|
Mordja posted:Im the derpy polar bears.  Tsar Boris 
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
oh hmm i should probably post my steam ID eh? steamcommunity.com/id/thechickenwing fite me
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Are Bugmans rangers worth the increased cost? I like them as a late game upgrade over Rangers for Belegar, but I run with just regular rangers until I'm making tons of cash. quote:It recently occurred to me that you could stack a decent amount of speed on rangers through research and engineer skills, and get a lot of mileage out of putting them in skirmish mode. You can get them up to 45 but Bugman's get the same bonuses. They're pretty good at skirmishing but I tend to prefer them just sitting behind a wall of Warriors/Ironbreakers and shooting nonstop because of how quickly they can just absolutely melt stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Safety Factor posted:
They could shovel out DLC with just a LL, and a few new units and achievements for each faction in the game and I would buy every single one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Random segue but I recently discovered that Pontus is like a running gag/meme across the Total War community. Why was the inclusion of Pontus being in Rome Total War 2 so berated across the web?
theDOWmustflow fucked around with this message at 10:59 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Safety Factor posted:
Welp, that's a winged hussar riding a polar bear, all right. If he doesn't have a bionic eye that shoots lasers I just don't know what the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
In the leadup to Rome II we knew there would be a certain number of factions at launch (9?). IIRC Pontus was the last one to be announced, which surprised almost everyone, as we just assumed it would be the larger and more-important Seleucids. Someone made a cartoon about it which really caught on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
Krazyface posted:In the leadup to Rome II we knew there would be a certain number of factions at launch (9?). IIRC Pontus was the last one to be announced, which surprised almost everyone, as we just assumed it would be the larger and more-important Seleucids. Someone made a cartoon about it which really caught on. The whole point of the cartoon was that you could still play as the seleuicids
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
theDOWmustflow posted:Random segway but I recently discovered that Pontus is like a running gag/meme across the Total War community. Why was the inclusion of Pontus being in Rome Total War 2 so berated across the web?  TWCentre is a shithole with the kind of dickheads who threw tantrums about women being included in Rome 2, made mods to make them weaker  and generally behave like entitled little shits with a third graders understanding of history and how actually, heh, those javelins are slightly too long, boy, I hope the modeller got fired for that mistake, let me link you five pages of wordvomit about how javelins back then really looked.Pontus being in the game was wrong and bad and ruined their preorders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
I think it is surprising that the Dwarves are one of the few factions to not get a 'rebel' variant. If you are Empire you get Separatists or whatever, and corruption will spawn Vampires or Chaos. With Orc/Dwarf settlements though, its always Orc rebels regardless of who controls them. It would be more interesting if, when playing Orcs, rebellions were Dwarf reclaimers- come to retake their holds. Given that most of the territory out there originally belonged to the Dwarves in the first place, it would make sense that during periods of unrest for Orc tribes opportunistic Dwarves might try and slip their way in to take the place back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
I always liked pontus but rome 2 was still pretty lovely. The whole thing where they made greek spears defensive really sucked. Made 1/3 of the factions completely boring to play. When I threw in a realism mod it finally made it fun to play. I really don't have any faith in creative to make a fun historical game because they really lack any sort of imagination to make a fun game system and lack the knowledge to make something true to history. Warhammer is great it is extremely varied unlike most fantasy settings and all the hard work in design and balancing has already been done so they don't need to do much outside of coding it all in. Great coders, terrible game designers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:I always liked pontus but rome 2 was still pretty lovely. The whole thing where they made greek spears defensive really sucked. Made 1/3 of the factions completely boring to play. When I threw in a realism mod it finally made it fun to play. ... you do know the balance of the video game is completely a new and different thing than the tabletop rules right? Like literally everything mechanical about the game was made up by Creative Assembly because a tabletop wargame does not have rules for about 70% of the poo poo you do in this game. And the stuff that does is completely different because real time Total War style game is miles different than tabletop. Also lol at anyone calling Warhammer Fantasy well balanced. Zore fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
Zore posted:... you do know the balance of the video game is completely a new and different thing than the tabletop rules right? Like literally everything mechanical about the game was made up by Creative Assembly because a tabletop wargame does not have rules for about 70% of the poo poo you do in this game. And the stuff that does is completely different because real time Total War style game is miles different than tabletop. I would never claim it was balanced but all the ground work on how units are supposed to behave on the battlefield, the different niches they inhabit, all that poo poo was already done. Who beat who, armored vs high hit points, chaff vs elite, all that was already mapped out and all they had to do was translate that into their system. TWW is a much more dynamic and tactically interesting game compared to rome 2. I'm not just sitting here filling out my rosters with good swordsmen because they literally can only imagine things inside of a swords>spears>cav>swords matrix.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
theDOWmustflow posted:Random segway
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 10:26
|
|
|
