Total War Saga: Troy - now on Steam

[MajorMace]

Total War is supposed to be simulationist

It still isn't as simulationist as Rome 1 of course

I know you guys mean in terms of gameplay, but whenever I hear about Rome "simulationism" and think about how they were that close to portray egyptian units weilding bronze age khepesh, I can't help but smile.

On another note, all nu-Total War aren't shite as I keep reading here. Attila remains one of the best entry in the series, and is probably gonna remain the best in terms of thematic approach to the formula for a long time.
I'm actually tired of long time frames which render characters, spies and stuff like that almost irrelevant due to the short lifespan of everyone. I enjoyed Napoleon and Attila much more than their respective "main" game.

Lacrymas made me curious about Troy, i'll give it a try soon. Mycenaean myths and tales, what's not to love anyway ?

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Attila kinda felt like an improvement over R2 (not that it was a big achievement), but I really fail to see what makes it so good. It still had (albeit slightly changed) the "build stuff that gives +x and -y, build stuff that gives -x and +y" province development that utterly killed R2 strategy layer as something even remotely interesting, which seriously has to be one of the most idiotic, tedious and low-iq designs I have ever seen in a semi-serious strategy game. It still had completely broken crap like the naval combat (although trying to control my first naval battle and seeing ships that were ordered to board just launch their entire crews straight into the ocean in a lemming-like fashion was p. amusing). Finally, it added province razing/burning, which took the ultimate cancer of the 3d TW that is AI beelining for ripe settlements out of player's reach and turned into turbo-cancer instead. Which was then happily ported to WH games in a turbo-cancer, but on steroids mode.

The best thing I can say about it is that I low key enjoyed doing a reconquista in the charlemagne addon for one short run.

 

[MajorMace]

Yes Attila has flaws. I wouldn't dare claim otherwise. But they weigh little compated to its strengths.
Actual asymmetry between factions (not just through their unit roster and starting position, but through their gameplay, objectives and challenges). Proper pacing as long as the campaign goes (instead of the single, sometimes repeated, late game switcheroo that most other games use) articulated around timestamps. An actual notion of development, which makes a better use of the -x +y design you talk about by forcing you to adapt to the situation, ie. the loss in fertility, the eventual need to remigrate etc. Cavalry factions worth playing, which is rare enough in this series to be mentioned. A much more dynamic campaign, where the diplomatic canvas isn't 95% the same every time. Fantastic commitment to the "collapse" atmosphere through art direction and game design. Again : the long time frame which makes character evolution meaningful, since you'll get to use them for potentially 4x more turns, basically. It also makes agent actions and evolution more meaningful. The migration mechanic which gives a whole other purpose to spies and scouting in general. The game has a lot of good ideas and is conceptually consistent.
It also has poor optimisation, since we mention its shortcomings.
ps : the seasonal turns also bring, very simply yet very efficiently, a whole purpose to planning your defenses, in addition to selecting the terrain.

 

[L'ennui]

Unfortunately, Attila runs like an overstuffed PowerPoint presentation for me, whereas Rome 2, Three Kingdoms and Warhammer 3 are all silky-smooth. It's too bad because my favorite TW campaign was as the Sassanids in Barbarian Invasion.