|
I think you'd have to do a fairly controversial American Campaign Of Genocide Against The Natives And Imported Slavery Until It Stretches from Coast To Coast: Total War with the ACW as your Realm Divide for it to work as a TW game tbh
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
Fangz posted:
My money's now on post-Roman Britain. Do you lead the Romanized southern English types or do you side with the PICTISH HORDES? Double points if winning the campaign as Picts gives you the message "You sure Pict a winner there!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:I think you'd have to do a fairly controversial American Campaign Of Genocide Against The Natives And Imported Slavery Until It Stretches from Coast To Coast: Total War with the ACW as your Realm Divide for it to work as a TW game tbh This is why I figured it would be a "Flashpoint" game or like a DLC addition to the inevitable Empire 2. Grand Strategy as a genre seems to shy away from letting you commit any real historical atrocities, which leads to bizarre alt-history scenarios like the Middle Ages apparently being a time where people didn't care all that much about religion and peacefully submitted to their King's faith, or the Hearts of Iron series taking place in a World War 2 where the Holocaust never happened. New Butt Order fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
I think it's more that having a game with only two factions which are identical sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
The factions in Shogun 2 were mostly identical and it's probably the most well-received game in the entire series.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
That Darth guy was always obnoxiously arrogant, acting as if he was the best modder in existence. Doesn't surprise me if his own game turns out to just assume everyone will love it and those who don't are just noob plebs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
New Butt Order posted:The factions in Shogun 2 were mostly identical and it's probably the most well-received game in the entire series. Shogun 2 sits in the very mediocre TWs pile but is at least not in the Atrocious Garbage TW pile with Rome: Total War Alexander.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
New Butt Order posted:This is why I figured it would be a "Flashpoint" game or like a DLC addition to the inevitable Empire 2. Grand Strategy as a genre seems to shy away from letting you commit any real historical atrocities, which leads to bizarre alt-history scenarios like the Middle Ages apparently being a time where people didn't care all that much about religion and peacefully submitted to their King's faith, or the Hearts of Iron series taking place in a World War 2 where the Holocaust never happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Med 2 and Empire absolutely destroy Shogun 2 ~and it ain't even close~ mainly due to unit variety + globetrottingness. What's it like being the only person who liked Empire?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
Empire was a very good beta for the (then) new game engine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
New Butt Order posted:What's it like being the only person who liked Empire? Certainly beats dreary rear end Napoleon Total War (which is crashy and monotonous), outside of the opening cinematic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Med 2 and Empire absolutely destroy Shogun 2 ~and it ain't even close~ mainly due to unit variety + globetrottingness. Look at this embarrassingly bad post. Shogun 2 is only maybe knocked off by Warhammer in terms of quality. And even that's a stretch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Med 2 and Empire absolutely destroy Shogun 2 ~and it ain't even close~ mainly due to unit variety + globetrottingness. I'm curious about why you rate Empire over Napoleon. What metrics are you using other than a bigger world map and bigger unit roster? Are you just primarily interested in a global scale conflict or is it something else?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
Empire also added Sweden, which felt important and cool 9 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
Empire is like a cautionary tale about hubris. We'll make a global map, cover a huge range of weapons tech, and you can play as unique Empires from all over the world with a bunch of potential emergent countries and conflicts can rage over multiple continents as you try to dominate trade routes, using naval battles for the first time ever and oops we forgot to finish the game before releasing it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
I never got the love for Shogun 2. It's okay but everything being identical makes it really hard to play for more than one campaign. Maybe it's better for people way into the multiplayer scene, I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
shalcar posted:I'm curious about why you rate Empire over Napoleon. What metrics are you using other than a bigger world map and bigger unit roster? He's certainly not using the performance metric. In my mind someone posting here about how empire is a better game than Shogun 2 is just trolling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 08:54
|
|
|
