|
KyloWinter posted:Is Warhammer any good in comparison to the greats of Rome, Medieval 2, and Rome 2 DEI mod? Warhammer is much more like Napoleon. Constant huge battles. If that's the TW you like you'll like it. But you can't conquer half the map depending on who you are, and civic development is, well, underdeveloped, so if that's the TW you like you'll be underwhelmed, especially relative to how glowing the endorsements of it are.
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2017 11:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
jBrereton posted:ehhhh Ya. I figured from the gameplay I've watched. Rome 2 DEI mod is probably some of the best total war I've ever played (for some reason Rome 2 crashes on launch for me now RIP). Shogun 2 had a great multiplayer. barkbell fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Jul 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:ehhhh I'm honestly really curious with what they do with the franchise going forward. I've been a huge TW fan until Rome 2, where I played it at launch and that was a nightmare ( because of bugs, not complexity. ). Put it down, skipped Attila, and only came back for Total Warhammer. Even going into Rome 2, I thought I wanted more complexity. I wanted more civ style stuff. I wanted more stuff like squalor and farming, and civic development. I wanted more politics. I loved that stuff in R:TW and Med 2 after all, and once they refined it more how could things go badly. That was the "future" of Total War for me. But after jumping in with T:Warhammer, it's really hard to play Rome 2, or even Rome 1 now. It's just so inefficient. All that stuff I thought I enjoyed feels like it's taking away from the actual Total War experience now. By cutting out everything that "doesn't matter", and focusing entirely on the battles/strategy layer/growth layer, it's become a much more enjoyable refined experience. Fights feel good now, building up the map isn't a pain anymore, the maps feel better. I'm spending less time fighting the game, and more time fighting the enemy AI. As Perestroika said, the removal of stuff doesn't feel so much like a removal of depth, but a removal of annoyances. Had I played DEI or R2/Attila before I played Warhammer, I'd probably think of them as the best TW games ever made. But now I struggle to give enough of a poo poo to conquer Italy, let alone deal with the Gallic tribes. And that seems to be a pretty common divide now. I'm seeing people say they can't play Warhammer because of the lack of complexity, and seeing people say they don't want to play Rome 2/Attila anymore because they've become too complex. How the hell does CA work through that? How do they make a game that appeals to both groups now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Then don't appeal to both groups. The fascists at TWC pretty much hate warhammer for not being another historical game. Besides its not like they can't have two games that appeal to separate crowds. If you try to appease everyone you get weak crap like Dawn of War 3.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Rookersh posted:And that seems to be a pretty common divide now. I'm seeing people say they can't play Warhammer because of the lack of complexity, and seeing people say they don't want to play Rome 2/Attila anymore because they've become too complex. How the hell does CA work through that? How do they make a game that appeals to both groups now. Focus entirely on the war side. It's called Total War for a reason. If people want more complex politics/trade/character interactions, play a Paradox game. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:Focus entirely on the war side. It's called Total War for a reason. If people want more complex politics/trade/character interactions, play a Paradox game. Do you know what total war means lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
At some point in every campaign you just start to auto resolve a lot more, because it'll yield better results then manually fighting lopsided battles. I feel that the campaign map needs more systems to add depth, because you spend increasing amounts of time on it and not on the battle map. There's a lot of room between where total war games depth lies and where a Paradox game does.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
Strategy games have historically never managed to make the stage of 'fighting lopsided battles' interesting, and adding more 'depth' typically just makes managing large empires more annoying, not more fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
Warhammer, Attila and Empire had lopsided battles be somewhat interesting due to tech disparities, though not when you're the one who has overwhelming odds usually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
I've loved the faster pace and large battles of Total Hammer and I still enjoy the strategic layer in Attila. It's me, I am the one buying everything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:Focus entirely on the war side.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
The "depth" on the campaign map has always been an illusion anyway. Sure your favorite Total War game (which, let's be honest, we both know you haven't played it in years and are going off poorly-remembered nostalgia) might have 50,000 buildings you can put in your territory, and an internal politics system so complex and nuanced that everyone Paradox would hurl themselves off a cliff and into the sea if they could but gaze upon it. But none of it matters. The optimal province/city layout requires about 5 buildings and the only time you see the other ones is deleting them from a town you just captured. And the internal politics? None of that poo poo actually does anything. Aside from one or two features specific to each title (force your ambitious general into suicide before he betrays you, keep a reserve army for the civil war, the Pope is the only country who's opinion actually matters, etc) nothing you say or do matters. It will make absolutely no difference to your campaign. Spending 2 hours agonizing over what wife you want your heir to have and picking the first woman who turns up are going to have no significant difference in how your campaign turns out.
