|
Lord Tywin posted:I would prefer if they did the next medieval game without gunpowder and then made a Renaissance total war going from 1453 to 1648. I would prefer this as well, since I then could just skip the Renaissance game.
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 06:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:47 |
|
|
Torrannor posted:I would prefer this as well, since I then could just skip the Renaissance game. Man, what is it about the Renaissance that makes people violently opposed to it? You don't really see anyone doing the same thing with pretty much all other time periods - even the objections to WW1 and beyond is mostly "I don't think it would work..." instead of "I would NEVER play such a game!" Musings about a Chinese setting? You get some interest, a few shoulder-shrugs. Contemplation of the ACW? Some debate about whether it'd work and how it'd work. Revisiting any of the settings already covered? Some disappointment, some excitement. But bring up the Renaissance and suddenly there's people saying "No, never, NEVER ever!" Why is that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 07:06
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Man, what is it about the Renaissance that makes people violently opposed to it? You don't really see anyone doing the same thing with pretty much all other time periods - even the objections to WW1 and beyond is mostly "I don't think it would work..." instead of "I would NEVER play such a game!" Musings about a Chinese setting? You get some interest, a few shoulder-shrugs. Contemplation of the ACW? Some debate about whether it'd work and how it'd work. Revisiting any of the settings already covered? Some disappointment, some excitement. But bring up the Renaissance and suddenly there's people saying "No, never, NEVER ever!" Why is that? I don't think pike and shot makes for compelling gameplay, mostly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 07:11
|
|
|
Yeah I just don't like guns in total war games. I'm sure they could do it in a compelling way but the way it stands now its just sort my line of guys firing at another line of guys and not a whole lot of maneuvering. At least against the AI and I don't really play multiplayer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 07:20
|
|
|
Bogarts posted:Yeah I just don't like guns in total war games. I'm sure they could do it in a compelling way but the way it stands now its just sort my line of guys firing at another line of guys and not a whole lot of maneuvering. At least against the AI and I don't really play multiplayer. FOTS MP battles for me always included a lot of maneuvering around. Shame that like half the maps are skewed one way or another in the terrain distribution, and they can be loving infuriating regarding line of sight issues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 08:17
|
|
|
What does armor do compared to melee defense?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 08:30
|
|
|
Armor helps against arrows and in melee if I'm not mistaken. Melee defense obviously only helps in melee.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
Bogarts posted:Yeah I just don't like guns in total war games. I'm sure they could do it in a compelling way but the way it stands now its just sort my line of guys firing at another line of guys and not a whole lot of maneuvering. At least against the AI and I don't really play multiplayer. Yeah this is how I feel too, I tried out Empire and just couldn't get into it. It's part of the reason I was so excited about Rome 2 - no guns!
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 08:45
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Man, what is it about the Renaissance that makes people violently opposed to it? You don't really see anyone doing the same thing with pretty much all other time periods - even the objections to WW1 and beyond is mostly "I don't think it would work..." instead of "I would NEVER play such a game!" Musings about a Chinese setting? You get some interest, a few shoulder-shrugs. Contemplation of the ACW? Some debate about whether it'd work and how it'd work. Revisiting any of the settings already covered? Some disappointment, some excitement. But bring up the Renaissance and suddenly there's people saying "No, never, NEVER ever!" Why is that? I like the settings, ad I liked Empire on a grand scale (even if the AI was dumb) but I just don't like guns. I would be just as oposed to a WW1/WW2 game. No/few guns = good combat, mainly guns = bas combat. I played a lot of Empire but used autocalc pretty much every time. This was a nice sandcastle game but not the "Total War" game I want.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 10:22
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Man, what is it about the Renaissance that makes people violently opposed to it? You don't really see anyone doing the same thing with pretty much all other time periods - even the objections to WW1 and beyond is mostly "I don't think it would work..." instead of "I would NEVER play such a game!" Musings about a Chinese setting? You get some interest, a few shoulder-shrugs. Contemplation of the ACW? Some debate about whether it'd work and how it'd work. Revisiting any of the settings already covered? Some disappointment, some excitement. But bring up the Renaissance and suddenly there's people saying "No, never, NEVER ever!" Why is that? I feel it is a conflict of settings. There is already Medieval and there is Empire. Both are based on European styles of warfare but in very different time periods. Renaissance is this niche in between times that I feel doesn't have a clear uniqueness to it to become its own game. Medieval is the age of men in suits of armor, heavy knights with lances, and the long-bowman. Empire is the age of gunpowder with the professional soldier/rifleman and the Age of Sail with large cannon armed frigates/ships of the line. Napoleon further sets out to refine some of the shortcomings of Empire but nevertheless is represented by a clear age of technology in warfare. I can't really say the same about a renaissance setting where they are still using medieval tactics but are supplemented by use of gunpowder in its infancy. You might as well play Shogan 2. As for a ww1 and ww2 settings, I would love to see a game based on this concept but it would call for a drastic change in the total war engine and approach. This genre is are divided between land and sea with the addition to air power and arguably armor power. Units in this sort of game can not simply be ordered in rank and file but a sort of skirmish formation that would very much depend on the lay of the land for cover as warfare has evolved past simple unit clashes. Units are much smaller, but their firepower is more deadly. Forts and Castles are non-existent, making clear objectives difficult to mark opposed to the old I have an army here, enemy castle is there, I need to take their castle to claim the surrounding land. I could go on but you see some examples why a more modern setting would be difficult for their typical game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 11:42
