|
Anyone got a working link for the Call of Warhammer mod for M2TW? I want to get my pike and shot on; otherwise, I'll just stick with Third Age.
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
shalcar posted:The real variety issue between Rome 2 and Shogun 2, is that in Shogun 2 the roster is complete and every battlefield niche is full, but you need to open them up. In Rome 2, every nation basically starts with the units they need for their playstyle and then they unlock better ones, but rarely, if ever, adds width to their roster. Let players see what life would have been like if Rome invested in heavy cavalry, let the player see what the Averni would have been like if they built the biggest warships the world have ever seen, let the player see what it would have been like if the Steppe tribes developed heavy infantry. It's a game about alternate history, let history alternate. In Shogun 2 the AI plays to their strengths but I've seen some incredible things. I've seen a cavalry focused Chosokabe, a naginata focused Takeda and a ranged focused Shimazu. Not often, but it causes me great delight when the AI does something unexpected and that's something that can literally never happen in Rome 2. The Rome 2 roster is a subset of the Shogun 2 one, not vice versa. It's odd, but I find that Rome 2 both lacks the variety of Shogun 2, and also lacks the freedom. Which sounds weird but, with Shogun 2, you can choose to specialise most any nation in most anything, if you build the right buildings to get your units tooled up appropriately. But Rome 2 both doesn't let you use all strategies with all nations, while at the same time its national specialisation isn't actually very specialised. I would posit that a Shogun 2 clan could excel in one area of their choice more than most nations in Rome 2 can, because of the aforementioned more significant bonuses. I think I'd like to see Rome 2 do something like double all of its bonuses, it can keep the incremental buildup, but the end result I think should be more powerful, and also more specific, rather than generally encouraging you to just max out all your bonuses. The new emperor edition building chains could really go well with this, if you had specific end-tier choices to give you more powerful, but more specific recruitment bonuses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
I think Shogun 2 + Rise + Fall in custom battles in multiplayer has an enormous amount of variation, but not really so much in just their respective campaigns. The units do still feel more satisfying to use for me though, but that said-shalcar posted:The real variety issue between Rome 2 and Shogun 2, is that in Shogun 2 the roster is complete and every battlefield niche is full, but you need to open them up. In Rome 2, every nation basically starts with the units they need for their playstyle and then they unlock better ones, but rarely, if ever, adds width to their roster. Let players see what life would have been like if Rome invested in heavy cavalry, let the player see what the Averni would have been like if they built the biggest warships the world have ever seen, let the player see what it would have been like if the Steppe tribes developed heavy infantry. It's a game about alternate history, let history alternate. In Shogun 2 the AI plays to their strengths but I've seen some incredible things. I've seen a cavalry focused Chosokabe, a naginata focused Takeda and a ranged focused Shimazu. Not often, but it causes me great delight when the AI does something unexpected and that's something that can literally never happen in Rome 2. The Rome 2 roster is a subset of the Shogun 2 one, not vice versa. That hardly ever happens, and regardless, a random feudal Japanese clan using a different unit from what they're supposed to in the game (which, even for the handful of Japanese history nerds, has only the loosest of ties to their historical counterparts) isn't really the alternate history most people are striving for. Rome 2 by comparison massively limits the player choice, but the AI factions you go up against are far more varied. Most of barbarians are all loving identical, but as you fight on through the other regions you know what you're gonna be going up against next is different from what you're up against now. Aside from the Ikko Ikki, there is nothing like that in Shogun 2, and the possibility of more variation, if there is even that, doesn't really mean there is in any actual game. And you're right, in Rome 2 you do know it'll be different; there's nothing unexpected, but I think making all the factions functionally identical for token unexpectedness is the worse of the two choices. I've tried some of the mods where everybody can make every kind of unit and I thought they were loving awful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:Anyone got a working link for the Call of Warhammer mod for M2TW? I want to get my pike and shot on; otherwise, I'll just stick with Third Age. You've probably checked these but just in case: http://empiretw.ru/board/index.php?showtopic=24936
