|
Man Rhodes is nearly impossible to take.
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:15 |
|
|
How's the game of you don't have FoG2?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 16:34
|
|
|
Popete posted:How's the game of you don't have FoG2? I have it and I never really felt the need to export to FoG2 but your milage may vary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
If you don't use FoG II then it's a groged up Imperator, if you do then its a groged up RTW, either way game is good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 17:00
|
|
|
Popete posted:How's the game of you don't have FoG2? I love the FoG2 integration, but honestly I only exported a single battle during the 7 hours I've played so far. It's fun to do for important battles, but they take a long time to play so I spent most of the night using the Empires system. It's definitely a grogged up Paradox style system. The most important thing seems to be making sure you have enough front-line troops for the "frontage" size of the region - fewer troops fit on the front line in a mountainous area than on the plains, etc - and enough second line troops to support each of them, as it gives a support bonus to the unit fighting in front of it. Skirmishers own more in Empires than FOG2, because there's a ranged round at the beginning of combat, and then they retreat behind the front line to support the melee round. There's enough at play that the combat is automatic, but still fun to watch. I don't feel compelled to export each fight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
I don't really get what I am suppose to be doing in FoG:E. Do I just keep building new buildings and units then paint the map?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
How's the difficulty compared to Paradox's recent releases? I seem to remember Johan saying that they've made their games easier because winning is fun or whatever, but I really have a hankering for a map game with old school Crusader Kings-style arbitrary empire explosions
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
I'm loving FOG:E as a battle creator for FOG2, but as a strategic level game I don't think I would play it for more than an hour or two (I would of course buy it because I am a schmuck). The building option shuffling thing is a bit too limiting in terms of forward planning, and the decadence/objective mechanic seems very rail roady so far as I understand it. However playing as the Lyschimak… Thracian Diadochi faction who start with a huge army they can't afford, joining the dogpile against Antigonus and then trying to hold on to all the land I'd grabbed whilst my decadence was so crazy high that my provinces were straight up defecting to nations I wasn't even at war with has been a lot of fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 23:59
|
|
|
sum posted:How's the difficulty compared to Paradox's recent releases? I seem to remember Johan saying that they've made their games easier because winning is fun or whatever, but I really have a hankering for a map game with old school Crusader Kings-style arbitrary empire explosions I don't think its very hard if your importing to FOG:2 for must win battles, I was able to fight my way through a decadence/civilisation collapse - although I think the faction I was playing started with an over strong army and was also a phalanx faction, which really helps with the FOG:2 battles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 00:03
|
|
|
pedro0930 posted:I don't really get what I am suppose to be doing in FoG:E. Do I just keep building new buildings and units then paint the map? Get legacy, win game- painting the map is generally not as good for legacy as one might think, particularly poor parts of the map. dogsarentdangerous posted:I'm loving FOG:E as a battle creator for FOG2, but as a strategic level game I don't think I would play it for more than an hour or two (I would of course buy it because I am a schmuck). The building option shuffling thing is a bit too limiting in terms of forward planning, and the decadence/objective mechanic seems very rail roady so far as I understand it. I think the building thing is fine, you just sometimes take suboptimal choices and move on. dogsarentdangerous posted:I don't think its very hard if your importing to FOG:2 for must win battles, I was able to fight my way through a decadence/civilisation collapse - although I think the faction I was playing started with an over strong army and was also a phalanx faction, which really helps with the FOG:2 battles. Yeah if you like FOG2 go ham with the battles- IMO i think the FoGE combat system rewards balanced comps more than FoG2 but I do feel that it rewards skirmishers a bit too much and cavalry a bit too little.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 01:44
|
|
|
There may be some bug related to import battle. Somehow my army of 4 heavy infantry + 4 skirmisher get imported into 12 heavy infantry and 1 skirmsher. Sure is nice getting a ton of ridiculously expensive hoplites for free.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 09:10
|
|
|
For FoGE, I am enjoying the game but am put off by how aggressive foreign powers are. Yes I expect in moments of weakness to get attack by my ambitious rivals/neighbors, but it seems that the AI just wants endless war- even when significantly outmatched. Also one function I can’t seem to find out how to do is raid. I can see the pillage option when my army is in foreign land, but ai powers frequent launch border raids. How can I do this/ is it profitable? Also seconding unit battle weight values being wonky. Regular infantry, a value of 2, camel skirmishes, value 8 etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
RestRoomLiterature- posted:For FoGE, I am enjoying the game but am put off by how aggressive foreign powers are. Yes I expect in moments of weakness to get attack by my ambitious rivals/neighbors, but it seems that the AI just wants endless war- even when significantly outmatched. The new patch reduced AI aggression. Also yeah the overall combat values way overstate heavy infantry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
is there anything that I should look out for in getting CMANO to start? I keep crashing at the splash screen
