|
Mans posted:It's gotta be one of the gooniest complaints to cry that an historical game doesn't have dragons or giants jfc. Actually it sounds like the very opposite of goony.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:Actually it sounds like the very opposite of goony. What. No it doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
1) Sperging out about history and fantasy are both equally goony activities 2) Could someone give their recommendation of the various Rome II and Atilla mini-campaigns? Imperator Augustus is free and I've heard good things about Caesar in Gaul
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Goony is like when Star Trek fans complain the new Star Trek movies are too much fun. I'd link the Onion joke video but I'm phone posting
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:1) Sperging out about history and fantasy are both equally goony activities I'd call CiG the weakest of Rome 2's expansions if only because the barbarians are terminally boring to fight as or against. If you're really into Caesar himself it might be more fun since it has a number of events including the appearance of Marc "not actually Caesar's heir" Antony. CiG is kinda fin in co-op because you have to play as Galic tribes getting hit from all sides. Charlemagne is probably the best paid DLC between the two. The Second Triumvirate freeLC that came with Emperor Edition was pretty fun. Can't recall what it's actually called.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
I am not calling the historical game bad, bad. Its battles - specially Rome 2 - just end up being very repetitive. I've been doing basic hammer and anvil since Rome: Total War, and Total Hammer added a huge variety to that formula, and has a better BAI to fight compared to the historical titles. The point is that even though the Politics & Power update adds an apparently interesting and very much in-demand mechanic to the strategic layer, Rome 2's battles are just routine after the spectacle in the fantasy games. What is specially curious is that I didn't have the same feeling when coming back to Attila after Total Hammer. I guess I enjoy its battle pacing more or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
ZearothK posted:I am not calling the historical game bad, bad. Its battles - specially Rome 2 - just end up being very repetitive. I've been doing basic hammer and anvil since Rome: Total War, and Total Hammer added a huge variety to that formula, and has a better BAI to fight compared to the historical titles. The point is that even though the Politics & Power update adds an apparently interesting and very much in-demand mechanic to the strategic layer, Rome 2's battles are just routine after the spectacle in the fantasy games. what factions are you playing as in rome 2? My favorite faction is the thracian one because your only spear man unit is poo poo and since your main infantry unit is a falxman who will gently caress poo poo up but then break down quickly in prolonged combat and your toughest melee unit are peletasts so you wind up using different kinds of tactics compared to armies with hoplites n poo poo
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:what factions are you playing as in rome 2? My favorite faction is the thracian one because your only spear man unit is poo poo and since your main infantry unit is a falxman who will gently caress poo poo up but then break down quickly in prolonged combat and your toughest melee unit are peletasts so you wind up using different kinds of tactics compared to armies with hoplites n poo poo Might give them a try. I was playing with Egypt which does have a pretty wide roster, which still ends up being Pikes/Hoplite frontline to serve as anvil - I mean, they're the best kind of unit at it since the AI is awful at flanking in this game - and then cavalry or Axemen in the flanks to hammer it in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:what factions are you playing as in rome 2? My favorite faction is the thracian one because your only spear man unit is poo poo and since your main infantry unit is a falxman who will gently caress poo poo up but then break down quickly in prolonged combat and your toughest melee unit are peletasts so you wind up using different kinds of tactics compared to armies with hoplites n poo poo Odyrsian Kingdom is probably the best campaign CA has ever done, because you HAVE to relearn everything you know about Total War to beat that campaign even on Normal, let alone on Hard or Very Hard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
ZearothK posted:Might give them a try. I was playing with Egypt which does have a pretty wide roster, which still ends up being Pikes/Hoplite frontline to serve as anvil - I mean, they're the best kind of unit at it since the AI is awful at flanking in this game - and then cavalry or Axemen in the flanks to hammer it in. In spite of what the game may trick you into believing, the Egyptians are just another Greek state. You get some dumb flavor units that you might recruit a handful of for a gimmick army, but at the end of the day it's all about them heavy spears/pikes. The Seleucid make out like bandits on this front because they get a great Hellenic front line and their "gimmick units" are the best-in-the-game Persian archers and are only hindered by the game's godawful AI.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
Rookersh posted:Odyrsian Kingdom is probably the best campaign CA has ever done, because you HAVE to relearn everything you know about Total War to beat that campaign even on Normal, let alone on Hard or Very Hard. it also highlights one of my biggest issues with Rome 2, namely that my dudes start out in straw huts and stay in straw huts forever dispite researching a tech thats literally called "hellenization" my favorite part of attila was the feeling that your society was literally transforming as you worked your way up the tech tree and i hope they can back port that to rome 2
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
New Butt Order posted:I'd call CiG the weakest of Rome 2's expansions if only because the barbarians are terminally boring to fight as or against. If you're really into Caesar himself it might be more fun since it has a number of events including the appearance of Marc "not actually Caesar's heir" Antony. CiG is kinda fin in co-op because you have to play as Galic tribes getting hit from all sides. In defense of CiG, it came out shortly after Rome 2's very buggy release and basically was a "lean" version of the main game with all the dysfunctional sea combat, unit balancing, army stances, etc. presented in a way that the AI was better at handling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
any hints for himyar in attila, especially how the gently caress to navigate the building trees in that game
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
Kaal posted:In defense of CiG, it came out shortly after Rome 2's very buggy release and basically was a "lean" version of the main game with all the dysfunctional sea combat, unit balancing, army stances, etc. presented in a way that the AI was better at handling. None of that has any bearing on the fact that the Gallic and Germanic barbarians were basically identical, equally boring, and the primary focus of the campaign. It's not terrible, but I don't know if it's good enough to spend real life money on it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
It's less obvious than seeing Scythian horse archers come up against hoplites, or legionaries charging down a successor phalanx, but the Gallic and Germanic barbarians actually are pretty different; the Gauls have good cavalry and heavy armor, the Germans have crap cavalry and armor but really high attack. Especially in the campaign map they can still feel pretty similar especially since their buildings and voices and so on are virtually identical, but they don't play the same. CiG still shows its age a bit more than the other campaigns imo since its other major feature when it was launched- seasons and weather- got patched into the main campaign. But it's got probably the best focus out of any of them. Charlemagne would be my top pick if you're just gonna get one though, and the only one I'd say to avoid is Wrath of Sparta, although it's possible some mods have fixed the big issue with that (super low unit variety).