New Butt Order fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jul 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
My thoughts exactly. When there are a zillion choices but most of them either don't matter or there's an obvious solution so you aren't really making a choice, it's just housekeeping then
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:OK but the actual fighting battles side of it is kind of not that good, at least in SP (multiplayer TW is something I and like probably 90% of TW players do not care about) That's a pretty unfair accessment to make. For a long time in the series, and one might say the period where CA built their reputation, the AI hardly did anything more than walk in the general direction of your army and the draw was the spectacle, but the AI in Total Warhammer is the best it has ever been. Sure, it fires magic almost randomly, but it knows how to flank, cycle charge and even real target priority for its skirmishers and artillery, and it will absolutely punish you if you forget to protect the ranged element of your army. If anything, it is not a military genius, but it has certainly mastered some of the basics and, one might say, a better general than a starting player. Total Warhammer suffers because for the first time in the series autoresolve will consistently deliver better results than actually fighting the battles for most players, and I'd say that owes more to the AI being better at fighting than in the previous games, and the algorithm still being based on the old version. The spectacle of the large battles (cue historian arguing that these are only skirmishes compared to most real battles in history, cue gameplay-minded person arguing those huge battles lasted for hours and hours and it'd get boring) and the tactical gameplay are the heart of the Total War series and they are getting better. If they don't do much for you, Paradox games have a far more developed strategic layer, even with their own flaws, because they are games developed around that layer, while the strategic element of Total War exists to provide context and facilitate its tactical battles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
The choice to modernize or not in FOTS was about the only time you had to make any real choices in the series. I'm not sure how that choice could have been anything other than 'battery of Armstrong guns', but it did actually matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:ehhhh TW games have always been a little mediocre at the strategic map and a little mediocre in the battles, there just happens to not be any worthwhile competitors in the market. Both facets of the game actually impede the other in a lot of ways. Tiler Kiwi posted:I enjoyed playing this and kind of want to play it more, but there's some pretty important caveats to saying its "good". BigglesSWE posted: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. You guys need to sort out your issues wrt to this guy UG: Civil War differs mostly from tw combat in that the combat is much fluid and "pulsing" and you don't just smash your armies together and rout everybody. There are times where you just barely lose a defense point and can take it back so long as you organize an effective counterattack. It's a fun game, much more groggy than tw combat, but not on the level of simulating individual grenades.There are issues that come up due to the way the battles are scaled, but there's a recent patch where they added a campaign mode that makes the enemy draw from a fixed resource pool and makes them get stronger or weaker depending on how you perform in battles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
It's just telling to me how little I want to play Rome 2 as I try going back to it. Like in Warhammer, it's simple. I want xyz units, so I'll build xyz structures in these lands. This stuff pairs well with the map resources here, so I'll build it. I want this or that, so I'll level up this guy, or work towards this province for it. In Rome 2, do I want a Cattle Pen? A Farm? A Grain Base? What's too much food. Should I be building temples in every town. A temple to who though. Oh, I can't actually know what the future buildings are without bringing up the pedia entry though in game, so it was only after I turned everything into farms did I realize the optimal strategy was to turn them all into cattle zones. Whoops, I'm getting massive public order penalties across my empire because my ally Syracuse is converting my cities into Greek cities? Woulda been nice to actually have a tooltip or something for that rather then it just happening. What's the solution? A million temples! That's fun. It's just as simplistic as Warhammer, it just doesn't tell you anything and uses that to conflate "depth". I fought the Etruscan League and they mainly fielded Italian Spearmen with some light Levy support. Now I'm fighting Carthage and they are fighting me with Carthaginian Hoplites with Libyan Spearthrower Support. What's the difference? Fuckall as far as I can tell, outside of the fact their clothing changed slightly and