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:is there anything that I should look out for in getting CMANO to start? I keep crashing at the splash screen Can you open a new thread on our Tech Support forum? Also post the startup logs there if possible. To start with, make sure your OS is fully up-to-date.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
Squiggle posted:Engine seems good, actually. Surprisingly so. If I hadn't known beforehand, finding out ageod was involved would've been a genuine shock. Yeah the new AGEOD engine is a million times better than the old one. It's not quite perfect and still obtuse at times, but it's leaps and bounds better than the previous one. Reminds me a lot of Victoria 2, they clearly looked a lot at what Paradox is doing UI wise. It's a good game. e: autocorrect Private Speech fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jul 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
Whats the deal with Silent Hunter 5? I know it's gotten terrible reviews but not sure if it's just because of bugs on launch or the gameplay sucks. Been watching some YouTube videos and it looks pretty fun, perhaps the bugs have been fixed by now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
Popete posted:Whats the deal with Silent Hunter 5? I know it's gotten terrible reviews but not sure if it's just because of bugs on launch or the gameplay sucks. Been watching some YouTube videos and it looks pretty fun, perhaps the bugs have been fixed by now. It's a horribly buggy cobbled together mess with a lovely UI and that doesn't play in a way that some Silent Hunter 3 and 4 vets prefer, from what I've read. Based on reading recent reviews, time has not helped it be less lovely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
It does get points for having one of the most hilarious copy protections though. If it detected it was pirated (and I believe even if you purchased it legit at launch) it would render your lovingly detailed crew as 2D.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
From what I remember: Ubisoft was trying to bring in a larger audience than the previous games, so they tried to make a more "approachable" game. This failed to attract the more mainstream audience they wanted, and also failed to appeal to the core SH fanbase that didn't appreciate the simplification and more actiony focus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
Well I realized that I actually own it, must have bought it for dirt cheap at some point. So I guess I'll give it a shot! I'm really liking how UBOAT is coming along but it's pretty buggy and I've put it down to give it time to mature.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
It was given away for free at some point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 07:33
|
|
|
RestRoomLiterature- posted:For FoGE, I am enjoying the game but am put off by how aggressive foreign powers are. Yes I expect in moments of weakness to get attack by my ambitious rivals/neighbors, but it seems that the AI just wants endless war- even when significantly outmatched. Just click on the raid button (on the tabs where you have split, merge, and other button) when you have a unit selected and your unit will choose a neighboring enemy province to raid. While it doesn't say how much gold you get my observation is that you can get around 40-100 gold depending on how rich and successful your raiding party is and as far as I can tell raiding failure only reduce your readiness. It's pretty profitable especially early game when you have no money even against dirt poor independent province. Unit value is really terrible gauge at estimating result, yeah. Though heavy infantry, while overvalued is still the most powerful thing you can field as long as you can fill the frontage. Yeah, the AI is pretty annoying by spawning legacy emergency levy (thankfully fixed in the recent patch). Every single weak one province country can just keep pulling out stacks complete with cavalry and heavy infantry (sometimes even tier 3 ones) is just silly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 08:35
|
|
|
So after seeing a lot of Screenshot LPs of RTW 1 and 2 I decided I'd get RTW 2 for myself even though I'm not all that great at this type of game, and don't have a huge knowledge of shipbuilding, and have since been stumbling my way through. I'm sure the two questions I'm about to ask have been asked before but I didn't locate them going back a few pages. First, I don't really understand what differentiates a Dreadnought from a Pre-Dreadnought battleship, is it just the All-or-nothing armor scheme? I only ask because in my first game (playing as Italy...not sure why I went with them to be honest), and at one point there was a decade-long treaty banning ships over 15000t displacement, despite that the French managed to create Dreadnoughts that were at that displacement, and my attempts to do so resulted in them being rebranded as Pre-Dreadnoughts or CAs, until All-or-nothing armor got researched I believe. This question also kinda applies to Battlecruisers since I don't quite get what makes a ship a Battlecruiser either. Secondly, I have airbases but even when in the midst of battle just off the coast from said airbases, which have planes, I can't seem to have the ability to launch planes or utilize them in the battles at all. This is especially frustrating in coastal raid scenarios where I could've really used the backup.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:So after seeing a lot of Screenshot LPs of RTW 1 and 2 I decided I'd get RTW 2 for myself even though I'm not all that great at this type of game, and don't have a huge knowledge of shipbuilding, and have since been stumbling my way through. I'm sure the two questions I'm about to ask have been asked before but I didn't locate them going back a few pages. It's mostly how many centerline turrets you have on a battleship. Three or more will make the game consider your ship a dreadnought. Land based air is completely AI controlles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:So after seeing a lot of Screenshot LPs of RTW 1 and 2 I decided I'd get RTW 2 for myself even though I'm not all that great at this type of game, and don't have a huge knowledge of shipbuilding, and have since been stumbling my way through. I'm sure the two questions I'm about to ask have been asked before but I didn't locate them going back a few pages. There is a manual located in the \Rule the Waves 2\Manuals folder that has all the ship requirements (page 62). Predreadnought (B) is 5000+ tons 6"+ Belt 6"+ Main Guns ≤ 20kn speed ≤ 2 Main Turrets Dreadnought (BB) is 8000+ tons 6"+ Belt 10+" guns 3+ main turrets