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
I've been trying out DEI today and it seems a bit poo poo if only because all of the starts I've tried are incredibly unfun and the AI enjoys riding around capturing cities and making them into client states, which creates a 10-15 stack army out of thin air, and the state is at war with you. That's really impressively stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 07:08
|
|
turn off the TV posted:I've been trying out DEI today and it seems a bit poo poo if only because all of the starts I've tried are incredibly unfun and the AI enjoys riding around capturing cities and making them into client states, which creates a 10-15 stack army out of thin air, and the state is at war with you. That's really impressively stupid. no you see man its challenging
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:I've been trying out DEI today and it seems a bit poo poo if only because all of the starts I've tried are incredibly unfun and the AI enjoys riding around capturing cities and making them into client states, which creates a 10-15 stack army out of thin air, and the state is at war with you. That's really impressively stupid. Try a faction that's not in Italy, Greece or the Middle east. Be aggressive with your opening funds. That's all I got.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
People were talking about how Warhammer spoiled them for historical games: it's funny because the only other TW i really go back to a lot is Shogun 2, which has like a dozen units. I think there's two things at play here. First, historical TW games have been bad at relaying information to the player. I was just replaying Attila, and it's difficult to figure out how, say, Himyarite axemen stack up against Sassanid infantry repeated across every faction in the game. Warhammer has some of this, and maybe it's just that (even as someone who has in interest in history) I'm more familiar with Warhammer's tropes, but it's easier IMO to get a feel for how factions play in Warhammer. Warhammer also IMO does a better job of differentiating units- even pretty much direct upgrades like empire swords to greatswords have some disadvantages (ie lack of shields). For an extreme example, Wood Elves have t1 infantry that's either average spearmen with good AP so they trade well against high-tier units or tanky fear-causing dryads that don't kill much; t2 infantry that's fast and deadly but somewhat fragile and lacks AP in sword or spear flavors; and t3 infantry that's even more fragile but has AP and anti-large. There's not just a strict progression of better vs rarer and more expensive. In both cases, Warhammer does a better job with its rosters that the historicals do (except S2), but which could be copied and spice up the historicals without having to give Wallenstein dragons
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Question for anyone in the know: If I get the Wrath of Sparta pack, will any of the mods available for unlocking minor factions still work? I'm worried they might crash the game due to intervening updates/patches etc. Secondly, is playing as a minor faction worth it? Or is there a lot of special events, unique tech trees etc that I wouldn't get compared to the base 4 factions? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
The variety of Warhammer is defenity what sells it to me. Still, I won't mind going back to history as long as it's cool. Just no loving Empire 2 or anything around that period please... line battle era TW is boring as gently caress and the variety is total poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 20:28
|
|
BillBear posted:The variety of Warhammer is defenity what sells it to me. Wrong on both counts. Maybe next time their finish the AI and actually hire graphic artists that aren't lazy hacks.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Early modern warfare is cool af. The problem people have is they just play Empire/Napoleon by lining up infantry and having them just sit and shoot while artillery peppers the enemy with round shot from miles away. The fun (and more effective and historical) way is to bring artillery in close for devastating but risky canister shot and to have your infantry charge right after firing (think of the gun as a supplement to the bayonet rather than the other way around). Empire actually ends up having probably the quickest and most decisive battles of the historical TW games. It's really the dogshit AI and terrible sieges that make Empire suck rather than anything particular to the setting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Also variety don't mean poo poo. Rome 2 had variety when it came to unit types and people still moan. And just like Empire, their graphic artists dropped the ball again too.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Wrong on both counts. Maybe next time their finish the AI and actually hire graphic artists that aren't lazy hacks. Don't get me wrong, the period is really cool but line battle AI with TW just lets it all down. The battles feel crap, boring and not very intense since they are easy as hell to win. Not to mention that Empire was so lackluster it's really left a bad taste in my mouth that still lingers today. And unlike with Rome II, they never really went back to it and tried making it better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
The setting and game just came out in a really really lovely time. Like CA was downsizing and having major staff changes, adopting STEAM, losing their AI guy AND being bought out by SEGA. Just the perfect time to break out a new next generation engine for their games! In retrospect really they should have picked a setting and time frame that was a lot less ambitious. I am confident if they tried it again they'd actually pull it off or we'd get just a safer more detailed Napoleon/FTS style game which would be fine. I doubt they'll ever try to remaster or remake the 1st one. Mod coders to this day still haven't cracked that code with the map and a lot other code issues with that game. SeanBeansShako fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Nov 12, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Honestly, a Franco-Prussia era Total war would be cool as gently caress, but it would have to be done just right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