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Koramei posted:That hardly ever happens, and regardless, a random feudal Japanese clan using a different unit from what they're supposed to in the game (which, even for the handful of Japanese history nerds, has only the loosest of ties to their historical counterparts) isn't really the alternate history most people are striving for. Rome 2 by comparison massively limits the player choice, but the AI factions you go up against are far more varied. Much like how 6 months after release you could fight such varied armies as Roman Slingers, Hellenic Slingers, Barbarian Slingers or Eastern Slingers. Which brings me to my point about how the variety of the armies you fight against is based on the AI and what it actually builds, not the rosters. Now yes, Shogun 2 AI did indeed build balanced forces and I'm sure we have all played enough Shogun 2 to have seen every balanced force that exists, but it could just as easily build wild, varied and unbalanced forces just like you end up with in Rome 2, except in Rome 2 these balance issues are forced. Once again, there are no battlefield niches which exist in Rome 2 which do not exist in Shogun 2. As for your comments about the ahistory people expect, I can only assume you mean that with no cultural baggage and expectations on Shogun 2, people didn't demand good game design be thrown out the window to shoehorn in their expectations like happened with Rome 2. Shogun 2 would be a good game with no theme at all, Rome 2... wouldn't. Koramei posted:Most of barbarians are all loving identical, but as you fight on through the other regions you know what you're gonna be going up against next is different from what you're up against now. Aside from the Ikko Ikki, there is nothing like that in Shogun 2, and the possibility of more variation, if there is even that, doesn't really mean there is in any actual game. And you're right, in Rome 2 you do know it'll be different; there's nothing unexpected, but I think making all the factions functionally identical for token unexpectedness is the worse of the two choices. Once again (ignoring the 1/4 of the world that is identical and the 18 million types of Hoplite that inhabit the other 1/4), that's got everything to do with what the AI recruits and throws at you. Now I suspect the reason Shogun 2 only creates balanced armies is that the AI really performs at it's best with balanced armies and tends to not be able to handle wildly different ones, but that applies equally to Rome 2 except there the AI can't actually make balanced armies. Let's not forget it took them nearly a year to make Rome 2 AI able to handle what they throw at it. The error you are making is assuming that there is a dichotomy here. You don't have to choose "functionally identical for token unexpectedness" or "nothing unexpected". It's entirely possible to have a system that limits choice in a way that allows specialization or divergent rosters without having forced limitations (think the custom player race picks in Master of Orion 2 or picking a Sorcerer's Spells in Baldurs Gate 2). Obviously such a system would never work in Rome 2 as it stands (although imagine being able to pick your culture and unit loadout, now that sounds a lot like a system they planned pre-release...), but it would provide that variety of armies you crave without locking out player choice. Give it a toggle for "Realistic" with fixed loadouts by nation or "Alternate" with everyone assigned a template or such and everyone would be happy. Koramei posted:I've tried some of the mods where everybody can make every kind of unit and I thought they were loving awful. Of course it's going to be awful. The design of Rome 2 is nowhere near compatible with the idea of giving everyone all the units. It's a terrible idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
How did Rome 1 handle the different factions compared to Rome 2? My first Total War game was Medieval 2 and I've never been able to get into Rome 1 'cause back in the day because I liked the Medieval period more than antiquity, and now I have trouble going back to a time before the unit reinforcement system made losses easier to handle. Was it a lot of superficial differences between factions like the Parthian spearmen sucking at everything with some unique units tossed in like in Rome 2? Medieval 2 is still my favorite in terms of units, because it had fun stuff like highlanders and  DANISH WAR CLERICS 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Rome 1 handled it in pretty much the same way, except it spiced up the barbarian factions by throwing in a few completely crazy things like screeching women and head throwers, and in barbarian invasion what were essentially giants. Also everything in Rome 1 had a bit more... clunk to it? The units in Rome 2 all feel way too similar, and they didn't at all in Shogun 2 so I dunno what the hell CA broke. That's improved a bit in patch 15 but it's still a major issue. shalcar posted:Much like how 6 months after release you could fight such varied armies as Roman Slingers, Hellenic Slingers, Barbarian Slingers or Eastern Slingers. Which brings me to my point about how the variety of the armies you fight against is based on the AI and what it actually builds, not the rosters. quote:Now yes, Shogun 2 AI did indeed build balanced forces and I'm sure we have all played enough Shogun 2 to have seen every balanced force that exists, but it could just as easily build wild, varied and unbalanced forces just like you end up with in Rome 2, except in Rome 2 these balance issues are forced. Once again, there are no battlefield niches which exist in Rome 2 which do not exist in Shogun 2. quote:The error you are making is assuming that there is a dichotomy here. You don't have to choose "functionally identical