they speak in a different accent. Oh snap, now the tribes up north are attacking me also, and they are bringing.......barbarian spearmen with peltest thrower support. At least they actually field cavalry I guess. It's just so hard to feel motivated about these fights now when all my battles feel the same across my entire empire. There was something really enjoyable to playing as the Empire and having one battle be against fellow Counts, then 3 against Vampires, then 2 against Bretonnia, and now Chaos is here, and a Greenskin stack has shown up, and..... I'm also making nearly 6k a turn with 4 and a half armies fielded, and I've barely finished conquering Italy and the area around it. And now that I've got the hang for it and looked at all the trees forward, I've got a near 40 food surplus. It's not challenging, it's just tedious. As a joke with a friend, I started up a new campaign in Rome 1 and I've been enjoying it just as much as Warhammer, because it's still just simple again. Sure squalor exists, sure the family tree stuff exists, but it all makes sense and is easily presented. In Rome 2 I have yet to see another member of my family ( I started as Junii ) since I started, which means my only way of getting gravitas/boosts for my family is ??? since I only have the starting Admiral. There's no family tree, no family dynamics, it's just this pseduo political structure of "build up all the houses to keep from civil war, but don't build up too well!!" which just feels bafflingly impotent. And then I started an Arevaci campaign because I figured it'd be fun to switch things up and maybe fight more barbarians, and I'm still fighting guys with shields and spears/spear throwers, still have a senate to deal with?????, still have a civil war to worry about ( ?????? ), and it just feels like everything was lifted wholecloth from the the Roman campaign. I'm just now in Spain, and my buildings have different names ( but do the exact same things as the Roman buildings did, maybe 5% better/less great. ).
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
I've not played Rome 2, but 1 has some of the exact same problems you described (have to pick a god to build a temple for, having to look ahead to know what buildings to build, all the units being pretty similar just with different names). Warhammer definitely sounds more fun though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Rome 1 had an easier and more streamlined ui, and the economy required no thought. You could sometimes screw yourself with farms and the late game megacity but most people don't play that long into a campaign. Rome 2 is just a neverending slog to play imo. The online encyclopedia is an absolute turd, but all the game info is locked in there. Attila solved 90% of Rome's problems by having an in-game panel pop up for their bloated city management system, it made it tolerable. Here's my list of bad, completely avoidable Rome 2 things. Unit cards. The aesthetic is cool, but the system they used is totally counter-intuitive. Players have no need to be able to identify, from zero background information, the general purpose of a unit. They have a lot of need to click on specific units that they want to control, and that's hampered when you have to take a moment and make sure the shield decal is the exact one you want. Camera zoomed in so far that geographic features are no longer recognizable. Rome 2 feels samey if you ever get in a big war in Continental Europe or West Asia, because the terrain itself starts looking like nothing. Making generals boring in a game where every army you have must have a general. Literally squirreling away generals' traits behind several ui windows. Having around 6 possible traits. Civil War is a really disappointing "gently caress you" mechanic in comparison to realm divide, Attila's arrival, crusades/jihads, etc. The online encyclopedia, holy poo poo it's bad. One-province minor factions being dangerous and annoying because they build 3-army doomstacks and put them all in one town. 3-province minor factions being completely toothless because they build 3 armies and move them around piecemeal. An very open and very large map that showcases general ai failures a lot worse than chokepointy Japan. Bad autoresolve that disproportionately damages small units like artillery, cavalry, and above all, elephants. Mop-up battle against 10 hosed-up sword levies? You lose all your elephants unless you play it yourself. Slim Jim Pickens fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Jul 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Once you sort out the optimal build for every province Rome 2 isn't so bad. It's real downfall, and why despite being my fav tw title, is it's broken ai. Tww has done an outright excellent job at having an AI that plays remarkably bug-free. I installed r2 last weekend and played a bridge battle as like my third battle. The AI, ostensibly the attacker, sat its 2 superior armies across the river and didn't budge. I remembered poo poo like this + broken ai in sieges and uninstalled. Just don't have patience for it no matter how much I love the Seubi faction
