really have the most heroic victories made from insurmountable odds. Or knowing full well you’ll lose, you can try your damn hardest to get as much kills as possible to push your enemies to a pyrrhic victory. Compared to Warhammer 3 its… meh… when you have set health values for units and clear rock paper scissor match ups its hard for me to fully enjoy a siege battle, imo it just becomes a normal field battle but with extra steps. Sure Shogun 2 has them as well but a majority of the units are viable throughout the campaign. You won’t find yourself in the “oh shit” moment in Shogun 2 when fighting a full stack army, you have a fighting chance to win a siege or at the very least cripple an army’s advance. Meanwhile in Warhammer 3 they just send 5 dragons and monstrous beasts to destroy my gates while I cry because my main army is far away and the garrison can’t counter them since none of them are “effective against Large”. Then the next turn happens and 2 more death stacks appear from the FOW and I raise the white flag and call it a day.
Warhammer Fantasy had a separate table top game for Naval Combat. There was a videogame adaptation on it, but it wasn't very good. Would be cool to see naval combat added to WTW but that's almost a whole other game they have to put in.
the cinematic at 11:47 is the intro Cinematic for Starcraft 2's second campaign: Heart of the Swarm, the bit shown having Zerg (all-consuming aliens with limited sentience overall) drop pods landing on a Terran (Starcraft 2's human faction) city
Starcraft 2 also has a third race/faction: Protoss, who are highly advanced, speak through telepathy while having no mouths, and are also sometimes referred to as the space wizards of SC2 (SC2 standing for StarCraft 2)
Just wanted to chime up and bring up something about the realm divide; in the original shogun 2, once the divide occured in your campaign, then all (and I mean ALL) surviving clans declare war against you as an enemy of the state. Even your own allies and vassals will turn on you at that point. Translation: bye-bye trade agreements and alliances, and hello the grind of resistance. (This is matched in Fall of the Samurai if Kleaper had chosen the "Make a stand" option, as both Imperial and Shogunal factions will be hostile. Just wanted to share some info about that.)
The thing you mentioned with the chaos vs order alliances occuring did happen in total war warhammer 2 at some point archaeon would start his doomtide and all order factions would get a massive bonus to relations. I think ot was like +300 or something so they would rapidly form the ordertide
Realm Divide hurts much more in base game Shogun 2, cause it basically makes you EVERYONE'S enemy, and depending on who's still alive, the pain only goes from, on a scale to 1-10, to about 9 to around 12
As someone who loves total war Shogun 2, the naval combat, while fun, is very finicky, as you need to make sure your cannons are actually facing the enemy ships in order to actually hit them, which can be tricky. As for the siege battles, Shogun 2 is vastly superior to Warhammer 3 in the aspect of siege battles as it is fun to both defend forts as well as siege them. As for seasons, doing and summer is best for expanding your territories and surfing enemy forts, while fall is good for building up your defenses, and winter is for defending what you have taken as well as what you already own.
As someone who's played every total war I'll give you a quick Tier list: S: Rome, Medieval 2, Shogun 2 A: Shogun, Medieval, Empire, Napoleon B: Warhammer 1/2/3 C: N/A D: Rome 2, Atilla, Three Kingdoms F: Pharoe, Troy Creative Assembly peaked in the mid 2000's and had a VERY brief renaissance with Shogun 2 but fell off hard with rome 2 which greatly over simplified city construction effectively deleted diplomacy and the trade system and made the combat AI extremely mentally disabled and it never really got back as good as it used to be. The games were much more satisfying and intricate before rome 2 and Warhammer while good on the tactical side is a shadow of the franchise's actual potential.
Would definitely love to see you get into other Total War games. You're right that they're different from Total Warhammer, but that's because they're quite a bit (or a lot) older. Medieval 2, Rome 2, and Shogun 2 are all fantastic
11:48 Yep, Starcraft 2, and you should TOTALLY watch the trailers for each campaing, they have cinematics at important points of the campaing, but the connective tissue of each campaing is dialogue among the characters in the different menus, wich i believe is skipped in most existing compilations
The reason why none of the Total War: Warhammer games has naval battles like this is because of Man O'War: Corsair. I really want to see this type of battles with Warhammer Fantasy fleets.