for token unexpectedness" or "nothing unexpected". It's entirely possible to have a system that limits choice in a way that allows specialization or divergent rosters without having forced limitations (think the custom player race picks in Master of Orion 2 or picking a Sorcerer's Spells in Baldurs Gate 2). Obviously such a system would never work in Rome 2 as it stands (although imagine being able to pick your culture and unit loadout, now that sounds a lot like a system they planned pre-release...), but it would provide that variety of armies you crave without locking out player choice. Give it a toggle for "Realistic" with fixed loadouts by nation or "Alternate" with everyone assigned a template or such and everyone would be happy. Pretty much the #1 complaint with Shogun 2 I see in these threads is a lack of variation, and I've seen countless posts about Rome 2 along the lines of "I dislike a lot of things about it but at least it's varied", which indicates to me that the superficiality you perceive in the variation isn't what most people get out of it. I've argued in the past that they're wrong, but I don't think they are anymore. Incidentally, I do still prefer Shogun 2. I just don't think I'd call it objectively superior anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
shalcar posted:
shalcar posted:Much like how 6 months after release you could fight such varied armies as Roman Slingers, Hellenic Slingers, Barbarian Slingers or Eastern Slingers. Which brings me to my point about how the variety of the armies you fight against is based on the AI and what it actually builds, not the rosters. Now yes, Shogun 2 AI did indeed build balanced forces and I'm sure we have all played enough Shogun 2 to have seen every balanced force that exists, but it could just as easily build wild, varied and unbalanced forces just like you end up with in Rome 2, except in Rome 2 these balance issues are forced. Once again, there are no battlefield niches which exist in Rome 2 which do not exist in Shogun 2.  " post. I get it, you were expecting Rome to be a nearly Starcraft experience with perfect symmetries and balance between factions, or worse, like your newest rants indicate, you wanted factions to be very nearly identical so that the onus would be on the player to pick and choose, ignoring how a classical era game simply couldn't and shouldn't be portrayed the same way as a quarrel on an island about the same size of Germany. Not that this matters much because, again, you really didn't play Rome that much (you saying that the Arveni wouldn't field heavily armed units says it all really).What's bizarre is that you can in fact build varied armies in Rome 2, you just miss specialized troops which are characteristic of certain factions or cultures. The Gauls can field proper infantry units of any thing barring phalanxes, they can also field proper horse units barring horse arches and they have access to all ranged units. The steppe tribes can field proper assault troops, assuming you take the time to research them, which make them perfect complements to the very offensive and aggressive nature of steppe warfare. Rome rightly only fields heavy infantry, skirmishers and medium cavalry, that's true...if you refuse to build the buildings that produce auxiliaries, which allows you to grab nearly any kind of unit that Rome's "native" roster lacks. The idea is exactly that though. You lack slingers so you go fetch them in Iberia. You lack cavalry so you take a job to Celtic areas. You lack proper spear units so you go to Helenic areas. You lack assault troops, shock cavalry or skirmish units so you go to Thracia. That's a pretty great gameplay decision because it encourages you to spread to new areas to see what you find and mix local troops with your very own without resorting to expensive mercenaries. Playing as a Celt or Germanic faction you'll feel plenty of difference when you go from levied spear, slingers and club units to sword units, spearbands, light cavalry and archers and yet again when you start getting heavier infantry, specialized light infantry as well as heavy and harassing cavalry. On anyone's mind this is a considerable expansion of the gameplay from the early brutal levy slugfests where one or two heavy units or cavalry can win a battle to more diverse armies with alternative strategies to play with, where the collective becomes much more important. The same can be seen even in hoplite land, where increasing the options to get more cavalry (skirmish, light, medium, heavy or shock) or more infantry (heavier phallanxes, light spearmen, shock troops) allows you to change your roster. Hell, you can even abandon phalanxes all together and go for some thorax swordsmen! The AI has recruited proper armies without mods since patch 12\13, you just didn't see it because your heart was broken over the lack of Roman-Pontic Yari Samurai. You dislike Rome because there's variety but that variety isn't very samey rosters that give you virtually all kinds of units and those specialized units, which sometimes make or break your success aren't actually that special and are just superficial but you also dislike Rome because so many areas field the same variety of units. You also dislike the AI for building weak armies, but you dismiss the fact that the AI now produces good armies because those armies are predictable. Face it, you simply dislike Rome 2, and there's still good reasons to complain about Rome 2, but not for the reasons any sensible person dislikes it. Koramei posted:Rome 1 handled it in pretty much the same way, except it spiced up the barbarian factions by throwing in a few completely crazy things like screeching women and head throwers, and in barbarian invasion what were essentially giants.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