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Atilla was a weird half step forward where the building tree was comprehensible but then food and squalor is way more of a pain to deal with. I actually liked Atilla a lot and played it for about a year before Warhammer came out but every time I think about going back to it I just flashback to camping in a city with a full size army for a billion turns to sloooowly bring down public order and the AI turns taking forever, every time. That and endless minor settlement defensive battles that were autowin if I played it out and auto-lose if I didn't. Just too much tedium between the fun bits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
The best total wars were the early games where you just had a risk style map - easy for the AI to deal with and the focus was getting you to the next battle asap. Once they moved away from that, they have had to experiment from title to title on what works (Shogun 2) and what doesn't work (all of France is just one province!). R2 was one of the experiments that didn't work while TWW was a huge experiment that worked spectacularly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
I think the way to go would be to take the econ/building game back to being almost strictly additive (i.e. much less -public order) and then tuning the style of armies you build. So tons of agriculture means those provinces recruit lots of high-unit regiments while mining and industry means well armed and armored units. I know that kinda already happens, but moreso I dunno They finally made a more or less sane diplo AI in TWW (it was decent in Attila too), so god willing they'll keep that ball rolling into future games. You get weirdos who refuse to accept military access on great relations but you also get cool stuff like dudes who hate you begging for vassalization because they're about to get annihilated
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
RentACop posted:They finally made a more or less sane diplo AI in TWW (it was decent in Attila too), so god willing they'll keep that ball rolling into future games. You get weirdos who refuse to accept military access on great relations but you also get cool stuff like dudes who hate you begging for vassalization because they're about to get annihilated Yeah, I really hope they keep the "Join Confederation" option moving forward. They might need to change the button's text to properly reflect the time period or culture in question, but being able to let a beaten enemy surrender rather than needing to conquer and pacify a bunch of cities one by one is super nice. It's also led to me developing a compulsive need for me to collect as many Legendary Lords/Faction Leaders as humanly possible, but that's more of a personal problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
One thing I did like from Atilla was the governor system. I'd be nice if you could assign your off-duty generic Lords in Warhammer to basically garrison and manage a settlement without increasing your overall upkeep.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
Theswarms posted:Yes we are? Most people would say the English Civil War, but I definitely would assume someone meant that rather than the American one. Yeah, reading that post the first thing I thought when he said "the English civil war" was "Which one?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 09:24
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:The best total wars were the early games where you just had a risk style map - easy for the AI to deal with and the focus was getting you to the next battle asap. Once they moved away from that, they have had to experiment from title to title on what works (Shogun 2) and what doesn't work (all of France is just one province!). R2 was one of the experiments that didn't work while TWW was a huge experiment that worked spectacularly. That map combined with the tendency for a single random AI to become hyper aggressive and expand as much as possible meant you got these awesome end-games where you'd inevitably face down said AI blob in a huge, decisive battle. I loving loved Medieval 1 for that alone. I've never really enjoyed a Total War game as much as that one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 12:34
|
|
dogstile posted:Yeah, reading that post the first thing I thought when he said "the English civil war" was "Which one?" There is a reason why it is called the civil war era now. I would also welcome the return of the psuedo RISK style maps. I never knew why they got super hard for the free roaming 3D maps anyway, in retrospect they all look pretty bland to me.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
The free-roaming map probably helps mainstream sales a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 12:50
|
|
|