First off, you absolutely should do a reaction to the Shogun agent failure movies. In older Total War games the agents had movies that would play when an agent did an action, where you'd see them going about their business and attempt to do whatever (typically you were trying to assassinate somebody), and while it sucked to read that they failed, the movies showing HOW they failed are fantastic. It makes me sad that such a thing would be unreasonable to add in Warhammer since that would require a ridiculous amount if work and hard drive space for every agent of every faction doing every action on every faction and character. Everything else here is in no particular order: Technically if it wasn't for the Emperor, this would be a communist revolution, going by Kleaper's rules. Bullets are tracked on a model-by-model basis. I think there might have been one infantry unit whose models were capable of surviving one shot, but that was about it, usually one or two volleys would cripple the enemy unit. Funnily enough, despite being set in Japan in this time period, I'd argue the strongest infantry in the entire game are Portuguese Tercos. These guys are far and away the best of the matchlock infantry, they not only have great firepower, they wear heavy armour (so bow units cannot deal with them), and they're good in melee combat, so after they shoot the advancing enemy they kill whoever survived in close quarters. They're also extremely easy to recruit for some reason, basically imagine if Ratlings were a tier 1 unit and also great melee fighters, that's the equivalent to the Portuguese Tercos. They also looked like Conquistadors. Honestly Troy and Warhammer 3 probably have the best AI, in most Total War games the AI flips between competent and laughable, but in Warhammer 3 on very hard you get those interesting and competent maneuvers, as you said. Sieges in Shogun 2 I'd argue were worse than in Warhammer 3. The ideal tactic is the same, and if you want to have fun you also do it the same way. In Shogun 2 I always felt the outcome was predetermined, because by the time the fighting starts you know how it's going to go, whereas in Warhammer 3 even without magic there are things you can do to fight back more effectively if you're defending. The AI targeting the player is pretty bad depending on the game, and honestly in Warhammer 3 you can very easily avoid it either by ensuring prospective enemies are already involved in their own wars (factions almost never willingly fight on two fronts), or by choosing a defensive position they don't want to approach. This is why for Snikch it's smart to immediately run south for five turns until you get to the port city, because the northern enemies have their own wars to worry about and none are interested in that space until much later. Incidentally there is also a trick in Warhammer 3, enemies will declare war if you're too weak, and they'll send lots of armies if you're becoming a superpower (most of the armies you see in people's videos are due to the strategic threat debuff you get when you become too strong), however there is a nice sweet spot in the middle where nobody declares war, and enemies already at war don't bother to fight you because it would cost them their standing military, and the game thinks you can't easily beat their garrisons. This is most evident with Snikch (I mention him a lot because he's the easiest to experience the hidden mechanics with) and even some Dark Elf/Chaos factions. Apparently most people rush to have the biggest army possible and so they get slapped with the strategic threat penalty (the diplomacy screen does tell you it exists, but I guess people don't read it). Total War: Troy was probably the best game for non-player bias, and this is because the game is meant for you to siege Troy and its allies. If you were playing as one of Troy's characters you'd be in a lot of wars but you'd have a lot of allies, and otherwise you had all the time in the world to get over to it, or explore the map if you wanted. The Geisha is probably the most realistic part of this, you'd be shocked what horny dudes did for women back then (yes, it's way worse than what dudes do now). China in particular has a very colourful period in history where one Emperor did a hell of a lot for his woman even though she was an absolute monster. You joke but Three Kingdoms kinda tried its own version of a social link system where you'd need to meet your wife, get married and have kids. You could even set up a marriage to a faction leader through diplomacy if you were lucky, where they'd marry you and their faction would join yours (I think you could also do vice-versa, but that gave you a game over), however it was rare because most faction leaders would marry before you had a shot at them. Leaders could also die of old age and then you'd have an heir take over. Total War Troy is a sad case because when it was put out, CA managed to hit the sweet spot of pleasing nobody. They tried to mix the historical with the mythic, but in practice this meant the Minotaur was just a big guy wearing a bull-head mask, the cyclops was a big guy wearing an elephant skull, sirens were dancing girls that were meant to fight, and so on. Eventually CA released DLC adding two separate game modes, a historical one that revamped the game to play like older titles (I think it was free), and a mythic one that revamped the game and turned it into a similar beast to Warhammer 3, albeit with a Greek theme and a vastly different economy (one where everyone had 4 resources to manage instead of just gold as a catch-all, and a great diplomacy system that Warhammer 3 probably took inspiration from). In general I thought the mythic version was very good, especially since it includes 3 separate play styles and extra units for the factions (adding even more variety) by including great mythical beasts that would grant you new units and faction mechanics. You could only have one per playthrough, so your choice was important but the result was added replayability, and you could even have a city of ghosts working to keep your economy going. Incidentally Troy's Redemption Arc is one of the reasons why I don't take people seriously when they call CA a greedy company. CA was very adamant at first that Troy was supposed to be a much smaller Total War game with a reduced price, and focused on a specific event. When the community didn't like what they did, CA retooled the entire game twice to make it play like either of the older series players liked (pleasing both historical and fantasy lovers) and gave it some DLC to add in new playstyles and factions with unique units. At the moment it stands better than most of the historical titles, though sadly I'd argue the siege maps sucked until you made it to the very late game. Once you and the AI had access to the late game units, Sieges became a lot more fun. The total war mechanic IS in Warhammer 3. If you choose not to set the endgame crisis to a reasonable turn number (or work too fast), it triggers when your empire is large enough or you trigger the victory. Everyone will team up with you to fight the endgame crises since They're at war with them too, and your diplomacy standing skyrockets until the conflict is over. For some reason though CA hasn't added a chaos endgame crises yet, maybe they're waiting until they finish adding Khorne and Slaanesh DLC’s? That's about all that comes to mind.
