|
Naval combat is theoretically cool for the strategic implications but it sucks in practice
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:04 |
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Naval combat is theoretically cool for the strategic implications but it sucks in practice it worked in empire, mostly because you could have fewer ships in a fleet so it made micro easier
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
I was gonna recommend a mod but I realized it was for Fall of the Samurai. Here it goes anyway. It's the bayonet mod to make your line infantry fight with bayonets instead of pulling out swords after they get into melee. Maybe it works for the foreign marines in the normal game, I can't remember. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=487596423
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:it worked in empire, mostly because you could have fewer ships in a fleet so it made micro easier It was the complete opposite, you can have 20 ships in Empire or Napoleon, while you get 10(?) in Shogun 2. Cannon naval battles were fun, there were just too many of them because CA is bad at pacing. Fighting a big chaotic mess of ships is fun once in a while, but Britain would throw a fleet at you every 3 turns if you were unlucky. Not to mention how in the early game, Spain and the Netherlands both had basic trade ships that outgunned anything you could build for 50 turns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Naval combat is theoretically cool for the strategic implications but it sucks in practice I think the issue is that there's no "terrain" in naval combat, so every single engagement plays out the same way. It's neat when you get to try out a new ship, but after that one battle you've seen essentially everything there is to see. The best way to make navies interesting is to do what they did in Attila where you can control ships during coastal sieges, so there's more going on in the map than just a big flat plane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
There's rocky outcrops and stuff in some of the Shogun 2 maps, I guess those ones are a little better. But it's also just so slow and clunky that I don't feel like I'm pulling off some sick maneuver with the terrain like I am on land so much as scrambling to get through it. I think Slim Jim Pickens is right on the money though that it's the frequency that's the problem. I enjoy naval battles in all the titles occasionally, but if you wanna have any kind of presence on the seas then it's almost like 2-3+ every single turn, it just gets so repetitive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
I like naval warfare in Rome 2. Build a combat fleet, only attack transport fleets, autoresolve to great glory, avoid other fights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 10:27
|
|
|
I think Koramei and Slim Jim Pickins are right, you end up having to fight too many sea battles, but I don't think that's because the sea battles are bad or anything. Personally, I think the issue is that unlike ground battles that are foregone conclusions, the autoresolve for sea battles deals decent damage to both sides no matter the odds and there is no free repair/replenishment for boats, which means that you end up having to fight every trivial battle just so that you can keep your fleet functioning past 2 engagements. The non-trivial sea battles in Shogun 2 are great and a real treat to watch, but the chaff fights you have to do just to stop the endless tide of smaller fleets is a real pain. I remember I worked out a fleet comp that took basically no damage from 1/2 ship enemy fleets in autoresolve and it made an enormous difference. Damned if I can remember what it was, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Shogun 2 lategame really suffers from hunting down every stack of two ships interdicting your trade and three decimated ashigaru burning your farms
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
I didn't mind the sea battles in S2, I mostly did fire arrows ships all the time. Once I was determined to get the black ship, got it to surrender in the battle map and in the strategic they've escaped! FotS was worse IMHO. Every battle was the same: close to the enemy hugging the map edge, turn, massacre them firing manually from "outside of range".