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 00:16
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:There is a manual located in the \Rule the Waves 2\Manuals folder that has all the ship requirements (page 62). All right, that makes sense, but the only problem is I could've sworn I put 3 main/centerline turrets on numerous attempts at building a Dreadnought and it always resolved to being a B or a CA even when I had the tonnage. And I know I was using 10" guns (because the aforementioned treaty limited calibers to no bigger than that). I must just be remembering things wrong though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 00:55
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:So after seeing a lot of Screenshot LPs of RTW 1 and 2 I decided I'd get RTW 2 for myself even though I'm not all that great at this type of game, and don't have a huge knowledge of shipbuilding, and have since been stumbling my way through. I'm sure the two questions I'm about to ask have been asked before but I didn't locate them going back a few pages. From an historical perspective, a dreadnought was a an “all big gun” battleship. So a pre-dreadnought battleship typically had two large caliber turrets with two guns, then a huge number of slightly smaller secondary guns, then tertiary guns, etc; whereas a dreadnought’s main armament is multiple big gun turrets (at least three).
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 02:39
|
|
|
It's the guns, Dreadnoughts have to be 11'' + otherwise you are basically building a big cruiser. Battleships can be as little as 8-9'' I think. However B and BB classes are really a cosmetic thing more than anything else , I am pretty sure the game uses them identically for battle deployments and the like. Saros fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Jul 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 02:40
|
|
|
Saros posted:It's the guns, Dreadnoughts have to be 11'' + otherwise you are basically building a big cruiser. Battleships can be as little as 8-9'' I think. Well it could be that but again the French build a Dreadnought with only 10-inch guns as per treaty terms. EDIT: If it's down to cosmetics or w/e then I guess I'm just worrying about nothing really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
Yeah, gun caliber is part of the calculation as well but like a lot of the boundary cases of the ship designer it’s a little opaque. Take a look at some historical designs like pre-dreads (any) and then HMS Dreadnought herself. Remember that the game is pre-loaded with historical templates so the AI ships that you see are usually based on something that was real at some point, just adjusted to the AI’s current tech. If you post a shot of that French design we might be able to see why it’s classed as a B and not a BB.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 04:22
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Well it could be that but again the French build a Dreadnought with only 10-inch guns as per treaty terms. I mean, it’s not. Try sending your pre-dreads up against your dreadnoughts in a fleet exercise sometime.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
Dreads are better than Battleships of course but 15kt and 10'' means you aren't going to be building very good ones anyway. Historically the B/BB divide was larger than it often is in-game because HMS Dreadnought incorporated both the all big guns design and Steam turbines so she could carry more armor, guns and be faster than anything else in existence all at once.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 11:46
|
|
|
Saros posted:Dreads are better than Battleships of course but 15kt and 10'' means you aren't going to be building very good ones anyway. Also a lot of rethinking of how ships were built and designed. A lot of other countries thought they were lying about its weight because it did so much in a hull only about four thousand tons more than the preceding old type Battleship. ElBrak fucked around with this message at 11:58 on Jul 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 11:56
|
|
|
Reading the WITP thread has me thinking about the combat system and wondering: are there any well-regarded games that focus in on the island battles of the Pacific Campaign? I can see that Order of Battle has entries for the Pacific but I’ve never played any of those.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 09:31
|
|
|
Pirate Radar posted:Reading the WITP thread has me thinking about the combat system and wondering: are there any well-regarded games that focus in on the island battles of the Pacific Campaign? I can see that Order of Battle has entries for the Pacific but I’ve never played any of those. There is the John Tiller stuff—Panzer Battles/Campaigns: Pacific. I have never played them though, so I cannot comment on whether or not they are worth your time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 13:38
|
|
|
Pirate Radar posted:Reading the WITP thread has me thinking about the combat system and wondering: are there any well-regarded games that focus in on the island battles of the Pacific Campaign? I can see that Order of Battle has entries for the Pacific but I’ve never played any of those. Order of Battle is great, but it's pretty abstracted and grog-lite. Edit: Also... WitP thread? Could you link me please?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
Gewehr 43 posted:Edit: Also... WitP thread? Could you link me please? https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3754889
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
Yes, sorry, should have specified I meant Grey’s LP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:15 |
|
|
Well, most people who care about the game are there.....
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 16:10
|
|