Warhammer sieges suck ass, what the hell are you on about? If you don't know how to defend in Shogun 2, that's your problem, not the game's. Edit: Ah, you're making apologetics for the strategic player targeting. It all makes sense now.
Shogun 2 is one of the best Total Wars in my opinion. The Siegbattels and Battels in generell are a lot of fun. The Grafiks aged well for a Game vrom 2010. The only downside is that beqause its frim 2010 the engin does not have some quality of live Features that the newer Games have. I woud recommend to pick it up and try it out, im sure you would like it.
Shogun 2 is pretty good, especially with the Fall of the Samurai expansion as many have already said. It's also one of the most highly stylized games in the franchise, which has helped it age a bit more gracefully from a graphical perspective and maybe a bit less gracefully from a voice acting perspective. In my own opinion, the biggest mark against ot is how frenetic it is. For as long as many aspects of gameplay take, the campaign time limit is maddeningly short, and battles are a frustrating mix of long maneuver phases with unpleasantly fast engagements. In contrast to many other titles in the series, the attack damage to health pool scaling heavily favors damage resulting in both sides melting away far too quickly in combat for my own taste. There are, of course, mods to address both of these complaints but if you're looking for input on vanilla gameplay that's a bit outside the scope. The naval battles are pretty "meh" in the base game, and decent-to-enjoyable in the FotS expansion. The melee and bow ships are serviceable, but can be tedious and a bit buggy; while the greater availability of cannon ships in the expansion does mean they tend to dominate engagements, they're also not a guaranteed win until you start seeing the largest foreign designs. I'll also add that outright destruction of ships (as opposed to their crews) is significantly less good in many ways than in Empire Total War (or its expandalone Napoleon- though I haven't actually played Napoleon and am thus relying on the assessments of others). All told, I'd say the naval aspect is midway between Rome 2 on the low end and Empire/Napoleon on the high end. In common with Empire, most specialist buildings and provincial resources are NOT contained within cities and are distinct locations scattered about a province to be managed, defended, and attacked separately. Opinions are mixed, skewing positive (from the discussions I've seen), but it definitely changes the dynamics of province management and strategic considerations whem compared to TW titles that use the centralized, "self-contained" system such as the Warhammer titles. I personally prefer the all-in-one approach as I really do prefer soeges in almost every TW game over field battles, but o realize very much in the minority in that regard.
problem with reacting to Starcraft cinematics: not all story is going to be shown and might be confusing. problem with reacting to cinematics with gameplay: long and sometimes not interesting.
Troy's release was bad. They couldn't decide if they wanted it to be fantasy or historical. They released a patch later where they made it 2 different game modes. So you could play historical grounded, or fantasy. Or the weird mix if you really wanted
Guns in shogun2 are that deadly to all units, unless that unit has 2 hp per guy (most only have 1) that gun is going to rip through your expensive samurai armor and kill the heck out of them. Medieval 2 Total War is the best game in the total war series.
Troy is not seen as the worst Total war but it isn't the best even tho I do like it cus I love studying greek mythos Edit: They also have magic so always an extra win
Personally I think shogun 2 has better siege battles than warhammer 3, or at the very least are more fun. Warhammer has ass ladders, while shogun 2 has grappling hooks where the models can fall and die while climbing. There is no real time building in shogun 2 which makes towers less op. Units will make a last stand (become unbreakable) at the final level in shogun 2, not they captured multiple parts of the town lets give up. When a section of the defensive wall is blown up by artillery the models on that part get sent flying in the air, which is very fun to watch.artillery is overall more realistically effective in shogun 2. In other words sieges in shogun two are just more fun.