They did a Franco-Prussian era Total War, it's called Fall of the Samurai.  incidentally, it is cool as gently caress. Empire doesn't do much for me but done right the gunpowder line battles can be really good. FotS has a leg up because it meshes two periods, but even once you only have lategame tech it's pretty good. SeanBeansShako posted:And just like Empire, their graphic artists dropped the ball again too.  There were some funny glitches on launch, but that's not really an art problem. Rome 2's art is great. CA has some of the best artists in the industry, everything since Shogun 2 has looked stellar in most respects.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
I think if they were to do Empire again, I'd want them to go all out rather then just focusing on Europe. I'd want an Empire game with North/South America, Europe, all of Africa, all of the Middle East, India, China, Russia, Japan. gently caress it, add Australia in. Go the full distance or don't bother.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Maybe that DLC that merges both Warhammer games campaigns together is the start of a series of tests to see if they can pull off such a scale, along with the new politics stuff with Rome.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Rookersh posted:I think if they were to do Empire again, I'd want them to go all out rather then just focusing on Europe. also make it possible to play as the native american tribes. hey hey hey force whitey off the continent every day 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:also make it possible to play as the native american tribes. hey hey hey force whitey off the continent every day But you can though? There was that thing to make minors playable, no?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:But you can though? There was that thing to make minors playable, no? only really tried impearial splendour, but that doesnt have the native tribes if i remember right. And unlocker could work, but the factions would have like 5 units each and would be unfun to play as. otherwise theres that ex pack but that one is jank as hell
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Empires was funny because I remember the AI being poo poo at research so they'd never get fire by rank And once you got it, oh man enjoy your triple firepower
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
Empire could've been a solid game if the AI wasn't so poo poo. That weird shuffling of the lines in every battle would go on forever unless you attacked. They fixed it in Shogun by making the AI just charge you no matter what, and while making battles less stupid it didn't actually add any challenge unless you were severely outnumbered. I actually never buy CA games brand new anymore because they always get released with ridiculous bugs and poo poo AI.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
If you are playing as Rome or Carthage do you still the the Status Quo achievement, since becoming an empire is now it's own thing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 10:38
|
|
|
New Butt Order posted:In spite of what the game may trick you into believing, the Egyptians are just another Greek state. You get some dumb flavor units that you might recruit a handful of for a gimmick army, but at the end of the day it's all about them heavy spears/pikes. I'm not sure how you could come to this conclusion, Egypt is carried by Galatians and Karian axemen (neither use spears) until you unlock armoured shock cavalry and royal units. The units with Egyptian in the title have terrible morale compared to their counterparts. Egyptians and Seleucid are all about cutting their neighbours to ribbons with swords when they're using spears. It was especially pronounced back when Royal Peltasts were available at the tier 3 barracks, those guys could get 300-400 kills easily and hold together an otherwise mediocre army. Seleucid is a little better about their unit diversity but they're no Baktria or Cimmeria. Delacroix fucked around with this message at 11:24 on Nov 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 11:21
|
|
|
Koramei posted:
The Hellpit Abomination in Warhammer 2 is one of the best things ever, it is so nicely animated and looks and moves like a literal abomination against all gods, a lot better than what the source material generally looked like. Its my new go to example for CA having a good art team. GrossMurpel posted:But you can though? There was that thing to make minors playable, no? There was also that DLC campaign that had the busted autoresolve which was pretty fun. Retaking America, one province at a time .
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 11:22
|
|
|
I actually really want a 30 Years War game that kind of functions like Shogun, in that most of the Western European factions would be fielding the exact same armies (with different models and skins of course) but with a lot of unit differentiation and every unit having a distinct function and avoiding having (most) stuff be rendered obsolete or just upgraded away at a certain point. Peripheral factions that might get involved such as the Poles and the Turks should play differently with unique rosters. But yeah, if they do 30 Years War going the Shogun route would be the best I think. Of course also with the different factions having their own bonuses to specific units (recruitment cost, reload time, artillery accuracy, that kind of stuff). That setting would also do well with more involved mechanics for mercenaries, pillaging and the devastation of provinces (all related of course).
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
30YW would be weird because there's lots of little things the engine would need- mixed units being the most obvious but melee pistol cavalry and salvo infantry would be nice
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 17:20
|
|