|
You know I don't really think I like the idea of 40 units per side becoming the norm. It could be cool for single player (although I worry about it becoming tedious), but in multi player a human being cannot be expected to manage 40 units simultaneously without pausing. It's just too much poo poo all over the place and I feel like it would either force people to constantly pause (except in multi player) or just not know what the gently caress half their guys are doing until the 4th consecutive archer group has routed to the same unnoticed heavy cav. Either that or in an attempt to keep some God drat have control over your army you just make it four groups of ten identical units or something. Either way I just can't see that many units being at all easy to handle unless CA is about to blow up the entire strategy genre with some kind of revolutionary command and control system that's one step below direct neural interface.
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 02:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
The impression I'm getting is that certain units are tied together. So like one legion on the campaign map would break down to be two units in-battle that I'm assuming you could order together in some fashion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 03:15
|
|
|
Flippycunt posted:The impression I'm getting is that certain units are tied together. So like one legion on the campaign map would break down to be two units in-battle that I'm assuming you could order together in some fashion. I'm not trying to be combative here, but I honestly don't understand the point you're trying to make. How does the fact that campaign units "unpack" into multiple units on the battlefield have any relevance to how many battlefield units can be effectively controlled at once? Having them "linked" or something so they receive orders together doesn't sound any different than conventional control groups we've used for years and years. Am I not understanding something you said?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
Having an automated tercio-like combined unit would be nice, so that individual soldiers in that regiment would each be equipped with weapons for self-defense and would rearrange appropriately to engage a particular enemy. Having to micromanage your own tercios of spears, swords, and ranged infantry is annoying, but given how the skirmish button is still useless I'm not putting much faith in that dream.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
I suppose that'll be one of drawbacks of fielding a huge army, harder to control well. The player with the faster micro (such as it is) will have an advantage
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
RentACop posted:I suppose that'll be one of drawbacks of fielding a huge army, harder to control well. Bingo. Hell, historically, armies with superior leadership and mobility could beat down much larger, more disorganised armies for that very reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:You know I don't really think I like the idea of 40 units per side becoming the norm. It could be cool for single player (although I worry about it becoming tedious), but in multi player a human being cannot be expected to manage 40 units simultaneously without pausing. It's just too much poo poo all over the place and I feel like it would either force people to constantly pause (except in multi player) or just not know what the gently caress half their guys are doing until the 4th consecutive archer group has routed to the same unnoticed heavy cav. Either that or in an attempt to keep some God drat have control over your army you just make it four groups of ten identical units or something. The AI is always going to be worse than you at things like feinting, picking battle locations, precise arty fire, and lets face it basically everything. The only thing the AI can do better is control tons of poo poo at once, even if they do it in a less effective way. I'm willing to sacrifice some control because I know that they can never make the best AI.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 04:55
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:I'm not trying to be combative here, but I honestly don't understand the point you're trying to make. How does the fact that campaign units "unpack" into multiple units on the battlefield have any relevance to how many battlefield units can be effectively controlled at once? Having them "linked" or something so they receive orders together doesn't sound any different than conventional control groups we've used for years and years. Am I not understanding something you said? I may be completely wrong but the impression I get is yeah, one ROMAN LEGION on the campaign map becomes a couple units in-battle, and they have some way of controlling them together, like clicking on them once selects the whole legion, and clicking again on one of the sub-units selects that particular formation. This is just what I've gathered from them saying that campaign units are bigger investments that you can customize, and from the in-game footage where certain units, particularly naval units, seem to move together in some sort of auto-formation as if they're tied to some sort of grouping.