|
Captain Beans posted:Top 5 TWCenter mods of all time right here. I love how the screenshots get more and more insane as you go, as if he knows if he hits you up with the mechwarriors and godzillas right off the bat it will be too much. The photos just keep getting better and better.
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 11:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 17:58 |
|
|
Grizzwold posted:You guys didn't even post the best picture yet: Ugh, so tempted to LP this. If only I were funny and talented instead of goony and boring. Someone has to show us the full glory of a Cookie Monster army.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 11:41
|
|
|
Krazyface posted:Perspective? Scale? Photoshop? What the gently caress are those? Anyway I stitched together the preliminary maps for Rome II: I still find it maddening for them to add a Breton faction and do nothing in the Iberian peninsula.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 15:27
|
|
|
Mans posted:I still find it maddening for them to add a Breton faction and do nothing in the Iberian peninsula. I still cant believe a waste of slot like the iceni are there in the default faction line up. Also gently caress seleucids and everything i want the next dlc to be the Iberians 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:I still cant believe a waste of slot like the iceni are there in the default faction line up. Also gently caress seleucids and everything i want the next dlc to be the Iberians If you consider them from a gameplay rather than historical perspective it makes a lot of sense to include a faction on the British Isles- a lot of people like to have a safe and easy island start. Nothing wrong with that. A western barbarian faction focused on chariots is nicely varied too. And you'll basically get Iberians when playing as Carthage. Koramei fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Apr 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
Mans posted:I still find it maddening for them to add a Breton faction and do nothing in the Iberian peninsula. A faction between Germania and Macedon would also have been nice, maybe something like Dacia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:a waste of slot like the iceni How dare you. The Iceni have by far the coolest screenshot.I've always thought that, in popular culture, the Roman occupation of Britain was one of the more prominent stories from Roman history. Not that it makes much sense other than some British people probably wrote some books.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
So are the rest of the provinces gonna be like shogun2, where they are actual nations, or are they gonna be rebels?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
quote:So are the rest of the provinces gonna be like shogun2, where they are actual nations, or are they gonna be rebels? last we heard, 108 NPC factions. I'm liking the probable layout of the campaign map a lot. Every playable faction has a large buffer zone allowing them to focus on nation building in the early game and then midgame (hopefully) you'll begin making contact with larger empires. madmac fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Apr 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
Captain Diarrhoea posted:How dare you. It's definitely more prominent in the anglosphere because, you know, we speak English.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
Captain Diarrhoea posted:I've always thought that, in popular culture, the Roman occupation of Britain was one of the more prominent stories from Roman history. Not that it makes much sense other than some British people probably wrote some books. It has some significance as one of the last places the Romans conquered and held onto for a considerable length of time. I suppose it's also somewhat notable that the British managed to resist an attack, however diffidently carried out, such that the successful conquest came nearly a full century after Roman troops landed with blood on their minds. But really I think the Roman departure from Britain should probably be a much bigger contender for 'prominent event for the Empire'. And even that's mostly for what it symbolised that for the withdrawal itself. You could cut Britain out of history and the Roman Empire probably wouldn't do much differently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
Just made the mistake of reading the comment section on an article talking about this game. Do the same three terminally up their own arse historical nitpick obsessed bastards just follow it around like ghoulish camp followers, or is it just TWC leaking again? "I want to be able to command far more men than this, why shouldn't I have all 3 legions under my command", I mean seriously, who actually wants to do that other than mentalists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
Britain was important for mineral wealth, a huge majority of the tin used in ancient European bronze came from Devon and Cornwall. Other than that it wasn't a particularly important province. We focus on it a lot because the story has good drama, it's reasonably well-documented, and we're English speakers so it's directly our history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
What exactly does General level effect? Is it just morale?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
Man Whore posted:What exactly does General level effect? Is it just morale? I thought it had something to do with the autoresolve result?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
Man Whore posted:What exactly does General level effect? Is it just morale? If you're talking about the command stars, I vaguely recall reading somewhere that one command star was roughly equivalent to an extra experience level, with all that entails.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 09:42
|
|
|
Tomn posted:If you're talking about the command stars, I vaguely recall reading somewhere that one command star was roughly equivalent to an extra experience level, with all that entails. I think that used to be the case but I think I read somewhere that in Shogun it's just a morale bonus (other than the bonuses you get to choose yourself).
