|
SeanBeansShako posted:The Romans had some pretty terrible auxiliary cav from what I can remember. There was also that funny transition when the Marian reforms happened where you suddenly lost the ability to make good Spearmen.
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 04:05 |
|
|
I'm getting the impression that Rome 2 would be a questionable purchase, then? Its dedicated thread has died by now, has it not?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Gorefluff posted:Sorry if this has been discussed to death but I recently just picked up Rome 2 and Shogun 2 after a long Total War hiatus (last I played was Medieval 2). Shogun 2 is simple but excellent but Rome 2 is incredibly dumb and frustrating. Rome 2 is a perfectly playable iteration of the Total War franchise at this point. It still has some kinks to work out (which CA is still in the process of working on; opt into the Patch 15 Beta) but the literally unplayable broken mess is behind us. I have never encountered that level of difficulty with roaming hostile navies. All cities come with garrisons now (and these are generally getting larger with the coming patch) so an insubstantial navy would be incapable of flipping anything. It sounds more like you're up against a more serious naval power that's making a commitment to their navy and not doing anything to contest them on the seas. Naval combat is still pretty janky and I would recommend autoresolving naval engagements wherever possible but you can't just ignore it if you're getting into wars with Mediterranean nations. Patch 15 is cutting the base 3000 income in half for all factions (and then giving some or all of it back to major powers), so little one-province Barbarian tribes will no longer be able to sustain huge armies just for existing. To compare between Rome and Shogun: Shogun is much better polished and has a tighter experience, but Rome has a much more diverse roster of nations, both in terms of simple visual spectacle and that different armies will have entirely different methods of fighting (Roman Infantry streamrollers don't play like Hellenic Pike + Cavalry formations, which don't play like Steppe cavalry skirmish balls, etc).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Mans posted:They'll finally announce Humanity total war, an ambitious game where you start off in 5,000 BC and play all the way to 2240 (the fall of Great Future Bulgaria). I believe you mean Great Future
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Guyz. Basically right at the point when most Total War games are turning into a victory lap of checking off objectives against powerless rivals the game turns on HARD MODE and suddenly everything's real exciting again.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Yeah, the biggest difference between Shogun 2's flat additive bonuses and Rome II's multiplicative percentage bonuses is that the former seemed to disproportionately benefit Ashigaru and other cheap units, to the point where Yari Ashigaru with a whole bunch of stacked bonuses were one of the absolute best units in the game. This isn't necessarily better or worse; it just promotes different strategies, and given how close the two games are two each other it's probably for the best that they aren't trying to imitate each other too closely. I will agree, though, that Rome II would be better off with fewer, more significant bonuses instead of an endless string of +3% modifiers. Rome IIs unit design philosophy really isn't bad though, at least in its current incarnation. Units have defined roles and come in various qualities, with both being a contributing factor to their effectiveness, with the game generally favoring soft counters over hard RPS. Again, this isn't a bad thing. You do have a lot of units across different factions that are practically reskins, but that's just inevitable in a game that needs to represent many different cultures even when they have units of similar quality performing the same role on the battlefield. One layer that Rome II adds is that different nations can have very different playstyles based on roster access. Shogun II faction shave specializations but very few approach that level of differentiation; again, not a bad thing, just different games being different.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
shalcar posted:You seem pretty angry and make a lot of assumptions here. I'm certainly confused by your idea that expecting balance in a video game is somehow Chosen Swordsmen Spear Warriors The Averni are a Heavy Infantry Faction that trades some of Rome's brute force for a better native supporting cast. In any case, I would argue that the limited options in faction rosters does promote some degree of strategic diversity and creativity over Shogun's model. When everyone has access to everything, the solution to any given problem will generally be "bring an appropriate counter unit", which isn't especially compelling once you learn what the unit relationships are. Things get more interesting when there isn't always an obvious or direct answer available and you start having to work around problems and look for alternative solutions or simply adapt your campaign strategies around preempting those issues in the first place. The fact that different factions have very pronounced strengths and weaknesses also means you're much more likely to see fights between dramatically asymmetrical armies since there's an actual incentive to bring imbalanced compositions besides being on a comedy playthrough or quirks of AI recruitment.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 05:35
|
|
or that I want to make everyone exactly the same. I would also like to state that I said that about heavily armoured units in the Averni, not heavily armed which leads me to believe that you didn't read my posts very well. As for not following development or playing Rome, well, you are wrong on both fronts.