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:I'm not trying to be combative here, but I honestly don't understand the point you're trying to make. How does the fact that campaign units "unpack" into multiple units on the battlefield have any relevance to how many battlefield units can be effectively controlled at once? Having them "linked" or something so they receive orders together doesn't sound any different than conventional control groups we've used for years and years. Am I not understanding something you said? It's possible that this indicates that individual battlefield units are autonomous, while the player just controls the one "battlefield" unit. Like, say there's a legion with three hastati battalions, one triarii battalion, and one archer battalion. You order the legion to attack the enemy army, in which case the archers move up to bombard the enemy while the hastati march forwards in line with the triarii bringing up the rear as a reserve force in case of line breakage or cavalry charges, all without your input and responding simply to your general order to "attack in that direction." Which would be interesting, but seems liable to lead to player headaches unless you can decide to individually interfere with subunits as you see fit. Would also represent a pretty big break from the usual Total War formula, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
A better idea would be to give the player the ability to give orders in the deployment phase, and i mean movement orders not just formations and arranging them, as soon as you start the battle they follow these orders which you can adjust. If anyone has tried the Slitherine games (Legion, Spartan, Chariots of War etc), sort of like that but you also control the army during the battle as well. Edit: Also see Gratuitous space battles. And if its too much, i guess they can always have AI officers to control your bigger armies while you focus on one side of the bigger battle. Fizzil fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Dec 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 07:52
|
|
|
Struensee posted:Use WASD to navigate. You'll note I said irritating, not game breaking. Flippycunt posted:There is a program you want called Cursor Lock that will prevent it. I have dual monitors and its 50-50 if any given game locks the mouse to one screen or not. Thanks, I really appreciate it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 07:55
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:They are going to be a seperate faction in the campaign too. Okay, yea, but Carthage is just one city in a game filled with hundreds or so. They could at least start dropping hints as to which other historical places get special models (Apart from Rome, of course). Alexandria, Jerusalem, Athens...?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 08:37
|
|
|
NihilVerumNisiMors posted:Okay, yea, but Carthage is just one city in a game filled with hundreds or so. They could at least start dropping hints as to which other historical places get special models (Apart from Rome, of course). Alexandria, Jerusalem, Athens...? Carthage was more than just one city, it was a seafaring commercial empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. When they talk about Carthage, they're talking about that empire. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 08:44
|
|
|
a bad enough dude posted:Carthage was more than just one city, it was a seafaring commercial empire that dominated the western Mediterranean. When they talk about Carthage, they're talking about that empire. Unless I'm missing something, most of the footage has indeed been about the invasion of the city of the Carthage from a Roman point of view, not the actual Carthaginian faction. Still, I don't see any problem with focusing on the Battle of Carthage. It's probably something they've been working on for a while that doubles as an ideal way to demonstrate the introduction of combined land/sea battles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 09:01
|
|
|
Varam posted:Unless I'm missing something, most of the footage has indeed been about the invasion of the city of the Carthage from a Roman point of view, not the actual Carthaginian faction. They say outright at the end of the latest video that it's something they worked up as pre-alpha proof-of-concept and that as we move closer to release we'll start to see stuff that's closer to what the release state will look like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 09:27
|
|
|
Incidentally, judging from the official wiki, there's going to be a total of eight playable factions assuming nothing changes between now and release. Any takers on what the factions are going to be? Rome and Carthage are confirmed, Gaul and Greece seem to be shoo-ins. The Seleucids and and Egypt similarly seem likely - so which of the remaining nations are most likely to fit the final bill? Germania and Parthia?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 09:55
|
|
|
It's probably just because that's the only thing finished enough to show in videos designed to drum up interest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 10:32
|
|
|
So since Rome is going to have 3 families that work as perks, and I assume Carthage will also have 3 perks/playstyle modifications as well, I assume some of the other factions will as well. Of course, since this is CA who don't exactly always make things historically exact for gameplay, but some people get super offended at that anyway ... Hyperbolic and hypothetical faction traits anyone? Egypt: -Egyptian Pharaohs (diplo/cultural?) -Pyramid builders (infrastructure) -Chariot Armies (military) Gauls: -Loincloth on, warpaint off -Loincloth off, warpaint on -Screaming berserk women who throw their children at the enemy (honestly it could be a tossup for all three, or maybe they'll give gauls chariots again like in the first game?)