Necroskowitz posted:You could pretty much give them a full roster based off their Warmaster Army. is that a gattling gun on top of a camel?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:I really don't have any faith in creative to make a fun historical game because they really lack any sort of imagination to make a fun game system and lack the knowledge to make something true to history. Warhammer is great it is extremely varied unlike most fantasy settings and all the hard work in design and balancing has already been done so they don't need to do much outside of coding it all in. Great coders, terrible game designers. I get dogpiled for saying Bretonnia are lame but this slides under everyone's radar? CA's line has always been "If it's a choice between fun and historical accuracy, we'll always go with fun." lol if you think Total War isn't fun, what are you even doing in this thread?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:I always liked pontus but rome 2 was still pretty lovely. The whole thing where they made greek spears defensive really sucked. Made 1/3 of the factions completely boring to play. When I threw in a realism mod it finally made it fun to play.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
I think the suggestion that Warhammer Total War is just taking the tabletop and 'coding it all in' is an immensely hilarious idea. EDIT: To be a bit more contentful, if you examine W:TW, I'd argue that it's actually about collapsing a bunch of previous TW games into a single game, unifying a bunch of historical settings. Roughly speaking, Dwarves got the heavy infantry antics from Rome, Chaos warriors are a grab bag of stuff from Attila, Empire is early Fall of the Samurai, Brettonia is Medieval:TW hammer and anvil with heavy cavalry... Fangz fucked around with this message at 12:45 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I think the suggestion that Warhammer Total War is just taking the tabletop and 'coding it all in' is an immensely hilarious idea. http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/filedetails/?id=594982209
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 12:38
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Did you really just imply that anyone even CA is worse at balance than GW? GW the company routinely guilty of blatantly making new units horrendously over powered to promote selling more models, the company that literally destroyed this whole setting to replace it with a setting so bad that it would be laughed out of early Image Comics, the company whose game is so bad that even when they were still making it most people house ruled to the point that they weren't really playing the same game anymore. People always say this but it's not really true. GW making things over or underpowered happened by complete accident, because none of the devs had a loving clue how anything worked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
Corrode posted:People always say this but it's not really true. GW making things over or underpowered happened by complete accident, because none of the devs had a loving clue how anything worked. idk, I remember a time when just about every new codex or army/edition update was a must have and ranked T1 by default because enough things within pooped on the existing meta, or just in general due to powercreep. This whole "GW makes OP to sell" meme has roots in the truth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
KazigluBey posted:idk, I remember a time when just about every new codex or army/edition update was a must have and ranked T1 by default because enough things within pooped on the existing meta, or just in general due to powercreep. Unless they were Greenskins for Fantasy or Orks for 40K.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
Mans posted:is that a gattling gun on top of a camel? I think it's supposed to be a normal jezzail or small cannon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:I would never claim it was balanced but all the ground work on how units are supposed to behave on the battlefield, the different niches they inhabit, all that poo poo was already done. Who beat who, armored vs high hit points, chaff vs elite, all that was already mapped out and all they had to do was translate that into their system. TWW is a much more dynamic and tactically interesting game compared to rome 2. I'm not just sitting here filling out my rosters with good swordsmen because they literally can only imagine things inside of a swords>spears>cav>swords matrix. All they had to do was translate broad vague ideas into actual concrete game mechanics guys bing bang boom! Ahahaha holy poo poo this post TWW has only superficial similarities to tabletop and furthermore has to be designed around a strategic map game system that has no analogue in table top.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
KazigluBey posted:idk, I remember a time when just about every new codex or army/edition update was a must have and ranked T1 by default because enough things within pooped on the existing meta, or just in general due to powercreep. Individual codices used to have the problem of power creep pretty often but it was rarely tied to selling models. GW are just spectacularly bad at game design. They'd routinely release a book and the models which dropped with it were shite in-game, whereas things that didn't have models were must-haves - like the 5th ed Tyranid book, where they didn't manage to release a Tervigon for years despite them being a must-have, and cast a million Pyrovores which were absolute dogshit. Same with Guard - they didn't manage to release the Hydra for years despite 6 of them being in a ton of spammy tournament armies. Usually they made something dull but cheap and efficient (e.g. Razorback spam in 5th ed Marine variant armies) and didn't realise how good it would be, while their cool new £40 models were functionally useless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Mans posted:is that a gattling gun on top of a camel? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamburak
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Corrode posted:People always say this but it's not really true. GW making things over or underpowered happened by complete accident, because none of the devs had a loving clue how anything worked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Corrode posted:People always say this but it's not really true. GW making things over or underpowered happened by complete accident, because none of the devs had a loving clue how anything worked. This is literally the most wrong thing I've seen on the Internet
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Games Workshop are like George Lucas; nerds are convinced all their successes are accidental and their failures deliberate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:I'm sure that the 5th edition Carnifex nerf and Trygon showing up to fill the very same spot was completely by accident. Trygons were poo poo mate, sorry. They looked good only because 5th ed Nids had terrible internal balance to go with the terrible external balance which made them one of the worst books in the edition. That was the same book where spore pods and Tervigons were good (no models), gargoyles were mediocre (new plastics) and Pyrovores were one of the worst units ever committed to paper (expensive new metals).