I dislike Rome because it's political stuff had no fun in it because your agents died really quickly, you couldn't build any cool ahistorical temples as the Celts and other barbarians, the generals had all the personality and usefulness of a damp lettuce leaf and I never had a decent fight throughout my play time. I crushed the enemy so easily it was basically a joke to even bother playing the game. I can't comment in too much depth on Rome 2, but I was so dissapointed that I couldn't get in to it. I know we are discussing unit rosters and all that, but I still want to know if any of that actually gets improved by the upcoming patch/update. If it doesn't then I am just going to completely uninstall it and remember never to pre-order stuff. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Sep 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I dislike Rome because it's political stuff had no fun in it because your agents died really quickly, you couldn't build any cool ahistorical temples as the Celts and other barbarians, the generals had all the personality and usefulness of a damp lettuce leaf and I never had a decent fight throughout my play time. I crushed the enemy so easily it was basically a joke to even bother playing the game. That update has already happened. I find I'm actually paying attention to politics, it's kinda interesting now. I've also gotten a bit attached to my generals now that I'm promoting them, and as I'm playing the Emperor edition they actually live long enough to get good without fighting four battles a turn. The opposition party assassinated my top general so I assassinated the two of the opposition party. I still kinda prefer the big long list of random traits you'd get in the old games though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Mhm, I mean I liked the Shogun 2 method of "promote your guy and make up a back story for him" but I loved the little vignettes that you got with traits like "hooting". Basically what I wanted to do was play King of Dragon Pass but with actual battles and conquest. I do not think Rome 2 could have given me that but the fact that it has taken over a year to get politics right? I do not rate that highly at all. At least they have continually supported the system, which is excellent, but it is still disappointing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
I wish they would make Medieval 3 but just completely replace the strategic/political portion of the game with Crusader Kings 2. Like the game would be identical to CK2 except whenever there's a battle you go into a nice realtime TotalWar battle with great graphics etc. They can take the resources they'll save from not having to do a strategic game and use them on making more funny speeches based on commanders' traits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Koramei posted:You've been bringing this up a bunch but you basically debunk it in this very quote- yes, that was true (and I argued the exact same thing you're saying a few times myself in the past... ), six months after release. It's now six months from that. There is actual variation in what the AI produces these days. I seem to have been misunderstood on my example by both you and Mans, so I probably wasn't clear with the thrust of my point, so I apologise for that and let's see if I can't do better, it was late at night so my thoughts were probably scattered. My point was not, as you both seem to think, that the AI in Rome 2 builds lovely armies or that the Shogun 2 AI ever builds wildly off the wall armies. My point was that you can't look at the unit roster in a bubble and claim it gives diverse enemies to fight without also talking about the AI that actually uses that system. The example was meant to illustrate that instead of needing a hypothetical to state this point, I could use an actual example from the game where the unit roster was the same as it is now but *didn't* produce the varied armies it produces at the moment. The followup to that point was that the Shogun 2 AI could just as easily be programmed to behave in a way where they build "flavours" rather than a balanced roster, so the complaint about how we end up with armies all of a similar template in Shogun 2 isn't about the unit roster and is about the recruitment AI in that game. When I said "just as easily", I meant that it's about how the AI prioritizes building both units and troops and the only reason we end up with the forces we do is because of the weighting of the value of things by the AI which could be anything. Remember when the AI in Shogun 2 basically beelined for Bow Samurai and then cranked out masses of them? I do. Why couldn't that behaviour be controlled to go for crazier and more dynamic armies? It's a definite area where Shogun 2 could be improved. Koramei posted:I'm sure it's entirely possible, but Shogun 2 doesn't do that either and CA has shown no evidence they're capable of it. If CA were some other company we might not have to choose, but we do, because they are CA, and of the choices, Rome 2's is better. While it's true Shogun 2 