|
It's cool though because you can just throw those piles of money at people to make them become your clients/allies and not have to bother with conquering loving Armenia or something.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
The current version of Rome II gives you a fairly substantial penalty to diplomatic relationships with all factions as your imperium level increases. It won't directly create coalitions against you, but the way the game handles relationships it means that factions who would otherwise have no standing will like each other for attacking you because you're -40 to them both. VVV It's definitely not enough, but it is a decent move in a good direction VVV Voyager I fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Oct 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Speaking of, for gunpowder games I've been having a lot more success since I stopped trying to shoot people and instead started trying to charge them after the first volley. Running right up to the enemy, taking their first volley at range, stopping just short of them before they reload, unloading your volley at point blank, then running in and stabbing them all to death seems to rout the enemy army with minimal casualties on both sides a lot of the time. Replace this with 'charge them with katana samurai' for FOTS and you're on to a winner, I find. I believe this was the standard procedure for British armies of the era: eat ripple fire while advancing on the enemy position, deliver one enormous volley from everyone (who is still alive), and then charge.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
On Medieval 2 chat, vanilla Poland has a pretty nutty early game because one of their starting units is inexpensive mounted crossbowmen. They are exactly as good as they sound and you will steamroll anything the AI sends at you as long as you don't mind waiting out siege timers because your infantry is a joke.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Yeah, it's an awesome game and it handles larger battles better than Gettysburg, even, because you don't have to worry about fine tuning regiments(though I will say the videttes/skirmishers of the first scenario feel like a kludge when you start playing with them in MP with people who know how to exploit them). Confirming that it does a very good job of handling a large-scale battle in ways that TW games don't really try to emulate. Everything happens at a slower pace and army lines are much longer (and there's no significant Cavalry forces), which makes positioning more important than it is in TW games since marching infantry to reinforce a flank is a lot harder when your battle line extends two miles instead of 200 yards. I also really like the fact that you're fighting over strategic objectives rather than just getting your armies dumped onto a field and finding the nearest hill to deploy on.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Rome 2 had those at release and everyone howled for their removal Rome 2 did them really badly. In UGG, your strategic objectives represent terrain features with actual strategic value where holding them denotes controlling areas of the map and the entire objective in battle is to control terrain and drive the enemy away from critical positions. For instance, an objective might be a hill that offers commanding firing positions over the city of Gettysburg, and you might find yourself in a situation where attacking it head-on would be too costly, so instead you send troops around to overwhelm one flank while keeping a fixing force in the center ready to support the assault and fighting a delaying action on the other flank. You can do similar things in TW games, but the scale is different and the relatively small sizes of units combined with high speeds means that you can't execute grand strategy in the same way, especially when a battle is just the defending army camping on one hill with no need to move. To put it simply: in TW games, you cross terrain to attack the enemy. In UGG, you attack the enemy to seize terrain.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:The thing is that I don't think you really need that in the TW games either - the lack of stalemates as an outcome is kind of odd, especially considering that a lot of ancient battles really DID basically go "two armies line up and stare/shout at each other for about a day, then go back to their tents and sleep". Refusal to engage is a valid tactic that isn't actually possible in TW because every battle HAS to have a winner. Yeah, this is one of the things TW stuggles with. By making decisive action mandatory whenever two armies meet on the campaign map, you end up with players compelled to fight out battles that never would have happened in real life. Hill Shogun MP-stype hill camping is a very effective strategy torn right from the pages of history, but it doesn't make for very fun gameplay 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
PBJ posted:The thing I like about Ultimate General: Gettysburg is that the engine could easily simulate any line and shot battle from the Renaissance to even WW1, if it so wanted to. Hell, I'd be down paying $15 for an UG: Verdun or Waterloo. Darth's game needs the next Darth.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Mans posted:2) HJ6X4-E8VBW-M8I4A Thanks bro, I'll be sure to check this out tomorrow night!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
You can indeed to silly poo poo by stacking flat bonuses onto Yari Ashigaru and spamming out swarms of value-priced Pike Samurai. The flat bonuses being applied to fairly small base values on top of an economy that actually forced you to evaluate cost effectiveness meant Ashigaru were much more competitive than their equivalents in other TW games. Rome actually had a lot of very good cost-effective low-tier units, but the change to % bonuses and weaker bonuses overall means you couldn't pump them up to parity with professionals, and when an empire spanning like a quarter of the known world only gets six armies value isn't the same kind of priority.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
shalcar posted:Yeah. Basically having recruitment buildings would feed a unit into the recruitment pool every X turns and you could only recruit if a unit was available from the pool. There was also a cap on how many units of a certain type could be in the pool so you couldn't stockpile them to mass produce later. It meant that you needed to be slowly adding units to your armies and if you wanted to use units in decent numbers you needed more than one recruitment place as they stacked the speed units were added to the pool. It's been a long time, but wasn't this basically how M2 worked to begin with? Still super hyped for the death of agents.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2018 07:11
|
|
|
Yeah I'm not really sure there's a tasteful way to make a strategy game about the European colonial powers raping a continent.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2018 02:42
|
|
|