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:I would prefer if they did the next medieval game without gunpowder and then made a Renaissance total war going from 1453 to 1648. You could only leave out gunpowder in a medieval game if you ended it around 1330. And a proper pike and shot Total War would be excellent. Imagine having an actual use for dragoons in their original mounted infantry role, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 13:33
|
|
|
Well, they'd have to find a way to make units actually work together closely to make pike and shot work in an interesting way. It does make me laugh when people talk about how they love the depth of tactics in Heavy Cavalry total war, but gunpowder's ruining the fun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 13:50
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Well, they'd have to find a way to make units actually work together closely to make pike and shot work in an interesting way. It does make me laugh when people talk about how they love the depth of tactics in Heavy Cavalry total war, but gunpowder's ruining the fun. They Havent really released such a game. Though yeah, gunpowder really ruins the fun. AT least in single player. The AI just can not handle it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 13:54
|
|
|
I'd love a Renaissance Total War. There's a huge diversity of units and battlefield tactics to choose from if you take the latter half of the 15th century all the way into the 30 Years War. It's not just all pike and shot. The Rodeleros kept sword-n-board infantry alive well into the 16th and even the early 17th century. Hell, you could do a whole lot more interesting stuff with the conquest of the americas. I always felt the Aztecs in Medieval 2 were just tacked on for no proper reason and nowhere near as fleshed out as a civilisation as they could have been. Not to mention you could throw the Inca and the Maya in there. I can't remember how well the Kingdoms campaign did things, but I'm certain it left a lot of room for improvement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
Endman posted:I'd love a Renaissance Total War. There's a huge diversity of units and battlefield tactics to choose from if you take the latter half of the 15th century all the way into the 30 Years War. It's not just all pike and shot. The Rodeleros kept sword-n-board infantry alive well into the 16th and even the early 17th century. The Mayas threw bee grenades...
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
I'd play a Renaissance Total War. Especially if they make a much better system around Religion. Also once again gun powder warfare isn't that bad, Empires entire design ruined it for everyone blah blah they need better AI for next time getting sick of repeating this every two pages.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
Snatch Duster posted:The Mayas threw bee grenades... There's your day one DLC. Also, I think the gunpowder stuff would be a lot better with a more robust system of terrain-relative bonuses. Just having the generic "better morale/accuracy for being on the highground" bonus doesn't really fly with firearms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
Have any of you guys who are so opposed to gunpowder played FOTS? Since I thought that was quite excellent. Also that the Renaissance just is something between the middle ages and the 18th century without a niche is clearly wrong, for historical events there is the conquest of the Americas, the reformation with all the massive that it entails, the basics for modern nations states, the renewed interest in antiquity and the thirty years war. The tactics and how to fight wars also changes significantly, I mean it goes from Swiss pikemen and landsknechts to Tercios and early line infantry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 15:45
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:Have any of you guys who are so opposed to gunpowder played FOTS? Since I thought that was quite excellent. Don't forget the entire 17th century too! But yeah, Gun Powder Warfare can work. Providing effort is made with the engine and setting.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
I felt that they did the New World campaign in Kingdoms pretty drat well, the native civs were all different enough to provide enough variety and playing as the Spanish was pretty drat fun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
Yes, another game in Europe, wonderful. I'd rather see Romance of the Three Kingdoms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
Deakul posted:I felt that they did the New World campaign in Kingdoms pretty drat well, the native civs were all different enough to provide enough variety and playing as the Spanish was pretty drat fun. I feel that playing the Spanish in that campaign shows both the best and worst thing about gunpowder-era combat, at least in terms of Total War. On one hand, you can get both brutal melees and shootouts since guns didn't nullify swords and pikes completely yet, and positioning your guys mattered a lot since musketeers needed a clear line of fire to work. On the other hand, it could get real clunky to do since a proper pike & shot company worked together as a single unit, and the way TW models units doesn't work out very well. Once they can get a system that can handle multiple types of soldiers with different roles in a single unit working, that's when I think most people will come around to Rennaissance-era combat. I'm already sold since it's one of my favorite periods of history, but I'd like to see a pike & shot company actually fending off head-on charges with both volleys and pikes bracing properly without needing me to micromanage it before I can really appreciate a game like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
India: Total War is actually the one thing I would like to see. I mean, I know almost nothing about Indian history so I don't know which era would be the most entertaining, but off the top of my head there has to be some cool things around the era when the Timurids were ripping everyone a new rear end in a top hat and they were transitioning to the Mughal Empire. You get religious tension between the muslims and various Hindu sects, cool units and MOTHERFUCKING WAR ELEPHANTS  .