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 10:49
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Incidentally, judging from the official wiki, there's going to be a total of eight playable factions assuming nothing changes between now and release. Any takers on what the factions are going to be? Rome and Carthage are confirmed, Gaul and Greece seem to be shoo-ins. The Seleucids and and Egypt similarly seem likely - so which of the remaining nations are most likely to fit the final bill? Germania and Parthia? I'm hoping that they're just referring to playable factions, and that there will be more factions (that modders will hopefully crack open). Personally my favourite faction from Rome 1 was the Scythians, so I'm hoping they make it in. But if it really is just eight factions across the board, I'd guess that Gaul, Greece, Seleucids/Egypt (one of the two), Scythia, Parthia, and Germania make up the remainder. Scythia makes sense from two points of view: firstly, it's a unique and interesting playstyle, and secondly, it fills up the north-eastern corner of the map, which would otherwise be poor-as-dirt rebel provinces that no-one would bother with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 10:52
|
|
|
If they're adding a horse archer faction it'll be the Parthians. Personally I'd like a Pontos faction, the helenophile Eastern kingdom has always fascinated me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 10:58
|
|
|
They've said that the map will be populated by lots of little single-territory factions (like Shogun, in the beginning), as opposed to the old "Rebel" faction. I'd say it's almost certain the 8 factions thing refers to playable factions. At the moment I'd say the givens are Rome, Carthage, the Seleucid Empire, some sort of Greek faction, Gauls (Arverni?), and Ptolemaic Egypt. I guess the other two will be one Western barbarian faction, and one Eastern nomad faction. Eight seems a bit small, but Napoleon had only 5 factions and it turned out great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 10:59
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Incidentally, judging from the official wiki, there's going to be a total of eight playable factions assuming nothing changes between now and release. Any takers on what the factions are going to be? Rome and Carthage are confirmed, Gaul and Greece seem to be shoo-ins. The Seleucids and and Egypt similarly seem likely - so which of the remaining nations are most likely to fit the final bill? Germania and Parthia? Britons?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 11:11
|
|
|
I hope somehow they go back to the faction unlocks being in an easily editable text file. Rhompiaing round as Thrace all day every day
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 11:14
|
|
|
Krazyface posted:They've said that the map will be populated by lots of little single-territory factions (like Shogun, in the beginning), as opposed to the old "Rebel" faction. I'd say it's almost certain the 8 factions thing refers to playable factions. Pontus instead of the Selucids, (if they're weaving more narrative into the campaigns then the Mithraditic wars are really obvious material) and then Parthia and Germania. Also I think it's more than likely that we'll see Old-Kingdom Egypt again - it adds unique flavour to the game. e: Britons would be horrible - the only thing to do would be invade into Gaul and Germania and that's difficult to reconcile in terms of 'why?' and plausibility. A Peninsula War style DLC campaign covering Britons vs Celts vs Saxon Invaders would be interesting though. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 11:21 on Dec 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 11:16
|
|
|
NihilVerumNisiMors posted:Why are they going on and on about Carthage? It'll be one single Historical Battle at best, not the meat of the game. Next update apparently looks at the barbarians and the forests/open battlefields. I always love mowing through huge numbers of barbarians in these games.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 11:21
|
|
|
I can't wait for the inevitable Roma Arboretum Capsaicin Spergorium mod that lets me play as the Lydians or the Dacians or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 11:32
|
|
|
I'm looking forward to pretending I am playing KoDP and using the barbarians to cripple Rome. Seriously though I would really like the barbarians to have a better set of construction and fighting options than they had in the first Rome. They were just so boring in that particular game that I was never able to play as them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 12:09
|
|
|
concerned mom posted:I can't wait for the inevitable Roma Arboretum Capsaicin Spergorium mod that lets me play as the Lydians or the Dacians or something. It's already "going through development", and it's exactly as spergy as you'd think it would be. Roma 2: Imperia Antiquitatis
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 12:46
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:It's already "going through development", and it's exactly as spergy as you'd think it would be. Roma 2: Imperia Antiquitatis Ahahaha they actually sent an email to CA asking for technical/gameplay information that hasn't been released yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 13:24
|
|
|
I actually really do want to play as the Lydians for some reason :I haha at that mod starting now, what can they even do?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 13:33
|
|
|
It's quite amazing how Rome 2 will be released before Europa Barbaorum 2. And by amazing i mean totally predictable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 15:59
|
|
|