Blooming Brilliant posted:I fully expect it to be the regular terrible CA launch. Suppose I just have to blindly hope it isn't a REALLY terrible game launch on par with Rome 2. CA Launches ever since Empire seem to be a bit of a crapshoot between being fine and playable versus a complete trainwreck. Really, I think all their major releases after R2 have been in pretty good shape (even if Attila and Thrones didn't turn out to catch everyone's interest), but goddrat did they drop that ball right on their toes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2019 03:22
|
|
|
Planning your vacation around CA Launch dates...well, it's less destructive than gambling, but that's the kind of risk assessment that should tell you to stay the gently caress out of casinos.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2019 02:33
|
|
|
I've typically loved the Period Art unit cards like in Rome 2, and I don't mind the cards that are just a scaled down model of the unit, but these silhouettes really aren't doing it for me. Ah well, like others have said, it's one of the easiest things to mod.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
Glenn Quebec posted:The guy who was asking who was a badder dude than lubu. The answer is any champion at around his level. Again, that's not being more powerful than Lu Bu - that's just being the Paper to his Rock.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
Fangz posted:This is a pointless and pedantic argument. No, I'm sure the guy with a two-page rapsheet who posts only in single sentences is participating entirely in good faith. If we just engage with his density a little harder he'll finally understand that he's missing the point. For real though, gently caress off with this low-key threadshitting by feigned density. It's not funny and this thread is constructive. Voyager I fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Jun 6, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
I'm really digging a TW game with a compelling strategic layer and an AI with discernible motivations, but I'm still trying to figure out army compositions. Having the 'lovely Spearmanii' spot on the unit roster be replaced by Ji units that function almost like shock infantry really shakes up the tactical interactions that you have to build your armies around, and I haven't entirely solved the new puzzle.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2019 06:04
|
|
|
StabMasterArson posted:Do most people just play a campaign over one sitting? I've come back to my Cao Cao game after a day and have no idea whats going on and will probably just have to restart. I'll never finish this A typical campaign seems to clock in at around 150 turns, so I can't imagine so.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2019 03:30
|
|
|
I saw someone comment on it earlier, but man the buffs for family members going down are kinda insane and I've ended up resorting to some silly, gamey solution to not getting owned by stuff like Lady Bain effectively being a suicide bomber.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 02:10
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Victory has defeated you! Another fun one I just got: defeated a breakout attempt while laying siege and killed a few of the commanders involved. Then an ally of my enemy marched in later in the turn cycle to launch another breakout attempt, pulling in the previously defeated armies as reinforcements...with one of the generic scrubs that went down having been quickly replaced by the exceedingly handsome Xiahao Dun.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
"AI can't disband starter trash units" has been an issue in I think all the modern TW games at least as far back as Rome 2? I can't imagine it's any better in 3K with units convalescing instead of getting destroyed. Even if those Ji Militia manage to get themselves shot down to a man, they'll just respawn in two turns instead of finally freeing up their retinue slot for a real unit, and the AI is going to let them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
Man, and I thought Alcibiades commanding the Athenian navy while avoiding trial in the city itself after having defected back from the Spartans because he got caught sleeping with the king's wife was impressive.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2019 03:44
|
|
|
lurksion posted:Looks like there's a beta patch out You're really underselling this: Beta Patch Notes posted:Bug Fixes The full post is here.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2019 00:04
|
|
|
It sorta did? Spears were the baseline melee unit for most factions and every cultural grouping got their own flavor of "idiot with spear and shield", without even getting into the Hoplite nations that were spears all the way down. If you were playing as Time, you killed a while lot of spear dudes of one flavor or another, and if you were anyone else you were probably fielding then instead.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2021 02:36
|
|
|
Glad to see they went full Age of Mythology with it. The original game was very awkwardly positioned. Either embrace the fantastic elements of the setting or play the time period straight. Having these awkwardly unconvincing "truth behind the myth" dudes satisfied nobody.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2021 16:12
|
|
|
I feel you, but I'd also be lying if I said I wouldn't mess around with Song of Roland mode in Medieval 3.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2023 03:34
|
|
|
What's the issue with the garrison mechanic? Thematically, it makes sense for a city to have some amount of native forces that would defend it but not be part of regular troop mobilizations. It's certainly something seen in history. From a gameplay perspective, it relieves the player of some busywork in manually producing (and, heavens, perhaps even moving) a handful of units per city to manage public order and protect them against raiding stacks.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2023 02:40
|
|
|
I kinda enjoy the weird / suboptimal units you get handed for garrison battles because it forces you to play outside your comfort zone and get creative looking for ways to pull off a difficult victory or maximize the damage you inflict on the attacking army so they will be easier for your response force to destroy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2023 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 04:05 |
|
|
LordSloth posted:I vaguely recall enjoying siege battles in Shogun 2. Despite the multiple walls it felt a lot more open in a way, iirc there weren’t a lot of structures behind the wall. And I couldn’t remember any of the siege or artillery units like mangonels without working at it. Yeah, the typical Shogun siege was 'soft' walls (meaning they served as a meaningful obstacle but didn't require specialized equipment) surrounding a largely open courtyard. You didn't have to wait two turns to build a ram before feeding both armies into a mosh pit at the single resulting chokepoint.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2024 00:00
|
|