|
SeanBeansShako posted:weird issues with TWC
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Is there a specific story here, or just generally that TWC is TWC? It was the first Total War that needed Steam in order to play and the TWC grogs lost their drat minds over it. The meltdowns and predictions of the utter doom and degeneration of CA were all they could talk about once that news came out. Of course, Empire being, well, Empire let them claim that their doomsaying was coming true. TWC is and always has been a Weekend Web grade forum.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
Eh, It was pretty average of a gaming forum until after Empire hit. I don't know what it says about CA still putting up with them considering the utter bitter bile they vomited out. Pretty much the only reason to care about that place is well modding and sharing the games mods.
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Wasn't this at the time Steam did not have it's monopoly, and was a pretty bad piece of work?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
My favorite Empire memory was sieging a city and the enemy decided to sally forth with a full stack of troops and militia. For those unfamiliar: Empire's battle AI tactics were inevitably the same very single battle: put all of your infantry into one gigantic line and march directly ahead. Problem is that in a siege battle, all of their men start inside the fortress, so one by one their entire stack files out of the fort and makes a gigantic line that intersects directly with the fort itself, but they don't care. A full half-hour later (don't want to tire out your troops by running, natch) they're ready to attack, and naturally when they start marching forward the part of the line inside the fort gets caught on the wall and has to file out one man at a time.  The entire battle took about 45 minutes, including maybe three minutes of actual shooting and ten minutes of picking off the men who were befuddled by the fort wall one by one. Empire was my introduction to Total War and still the one I have the most hours on, although I do agree with the thread that Shogun 2 is probably the best one.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 15:09
|
|
Bloodly posted:Wasn't this at the time Steam did not have it's monopoly, and was a pretty bad piece of work? Just afterwards, when they were starting to pick up and Steamworks was being adopted by the first non VALVE studios and companies. TWC being full of grogs though lost their poo poo, though to be fair they did have a point as not everyone had a decent broadband connection back then.
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Bloodly posted:Wasn't this at the time Steam did not have it's monopoly, and was a pretty bad piece of work? It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't all that great either. The fact that internet wasn't so great at the time meant that things like being unable to play your game when a patch came out until you downloaded it was a problem, especially since the mods at the time had no central location and so a new patch meant all your mods were broken until the modders published updated versions. Often that would be a week or two, so it was pretty lovely for people who ran modded games. There was also some games that were just a key and a steam installer on the disk and installing an 8.6GB game at ~20kbps loving SUCKS. I don't think Empire did that, but it wasn't unheard of.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:My favorite Empire memory was sieging a city and the enemy decided to sally forth with a full stack of troops and militia. For those unfamiliar: Empire's battle AI tactics were inevitably the same very single battle: put all of your infantry into one gigantic line and march directly ahead. Problem is that in a siege battle, all of their men start inside the fortress, so one by one their entire stack files out of the fort and makes a gigantic line that intersects directly with the fort itself, but they don't care. A full half-hour later (don't want to tire out your troops by running, natch) they're ready to attack, and naturally when they start marching forward the part of the line inside the fort gets caught on the wall and has to file out one man at a time. I always let sieges tick down because assaults were just annoying in Empire, which of course means the AI does a desperate sally in the turn before the fort surrenders. I seem to remember those sallies either being completely normal field battles or the AI putting their troops outside the fort at least, so I guess maybe they fixed it? Might just be confusing it with FotS though. Empire would be vastly more enjoyable if artillery was as useful as it is in that game.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
shalcar posted:The meltdowns and predictions of the utter doom and degeneration of CA were all they could talk about once that news came out. I think nothing short than a HDD re-release of Medieval 2 with Stainless Steel bundled would get any other reaction from TWC nowadays.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Uuuuggh, I just remembered why I am purposely ignoring Imperial Splendour at the moment. The stuff they are doing sounds pretty frigging awesome and it just hurts waiting for it! A campaign where you take back Spain and push down the Ottomans as Morocco sounds amazing.