Navy combats alright when its gunpowder era, all the total wars that are based before 1700s dont have good naval combat, ramming isn't fun and before cannons thats mainly what you did. Shogun 2 has the best naval combat out of the later era total wars, particularly fall of the shogun version because its 1850s ships. Napoleon/Empire both have decent naval combat but they arent quite on the level of Shogun 2
Naval battles in Shogun - “Oh, how beautiful and cool” - you play 3 battles, each an hour of intense micromanagement of incredibly slow and extremely buggy units -one of them was most likely softlocked due to the boarding, or because the random ship became immortal, or because the ship got stuck within the boundaries of the map, or simply because the game did not consider the destroyed fleet destroyed -You realize that the bot not use one large fleet, and simply drives 2-3 boats around the map, which means a tenfold increase in the number of hour-long battles -autoresolve all battles -At the end of the game, you start one battle just to watch how the Ironclad warship shoots the ships on the other end of the map In one of my first campaigns in Shogun, I played out almost all the naval battles, since then, even many years later, I have no desire to touch them again And yes - Shogun has the best naval battles in the series (perhaps even the best balanced?) This is mainly due to the fact that Shogun is a relatively modern game + in later games there is a very large emphasis on buggy boarding
Where do you think Americans got its love of boats from ☕️🧐🎩🇬🇧 but ya total war game play completely different from there warhammer games for instance you can make the garrisons your self instead of having to rely on the crappy ones from building certain buildings haha god I miss being able to do that haha and you don’t need a commander for every army
Kleaper complains about Total War: Troy having no naval combat. Thing is, if you read the Illiad, you'll find that the Trojan War was basically fought entirely on land. The Greeks literally just used their navy to reach Troy.
However, there is no excuse for literally every other total war. (Yes, including pharaoh)
@@winchelseabeach4863Greeks still would've used ship to ship warfare. It's just Troy can't really fight against a thousand ships. Though I don't think Pharoah would have ships, but I haven't brushed up on my ancient Egyptian military lore. It does seem odd they would have much of a fleet but I could be wrong.
@@RhysCallinan-hf7qx No. The Illiad literally doesn't have any naval combat.
@@anzaca1 But in historical events there were battles at sea. We've seen it in later times during the Greek-Persian war, but that was also apparent even before the Iliad, which still uses the same ships. Same kind of ship tech the Romans in Rome Total War used.
The town of Obama still around irl and if you build a garrison there, you can call it
Barrack Obama
Gotta do it for the memes
@@TheLegitWeebs but will you ever personally try the challenge that this video is reacting to?
4:41 no that wasn't a full edit lol your troops can scale castle walls with their bare hands, but that does come at the cost of some of them falling to their.. demise.. 😬
Shogun is a very well-preserved game in the series, and the shootings is particularly good. Archers use GIANT Japanese arrows + and compared to other games in the series, this arrows feel heavier, travel slower, and are released in a more uniform volley.
In the add-on about the fall of the samurai, was added cinematic smoke effects. As units fire, smoke accumulates in waves above them and rolls down the slopes of the hills, gradually covering the battlefield
If you're interested in the gameplay point of view. Compared to Warhammer, all of Shogun's units feel like glass cannons, which is why battles happen very quickly. Protection and armor seem to have a significant impact on survivability, but a heavily armored samurai in Shogun feels more “glassy” than a dwarven slayer (Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that during the charge, the units in Shogun "penetrate" each other better and fight not only in the front line?)
However, Shogun will be easier than Warhammer, mainly due to the much less advanced AI. In most cases, you can simply attack with a strip of infantry and calmly defeat twice the number of the enemy, since in ancient times the bot did not know how to use archers and cavalry at all, even without abuse of stealth or separation of the army, the AI is almost unable to make a normal formation, which is quite deadly with such glassy units
Also in Shogun, your armies will almost never include anything other than archers and melee infantry (and very rarely cavalry), so fewer core unit types, less microcontrol. There are also no flying units, monsters or single entities that often require babysitting.
In Shogun there are “specialist” units, but by the time you get them the campaign is often over, although ninjas and guys with rockets are worthy of the title of “doomstacks”
And in the shogun, ashigaru with spears (standard peasants) are broken. Without the need to research technology, they have a “wall of spears” available, which allows them to defeat twice as expensive samurai units (samurai are also blocked behind technology). From above, you can buff this ashigaru extremely, thus getting one of the strongest “doomstacks” in the game (and the cheapest one) The bot does not use this formation at all, which also greatly affects the difficulty of the game
Of all the games in the series besides Warhammer, I would probably recommend trying Shogun the most, as it had a special old feel to it without feeling like an overly old game. Next in place is the Three Kingdoms due to its interesting system of politics, diplomacy and social links system.
Thanks for the comprehensive breakdown of the game! I might pick it up on sale then just to try.
Cavalry rare? What the fuck game did you play? The first half sounded like Shogun, but the second half sounded nothing like Shogun. @TheLegitWeebs Take this description of the game with a giant grain of salt.
@TheLegitWeebs That doomstack of Yari Ashigaru is made even more broken if you are using the Oda clan, who not only provide clan buffs for ashigaru units (making them a strong early-game faction,) but also providing the clan-specific "Oda Long Yari Ashigaru," which has even longer reach than normal yari. Combine this reach with the aforementioned "Yari wall" formation, and good luck any samurai getting into melee reach of them.
