>narrower walls
>towers now have insides
Wow this is what 20 years of progress looks like.

>>2357880
>ITS
>OVER
looks fine to me

>>2357949
its so early, stop doomposting

>>2357998
It's not early, there's more than a decade of disappointment to look back on. There wasn't anything in this preview worth getting excited about, it's the same shit that's been in every other game but looking rough as fuck because 'early alpha project please understand'. If they don't have anything worth showing why bother showing it.

>>2358029
to keep hype and hope that it won't be a buggy mess plagued with the same problems as all total wars since at least rome II.

>>2357880
>islam will be OP to avoid bomb threats
>black and asian europeans
>meta willl be going pagan/islam
>the pope will be the endgame crisis
Luv me some self-hating brit slop

>>2358029
maybe you need therapy? why are you so miserable what do you think?

>>2357880
small family company, pls understand

>>2358046
If you want a blind faith CA fellatio session reddits over there. CA have released fake footage before, and this show case doesn't show anything. It would be the peak of naivety to take anything from this video

Rumour that they've been using AI vibe coding techniques lol

>>2358090
Who pays you?

>Not Beta
>Not Alpha
>Pre-production
This is literally like a rough sketch of what you want. It's retarded to judge this. On the other side though, why the fuck are they showing it? There's literally no reason to and people are just going to get mad.

>>2357880
it looks like a return to total war after the fever dream of the last 20 years
which is an improvement but it's not really impressive

>>2358313
I would be okay with a back to basics game but I dare not get my hopes up.

>looks like medieval 2
>this is somehow a bad thing.

>>2357880
Looks typical.
None of what they showed seems significantly innovative to the formula besides maybe the barricades, but I'll bet they can only be deployed in fixed locations during the deployment phase like Atilla to make cheesing the AI even easier on defense instead of a real time ability you can use freely

>>2358105
No one, I pay CA to play their games and now I feel ripped off by the shitty direction they took the series I complain in threads about it. I have no hope for med.3

>>2357880
>that video sucks their dick
>his next video calls the game dogshit with the same footage
It's all so tiresome

>>2358412
You can't trust any coverage on this fucking series any more. It's either shills whose entire income is selling TW or culture warriors who have no other outlet for the way they feel but talking shit about ongoing game series from their childhood.

>>2357880
arrows look slightly better than the retarded noodles they've been using for years so that's a plus at least

Gameplay looks trash.

Looks like they're going to return to siege maps with multiple layers of walls. Hopefully defending the walls is meaningful instead of retreating to keep

>>2358418
>arrows look
Literally nothing in pre-production will look the same as what we get. Pointless to even think about how it looks.

>>2358421
yeah there's that, that's why i'm not getting my hopes up. maybe they literally can't make the arrows NOT look retarded anymore in the final game. who knows with CA and that niggerrigged engine.

>>2358422
Yeah I dunno how they did it in medieval 2 but they look so satisfying. In later games they either looked arcadey if you left trails on or were just invisible if you turned them off. Might just be as simple as making the projectiles larger than life and getting the motion and speed right.

>>2358423
it's simple, you don't have a bunch of garbage visual noise and graphical effects which amount to smearing vaseline on the camera

File: 1765881309666072.png (133.2 KB)

133.2 KB PNG

>>2358105

>>2357880
Can't really say much since this is pre-pre-alpha or whatever but I am noticing that they clearly focused a lot of work on the helmet reflections and I have to ask: why is this a priority? Every else looks broken, maybe fix that first

i miss the pre rome2 damage models

>>2357880
>"guys there is SO MUCH TO SEE AND UNPATCH"
Yeah, like any other prevous TW that is just another reskin of Rome 2 but with more slop mechanics.

This people are annoying and insufferable af.

>>2357880
Imagine actually hyping yourself up for this absolute dogshit instead of just playing Stainless Steel, HIP, Elder Kings, or Middle Earth Total War lmao

>>2357880
He lost me precisely at "Unpack".
It's a retard shibboleth.

>20 unit limit.
FUCKING WHYYYYYY!

>>2357880
looks cool

>>2358655
Stainless Steel and HIP are pretty good, as is EB2, but maybe anon wants eye candy and Med2 is old and not too pretty even with mods. I sure do like Total War eye candy, so I still play Rome 2 as well, for that reason.