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Shogun 2 lategame really suffers from hunting down every stack of two ships interdicting your trade and three decimated ashigaru burning your farms It seemed like every TW game was like that ever since Rome 1. Every time I played Empire I would get frustrated by two units of muskets wandering into my territory every turn and burning down some outlying building in the province. In Medieval 2 it would be two units of archers or some bullshit, either from an enemy faction or a randomly spawned tiny rebel army wandering aimlessly into my territory every turn for me to play whack-a-mole with. Or it would be a tiny fleet of one or two ships blockading a random port for no reason. Does this happen in Rome 2? I never played that one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Kenzie posted:It seemed like every TW game was like that ever since Rome 1. Every time I played Empire I would get frustrated by two units of muskets wandering into my territory every turn and burning down some outlying building in the province. In Medieval 2 it would be two units of archers or some bullshit, either from an enemy faction or a randomly spawned tiny rebel army wandering aimlessly into my territory every turn for me to play whack-a-mole with. Or it would be a tiny fleet of one or two ships blockading a random port for no reason. Rome 2 and onwards started to break with that because armies need to have generals (and are limited by Imperium), but that behavior was replaced with the AI force marching just out of range from your troops, which is its own kind of annoying. At least when the AI loses all their settlements they smash their army against the closest hostile settlement instead of running away most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
The spirit is still there but it's less annoying due to the army limits. Shout out to Vlad spending ten turns suiciding against a settlement, recovering, raising dead, and doing it again
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Whats the difference between Shimazu Heavy Gunners and Matchlock Samurai? They seem to have exactly the same stats, but smaller unit size.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1Nu1MiYSkA
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
heavy gunners always seemed weird to me bc they didnt fit with the factions bonuses at all, was there some historical reason for them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Holy poo poo is that unmodded? I never bothered using them back when I was actively playing Shogun II
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
I tried them in a custom battle, but i saw nothing like that effect. Maybe it got patched.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Well, in the end, Satsuma did crush the Shogunate. It's fitting they get street howizers to blow enemies in half by the truckload. But yeah, I remember when those units first came out they were insanely overpowered. You put them on a wall and you would never lose. But you had to be careful in open fights because friendly fire was terrible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
My fix for naval combat is basically that CA should implement the Decisive Battle doctrine. Win a big enough battle and boom, all the losers ships, where ever they are, get hit with a whacking great morale and attrition penalty and have to run back to port and sit there for ages and ages. Naval warfare in most of those periods should not be these long drawn out battles of attrition where new fleets replace old fleets and things run away and come back to fight and just whittle themselves down. It should be: win a big battle and you are *done*.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Dongattack posted:I tried them in a custom battle, but i saw nothing like that effect. Maybe it got patched. The gate exploding is what caused some of those units to fly through the air but yeah heavy gunners used to be way more OP. Their gimmick is that their bullets punch through multiple troops and before they were nerfed there was no limit on how many units a single volley could penetrate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i39yRAFgsqg
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Dongattack posted:I tried them in a custom battle, but i saw nothing like that effect. Maybe it got patched. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oimIMZHNRVI
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:heavy gunners always seemed weird to me bc they didnt fit with the factions bonuses at all, was there some historical reason for them? Best I can figure is that guns supposedly first came to Japan from the Portuguese first landing at the island of Tanegashima* following a storm, and that's right near Satsuma territory. So as a result in game now they can get the biggest guns  *fun fact, until the relatively recently, this is why Tanegashima was the generic word for gun in Japanese, and still refers to the specific matchlock used in Japan during that time period
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
alsothere posted:The gate exploding is what caused some of those units to fly through the air but yeah heavy gunners used to be way more OP. Their gimmick is that their bullets punch through multiple troops and before they were nerfed there was no limit on how many units a single volley could penetrate 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
I think some of the problem with TW naval battles could be ameliorated on the strategic layer through a change in Zone of Control. If you could park a fleet on your trade route and it would extend some form of ZoC along that route to prevent raiders from freeloading, that would cut out a lot of the need for the tiny irritating pissant battles where you either autoresolve and eat a bunch of avoidable damage or run it manually and waste your time with load screens and challenge-less pursuit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