As an aside, I believe the downside of the long yari ashigaru outside of the spear wall is slightly less melee defense compared to the normal yari unit. Oh, and being packed together in the yari wall makes the unit slower moving and a bit more vulnerable to ranged units. Felt that should be added.
Shogun 2 had imo the best naval combat i even managed to enjoy them slightly. I normally hate naval combat. Which says a lot. And in terms of skills careying over. Using of units is fairly similar. But there are a lot of differences too and there are less tips showing you in the right direction (the short descriptors about strengths and weaknesses of units for example) so you kinda have to test or know. Based on the stat sheet alone. But overall i think xero would do well because army controls are well. The same just lacking magic and single entity shenanigans
Guns in Shogun 2 really are that deadly. I think the only unit that doesn't die as quickly are the Date(?) "bulletproof" samurai who have a shitload of armor. Also most units don't have health in the same way that Warhammer does. Each individual soldier actually represents that soldier, and whether they die or not is more down to getting a killing blow than wearing down health.
Player bias isn't really a thing in the old games. At least not on the campaign map. In the really old games it's a bit random rather than targeted. Enemies will become allies and vice versa in pretty schizophrenic fashion. They'll usually only declare war if they border you though. This is the Fall of the Samurai campaign, so the campaign AI is a bit different due to the scenario, but they're targeting him because he's in the opposite faction (imperial vs shogun), not because he's a player.
Also yes, guys will fall off a wall when climbing it. There are no ladders in this game. Japanese castles have a very different design philosophy from European ones. The siege battles in Shogun 2 are some of the best in the entire series. The original Rome Total War and Attila are in second for me. None of the Warhammer games have anything even approaching a proper siege battle. There's no city to attack, just a disembodied wall with a generic area behind it.
Regarding the battles, the numbers involved can be a LOT higher than Warhammer ever gets, especially if you use Ultra unit sizes.
Siege battle in shogun 2 are nice both vanilla and modded, often times its down to how many yari ashigaru you have defending that make or break a defensive battle since they’re capable of being an additional ”wall” to stop invaders from climbing further up. While your more offensive units can pick off the ones that do get through.
The downside(if you call it that) is that these battles are very micro intensive and have the most casualties compared to a normal battle out on the field. This is due to the buff archers/matchlocks get if they man the walls (faster fire rate/reload) AND the fact that almost all the time defending units will fight to the death rather than retreat and abandon the fort. They’ll still route, specially with a small garrison, but not as easily. Even if they’re surrounded they will prolong the fight before they start breaking.
Meaning you really have to capture the victory point or risk losing more men to some very zealous farmers. Of course this also works the other way around meaning you can really have the most heroic victories made from insurmountable odds. Or knowing full well you’ll lose, you can try your damn hardest to get as much kills as possible to push your enemies to a pyrrhic victory.
Compared to Warhammer 3 its… meh… when you have set health values for units and clear rock paper scissor match ups its hard for me to fully enjoy a siege battle, imo it just becomes a normal field battle but with extra steps. Sure Shogun 2 has them as well but a majority of the units are viable throughout the campaign.
You won’t find yourself in the “oh shit” moment in Shogun 2 when fighting a full stack army, you have a fighting chance to win a siege or at the very least cripple an army’s advance.
Meanwhile in Warhammer 3 they just send 5 dragons and monstrous beasts to destroy my gates while I cry because my main army is far away and the garrison can’t counter them since none of them are “effective against Large”. Then the next turn happens and 2 more death stacks appear from the FOW and I raise the white flag and call it a day.
Warhammer Fantasy had a separate table top game for Naval Combat.
There was a videogame adaptation on it, but it wasn't very good.
Would be cool to see naval combat added to WTW but that's almost a whole other game they have to put in.
Had no idea there was a table top specifically for Naval Combat.
the cinematic at 11:47 is the intro Cinematic for Starcraft 2's second campaign: Heart of the Swarm, the bit shown having Zerg (all-consuming aliens with limited sentience overall) drop pods landing on a Terran (Starcraft 2's human faction) city
Starcraft 2 also has a third race/faction: Protoss, who are highly advanced, speak through telepathy while having no mouths, and are also sometimes referred to as the space wizards of SC2 (SC2 standing for StarCraft 2)
Just wanted to chime up and bring up something about the realm divide; in the original shogun 2, once the divide occured in your campaign, then all (and I mean ALL) surviving clans declare war against you as an enemy of the state. Even your own allies and vassals will turn on you at that point. Translation: bye-bye trade agreements and alliances, and hello the grind of resistance. (This is matched in Fall of the Samurai if Kleaper had chosen the "Make a stand" option, as both Imperial and Shogunal factions will be hostile. Just wanted to share some info about that.)
