>>2333260
The thing about this game was that it had the greatest diplomacy the series has yet seen, bringing it about on par with something like a civ game.
Then the game failed because everything else was either mid or bad (INCREDIBLY low unit variety and poor balancing around the hero units, which were new at the time, are mostly to blame IMO) so the lesson CA took from that is to:
>abandon the game completely even though they promised dlc and updates just weeks prior
>not learn a single lesson and go back to the completely useless, worst the strategy genre has to offer diplomacy system of years prior
At this point we have city builders that have better inter-state diplomacy than total war, but CA seemingly lives in a bubble no outside voices penetrate and they don't realise that everyone that played it liked the new diplomacy, it's just everything else that wasn't great.

So this game is perpetually in limbo where it has the greatest diplomacy of any total war game. A company that isn't perpetually on the verge of bankruptcy would just make every next game better.

File: 1292957986751.jpg (63.2 KB)

63.2 KB JPG

Look at all those tracer arrows, just look at them

>>2333366
>Then the game failed because everything else was either mid or bad (INCREDIBLY low unit variety and poor balancing around the hero units, which were new at the time, are mostly to blame IMO)
Outside of new bad haters who wanted it to be something else nobody cared about that though. The game sold very well and held good player numbers. It only "failed" because it had a poor DLC model. They banked on selling mostly the "chapter pack" DLCs with new start dates but they were poor value and nobody bought them because most features were rolled into the default start and 190 was the best starting setup anyway.

>>2333260
>Three Kingdoms game
>Didn't have Chibi

>>2333260
nu total war is so ugly

>>2333438
It's included as a historical battle.

File: ctr.jpg (97.4 KB)

97.4 KB JPG

>>2333394
>The game sold very well and held good player numbers
I always hear this but I have to wonder how much of that market is China, and how that might impact the sales model. It's notable that 3K barely edges out Rome II, although what conclusion to draw from that I'm uncertain about. Also:
>released May 2019
>still $60
Rome II has the same issue for 2013 but its still baffling

It's been almost 15 years since shogun 2 and games not only failed to look better than it, they didn't even increase the number of units, sor we still have 2000 people at most fight each other.
Sigh.

>>2333494
Games rarely have price reductions anymore because steam has them on sale at minimum 4 times a year. 3K came in the wake of CA burning a lot of bridges with their handling or Rome2 and attila. I've considered picking it up when it goes on sale but at this point I feel like I'm done with total war unless they return to the grand campaign atmosphere that was in rome1 and medieval 2.

>>2333260
>great setting
>great characters
>fun mechanics
>can actually do something with your settlements
you can win a fucking battle against some asshole who annoys you and then outright cuck him by coercing his wive with spies and remarry her to yourself or one of your generals
the only thing missing is that you cant get a harem with all the stolen wives as cao cao
there are tons of mods which add units and combat mechanics which fixes the one flaw most have with the base game and thats honestly good enough for me
from all the total war games this is the only one where I spend over 300 hours

>>2333603
Kek if you actually play shogun 2 it looks like shit

>>2333899
and somehow the new slop looks worse. it's remarkable.