Yeah, they look nice is basically the reason. At least in Shogun 2 they kind of spread out various provincial structures so there was a reason to go places other than directly between the cities (although admittedly I don't think I ever really bothered with sabotaging ports and such, but I COULD have). My main annoyance with the free-roaming maps is that thing the AI likes to do in Warhammer especially where they position their armies exactly one pixel outside of the attack range of your army.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
It got a lot worse ever since they added forced march. Still I actually like the full 3d map personally, Risk style feels too gamified.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Maybe an in between system where each provinces have points you can move your army on and each army has a defined number of points they can move. Oh well. Provincial borders for exemple would be one such point, then maybe another halfway to a city, maybe a forest on the side to hide in. Just something to cut a bit in the micromanagement of movement which is busy work more than strategy, especially with a pixel perfect AI.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
It's a toss up for me. I wouldn't mind a RISK map if each battle map in the region was handcrafted, but I also like the generated terrain based on campaign map positioning, even if it did lead to crazy vertical mountain maps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:Warhammer, Attila and Empire had lopsided battles be somewhat interesting due to tech disparities, though not when you're the one who has overwhelming odds usually. I hated Attila until I watched some Heir of Carthage videos where he was holding off invading hordes by deploying his units in town squares to pack the enemy into blobs then blasting them ranged fire and rear charges. Those settlementsof mine that were getting dominated then turned into a pretty fun tower defense game and got me into the groove of Attila. One thing I want from future TW games is more large factions like just having Rome, Gaul, Huns, Germania, etc. instead of eight million little factions with their own stupid useless units that I eventually steamroll anyway. I love that conquering Gaul in Rome 1 is a massive undertaking while in 2, it's just a series of increasingly boring massive stompings of little tribes. It could maybe be more fun with smaller factions if they start freaking out about Roman expansion and are more open to confederation or something so the more territory you take, the more people come together to fight you. I also like that Shogun 2 eventually just turns into a clash between a few large states with just a few clinging vassals that exist purely for the convenience of their masters. Davincie posted:i think a big problem with an acw total war, is that about 10 people outside america care about the acw There's a rather large obsession outside the US with the ACW actually. My personal vote would go for Victoria as I want more gunpowder stuff now that the controls have been de-clunked since Shogun 2. I'm kind of not into a Chinese setting for TW even though it's a huge part of what I studied in college. I think ACW could work in interesting ways, but not as some kind of 1:1 historical situation. You'd need to Get Creative (trademark pending). It would also probably work better with Pre-Rome 2 style campaign mechanics like recruiting from certain provinces then manually marching them forward to give you a better idea of where I'm coming from here. Ideas: -There are not just two simple factions like Union or Confederacy. Instead, you can have either side be their own union of states with the possibility of neutral territories. This means that any state that is a part of your faction will only recruit men and material for your cause. A state under control of the USA or CSA can play a different part in either kind of in the vein of the difference between a vassal or client state or something. -Regional control is not like in previous games. You can control minor regions but suffer severe penalties if you don't control the whole state or territory within a certain amount of time. Say that you take southern Pennsylvania as CSA for a few turns. You don't get much in the way of economy for it, but you can conscript soldiers (like levying troops in Attila) or take what little money/materials you can from that region, but it's diminished until you get control of the capital so you can more politically and logistically harness the power of the state. On the flip side, if you only hold a state capital and the enemy are wreaking havoc throughout the rest of the state, you can suffer severe support penalties from the region and suffer rebellions. -Once you 100% fully control a state, You can then choose for it to be part of your faction. You can choose to either make it be a part of your Union and treat it as a proper state (minimum support needed, kind of like switching religions in Attila and can be made at any time), or as more of an "occupied territory" which means that you -A larger focus on trade for income versus just having buildings that give you money. This means that you have to maintain trade relations with other countries to keep your income. Create a balance with how much materiel you want to use to trade or keep for