The thing you mentioned with the chaos vs order alliances occuring did happen in total war warhammer 2 at some point archaeon would start his doomtide and all order factions would get a massive bonus to relations. I think ot was like +300 or something so they would rapidly form the ordertide
Realm Divide hurts much more in base game Shogun 2, cause it basically makes you EVERYONE'S enemy, and depending on who's still alive, the pain only goes from, on a scale to 1-10, to about 9 to around 12
I can imagine. Cool concept though. Just have to plan ahead and play around it I guess
@@TheLegitWeebs no one can plan against the Ikko Ikki hordes lol
@@TheLegitWeebsAlso, EVERYONE here means EVERYONE. Even your close allies and vassals. Immediately.
Btw you can still visit HMS Warrior in Portsmouth ^^
As someone who loves total war Shogun 2, the naval combat, while fun, is very finicky, as you need to make sure your cannons are actually facing the enemy ships in order to actually hit them, which can be tricky.
As for the siege battles, Shogun 2 is vastly superior to Warhammer 3 in the aspect of siege battles as it is fun to both defend forts as well as siege them.
As for seasons, doing and summer is best for expanding your territories and surfing enemy forts, while fall is good for building up your defenses, and winter is for defending what you have taken as well as what you already own.
As someone who's played every total war I'll give you a quick Tier list:
S: Rome, Medieval 2, Shogun 2
A: Shogun, Medieval, Empire, Napoleon
B: Warhammer 1/2/3
C: N/A
D: Rome 2, Atilla, Three Kingdoms
F: Pharoe, Troy
Creative Assembly peaked in the mid 2000's and had a VERY brief renaissance with Shogun 2 but fell off hard with rome 2 which greatly over simplified city construction effectively deleted diplomacy and the trade system and made the combat AI extremely mentally disabled and it never really got back as good as it used to be. The games were much more satisfying and intricate before rome 2 and Warhammer while good on the tactical side is a shadow of the franchise's actual potential.
Would definitely love to see you get into other Total War games. You're right that they're different from Total Warhammer, but that's because they're quite a bit (or a lot) older. Medieval 2, Rome 2, and Shogun 2 are all fantastic
20:51 .And That I discovered I had a wife. classic
"Oh, wait, I knew I forgot something... hmm... wait... where did this daughter come from?"
11:48 Yep, Starcraft 2, and you should TOTALLY watch the trailers for each campaing, they have cinematics at important points of the campaing, but the connective tissue of each campaing is dialogue among the characters in the different menus, wich i believe is skipped in most existing compilations
The reason why none of the Total War: Warhammer games has naval battles like this is because of Man O'War: Corsair. I really want to see this type of battles with Warhammer Fantasy fleets.
First off, you absolutely should do a reaction to the Shogun agent failure movies. In older Total War games the agents had movies that would play when an agent did an action, where you'd see them going about their business and attempt to do whatever (typically you were trying to assassinate somebody), and while it sucked to read that they failed, the movies showing HOW they failed are fantastic. It makes me sad that such a thing would be unreasonable to add in Warhammer since that would require a ridiculous amount if work and hard drive space for every agent of every faction doing every action on every faction and character.
Everything else here is in no particular order:
Technically if it wasn't for the Emperor, this would be a communist revolution, going by Kleaper's rules.
Bullets are tracked on a model-by-model basis. I think there might have been one infantry unit whose models were capable of surviving one shot, but that was about it, usually one or two volleys would cripple the enemy unit.
Funnily enough, despite being set in Japan in this time period, I'd argue the strongest infantry in the entire game are Portuguese Tercos. These guys are far and away the best of the matchlock infantry, they not only have great firepower, they wear heavy armour (so bow units cannot deal with them), and they're good in melee combat, so after they shoot the advancing enemy they kill whoever survived in close quarters. They're also extremely easy to recruit for some reason, basically imagine if Ratlings were a tier 1 unit and also great melee fighters, that's the equivalent to the Portuguese Tercos. They also looked like Conquistadors.
Honestly Troy and Warhammer 3 probably have the best AI, in most Total War games the AI flips between competent and laughable, but in Warhammer 3 on very hard you get those interesting and competent maneuvers, as you said.
Sieges in Shogun 2 I'd argue were worse than in Warhammer 3. The ideal tactic is the same, and if you want to have fun you also do it the same way. In Shogun 2 I always felt the outcome was predetermined, because by the time the fighting starts you know how it's going to go, whereas in Warhammer 3 even without magic there are things you can do to fight back more effectively if you're defending.