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 10:09
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Just made the mistake of reading the comment section on an article talking about this game. Do the same three terminally up their own arse historical nitpick obsessed bastards just follow it around like ghoulish camp followers, or is it just TWC leaking again? Heh, that's a "valid" complaint. Controlling a 20k strong army would be a pretty amazing experience. It would also turn cities\forts into something more balanced. With thousands of troops a city would only be able to have a few thousand at best defending it, forcing the game to play out its battles out in the open. Of course, we're probably a few decades away from being able to run a Total War game with 40k units in the field at one time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
Speaking of sieges, for the love of god, not another siege fest. There is nothing more boring in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
Sleep of Bronze posted:It has some significance as one of the last places the Romans conquered and held onto for a considerable length of time. I suppose it's also somewhat notable that the British managed to resist an attack, however diffidently carried out, such that the successful conquest came nearly a full century after Roman troops landed with blood on their minds. But really I think the Roman departure from Britain should probably be a much bigger contender for 'prominent event for the Empire'. And even that's mostly for what it symbolised that for the withdrawal itself. You could cut Britain out of history and the Roman Empire probably wouldn't do much differently. And predictably, here in Germany the conquest of some German lands and how our ancestors repelled/overthrew the (Western) Roman Empire is the focus of history lessons in school, while the invasion of Britain is a mere footnote. Although the bigger focus was on the political structures of the Republic and Empire, as well as the role of Christianity. Regarding the Iceni, if you look at the map Krazyface posted, there is just no place for them. Right now every faction has reasonable amount of space to expand into, while the Iceni would probably be crushed between Carthage and the Gauls.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Regarding the Iceni, if you look at the map Krazyface posted, there is just no place for them. Right now every faction has reasonable amount of space to expand into, while the Iceni would probably be crushed between Carthage and the Gauls. Island start! Consider it a faction for human players.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
MrOnBicycle posted:Speaking of sieges, for the love of god, not another siege fest. There is nothing more boring in the long run. Sieges are great fun when you have like 6 different stacks running around. One stack locks up this city while the other 5 move onto other cities. Then, in like 5 turns, you get to play defense against all these guys who abandon their towers and poo poo and bumrush you. Or you get a free town! If you want to attack and capture a city in one turn I recommend you go ahead and run a proper War Machine and get shittons of cheap melee units and a bunch of artillery. Tomn posted:If you're talking about the command stars, I vaguely recall reading somewhere that one command star was roughly equivalent to an extra experience level, with all that entails. It's a shitton of morale bonus, especially when it's near you. I think it also affects the morale of the enemy negatively because one time in Shogun 2 I fought a General with his Bodyguard and one Yari Ashigaru card. I charged him with 3 yari ashigaru, no general, and his ashigaru killed probably 30 of mine before my entire army routed. I think he was like a 2 star general, too. The general didn't even fight my dudes at all. jokes fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Apr 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
Sieges were historically like 90% of engagements, and they provide nice variation, and the AI isn't so completely stupid in them now, and you don't even have to fight them if you don't want to. I don't get why anybody complains about them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
It isn't Siege or Naval Battles fault CA can't quite get the perfect design going. It is you. You terrible people. For shame.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
So I finally started with Shogun 2 multiplayer (now that I have a gaming computer). It's a blast! I have both fots and vanilla avatars but mostly play vanilla. 27 wins, 13 losses so far. It helps that some of my opponents are mouthbreathers, and some I have no idea how I won so I must be doing something right. Some FotS players like to use artillery. Well I like to put my troops into loose formation and scatter them in forests or behind hills. Or use ground for cover when it comes to line infantry. Then prepare for a charge or lure them closer because typically I have the advantage in melee.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Sieges were historically like 90% of engagements, and they provide nice variation, and the AI isn't so completely stupid in them now, and you don't even have to fight them if you don't want to. I don't get why anybody complains about them. It's still a game and 90% of my games end up being 90% percent sieges that all go the exact same way and auto-resolve isn't really "don't have to fight if you don't want to" because autoresolve, at least in the older games is bullshit where you will lose even when you should steamroll the enemy. I posted a good example of this a couple of pages back. Granted I was using a mod mod(don't know if it affects it), but auto-resolve isn't very good in vanilla. To be honest, I really only care about playing battles in the early stages of a campaign, where you can't waste soldiers or take any risks (auto resolve). Once you got loads of full stacks running around I kinda sorta don't want to play the exact same battle over and over again. Especially not sieges because at least in medieval 2 they are the exact same battle every time. The siege in the Rome 2 trailer play through thing was pretty cool though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 10:41
|
|
|