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
I've had tons of fun with literally every single Total War game, it's probably my favorite video game series at this point. <3 you CA. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Did you really just imply that anyone even CA is worse at balance than GW? GW the company routinely guilty of blatantly making new units horrendously over powered to promote selling more models, the company that literally destroyed this whole setting to replace it with a setting so bad that it would be laughed out of early Image Comics, the company whose game is so bad that even when they were still making it most people house ruled to the point that they weren't really playing the same game anymore. Sorry I was talking about single player balance which obviously the TT game doesn't have. I was comparing TWW to rome 2 and the balance is much better in TWW. How each faction plays, how many different viable strategies there are on the battlefield, etc. TWW does a much better job at this. I'm not commenting on multiplayer. I'll give an example, the giant vs the hoplite. The giant obviously performs very much like the TT counterpart. It's role in the army, how it moves, who its good at killing, who is good at killing it, all of these things were already established in the TT rules and CA did a good job of recreating it in the game. Obviously they did more than just type in the TT points cost, move, wounds, weapons skill etc values but the broad design of the unit was already done for them. For the hoplite CA decided to just make up their own system. Someone commented earlier that they chose fun over history, but that is complete bullshit. The history is so fuzzy with classical armies that there was never any straitjacket forced on them. Had they used history as a guide they would have had a solid base with which to play and could have opened up things within the faction. Instead we got a shitload of defensive spears that all looked and acted the same with slight variations and that is about it. Sure you could win with them, but you didn't have much fun doing it and the focus on defense was a straitjacket on the player since it severally constrained his options. Historical mods make the hoplite armies fun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
A Cygor threw a big rock at a unit of Dwarf Warriors and I swear it seemed like that Boulder pulped half the dwarves in the squad  those Cygors are no joke.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:A Cygor threw a big rock at a unit of Dwarf Warriors and I swear it seemed like that Boulder pulped half the dwarves in the squad Cygors are fantastic, I love them. Giant range, decent accuracy, splatters dudes like it's nothing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:Sorry I was talking about single player balance which obviously the TT game doesn't have. I was comparing TWW to rome 2 and the balance is much better in TWW. How each faction plays, how many different viable strategies there are on the battlefield, etc. TWW does a much better job at this. I'm not commenting on multiplayer. The giant is basically a war elephant. I think these elements are really way less of a brilliant invention by the WH designers than you're suggesting. Fangz fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Corrode posted:Cygors are fantastic, I love them. Giant range, decent accuracy, splatters dudes like it's nothing. Yeah they seem good against dwarves because normally I don't have a problem with Giants since dwarves have a lot of anti giant tools. But a giant that can fight back at range is pretty nasty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
quote:A later development (after 1850) would see Gatling guns mounted on camels as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
As a noob to both Total War (never played) and Warhammer (don't know jack), can I say how much fun I've been having playing this one. I've been learning via Let's Play videos and playing the Dwarf campaign. Is there a good source of information about gameplay/lore? I haven't really gotten much from what Wikis I've found. Right now I just have 2 questions - can you ever field an army with units from different factions? And are all battles between two factions, or are there ever battlefields with more than 2 sides?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
meatsaw posted:As a noob to both Total War (never played) and Warhammer (don't know jack), can I say how much fun I've been having playing this one. I've been learning via Let's Play videos and playing the Dwarf campaign. Is there a good source of information about gameplay/lore? I haven't really gotten much from what Wikis I've found. So far, you can't field a mixed faction army. The best you can get is to get in a situation where you or your enemy is allied with stacks from a different faction. You could thus get an Empire + Dwarf vs Chaos battle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
On the subject of optimization, Total Warhammer has 137 regions, compared to the 186 in Attila, while each province in Attila also had more decision-making involved than the Warhammer provinces, due to the way that food, fertility, religion and maintenance costs interacted in that game. Not to mention that Attila was simply a game that didn't want to run well, so yeah, I guess we can expect turn times to be faster than Attila by the time the third game comes in, or at the very least to be comparable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 18:13
|
|