|
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I learned about it here and think some other people voiced their interest, so I figure I should bring it up- I picked up Oriental Empires. Bought it based on this and a whim. My concern with this thing right now is the economy. Many things take 30-50 turns per level to pay off, not counting research and build time. This is a problem when the default turn time is 300. And trade is worse than this thanks to the upkeep costs of trade buildings. Others say; 'but that's how it WAS, you need to be HUGE for trade to be worthwhile'. I'm not convinced. Bloodly fucked around with this message at 10:01 on May 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 09:59
|
|
|
Don't most things like farm or tax buildings in TW games take dozens of turns to pay for themselves as well but they end up being worth it because you just build a ton of them?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
Bloodly posted:Bought it based on this and a whim. My concern with this thing right now is the economy. Many things take 30-50 turns per level to pay off, not counting research and build time. This is a problem when the default turn time is 300. And trade is worse than this thanks to the upkeep costs of trade buildings. Others say; 'but that's how it WAS, you need to be HUGE for trade to be worthwhile'. I'm not convinced. What turn are you on? I've found that stuff starts to snowball a lot once you get trade going, since each production building gives you both straight income and also trade income for when it's been shipped down the line. You might be right though, I haven't actually done the math. I've definitely been making more money as the thing progresses to the point I haven't been that worried about it, but there could be other factors.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:Don't most things like farm or tax buildings in TW games take dozens of turns to pay for themselves as well but they end up being worth it because you just build a ton of them? I know that in Shogun 2 it was like that because of the way growth worked. In the newer games it's faster since growth no longer ties to income.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Bloodly posted:Bought it based on this and a whim. My concern with this thing right now is the economy. Many things take 30-50 turns per level to pay off, not counting research and build time. This is a problem when the default turn time is 300. And trade is worse than this thanks to the upkeep costs of trade buildings. Others say; 'but that's how it WAS, you need to be HUGE for trade to be worthwhile'. I'm not convinced. I've never seen Total War or TW-esque economies as matters of when does a thing pay off, but more a case of cash flow. Economies there are for the sake of maintaining upkeep, not creating profit IMHO, though this is especially true in Warhammer.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I know that in Shogun 2 it was like that because of the way growth worked. In the newer games it's faster since growth no longer ties to income. Eh, not really. Most of the economic buildings paid for themselves in 5-12 turns, with even the less useful ones hitting profit before turn 20 (of the ones that were profitable). It's actually pretty close to Warhammer in the turns to return. The only buildings that were in the dozens of turns to pay for themselves were the very high level farms in the low fertility provinces, but those you were building so that you could use the food to upgrade your provinces, not keep it for growth.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Bloodly posted:Bought it based on this and a whim. My concern with this thing right now is the economy. Many things take 30-50 turns per level to pay off, not counting research and build time. This is a problem when the default turn time is 300. And trade is worse than this thanks to the upkeep costs of trade buildings. Others say; 'but that's how it WAS, you need to be HUGE for trade to be worthwhile'. I'm not convinced. Trade income increases as your partner cities getting bigger. Even then, you don't want to have markets and goods-producing buildings in every city, because trade goods don't flow to cities that themselves produce the same good. The big money maker is the Well Field edict. You're gonna piss off your peasants but it doubles your tax income for some temporary unrest. And because farms are free and big cities are necessary, it's automatic growth. Some trade goods aren't valuable. Copper and bronze are bad all game. Ceramics is mediocre. Jade is super-valuable but pretty rare. A nice trade good is the second tier shrine upgrade. The shrine is an on-map building you build the same way you build mines. The host city starts making "pilgrims" as a trade good and they're pretty good value. Also, just want to thank Koramei for trying this game out and posting about it because that inspired me to go buy it. It's way chiller than TW games.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:
total warhammer is also vg, though it's probably which you prefer.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
I picked up Total Warhammer when it was in the Humble Bundle a couple of months ago, but unfortunately that was just a hot second before I started getting back into a Crusader Kings mood. I'm sure I'll give it another try in a few hundred hours.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
The strategy map is significantly less compelling than S2 imho and I miss the roster style where every unit has a purpose, but it's not fundamentally hosed up the way Empire and Rome are and the factions have such drastically different rosters it's def worth a shot
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
Warhammer is good and the spectacle is unmatched, as is the variety. Its not as tight as shogun 2, but they both have different but very solid appeals to me.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
As usual I agree with shalcar on this. Warhammer easily slotted in as joint favourite Total War game next to Shogun 2 for me, which I really didn't expect when I picked it up.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 10:02
|
|
|
I feel like Warhammer is simultaneously more diverse (because all the races are so different) and more shallow (because each race basically plays out the same each time). In my games I rarely interact with the other half of the map, if you assume that Black Fire Pass and the mountains on either side are the divider.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 10:30
|
|
StashAugustine posted:The strategy map is significantly less compelling than S2 imho and I miss the roster style where every unit has a purpose, but it's not fundamentally hosed up the way Empire and Rome are and the factions have such drastically different rosters it's def worth a shot I never get the roster or unit confusion with some people, before Empire it pretty much was rubbish peasant, slightly less rubbish peasant with sword, Pikedude and then several different Knights some with CAMELS! Yeah they didn't look as exotic as the previous games but that isn't the fault of the setting of shift in tech or tactics, it is due to the half arsed design. I mean if you don't think the setting will appeal or excite you much don't get it. Sort of the reason why I never really got into the Atilla stuff.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