MrOnBicycle posted:It's still a game and 90% of my games end up being 90% percent sieges that all go the exact same way and auto-resolve isn't really "don't have to fight if you don't want to" because autoresolve, at least in the older games is bullshit where you will lose even when you should steamroll the enemy. I posted a good example of this a couple of pages back. Granted I was using a mod mod(don't know if it affects it), but auto-resolve isn't very good in vanilla. I wasn't talking about auto resolve. Starve the enemy out and they'll sally forth... into a battle. You literally do not have to fight any siege assaults in shogun 2, and you can force a battle rather than defense basically every time if you want to for some  reason. Really though, the sieges in shogun 2 are both pretty not terrible and also only like 50-60% of engagements unless you're doing something really weird. They're not the same thing over again at all; they vary tremendously based on what the enemy has.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 13:31
|
|
|
Yeah, most of my battles were open field ambushes where I cut down their armies before they knew what was up, then destroyed whatever guard stack they had, then i'd go onto the city. I had about 1 siege for every two open battles. One of my more memorable sieges was getting ninja's up into the gatehouse of one of the bigger forts while my ashigaru sacrifices stormed the front. AI moved all its troops away, I took the gates and towers, used the ninja's the throw bombs at the pitiful troopers they tried to send back. Was a good diversion, those ninja's killed three units worth of enemies. Is it just me who has never seen a matchlock tower? I swear the AI never uses them and I don't get attacked often enough to build up defences in any place other than my capital.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 13:35
|
|
|
dogstile posted:Is it just me who has never seen a matchlock tower? I swear the AI never uses them and I don't get attacked often enough to build up defences in any place other than my capital. The whole tower defense line seems like an expensive luxury more than anything else. By the time you actually start teching up in it, you're already well into the late-game and either winning and storming the front lines or you're in deep trouble. Which is a shame, because I'd really like to see how a siege goes against Gatling or cannon towers. Inside the stronghold, of course, I'll be buggered if I attack a fort defended with emplaced, infinite ammo cannons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
Tomn posted:The whole tower defense line seems like an expensive luxury more than anything else. By the time you actually start teching up in it, you're already well into the late-game and either winning and storming the front lines or you're in deep trouble. I found them to be useful to build on a domination campaign when I tried going independent. Every faction lands troops on seemingly random territories, regardless of their military value or proximity to the front line. My strategy was to just leave 6-10 of the levee riflemen and tower defenses in every town rather than playing whack-a-mole with a stack of troops.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Sieges were historically like 90% of engagements, and they provide nice variation, and the AI isn't so completely stupid in them now, and you don't even have to fight them if you don't want to. I don't get why anybody complains about them. They're jut awful boring. Climb the walls, fight in tight quarters were the AI can't pathfind worth a drat and grind through it to the city center. In Rome this was the almost totality of the game. Open battles are great and i hope this game has some sort of way of forcing people to fight outside cities and fortifications.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
I think that the sieges are fine, if repetitive, but the real problem is that the autoresolve remains stuck in the 1990s. It's completely terrible and random, and relying on it is almost always a mistake. Autoresolve should represent average commanding, not absolute blundering. Fixing the autoresolve would let people skip the parts of the game that they don't like without being hugely punished for it. The developers must have a wealth of statistics from the popular Shogun 2 multiplayer - they should use that to develop an improved statistical model for autoresolve. Anything would be better than what they have now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
My biggest issue with sieges is when the attacker's AI refuses to do anything offensive at all and I'm left in a no-win situation because I set the battle time limit to infinite.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I think that the sieges are fine, if repetitive, but the real problem is that the autoresolve remains stuck in the 1990s. It's completely terrible and random, and relying on it is almost always a mistake. Autoresolve should represent average commanding, not absolute blundering. Fixing the autoresolve would let people skip the parts of the game that they don't like without being hugely punished for it. The developers must have a wealth of statistics from the popular Shogun 2 multiplayer - they should use that to develop an improved statistical model for autoresolve. Anything would be better than what they have now. I find the autoresolve pretty reliable in Shogun 2, actually. The vast majority of the time, whoever has the slightly stronger force wins. Sometimes you lose when it's even, sometimes you win. I have never lost an autoresolved battle when I had a substantial advantage over the enemy. It's definitely possible to game the system to have a force that is superior in autoresolve but would probably lose every time if you actually played the battle out, but it's far better than it was in the older games. For land battles, anyway, naval battles are pretty terrible, but I just hate TW naval combat in general.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
I would say the autoresolve is still a mess in Shogun 2; being able to game it doesn't really make it better. I think they seem to be moving towards fewer battles in Rome 2 though which ought to somewhat fix it (although it would be nice if they could do both). Also I'm suddenly remembering how much I wanted naval battles in the older titles  . I thought they would be amazing. How silly I was.Mans posted:During and after the modern period, sure, but during the timeframe of Rome they weren't. There' a reason why Hannibal was dicking around Italy instead of singing Rome and why the Peloponnesean war lasted so long.  Where did you get this idea? The opposite is true if anything; fortifications became less important as artillery became more powerful. You listed two outliers (although without looking it up I reckon they were both also dominated by sieges), but by far the majority of ancient conflict was take town, take town, take town, take town with battles few and far between.