CA's already stated that they intend to lessen the amount of battles in favour of making them bigger and grander in both scale and impact, and I wonder if they're going to do the same for provincial management. It was weird seeing the entirety of France represented as one "province" in Empire/Napoleon, but I liked how you unlocked "nodes" in the form of developed towns as your population grew. I think it would've worked better had the ideal method of taking provinces wasn't beelining immediately to the capital and taking it, but giving towns some strategic value in the form of a zone of control and actual defensive structures. The current info we have suggests otherwise, but I thought it was a nice way of streamlining provincial management while retaining the same level of control you had in previous games.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 16:23
|
|
|
Epirus had better be in. I mean, I know it won't, but having Pyrrhus burn Rome to the loving ground in Europa Barbarorum felt so good. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 16:27
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:CA's already stated that they intend to lessen the amount of battles in favour of making them bigger and grander in both scale and impact, and I wonder if they're going to do the same for provincial management. It was weird seeing the entirety of France represented as one "province" in Empire/Napoleon, but I liked how you unlocked "nodes" in the form of developed towns as your population grew. I think it would've worked better had the ideal method of taking provinces wasn't beelining immediately to the capital and taking it, but giving towns some strategic value in the form of a zone of control and actual defensive structures It's the right direction to move in and it's why (to refer to it again) the Peninsula DLC was so good - in an ideal TW game the player starts with a small army and has to fight battle after battle against roughly equal foes while under pressure to use your limited resources to build up your army until the end of your campaign is your doomstack squaring off against equally powerful enemy doomstacks. e: this is a post I made much earlier in the thread: quote:
Alchenar fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Dec 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:e: this is a post I made much earlier in the thread: That sounds pretty much like a blend of a character-driven Paradox game (CK2 or EU:Rome) and Total War. Which means it'll probably never happen in our lifetimes, or if it does, it'll be a glorious trainwreck because it's too good to be true. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:That sounds pretty much like a blend of a character-driven Paradox game (CK2 or EU:Rome) and Total War. Which means it'll probably never happen in our lifetimes, or if it does, it'll be a glorious trainwreck because it's too good to be true. Well really it's just looking at what the King Arthur RTS did as a spin on the Total War formula and then spinning it back into Total War. A lot of the problems with the game stem from the total freedom of the strategic map, which is a problem because the strategic map was only intended in the first place to be a way of procedurally generating battles in a fun way. I don't know about other people, but while I don't want the game to become a series of scripted battles I would quite happily sacrifice a fair amount of freedom in order to ensure consistent challenge and to push the game towards small numbers of large decisive battles deciding wars rather than doomstacks snapping up isolated units and rushing through undefended cities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Well really it's just looking at what the King Arthur RTS did as a spin on the Total War formula and then spinning it back into Total War. Yeah, now that you brought it up, I did like how KA1 and 2 cut down on the steamrolling that tends to crop at the endgame of every Total War game by escalating enemy power levels. Granted, it's easy to do that in KA thanks to its fantasy setting, but it made every battle from start to finish have a semblance of challenge to whether due to making every loss you have count since you have so few people, or making your enemies literal monsters that you have to put some work into killing. It didn't work out perfectly since both games were janky as gently caress and could be broken in half if you chose to game certain mechanics like magic, but it wasn't like in Total War where you probably ended up auto-resolving most battles except ones with actual challenge in them come endgame.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 17:24
|
|
|
There's lots of tricks you can pull, such as rigging the map so that the player has to follow one of a couple of paths to their next objective and then having a standing army just happen to be in their way. I don't want railroading, but it would be nice if work was done to make 'wars' more like actual events rather than just periods where parts of the map turn your colour. Ideally wars should end when you meet the enemy King in climactic battle and slay him and win everything by default, not by having to besiege every last settlement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
Its kinda interesting how the games are called Total War, yet the time periods are based around dynastic wars which tend to be very limited and opportunistic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
I am so loving sick of this bug in which when you click the bottom arrow to access the other unit cards in the recruit section that causes Shogun 2 to crash half the time. So loving sick of it. I'm literally now going to just build a single unique military unit building in each city now to minimise the chances of the crashes.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 21:04
|
|