File: 89.jpg (106.2 KB)

106.2 KB JPG

okay now tell me what you niggas WANT TO see in medieval 3 instead of bitching about a pre pre pre alpha showcase

Only 35 replies... in a total War obsessed board.... total War is dead

>>2358823
>back to basics TW with different starting conditions besides 1 settlement and a field army in range of a 'rebel' or minor faction army and settlement.
>Back to unified factions as well, if I play as England I want to play as England and not a tiny little subset of it, various princes or whatever. Know this won't happen because sega has to sell DLC and that's a primary source of it.
>I'll allow the varied resources of later TW vs the generic funds or money of before.
>No 'hero units'
>No army limits and for fuck's sake let us recruit and move armies without a general again.
>pre battle speeches
>longer slog fights vs the quick lightening fights of later tws
>no more unit snapping to do animations, even if it returns to genaric weapon attacks and fewer detailed animations.
>no magical unit abilities
>armor upgrades showing in combat like medieval II did.
>family tree mattering with proper marriage alliances.

That's just off the top of my head. Basically I want a remake of Mid II. I know I'll be disappointed.

>>2358823
I want bigger and more tactical battles that don't play like basic and janky shit like the previous games. The campaign layer could be stripped down to the very basics for all I care, since that part of these games has always been deep as a puddle anyway, so long as the battles are actually good and varied because that's the only thing that sets this mediocre franchise apart.

>>2358046
>>2358105
>noo, you can't criticize my favorite videogames!
I don't think it's so abnormal for people to have lost faith in CA games a long time ago lol. You're just one of these gamer fanboys who has seemingly chosen his team and seethes when someone doesn't agree. Do better, honey.

>>2358910
i was thinking the same thing too (after playing NTW3 for napoopan) that something like that could work even in singleplayer., so a more realistic game mode that removes the "god eye" perspective by using a strict fog of war system, where you cannot see enemy units unless your scouts have a direct line of sight, forcing you to rely on reconnaissance. this paired with a fatigue system that directly effects performance and morale

>>2358910
They'll never do it because a significant part of the fanbase plays it mostly for the campaign layer, and probably even autodecide a lot of the battles. They need to add busywork and buttons and UI features to the campaign for that part of the audience.
It's an unfortunately schizophrenic design. Neither part of the game is satisfying. The battles in the newer games are over very quickly.
Even the design of the tactical battles themselves is fucked, because they spend so much effort in the closeup zoomed in stuff and making it pretty, when 90% of the time you play zoomed out, and then the game becomes an ugly blur. But it's important for marketing and screenshots that you can zoom in and see the helmet glares and shit. It's a cool idea, but it adds nothing to actual gameplay. When you zoom out, the units might as well be sprites as in the old days.

>>2358928
>probably even autodecide a lot of the battles
Probably? The average fan is too dumb for even battles as easy as these. I've seen it. Though, to be fair, I guess the repetitiveness of busywork-based gameplay and the campaign apathy that follows plays a part in the games inevitably devolving into autoresolve fests, too.
>they spend so much effort in the closeup zoomed in stuff and making it pretty, when 90% of the time you play zoomed out, and then the game becomes an ugly blur.
You're right. They waste a ton of resources on shit that does not enhance the experience beyond taking pretty screenshots. The siege battles have these huge and deeply detailed maps, but playing through them is a janky slogfest of horrible pathfinding and AI, and you don't even get to experience the whole map because army sizes are only big enough for the fight to take place along one segment of the wall, so the sleepless nights some underpaid level designer spent working on those maps with their god awful old engine was for absolutely nothing. Credit where it's due, at least they finally moved on from Warscape, but their dull design has clearly not shown any signs of significant evolution if they felt that that preview looked good enough to share with the public.

>>2358933
Ironically I zoomed in a lot more in R2 and M2 just because the pace of a lot of battles was slower and you could afford to not micro at 200 apm because nothing had special abilities you had to constantly click.

>>2358797
Med 2 still looks fine and your zoomed out most of the time anyway. I've been playing master of command recently and that looks awful zoomed in, but at the scale you play it at you don't even notice. I'd rather have the game running smoothy than have 2000 helmet straps running their own physics simulation

>>2358823
>real unit collision
>bigger battles
>slower battles
>meaningful fatigue to the point where it's necessary to keep reserves and cycle units out of combat so they can rest
>visual armor upgrades
>elite units should take basically zero losses from shitty units unless they are getting crushed (a return to the old hitpoints system)
>no spells
>no replenishment
>"leaderless" armies with captains
>mercenaries
i don't expect people to agree with this last one
>cities largely manage themselves and just pay you taxes without needing you to build every building
>they maintain their own militia as well but you can command it
>but you still build castles
>early armies being mostly mercenaries with a few knights transitioning into later professional armies
>>>2358958
true post

>>2358972
I dunno, for me it matters, I like the visual aspect of it. I get that combat movement is not particularly realistic (cavalry especially), but at least I want units and buildings to look good and historical. It's more immersive.