ideally all naval combat would have the ability to react to enemy fleets moving nearby but thatd be a bitch to implement in a game like TW
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Total War arena should have naval combat
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 11:33
|
|
|
Fangz posted:My fix for naval combat is basically that CA should implement the Decisive Battle doctrine. Win a big enough battle and boom, all the losers ships, where ever they are, get hit with a whacking great morale and attrition penalty and have to run back to port and sit there for ages and ages. Naval warfare in most of those periods should not be these long drawn out battles of attrition where new fleets replace old fleets and things run away and come back to fight and just whittle themselves down. It should be: win a big battle and you are *done*. To be fair that was also war as the whole, which wouldn't be very fun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
also consider how that would feel if you were on the losing side; if you had bad luck and lost one battle the enemy could shut you out of the ocean entirely. you have to consider how the implications of game systems will affect a player, not just the ai.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
The changes to Rome2 are great, politics is more engaging and the building browser shows a sleek, quick overview instead of launching the dreadful browser wiki.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Where are those DLC impressions, my goons, I see it's on top 3 for global sales on Steam, don't tell me none of those are you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
shalcar posted:sea battles are bad. ftfy
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
I ususally use goons as reactive armor for DLC yet no goons are talking abotu the new Rome 2 DLC?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Mans posted:I ususally use goons as reactive armor for DLC yet no goons are talking abotu the new Rome 2 DLC? It's literally the Imperator campaign with different starts, banditry, and a new religion system. Banditry is just a chance that you'll have a bad event happen on a province, like lost income or food for that turn, which you can increase or counter via buildings. The new religion system is a building chain that adds a new culture type to deal with. That's it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
Is it me or is Divided Rome harder than Attila Rome?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
I didn’t even know the new dlc was released. Gonna try it out imminently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
Playing as Aurelian seems pretty rough. I tried to invade Italy and as soon as my army started to move towards Rome a lot of barbarians have already started wrecking my border provinces, zenobia is invading anatolia and that gallic rear end in a top hat is already in northern Italy. Also why are chariots in the game, I don't know that much about the era but they seem kinda out of place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
With Aurelian I was able to get a couple quick peace treaties to limit my problems to the N and E, then rushing those that wouldn't submit and subjugating them. I may have gotten lucky because Gallic Rome didn't start sending me full stacks until after that point. Roman Levies are so cheap and effective it was easy to stand up three extra armies, one in Africa (the one free province between Aurelian and Egypt got uppity, and then had the hold the line when Numedia started falling), one in Noreia, and one in Cisalpina to secure myself from Gallic Rome while I finished off the rest of Italy. It was pretty dicey because Gallic Rome will throw two full stacks against you and even with garrisons plus a full stack those are some difficult fights since they'll have some stronger infantry and cavalry but once Italy is secured and you can focus on Spain/France it's smooth sailing. You'll have the money you need to finally start upgrading your economy and staving off civil war, plus if you can keep Dacia (at least the capital and two lower settlements) then you can defend your entire eastern border with three armies, even if Egypt or Lydia revolts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:also consider how that would feel if you were on the losing side; if you had bad luck and lost one battle the enemy could shut you out of the ocean entirely. you have to consider how the implications of game systems will affect a player, not just the ai. The idea is that you would play around it by avoiding battle until you had enough forces to win decisively. My reasoning is that unlike land battles, naval battles are typically undecisive. You win a land battle and that sets you up to take a province and that'll put you in a commanding position for a time, with at least in theory the enemy's ability to challenge you crippled by the city they just lost. Win a naval battle though and things don't change nearly as much, because they can just pump out a new fleet and fight you again. Especially since you need to pull back to refit, which basically restores the status quo. Winning a naval battle needs to buy you significant breathing time like winning land battles, and there also needs to be mechanics to encourage large fleet battles vs a series of small, random-feeling skirmishes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:04 |
|
|
"These Matchlock Samurai are kinda underwhelming really... I'm just gonna delete the gun building. Ooorrr.... What's this? Fire Rockets? Never tried those before!" Then the 3 fire rocket units in my army proceed to never get less than 300 kills each every battle, break every frontline i field them against and break fortresses open like coconuts. God drat they are good! Never really got this far down the techtree to see these lategame units, but this time around i have a 2x research speed mod and man, i've missed out on a lot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 22:37
|
|