Koramei fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Apr 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I think that the sieges are fine, if repetitive, but the real problem is that the autoresolve remains stuck in the 1990s. It's completely terrible and random, and relying on it is almost always a mistake. Autoresolve should represent average commanding, not absolute blundering. Fixing the autoresolve would let people skip the parts of the game that they don't like without being hugely punished for it. The developers must have a wealth of statistics from the popular Shogun 2 multiplayer - they should use that to develop an improved statistical model for autoresolve. Anything would be better than what they have now. If anything, the autoresolve is tilted the other way in Shogun 2, especially for sieges. I kinda view autoresolving sieges as an outright cheat in some ways, now, it's so lop-sided in favor of the attacker. Otherwise, it gets decent results for land battles but has a slight tendency to cause more casualties than needed in naval battles - nothing too drastic, though. On a side note, I'm one of the weird few who actually enjoyed the naval battles in both Shogun and Empire, despite being skeptical of whether it could be accurately modeled before Empire came out. There's something about frantically managing a completely chaotic naval melee, making spur-of-the-moment decisions for each individual ship to take advantage of how things are playing out amidst the bobbing wrecks of surrendered or sinking foes that really appeals to me. Strategies for naval fights are definitely a lot less clear-cut than land battles, though - it all seems to come down to individual ship-handling instead of any overall battle plan (which essentially disintegrates the moment contact is made). Fall of the Samurai naval combat can suck a cock, though. Yes, ironclads are cool and all, but the AI is boring and stupid and everything comes down to whether you have the range advantage or not and whether you have explosive shells or better. The only time you get a sense of a proper naval slugfest is early on when nobody has explosives or copper plating yet, and that doesn't last long.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
Koramei posted:
Sieges were hard and complicated during classical times and the major battles were fought outside of cities because of the simply lack of space to place entire armies inside them. Artillery made fortifications stronger too, most battles of the Italian wars were sieges, most battles of Louis XIV were sieges too. The basic here is that battles were fought both on open ground and attacking fortification, yet Rome I is really based on siege battles, more than 80% of the battles are sieges. Notice there's a massive difference between "take town" and "make a large scale assault on every single community which has massive gently caress off fortifications and capacity to hold entire armies inside them. Force towns Sieges are boring and tedious. Open battles should be the basis of the game and Rome II would improve immensely by forcing armies to go play outside the walls. Saying "just wait 8 turns for them to come out" is dumb too, they come out really weakened and the AI sucks at sallying out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
I'm all for sieges if their fun but I'm going to be realistic and say that there's no way CA are going to suddenly change their ways and deliver. I do hope they're a lot less frequent because they will be buggy, they will be tedious and autoresolve will be broken.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
Mans posted:Sieges were hard and complicated during classical times and the major battles were fought outside of cities because of the simply lack of space to place entire armies inside them. Artillery made fortifications stronger too, most battles of the Italian wars were sieges, most battles of Louis XIV were sieges too. The basic here is that battles were fought both on open ground and attacking fortification, yet Rome I is really based on siege battles, more than 80% of the battles are sieges. Quick question - wasn't one of the particular Roman strengths their ability at combat engineering and siegecraft? I seem to recall it being mentioned as a particular Roman feature, though I can't recall where - possibly in the Gallic Commentaries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 17:58 |
|
|
Tomn posted:If anything, the autoresolve is tilted the other way in Shogun 2, especially for sieges. I kinda view autoresolving sieges as an outright cheat in some ways, now, it's so lop-sided in favor of the attacker. Otherwise, it gets decent results for land battles but has a slight tendency to cause more casualties than needed in naval battles - nothing too drastic, though. I rush cannons, so I find this to be wrong, at least until the gigantic forts pop up. Having 2-3-4 cannons along to shoot at people standing still in a fort just trivializes sieges completely. With FotS naval support especially, most sieges just turn into "Max speed, move cannons into position, murder everything from outside its range".
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2013 23:52
|
|