File: battle.jpg (477.2 KB)

477.2 KB JPG

>>2358933
battles in nuTW are shit and often barely matter when AR is often better because killing routers suck and how both recruit and reinforcement system work
they also look like shit with all that visual noise

Where are the legendary leaders?
Can't wait to see a duel between Joan D'Arc and Richard the Lionheart!

>>2358990
>Jean d'Arc casts Grenouille Elan!
>the entire English army routs!!

>>2358090
>CA have released fake footage
Oh I'll never forget Rome II. Lying sons of bitches, that demo was nothing but pure lies. Game was unplayable at launch and a long while after. That day I learned to never be hyped for anything again.

>>2358418
They should just take Shogun 2 arrow trails. I remember those being alright and not white trails of snot that make your eyes bleed.

>>2358828
It is dead yes. Most historical players play one or two older titles and WH fanbase doesn't care about Medieval 3.

>>2358823
field fortifications.
- caltrops (slow down infantry and cav),
- barricades (can't pass through but can easily chop apart),
- pallisades (can't pass or see through and take a lot of chopping to destroy),
- mannable pallisades (wall you can put ranged units on)
- anti-cavalry trenches (infantry can get through them, but it slows them down),
- earth mounds (portable high ground).
- stakes (kill charges, do nothing when walking)
- fire traps (ignite at the right moment to burn or cut off enemy)
- trou-de-loop (single use insta kill traps.)
- powder mines (after gunpowder discovery. has a chance to fail)
more sturdy ones cost more construction points.
unused movement on strat map is converted into construction points. (stationary army can accumulate a lot and make a decent fortified camp)

>>2359424
when besieging the castle the attacker can spend construction points on more than just rams and ladders
>simple siege engines, like mangonela, worse than trebuchet in every regard, but you don't need engineers
>inner walls (against sally outs) outer walls (against reinforcements)
>can fill up the moat, but risk losing men to archers.
>build simple ram (just a log), testudo ram (overhead shield), grand ram (GROND!).
>set up pavais in shooting range of the walls
>finally, can try making a dig out to collapse the walls. Has a % chance to succeed. Enemy can countermine.
An attack that fails, does not mean that the siege is automatically lifted and army is destroyed. You can try again next turn.

When besieging, you get options:
>camp in safe distance - no losses on either side, takes a lot of time
>attempt a sneak attack - requires experienced / elite infantry. Has a % chance to succeed. if it does, you start battle with gates opened and unit behind walls.
>if they have dedicated siege engines, they can choose to shell the wall, in which case the battle begins with walls already breached or damaged.

defenders get options as well:
>sally out (a battle, you can conclude it at will if all your units are behind walls and the walls are not contested)
>break out (a battle where your army has to reach the map border. If successfull, your army escape, but lose the city)
>reduce the rations, +1 to siege turns, cause casualties and morale drop.
>counter mining - if enemy is mining, you can counter them, causing casualties on both sides.
>can put siege engines on the walls or behind walls.

>>2359424
>>2359426
I'd take out the movement points requirement and either just make it free, unit specific, or add some kind of resource gathering system. Locking that behind movement points makes the system too gimmicky and with how blitz-focused the campaign is most players wouldn't bother with it because it's better to expand quickly

>>2358046
>>2358313
It'll be a return to form if and only if CA returns to actual simulationist mechanics and drops the unit-wide HP bar retardism. Actually calculate when an individual soldier is hit and give them only one HP.
They should also peg morale waaay down across the board. Rome II is unplayable to this day because all but the lowest tier infantry have infinite morale and will fight almost to the last man even while fully surrounded.
If your army outmatches the enemy and you have better tactics the battle shouldn't devolve into a slugfest that lasts 40 minutes to finish.
In real world medieval battles, infantry would break apart and rout almost instantly when fighting on two sides or getting charged by cavalry in the rear.

Of course they won't do any of this

Someone should inform m2 fags that warscape engine entities have their own health just like previous titles. Also, m2 was about better stats beating worse stats just like warscape games. Also also, m2 plays like a tard compared to r1.

>>2359534
health and armor works stupidly in later titles

Has any title bested M2's implementation of armor upgrades?