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:I feel that playing the Spanish in that campaign shows both the best and worst thing about gunpowder-era combat, at least in terms of Total War. On one hand, you can get both brutal melees and shootouts since guns didn't nullify swords and pikes completely yet, and positioning your guys mattered a lot since musketeers needed a clear line of fire to work. On the other hand, it could get real clunky to do since a proper pike & shot company worked together as a single unit, and the way TW models units doesn't work out very well. I don't really have any issues with guns in the Total War games, though, I've only played M2 and Empire in regards to guns as my computer is pretty old but it's never bothered me. It is a bit clunky in Medieval 2 though, probably because it's in its infancy as far as implementation goes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
The problem with Renaissance is they'd need to vastly improve diplomacy and naval AI- two of the weakest parts of the game. I'm not opposed to a game in that era per se, but with its current systems there'd be no way they can pull it off. Micromanaging gun and melee units in FotS can actually be incredibly entertaining so I'm not sure they need to bother working out mixed arms units before doing it though. A game from the 15th through 19th centuries would be amazing, as something they do like 10 years down the line. Paradox diplomacy in Europe with the AI and players competing to colonialize, with theatres unlocking as time progresses. (and as a fever dream throw China in there too; they were on technological parity with Europe back in the 15th century, alt history this all the way down.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
Have any of the TW games covered the Huns or Ghengis Khan?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
There were invasion events in the Medieval Total War, but thats the closest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:Have any of you guys who are so opposed to gunpowder played FOTS? Since I thought that was quite excellent. I played FOTS and liked it but I still find myself going back to vanilla shogun 2. Part of the problem for FOTS for me was that traditional units were pretty worthless in auto calc but if I had a full army of traditional units and just made them all charge as soon as the battle started I'd usually win against gun troops fairly easily. If I autocalc'd the same battle I'd get destroyed and barely hurt the enemy. It gets kind of tedious to play every battle. I guess the problem I have with guns in TW is more the goofy implementation than hating the idea of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Shumagorath posted:Have any of the TW games covered the Huns or Ghengis Khan? Rome 1 Barbarian Invasions Expansion had the Huns as faction complete with a whole horde mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
The future of Total War is shamelessly stealing all the good mods people make. Just get the rights and make games about the Trojan War, War-hammer and that weird mod with the dinosaurs and smurfs and Shrek.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
BlueFootedBoobie posted:Rome 1 Barbarian Invasions Expansion had the Huns as faction complete with a whole horde mechanic. They were also hard fuckers to kill. Unless you put an army in a city. I think I completely destroyed the huns and Goths while defending in one city. As those fuckers came at me back to back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:They were also hard fuckers to kill. Unless you put an army in a city. I think I completely destroyed the huns and Goths while defending in one city. As those fuckers came at me back to back. In Medieval II had the mongols all charge Baghdad after I took it. Ballista towers are OP, I don't even think I killed the majority of their units, the towers did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
dogstile posted:In Medieval II had the mongols all charge Baghdad after I took it. Ballista towers are OP, I don't even think I killed the majority of their units, the towers did. Yeah someone Medieval sieges were even easier. Though I am fine with not having those just to see like 8000 huns trying to break into a city and pouring through the holes. Though there were so many I had to turn the camera away from the action as the framerate dropped into the single digits. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
Shumagorath posted:Have any of the TW games covered the Huns or Ghengis Khan? The original Shogun had a Mongol Invasion expansion, though I don't know if Genghis was featured or not (probably not - I think the invasions kicked off while Kublai was Khan?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:They were also hard fuckers to kill. Unless you put an army in a city. I think I completely destroyed the huns and Goths while defending in one city. As those fuckers came at me back to back. Theres a bridge near Crimea in MTW2. I held them off with a single stack.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Tomn posted:The original Shogun had a Mongol Invasion expansion, though I don't know if Genghis was featured or not (probably not - I think the invasions kicked off while Kublai was Khan?) Actually that was the Mongol Invasion expansion pack which featured Kublai Khan's abortive attempt to take Japan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
Cool, I never noticed before that there is a blood DLC for Shogun 2, with decapitations and all. Does it work with mods as well? They better release one for Rome 2 too. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
Frungy! posted:Cool, I never noticed before that there is a blood DLC for Shogun 2, with decapitations and all. Does it work with mods as well? I don't know about the mods but it was easily the best 69 cents I ever spent when I got it on sale.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Aside from the really weird design choice to have the blood fly up and cover your camera which you can disable with a mod it is alright.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:47 |
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Aside from the really weird design choice to have the blood fly up and cover your camera which you can disable with a mod it is alright. It's great for arrow/gun volley fire. So much blood. It's also cool to see just how effective your guys are being.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 03:58
|
|