The AI targeting the player is pretty bad depending on the game, and honestly in Warhammer 3 you can very easily avoid it either by ensuring prospective enemies are already involved in their own wars (factions almost never willingly fight on two fronts), or by choosing a defensive position they don't want to approach. This is why for Snikch it's smart to immediately run south for five turns until you get to the port city, because the northern enemies have their own wars to worry about and none are interested in that space until much later.
Incidentally there is also a trick in Warhammer 3, enemies will declare war if you're too weak, and they'll send lots of armies if you're becoming a superpower (most of the armies you see in people's videos are due to the strategic threat debuff you get when you become too strong), however there is a nice sweet spot in the middle where nobody declares war, and enemies already at war don't bother to fight you because it would cost them their standing military, and the game thinks you can't easily beat their garrisons. This is most evident with Snikch (I mention him a lot because he's the easiest to experience the hidden mechanics with) and even some Dark Elf/Chaos factions. Apparently most people rush to have the biggest army possible and so they get slapped with the strategic threat penalty (the diplomacy screen does tell you it exists, but I guess people don't read it).
Total War: Troy was probably the best game for non-player bias, and this is because the game is meant for you to siege Troy and its allies. If you were playing as one of Troy's characters you'd be in a lot of wars but you'd have a lot of allies, and otherwise you had all the time in the world to get over to it, or explore the map if you wanted.
The Geisha is probably the most realistic part of this, you'd be shocked what horny dudes did for women back then (yes, it's way worse than what dudes do now). China in particular has a very colourful period in history where one Emperor did a hell of a lot for his woman even though she was an absolute monster.
You joke but Three Kingdoms kinda tried its own version of a social link system where you'd need to meet your wife, get married and have kids. You could even set up a marriage to a faction leader through diplomacy if you were lucky, where they'd marry you and their faction would join yours (I think you could also do vice-versa, but that gave you a game over), however it was rare because most faction leaders would marry before you had a shot at them. Leaders could also die of old age and then you'd have an heir take over.
Total War Troy is a sad case because when it was put out, CA managed to hit the sweet spot of pleasing nobody. They tried to mix the historical with the mythic, but in practice this meant the Minotaur was just a big guy wearing a bull-head mask, the cyclops was a big guy wearing an elephant skull, sirens were dancing girls that were meant to fight, and so on. Eventually CA released DLC adding two separate game modes, a historical one that revamped the game to play like older titles (I think it was free), and a mythic one that revamped the game and turned it into a similar beast to Warhammer 3, albeit with a Greek theme and a vastly different economy (one where everyone had 4 resources to manage instead of just gold as a catch-all, and a great diplomacy system that Warhammer 3 probably took inspiration from). In general I thought the mythic version was very good, especially since it includes 3 separate play styles and extra units for the factions (adding even more variety) by including great mythical beasts that would grant you new units and faction mechanics. You could only have one per playthrough, so your choice was important but the result was added replayability, and you could even have a city of ghosts working to keep your economy going.
Incidentally Troy's Redemption Arc is one of the reasons why I don't take people seriously when they call CA a greedy company. CA was very adamant at first that Troy was supposed to be a much smaller Total War game with a reduced price, and focused on a specific event. When the community didn't like what they did, CA retooled the entire game twice to make it play like either of the older series players liked (pleasing both historical and fantasy lovers) and gave it some DLC to add in new playstyles and factions with unique units. At the moment it stands better than most of the historical titles, though sadly I'd argue the siege maps sucked until you made it to the very late game. Once you and the AI had access to the late game units, Sieges became a lot more fun.
The total war mechanic IS in Warhammer 3. If you choose not to set the endgame crisis to a reasonable turn number (or work too fast), it triggers when your empire is large enough or you trigger the victory. Everyone will team up with you to fight the endgame crises since They're at war with them too, and your diplomacy standing skyrockets until the conflict is over. For some reason though CA hasn't added a chaos endgame crises yet, maybe they're waiting until they finish adding Khorne and Slaanesh DLC’s?
That's about all that comes to mind.
Warhammer sieges suck ass, what the hell are you on about? If you don't know how to defend in Shogun 2, that's your problem, not the game's.
Edit: Ah, you're making apologetics for the strategic player targeting. It all makes sense now.
Shogun 2 is one of the best Total Wars in my opinion.
The Siegbattels and Battels in generell are a lot of fun.
The Grafiks aged well for a Game vrom 2010.
The only downside is that beqause its frim 2010 the engin does not have some quality of live Features that the newer Games have.
I woud recommend to pick it up and try it out, im sure you would like it.
Shogun 2 is pretty good, especially with the Fall of the Samurai expansion as many have already said. It's also one of the most highly stylized games in the franchise, which has helped it age a bit more gracefully from a graphical perspective and maybe a bit less gracefully from a voice acting perspective.