Corrode posted:I feel like Warhammer is simultaneously more diverse (because all the races are so different) and more shallow (because each race basically plays out the same each time). In my games I rarely interact with the other half of the map, if you assume that Black Fire Pass and the mountains on either side are the divider. that's like saying you don't interact much with persia if you start your medieval\rome game as britons or the germans and as such call it shallow.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
To be fair, he's right in saying it usually plays out the same. Not being able to take over half of the map really does push you in one direction. Hell, the only reason you'd ever go south as empire to fight orcs is for the item and even then once you've got it you may as well go somewhere else, because you can't keep ahold of the area.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Mans posted:that's like saying you don't interact much with persia if you start your medieval\rome game as britons or the germans and as such call it shallow. Nah it's more than that. Because of regional occupation, the race groups don't really break out of their areas, especially VCs who're actively punished for leaving areas they can't control, and confederation means that even if e.g. Clan Angrund are doing well then sooner or later they're likely to get absorbed by their major faction. Angrund are pretty exceptional even - the other mountain Dwarf holds never do anything really, I think in a modded game Zhufbar had a good run once but generally they just sit in their home region forever until they get confederated. I don't think I've ever seen Grung Zint get colonised by Karak Ziflin evne though it completes their province, for example. In Medieval 2, let's say you started with England, you could still reasonably end up fighting in the Middle East - maybe you decided to get really big in Crusades and fight your way down there or something. Or you could go through Scandinavia and into Russia, or whatever - like my very first Medieval 1 campaign, I ended up crusading against the Mongols when they appeared and ended up with an English empire that pushed straight through Russia. Or maybe you did the "expected" thing and hit France, then from there you can go into Spain or Germany or Italy. That kind of thing doesn't exist in Warhammer.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I never get the roster or unit confusion with some people, before Empire it pretty much was rubbish peasant, slightly less rubbish peasant with sword, Pikedude and then several different Knights some with CAMELS! Yeah they didn't look as exotic as the previous games but that isn't the fault of the setting of shift in tech or tactics, it is due to the half arsed design. I was referring specifically to Shogun 2's style where there's not a lot of straight upgrades and most units remain relevant even into the endgame. It'd be interesting to see a mod that did something similar for Warhammer.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 18:01
|
|
StashAugustine posted:I was referring specifically to Shogun 2's style where there's not a lot of straight upgrades and most units remain relevant even into the endgame. It'd be interesting to see a mod that did something similar for Warhammer. Ah fair enough then, I mean some of the DLC and mods at least made things a little visually more striking but Rise and Fall certainly had more choice.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
FOTS unit selection: 4-8 units of artillery whatever maybe a gatling gun?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 18:10
|
|
StashAugustine posted:FOTS unit selection: You've never played Fall Of The Samurai, have you?
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
I have, although admittedly not on high difficulties.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Artillery does have an outsized impact on most of the field battles though
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 18:15
|
|
canyoneer posted:Artillery does have an outsized impact on most of the field battles though It's kind of weird with that game that they pretty much had a shitload of early to mid tear guns animated and modeled but they decided that half assed wooden cannons>mid to late Victorian breech loaders was good enough. I was thinking more general unit variety anyway, FOTS has quite a bit despite being set only twenty years max in a country wide setting.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
I think that if you are okay with playing non-optimally there's a fairly large range of strategic options you can take in Warhammer. As Empire you can go west and take bretonnia, go east and fight vampires, pick on the imperial minors, or take the border princes and sack orcs for money. Or stay put and play the diplomat game. I've seen vampires do the long march to the SW corner of the map, or go north to be the bulwark of civilization. I've played greenskins where my main income was sacking border princes and I mostly left the dwarves alone. It certainly felt much less constrained to me than the mostly 1D map in Shogun 2, which was always, 'start at one end, work towards Kyoto'.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:FOTS unit selection: SeanBeansShako posted:It's kind of weird with that game that they pretty much had a shitload of early to mid tear guns animated and modeled but they decided that half assed wooden cannons>mid to late Victorian breech loaders was good enough. I think I can agree with both of these. Your only real must-haves are artillery, and it's not that the other stuff doesn't matter, but that there are a lot of different directions you can take it. It's not like Rome 2 where the army composition settles at "n of sword, n of ranged, n of cav, but it's most important that your units are more expensive than the enemy's"
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
I always just go for shitloads of line infantry, some artillery, and some carbine cav. But I like efficiency more than fun.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Plus I can't seem to find the manual but aren't the line infantry straight upgrades of each other?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Remember when they were putting together Rome 2 and they were basically hinting at a system where instead of straight upgrades you could kit your soldiers out with gear instead after researching and building it? It sounded interesting.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Plus I can't seem to find the manual but aren't the line infantry straight upgrades of each other? pretty much iirc. I'm terrible at shogun's map game  and early fots
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 19:03
|
|