doesn't do that, the opportunity cost in both art research and the required building slots mean that in effect you do end up specialised and having armies with your distinct flavour although that has more to do with the tight economic model than the building/unit matrix, where once again we have interrelated systems changing how it all actually works in practise. We see many people saying they prefer the "soft counter" method over the RPS "hard counter" when on the battlefield, but what I'm arguing for is a "soft counter" for army variety instead of Rome 2's "hard counter". While Shogun 2 works in that area for the player, I agree that the AI doesn't take advantage of it to mix it up. It's an area of Shogun 2 that absolutely could use improvement. Really the thrust of my argument is not that I want Rome 2 to be Shogun 2, but that I personally feel that this "hard" method of roster assignment limits your options in a way that a properly implemented soft one doesn't while not giving you any major benefit. Rome 2 *is* varied and that variation is absolutely it's key feature and strength and what I don't want is all the variation stripped out. I think the game would be immensely poorer for it and honestly without it's variation it wouldn't be much at all, which is what I meant when I said you could take the theme out of Shogun 2 and it would still be good but Rome 2 wouldn't. Rome 2 lives and dies by it's theme and the world it is in. Mans posted:Words You seem pretty angry and make a lot of assumptions here. I'm certainly confused by your idea that expecting balance in a video game is somehow or that I want to make everyone exactly the same. I would also like to state that I said that about heavily armoured units in the Averni, not heavily armed which leads me to believe that you didn't read my posts very well. As for not following development or playing Rome, well, you are wrong on both fronts.Yes, Rome as a faction can get the entire roster through auxilia and their primary roster and the need to expand *does* work really well for Rome. But only for Rome, which is sort of my point. Everyone should be able to fill their gaps like Rome does without Mercs. That is literally the system I am championing. As mentioned earlier, I have literally no issue with the armies the AI recruits now and if I'm honest I thought army composition was fixed long before patch 12/13, but as I said earlier in my post it was to illustrate the interplay of systems rather than a criticism of the game. In any case, your jibe at my apparent need for Roman-Pontic Yari Samurai was hardly needed. I don't dislike Rome for it's variety. As I said earlier, Rome is all about it's variety, it lives and breathes variety, variety is the heart that beats inside it's chest. I never said factions shouldn't get specialized units, nor did I say those specialized units did not have a big impact on gameplay or were superficial. Instead, my examples for consolidation were things Eastern Spearman should have the same stats as Levy Spearman, keeping the different dynamic and feel but simplifying the information load on the player. Once again, I never dismissed the fact the AI now builds good armies, nor was I hating on it for building weak ones but was merely pointing out that much more of what we are discussing is about how the AI behaves influencing what is so strong about Rome 2 (the variety), rather than the underlying systems that we are discussing. I concede I obviously wasn't clear enough and I apologise for that. I agree there are many areas that could be improved in the Total War games and if you think this would make even my top 10 complaints about Rome 2 you are sadly mistaken because the issue as a whole is incredibly minor because it actually works really well in the context of the game, but it is what we happened to be talking about. I'm treating it more as a "soft capped roster" vs "hard capped roster" conversation myself, but it's entirely possible I've left the thread behind on that one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:You've probably checked these but just in case: http://empiretw.ru/board/index.php?showtopic=24936 Yeah, can't load these at my desktop at home but it might just be everyone getting online and lagging up the service at night. I'll try it out again this weekend though, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:That update has already happened. I find I'm actually paying attention to politics, it's kinda interesting now. I've also gotten a bit attached to my generals now that I'm promoting them, and as I'm playing the Emperor edition they actually live long enough to get good without fighting four battles a turn. The opposition party assassinated my top general so I assassinated the two of the opposition party.  I want the pink elephants and green pixies to lead the attack. Have you seen my wife? Bloody ugly woman. Probably fighting with that lot over there, and we're buggered if she's on their side!Er, where was I? Oh yes. Attack the men, my elephants! Go for those little pink sods! Err, was there something… pass the wine, there's a good chap! Too bad I can't seem to find any videos of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:I miss the crazy speeches from Medieval 2. Especially once you got traits like "Lunatic", "coward" or "alcoholic". Yeah, the crazy general speeches are absolutely incredible and the series really is poorer for their absence. I sincerely hope the next total war brings back nutcases and their incredible speeches about the moon people and fancy hats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