In my own opinion, the biggest mark against ot is how frenetic it is. For as long as many aspects of gameplay take, the campaign time limit is maddeningly short, and battles are a frustrating mix of long maneuver phases with unpleasantly fast engagements. In contrast to many other titles in the series, the attack damage to health pool scaling heavily favors damage resulting in both sides melting away far too quickly in combat for my own taste. There are, of course, mods to address both of these complaints but if you're looking for input on vanilla gameplay that's a bit outside the scope.
The naval battles are pretty "meh" in the base game, and decent-to-enjoyable in the FotS expansion. The melee and bow ships are serviceable, but can be tedious and a bit buggy; while the greater availability of cannon ships in the expansion does mean they tend to dominate engagements, they're also not a guaranteed win until you start seeing the largest foreign designs. I'll also add that outright destruction of ships (as opposed to their crews) is significantly less good in many ways than in Empire Total War (or its expandalone Napoleon- though I haven't actually played Napoleon and am thus relying on the assessments of others). All told, I'd say the naval aspect is midway between Rome 2 on the low end and Empire/Napoleon on the high end.
In common with Empire, most specialist buildings and provincial resources are NOT contained within cities and are distinct locations scattered about a province to be managed, defended, and attacked separately. Opinions are mixed, skewing positive (from the discussions I've seen), but it definitely changes the dynamics of province management and strategic considerations whem compared to TW titles that use the centralized, "self-contained" system such as the Warhammer titles. I personally prefer the all-in-one approach as I really do prefer soeges in almost every TW game over field battles, but o realize very much in the minority in that regard.
problem with reacting to Starcraft cinematics: not all story is going to be shown and might be confusing. problem with reacting to cinematics with gameplay: long and sometimes not interesting.
Troy's release was bad. They couldn't decide if they wanted it to be fantasy or historical. They released a patch later where they made it 2 different game modes. So you could play historical grounded, or fantasy. Or the weird mix if you really wanted
So he’s basically making America
You should definetly look at some of the StarCraft cinematics and lore!
Guns in shogun2 are that deadly to all units, unless that unit has 2 hp per guy (most only have 1) that gun is going to rip through your expensive samurai armor and kill the heck out of them. Medieval 2 Total War is the best game in the total war series.
Troy is not seen as the worst Total war but it isn't the best even tho I do like it cus I love studying greek mythos
Edit: They also have magic so always an extra win
Personally I think shogun 2 has better siege battles than warhammer 3, or at the very least are more fun. Warhammer has ass ladders, while shogun 2 has grappling hooks where the models can fall and die while climbing. There is no real time building in shogun 2 which makes towers less op. Units will make a last stand (become unbreakable) at the final level in shogun 2, not they captured multiple parts of the town lets give up. When a section of the defensive wall is blown up by artillery the models on that part get sent flying in the air, which is very fun to watch.artillery is overall more realistically effective in shogun 2.
In other words sieges in shogun two are just more fun.
Navy combats alright when its gunpowder era, all the total wars that are based before 1700s dont have good naval combat, ramming isn't fun and before cannons thats mainly what you did. Shogun 2 has the best naval combat out of the later era total wars, particularly fall of the shogun version because its 1850s ships. Napoleon/Empire both have decent naval combat but they arent quite on the level of Shogun 2
This is great! I hope you react to other total war games, not just warhammer.
Naval battles in Shogun
- “Oh, how beautiful and cool”
- you play 3 battles, each an hour of intense micromanagement of incredibly slow and extremely buggy units
-one of them was most likely softlocked due to the boarding, or because the random ship became immortal, or because the ship got stuck within the boundaries of the map, or simply because the game did not consider the destroyed fleet destroyed
-You realize that the bot not use one large fleet, and simply drives 2-3 boats around the map, which means a tenfold increase in the number of hour-long battles
-autoresolve all battles
-At the end of the game, you start one battle just to watch how the Ironclad warship shoots the ships on the other end of the map
In one of my first campaigns in Shogun, I played out almost all the naval battles, since then, even many years later, I have no desire to touch them again
And yes - Shogun has the best naval battles in the series (perhaps even the best balanced?) This is mainly due to the fact that Shogun is a relatively modern game + in later games there is a very large emphasis on buggy boarding
Yikes. Doesn't sound as appealing anymore xD. Then again I suppose Total War was never really about naval combat
@@TheLegitWeebs Don't listen to him, the naval battles are great.
I think you should try Total War Three kingdom. In my opinion it have on top of good Total War interesting political system.
Where do you think Americans got its love of boats from ☕️🧐🎩🇬🇧 but ya total war game play completely different from there warhammer games for instance you can make the garrisons your self instead of having to rely on the crappy ones from building certain buildings haha god I miss being able to do that haha and you don’t need a commander for every army