yourself. Trading can result in more money while keeping materials can help with recruitment, building, public order, or upgrading/outfitting units. You can interrupt trade with your enemies with diplomacy, raiding, or blockading, but that could also anger non-US powers. Stronger diplomacy could result in the possibility of purchasing soldiers (like Marines and such in Shogun 2), or more-educated European Generals, or other features. -Technology. Two features I like in UG are the veteran/conscript feature and the weapon purchasing. These ideas could work well in a TW game. Instead of having a bunch of different pointless units with nonsensical stat differences, you can have very baseline units that you outfit and train in different ways for different purposes. Unit experience can affect what skills they have like skirmishing, fire by rank/platoon, etc. and can be affected by battle experience, a general who can train on the go, or by recruiting units from places with buildings that provide better recruits. Tech could also affect things like railroads, which can allow you to have areas on the map that allow for faster travel across the map within your own territory. You can build upgrades that allow more railways so that there are more of these areas that allow further movement per turn. Railroads can allow even deep-territory states to be useful unlike some TW games where you'd just tear down your recruitment zones after a while because the distance got too far. -You can also have different ways that campaigns play out. Start out as Union with holdings in "Confederate territory." Things start out where you can put down small rebellions here or there, but attack too many rebels or make the wrong event decisions (like capitulating to things the South disagrees with), and the war will enter full escalation. Decide if you're going to hold your ground to wait for reinforcements or if you strategically withdraw before or after things get hostile. Have the ability to abandon your own settlements and take money/materiel/civilians with you for your income/population pool, but since it takes time, you have to focus on holding armies at bay. Just kind of bored and typing to pass the time where I am. I don't think any of these are particularly great ideas. Just doing it for conversation sake.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
That's exactly why Warhammer is so good: If you're say the Empire, other Empire nations confederate to protect from you and they'll confederate with you to protect from Chaos, Vampire Counts, etc. It's genius and it works perfectly. Literally just porting that same exact system in how it works to Rome 2 would make it 10x better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:That's exactly why Warhammer is so good: If you're say the Empire, other Empire nations confederate to protect from you and they'll confederate with you to protect from Chaos, Vampire Counts, etc. It's genius and it works perfectly. Literally just porting that same exact system in how it works to Rome 2 would make it 10x better. Kind of reminds me how they were bragging that climate change and the Huns would push everybody south in Attila when I was wiping out Goths and Vandals before Attila was even born.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Plan Z posted:Kind of reminds me how they were bragging that climate change and the Huns would push everybody south in Attila when I was wiping out Goths and Vandals before Attila was even born. Speaking of, the climate change aspect didn't really do much in my game. Sort of like how the plague in ME2 was easily shrugged off if you had enough farms, all I noticed about the climate change was that I should switch to The Almighty Goat instead of regular fields for most provinces.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
jokes posted:Speaking of, the climate change aspect didn't really do much in my game. Sort of like how the plague in ME2 was easily shrugged off if you had enough farms, all I noticed about the climate change was that I should switch to The Almighty Goat instead of regular fields for most provinces. Yeah the climate change thing is more of a nuisance than anything else. I don't think the AI even responds to it really - the vandals and goths just have AI goals to go for Rome regardless of whether or not they need the food or what the Huns are doing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
Once they introduced the free-roaming map in the first Rome, there was no turning back. I remember how cool it was and how everyone talked about it. It obviously hasn't revolutionized the gameplay since but they have to include it. Imagine TWC if they'd go back to 2D maps. That forum would implode.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 08:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
I hated the map in Rome so much that I kept playing Shogun until one of my friends basically forced me to stop being an idiot. Rome was a great game obviously, but I love the simplicity of provinces.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 15:18
|
|