The "lunatic" speeches should be exclusively scripted from TWC forums conversations or Youtube comments. So the general will scream about how tall he expected the enemy soldiers to be and whether or not their horses should be skinnier.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:The "lunatic" speeches should be exclusively scripted from TWC forums conversations or Youtube comments. I gaze out at the enemy and all I see is dongs! Flopping dongs as far as the eye can see! I won't stand for it!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
shalcar posted:You seem pretty angry and make a lot of assumptions here. I'm certainly confused by your idea that expecting balance in a video game is somehow Chosen Swordsmen Spear Warriors The Averni are a Heavy Infantry Faction that trades some of Rome's brute force for a better native supporting cast. In any case, I would argue that the limited options in faction rosters does promote some degree of strategic diversity and creativity over Shogun's model. When everyone has access to everything, the solution to any given problem will generally be "bring an appropriate counter unit", which isn't especially compelling once you learn what the unit relationships are. Things get more interesting when there isn't always an obvious or direct answer available and you start having to work around problems and look for alternative solutions or simply adapt your campaign strategies around preempting those issues in the first place. The fact that different factions have very pronounced strengths and weaknesses also means you're much more likely to see fights between dramatically asymmetrical armies since there's an actual incentive to bring imbalanced compositions besides being on a comedy playthrough or quirks of AI recruitment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
I'm on my phone so it's a bit hard to respond to everything, but yeah, it's worth mentioning that the Gauls were literally famous for their armour; both the most common Roman helmet and their chainmail were lifted straight from Gallic designs. And that is kind of represented in game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:I wish they would make Medieval 3 but just completely replace the strategic/political portion of the game with Crusader Kings 2. Like the game would be identical to CK2 except whenever there's a battle you go into a nice realtime TotalWar battle with great graphics etc. They can take the resources they'll save from not having to do a strategic game and use them on making more funny speeches based on commanders' traits. Yup, this is basically my dream game. One problem though (apart from it unfortunately never, ever happening) is that battles in CK2 have to potential to be way, WAY bigger than what even a good computer could run with Total War's engine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Some good posts on this page, I concede all my points. I have been convinced that it's a real shame that the other nations don't have rosters as good as Rome's and that the auxilia mechanic would be even better if everyone got it. Evolving rosters, how great would that be?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 10:53
|
|
|
shalcar posted:Some good posts on this page, I concede all my points. There actually was a mod that did this, I think it was called "Auxilia for All" or somesuch. I had to stop using it as it stopped being updated, or was really slow to update. I forget which.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
It's totally up to date now and I'm using it. Wouldn't have started a steppe campaign without it in fact. The only problem is you get every auxiliary so duplicates happen. Easy to fix though if it really bothers you. edit: here it is http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=205403952 edit once more: I think at this point the only mod I'd really like is one that allowed you to up armour your shittier early units if you have the cash. For instance, you could pay for some scale armour on your Eastern Spearmen and it's make them a bit more resilient. Since you're buying the armour and not guys themselves it'd be pretty expensive. Medieval 2 had guys getting better armour which was great. Rabhadh fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:The only problem is you get every auxiliary so duplicates happen. I considered this a while ago but decided to leave the mod as-is because I wasn't sure whether to keep auxiliary units that were just almost copies of factional units. For example, do I let Sparta have Auxiliary Hoplites, when they already have Perioikoi and Spartan hoplites? Do celtic factions keep "Auxiliary Gallic Warriors", which (I believe) are just a renamed copy of Celtic Warriors?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
peer posted:I considered this a while ago but decided to leave the mod as-is because I wasn't sure whether to keep auxiliary units that were just almost copies of factional units. For example, do I let Sparta have Auxiliary Hoplites, when they already have Perioikoi and Spartan hoplites? Yes because there's no way Sparta could fill their armies with only those specific, weird classes of people. Battles where the city of Sparta provided all of the troops in a Spartan-led army were few and far between. sassassin fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