shalcar posted:I'm curious about why you rate Empire over Napoleon. What metrics are you using other than a bigger world map and bigger unit roster? Empire is kind of janky in every aspect, whether in terms of diplomacy, the research tree, underdeveloped social stuff with the varying types of government and unrest, quirky minister system, pretty bad naval combat, one pikeman taking over and destroying a military port, or whatever else, but that's smoothed out by it being colourful, the wide unit rosters, and the global sandbox aspect which is a big part of that. Napoleon leans heavily on the battle system being good (it isn't good enough to sustain doing the same thing the whole game) and the setting being interesting (eh). Most of the 'froth' is cut from Empire, but for me that's the part that makes it worth carrying on more than like ten-fifteen turns of "ok let's make Badem-Wurtemburg my vassal because occupation is kind of a waste of time, ok now let's move to the next major city with more or less the exact same doomstacks to do the exact same thing". Blech. It's also way more unstable for me than Empire in terms of CTDs. For me that's also where especially Alexander and to a lesser extent Warhammer and the British-focused stuff falls down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 09:06
|
|
|
kanonvandekempen posted:He's certainly not using the performance metric.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 09:11
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:For me, it's that Total War is like the ultimate frothy strategy game series. It has loads of not that well developed stuff going on in the campaign map, the battle engine isn't actually that good, but it comes together nicely sometimes. So it's based on a quantity measure, it's just got more *stuff* in it, even if that stuff isn't as good. I can understand that. CharlestheHammer posted:I never got the love for Shogun 2. It's okay but everything being identical makes it really hard to play for more than one campaign. I've always found this interesting from a design perspective, because the actual roster in Shogun 2 covers every battlefield role available to the era. Of course, rather than limit what the Horse Lords or Monk Team can build, they let everyone build every single unit in the game which actually allows for a wider variety of armies and encounters fighting other clans. Having said that, it also means that everyone tends to build a pretty balanced army which means you don't get things like the endless horse armies of the Mongol Hordes or the heavy infantry to the exclusion of all of the Roman factions like in the other games. The thing is, that's all something that could be fixed easily enough with the AI recruitment priorities, similar to how the Civilization series gives leaders a hidden thing that they want to do to keep them behaving differently each game. When you say it's all identical, are you talking about from an aesthetic perspective or a more roster based one (ie. Most of the clans all feel the same to fight because of similar army compositions?).
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 09:40
|
|
|
They all feel the same to fight. I want the mongol hordes that focus on Calvary and the Romans to focus on heavy infantry. I don't give a poo poo about balanced armies as they just aren't fun to deal with in a campaign setting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 09:55
|
|
|
The problem with Shogun 2 is that it just has that big cop out balance design. Twenty years ago Starcraft proved that you could do fun and balance without symmetrical factions and blatant rock paper scissor units.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 10:09
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:The problem with Shogun 2 is that it just has that big cop out balance design. Twenty years ago Starcraft proved that you could do fun and balance without symmetrical factions and blatant rock paper scissor units. It's a design choice, certainly, but you can't really call it a cop out. Not every game needs a hard locked roster. Master of Orion 2 is hardly a cop-out of strategy design just because every race can use every ship and piece of technology. Forced asymmetry doesn't really make any sense given the setting, but the army compositions and choices are locked behind both the tech tree and building choices. If anything in Shogun 2, the gating of rosters is too hard for too long which causes the first part of the game to be disproportionately ashigaru fights and for most of the minor clans to have primarily ashigaru armies with one flavour of samurai. Rise of the Samurai actually does a great job opening up the varieties of armies you fight as even though it has less troop types available, each building unlocks more of the army and the tech tree opens them up earlier allowing the AI to build differing forces. Of course, it's entirely possible to not find the setting interesting or compelling and then it doesn't really matter what the battles are like, because the entire thing about Total War is that the battles are interesting and have meaning because of how they change the strategic situation. If you want interesting battles, there are plenty of scenarios provided to play as one off battles with interesting set-ups and deployments. It's perfectly reasonable to not like the game because you don't have any/limited interest in the setting, but it's important not to confuse that with the game itself being poorly designed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 11:07
|
|
|
shalcar posted:So it's based on a quantity measure, it's just got more *stuff* in it, even if that stuff isn't as good. I can understand that. It's like how vanilla XCOM:EW is actually a lot more playable for me than the Long War mod, because I just get incredibly bored of fighting thirty samey battles a month.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
