|
Man the late game in Fall of the Samurai is amazing. You could always do a bit of damage with gunpowder but the late game artillery is just loving brutal. Just finished an AI siege map, took my super elite small army in. 2 cannons, 3 groups of marines, a couple imperial infantry and a massive offshore fleet vs 2500 troops in the second largest castle. Just watching those cannons rip away entire chunks of wall and entire stacks on infantry with them is just awesome. The AI got the bright idea to pull most of its troops back to the center of the castle in a big cluster to try to get away from the cannons, I wiped out 4 stacks of infantry and Calvary with a single offshore barrage and then the rest got stuck in the crossfire of my marines and cannons. I don't think any of the gunpowder units felt this visceral in the other titles, its really fun. Though I have to be a lot more careful with the naval battles. I didn't notice one of my frigates was about to drift between my ironclad and the corvette it was pummeling, one volley from both sides was all it took to go up in a massive explosion.
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2012 09:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
I like how your general routed and then just stood there watching. "Ain't that some poo poo"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
tables posted:Welp, I uninstalled Nappie and got Fall of the Samurai. 20 gig monster and I'm at 17%, but gently caress I want to decimate hordes of samurai with the gatling. The very last fight of my last campaign consisted of my fielding 4 cannons, 2 gatling guns, 3 groups of marines and a general vs an army full of gun levys. Despite me being ridiculously outnumbered 3/4 of the AI's army was dead before they got in range of my marines, then they lost their nerve and tried to route. 13 soldiers lost 2500 killed. Fun way to cap off a long campaign.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2012 08:40
|
|
|
I will buy Rome 2 day one if dogs of war and a blood option like the blood pack dlc are in it. I really dig gunpowder era stuff personally but the dogs and elephants in Rome made things really fun. That's not to say I wouldn't totally be down with a civil war entry if it came first. An even more expansive FOTS system based on the bloodiest war in American history? Could be amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2012 10:46
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:The best thing about Rome 2 is that it'll give us at least two more Total War games' breathing space after it before people start clamouring for Rome 3. Rome is not my first choice but really unless CA starts going with alternate reality settings then there's only so many periods that have enough conflict to base an entire strategy game around. Fall of the Samurai is about as new as they can go, everything after that became small squad combat. Rome is about as old as you can go, combat before then was a bit too basic to justify a full on strategy game. Though seeing a hybrid army management and Risk type board with COH style squad combat on map and awesome Naval battles would be an incredible step forward for CA, I wonder if they would be willing to step outside their box a bit after Rome 2 and tackle WW1 or if we get another sequel.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:After Rome 2, they should hopefully pick up a decent AI Engineer coder at some point and they should consider doing a Musket and Shot era game (1600) and build the other black powder era DLC ontop of it. I would love to seem them go a Kingdoms route on this and do north and south America from first settlement up to the civil war era, but that's also because I'm a sucker for forced anachronisms and love using the Cherokee to push the French back into the sea and toppling the Aztec empire.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
Mans posted:There is no decent sea exploration, no decent colonial contact with local tribes, no colonial competition with other European states, there aren't deep inter dinastic relationships that would make the game much more interesting and neither a late Medieval 2 or an early Empire do any of that. Mods really cant replicate the engine / ai / gameplay / building improvements that have happened since Rome was released. Well, that and multiplayer.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
MorbidYak posted:Ultimately I think they have most of the battle map stuff down pretty good now. From the looks of it the battle map is getting a serious overhaul. The systems they are talking about putting in place, the emphasis of individual units in large battles, integrated naval landings, moving the emphasis of city combat inside the walls rather than at the gates, none of this would work with the current battle system. Navigating units around inside cities and castles has always been a clusterfuck that usually just results in blobbing at one choke-hold and then mopping up units that rout to the center of the city. If they can really change that formula then the entire series will be better for it. The overall map is getting tweaked too, the emphasis of region ownership over town ownership is going to make a big difference if done right. Previously you couldn't control resources in a region without capturing and garrisoning the town, now it sounds like capturing areas that hold resources specifically to starve out the towns and cities will be more effective resulting in more emphasis on battles in open fields and key terrain. Really from everything being described it almost sounds like the campaign map is going to look totally different with more emphasis on holding strategic passes and fields and focused on aggressive engagement rather than stacking up dudes inside walls and calling it good. Combining these two things makes for a potential for something that has never really meshed in Total War, huge epic sprawling battles in the fields, viscous hectic skirmishing and pillaging in cities. Good stuff. My other big wish (and this probably wont happen, but hey, wishlist!) would be that agent actions be done in real time coinciding with battles. If I send an agent in to sabotage an archery tower that action should be queued to happen during the battle. It would add a random element to these big fights that could be incredible. Picture it, right as your troops are marching on a gate you intently watch your agent sneak along the wall, duck into the gatehouse, and just as your troops are at the door either it opens or your agent's bloodied body is tossed out of a window. Every fight in Total War eventually starts to feel a bit samey, the same strategy works 99% of the time in the late game, throwing in random elements that keep each battle fresh would be really nice. Edit: To clarify on agent actions, there has always been too much separation with agent actions when it comes to battle. If I bribe a legion to join me, having them waltz out of their city and join my stack is dumb. Id rather bribe them, let them lie in wait with the city defense, and give the signal for them to turn on their comrades at a key moment. Having a sleeper cell of archers standing on the wall, creating a hole in the defenses that I can exploit is much more interesting from a gameplay and strategy perspective than just having them chilling with my blob. Spaceman Future! fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Jul 3, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2012 05:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Also, I seem to recall the Romans not being this strange civilised cuddly sanitised version this person seems to think they are. They were honestly very bloody minded due their religion and ethics culture and were genocide happy as the results of Julias Caesars Gaul campaign tell us. Pretty sure he's completely alone in that though, I mean one of the few things the populace at large knows about the Romans is that they drove nails through your hands and feet and left you up on a big wooden cross to die a miserable death from exposure / infection / hemorrhaging / being gutted by a random passerby. They contributed a ton to civics, but god drat if you weren't one of the happy few the Romans were straight up douchebags.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2013 19:58
|
|