>>2359554
Armor works just fine in Attila, and the infantry gameplay is several times more interesting compared to m2. Even the sieges are actually good compared to the slog that is m2 (actually, there are no real sieges in m2 because AI is incapable of defending its own cities).

>>2359558
I don't know why they've abandoned this in every game that came after. It was so cool. Maybe it's just too much work as models get more detailed or maybe their new engine just can't handle the same unit with variations or something. Who knows, but I miss it and instinctively look for visual changes in every game where I upgrade a unit because of it.

>>2359561
Lmao
Every time I've tried atilla I've dropped it because sieges feel like ass.

>>2358029
>units can fight in interiors now
>you can build MULTIPLE wall layers
>everything you build will be part of the battlefield like in old TWs, you may be able view it or even build it like a city builder
Sounds like there's already some great highlights to me...

>>2359582
>units can fight in interiors now
empire already had that feature but it was really basic

>>2359561
hahahahaha

>>2358823
Historical starting points from early, high and late Middle Ages.

>>2357880
Looks dire. Hopefully it get's better from here

>>2359582
>>units can get stuck in interiors now
ftfy

>>2357880
>we're making walls and streets NARROWER
If the pathfinding is anything like the current games this change is going to be a disaster

>>2360026
medieval walls and streets were very narrow but yeah the pathfinding will a mess probably. Then again street fighting should be a clusterfuck.

>>2357998
Thanks anon. I do miss the Rome 2 prerelease arguments.

>>2360066
Rome 2 looked better in prerelease than it ever was thoughbeit.

>>2360055
>Then again street fighting should be a clusterfuck
Perhaps, but not because units are getting stuck in the geometry and clipping into each other

>>2358035
tsmt

>>2359582
medieval 2 already had multiple walls

>>2360751
even m1 have them

Imagine proving a dumb vegan communist right so often the bulk of the community just accepts he's right on principle now lmao

>>2358029
This is for shareholders and Sega, not for you or me.

>>2359558
40k

>>2358272
Ok and the preproduction video of Halo looked cool as fuck

meanwhile this is literally just modern total war with all the problems but now in a "new engine" with no fancy rendering applied

it looks like fucking trash man, as soon as they pulled out the ass ladders in the video I closed it. This company is fucking cooked.

>>2361558
>This is for shareholders and Sega, not for you or me.

You are so fucking stupid. If that were true you wouldn't be watching it on youtube. They wouldn't be doing a PR skit with a bunch of devs and a journalist. You'd have never seen any of this because it would've been a privately shared internal video, not posted on purpose by the company to their customers

gullible fucking retard

>>2362204
You're dumber than you think..

>>2357880
>third party talking about it
holy shit kill yourself

>>2358823
I want it to not be on console

>>2358823
sapping
spike traps
multi-battle sieges with the option to lift the siege with one section destroyed
depending on the siege forces, the garrison and attacking forces lose troops the longer the siege is sustained.
for sieges that have been ongoing for a while assaulting the fortress possibly means only assaulting a fraction of the defenses with the rest already captured or destroyed.
siege skirmishes
burning oil
moats
draw bridges
assaulting a fortress and deliberately retreating doesn't lift the siege if your forces aren't routed.
cavalry can dismount on the battlefield. the horses won't run unless they're attacked or spooked with an artillery shot or something.
garrison forces can throw various items from the walls like sharpened stakes, rocks, etc.
ladders and siege towers work on the inside
wall and tower missile covers
night assaults

>>2357880
JOEVER

>>2357880
>assladders
See you in the next one

>>2357880
It looks like a mobile game
Is anyone surprised? lmao imagine actually expecting anything else

>>2358823
Spy/assassin agent animations

>>2358823
No. I didn't need to say anything for RTW and MIITW to be good enough for me to play off and on for 2 decades now. The people who used to work there knew how to make a good game. The ones now are just sois trying to scam browns with their shovelware

>>2357880
Yawn

>>2369213
So it's another low effort Warhammer mod.

>>2369213
If you actually watched the thing you'd know they explicitly said it's just for testing purposes because they don't have siege towers and hit in yet. I know you are determined to hate everything that isn't your memories of med2 you haven't actually played in a decade but at least give real reasons.

>>2378866
>let's do a preview that is missing basic features and then claim we'll have it done in the future
Let me guess, you fell for bannerlord too.

manor lords looks better and that has a whole other game (the city builder) attached to it

>>2378866
>trusting CA marketing
I guess you weren't around for Rome 2?