Rookersh posted:Quick Rome 2 question. My favorite part of Rome 1 was the experience of growing Rome alongside the AI. You'd have the Julii going north to fight the Barbarians, the Scipii going south to fight Carthage, and the Brutii going east to fight Greeks. It led to this great campaign where I could scroll to any part of the map and see our borders expanding, despite the fact I only ever had to focus on my own corner. And it helped make the whole thing feel grander/more Roman, since we were all in it together ( but politically I knew those assholes were going to turn on me once I got strong enough. ). I never had a problem with the UI or Imperium so I can't offer mods for those, but the Rome 2 workshop probably has something. I do know there is a series of mods that bring back the 3 roman houses. I also thought it was cool, although I realize plenty of people disliked it as well. Look at the "Roman Houses" series of mods. There are a few variations depending on your particular tastes. https://steamcommunity.com/workshop...readytouseitems
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
I like it when history is used for influence or design purposes, but sometimes stuff would just be bland/unfun converted into gameplay systems. Or just horribly offensive. All these complaints were sort of legit back when they didn't have the time or resources to hunt down Osprey books to get the soldiers looking pretty but now it really is just gross grogs being gross grogs. CharlestheHammer posted:I am not sure the ACW would ever be a thing because why would you want it.it would be so god drat boring. Because muskets and cannons are awesome. CharlestheHammer posted:They all feel the same to fight. Mashing the same heavy/medium cav blobs together and making sure they don't run into the guys with the spears is more or less just as boring for me man. I've played these things starting with the first Shogun. Plus I still think the gun powder era games were developed at possibly the worst time for the company and should be given another chance. This games community is pretty old and diversive at this point, so you'll bound to get the setting you crave. SeanBeansShako fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
The actual reason for a ACW Total War is to find new and inventive ways to kill Confederates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 13:41
|
|
Funky Valentine posted:The actual reason for a ACW Total War is to find new and inventive ways to kill Confederates. Blow up some desert, lure them into a hole and start shooting.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
I hope ACW: Total War would let me win the war as the Canadians.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Blow up some desert, lure them into a hole and start shooting. the victory screen for the union is footage of all those confederate memorials getting taken down
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I hope ACW: Total War would let me win the war as the Canadians. Reclaiming the wayward colonial cousins for the crown?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Year 8 of the Civil War. Lee continues to make slow progress in Mexico while Sherman launches a lightning strike to retake Washington DC from the British-Canadian alliance using his newly recruited doomstacks of Elite Colored Repeating Rifles. Four Monitor class ironclads blockade London. Due to low public order, John Brown's army reappears as a horde type faction. Grant fights his quest battle to gain +2 to Remove Confederacy Corruption.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I hope ACW: Total War would let me win the war as the Canadians. Civil War: Total War focusing on all of North America would be pretty cool, actually. In addition to the Union and Confederacy you could have Canada, Imperial Mexico, Republican Mexico, and a native tribe or two as playable factions, with Britain, France, and/or Spain as late-game interventions in either the American or Mexican wars.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
I've always been eh about ACW as a setting but that would be pretty cool actually
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 14:38
|
|
Drakhoran posted:Reclaiming the wayward colonial cousins for the crown? Well, more to do with cotton and general trade really. Also during the same time frame you got Napoleon III's hilarious Mexican adventure.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
I would hope an ACW TW would cover North America. There should at least be more than 2 playable factions. ...maybe make each state as a separate playable faction?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:I would hope an ACW TW would cover North America. There should at least be more than 2 playable factions. That'd be the obvious way to do it, just like FOTS.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Med 2 and Empire absolutely destroy Shogun 2 ~and it ain't even close~ mainly due to unit variety + globetrottingness. Med 2 blows chunks, hth
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
Med 2 kingdoms has a real sweet modding scene. Deus Lo Vult was great whenever you fancied a super nerdy representation of medieval warfare.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
Fangz posted:Grant fights his quest battle to gain +2 to Remove Confederacy Corruption. Confederacy as a corruption mechanic would be outstanding.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 18:18
|
|