I would kill for a new Kingdoms style expansion. Just have various campaigns focused on certain regions and eras. Reconquista battling for Spain would be kickass.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:edit once more: I think at this point the only mod I'd really like is one that allowed you to up armour your shittier early units if you have the cash. For instance, you could pay for some scale armour on your Eastern Spearmen and it's make them a bit more resilient. Since you're buying the armour and not guys themselves it'd be pretty expensive. Medieval 2 had guys getting better armour which was great. Man, seeing those Jinetes go from cloth armor to almost knight-like armor was amazing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
I loved the visual effect of armored up units. Here's the town militia... in full chain mail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
shalcar posted:Some good posts on this page, I concede all my points. I remember some developer quote that was about how other factions were going to get similar roster updates like rome and the marius reforms, even if they were ahistorical. I wanted to see what they would have done for late era carthage, after the historical fall date, but also now I'm not sure if there ever was a quote like that or it was just wishful thinking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
dogstile posted:Get a general with stand and fight, armour up your Yari ashigaru and a couple units of Katana samurai and you can take any army. The stat gains were ridiculous. By end game i'm usually going "peasant army vs 2 stacks of samurai? Bring it on How do you upgrade unit armor or weapons on Shogun 2? I sort of feel I should have read something about how the game works before I started... Don Gato posted:I miss the crazy speeches from Medieval 2. Especially once you got traits like "Lunatic", "coward" or "alcoholic". Oh holy hell, I remember as long ago as MTW: Vikings I had generals who were complete wrecks. One was like 75 years old and so drunk 24/7 he had to be carried to battle on his shield, but he was magnificent at leading infantry or something anyway. Always loved the less than regular (or even positive) traits. Ligur fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Ligur posted:How do you upgrade unit armor or weapons on Shogun 2? I believe it was a unique province building that allowed you to do that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Gimnbo posted:I loved the visual effect of armored up units. Here's the town militia... in full chain mail. This was one of my favorite features and it was so cool to see your troops get upgraded and become more effective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:This was one of my favorite features and it was so cool to see your troops get upgraded and become more effective. Yeah, I always ended up taking Rennes and holding it with three or so town militia that had full armour. Those guys would hold the city to all but the strongest attacks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Sharkopath posted:I remember some developer quote that was about how other factions were going to get similar roster updates like rome and the marius reforms, even if they were ahistorical. No, they definitely said that. Along with stuff about how the army-raising system would automatically raise troops from the region you mustered the army and thus you wouldn't just be creating optimal armies every time (which might even have justified the roster bloat somewhat). That fell by the wayside too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Lustful Man Hugs posted:I believe it was a unique province building that allowed you to do that. John Charity Spring posted:No, they definitely said that. Along with stuff about how the army-raising system would automatically raise troops from the region you mustered the army and thus you wouldn't just be creating optimal armies every time (which might even have justified the roster bloat somewhat). That fell by the wayside too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
People would definitely have complained but when I think about it, some of the most interesting battles in any Total War campaign are battles near the start of a campaign where you're having to make do to some extent - making use of spear levy in Fall of the Samurai, for instance. Or going further back, the way crusades in Medieval 1 built themselves up from troops in provinces you passed through so you had a total hodge-podge by the time you reached your destination. If that sort of thing could be replicated throughout a campaign it could be really good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
On the other hand, the AI would never give me armies composed entirely of Triarii up to and including the General. gently caress how practical that is, red ad triarii venit 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:On the other hand, the AI would never give me armies composed entirely of Triarii up to and including the General. gently caress how practical that is, red ad triarii venit Do triarii throw spears now? That could be a pretty effective gimmick if they do...
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
Nah they're too dignified for that sort of trendy, barbarian-inspired bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 09:36
|
|