|
I'm getting a hankering for another Medieval 2 Total War playthrough. (Finally kicked the poo poo out of that Uesugi campaign). I'm debating playing with Stainless Steel or Broken Crescent, or maybe giving Call of Warhammer a spin. Which one manages to keep things together without bogging you down with unnecessary busywork the most?
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 09:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:I'm getting a hankering for another Medieval 2 Total War playthrough. (Finally kicked the poo poo out of that Uesugi campaign). I'm debating playing with Stainless Steel or Broken Crescent, or maybe giving Call of Warhammer a spin. Which one manages to keep things together without bogging you down with unnecessary busywork the most? If you just want more units and a bigger map, stainless steel has install options that let you turn off the recruitment stuff and you can pick the AI's that are closer to vanilla. Stainless Steel also lets you be the Lithuanians and bring Paganism back to prominence and push the dirty Christians back into the Mediterranean where they came from.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
Stainless Steel is pretty cool, but I also might suggest going with the late campaign rather than the early one. poo poo goes so fuckin slow when you start in the early campaign.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Personally I think Broken Crescent is the superior mod, but it is much more limited in scope. Neither of them really bog things down much though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:Stainless Steel is pretty cool, but I also might suggest going with the late campaign rather than the early one. poo poo goes so fuckin slow when you start in the early campaign. If you turn off all the recruitment stuff, it works like vanilla, and if you can build the required stuff, you get the units.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:If you turn off all the recruitment stuff, it works like vanilla, and if you can build the required stuff, you get the units. What I meant was that the settlements all start out pretty small and the rate at which they grow is nerfed a lot in SS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
You should also be aware of rank and file in NTW units. Rank is 'rows', file is 'columns'. You'll be tempted to stretch your lines thin for maximum firepower, but that's not ideal. Because your soldiers are highly disciplined men of war, they'll hold the line and run up to replace casualties to maintain the shape of the front line. While they are running around keeping a straight line, they are not reloading and not firing. About 2 and a half deep is the right size for a standard sized unit, otherwise they'll spend more time lining up when replacing casualties than actually firing and reloading. Unit survival and effectiveness is a balance between killing the other guy quickly and not getting killed as quickly. Conversely, if your lines are 5 or 6 columns deep, only the 20 guys up front are actually firing, while the guys in the back are smoking cigars and telling dirty jokes. There are some exceptions, like the fire-and-advance stance and light infantry stance, but the principle is the same. Also, I loved the scenario campaign in Napoleon. The first battles of the Egypt campaign were an incredible experience. You should also know that proper line infantry will always always clobber militia units in melee and devastate their morale. Charging a militia unit in melee with a line of real soldiers will break them fast. Rear charges by cavalry will have the same effect, so you can send cavalry out on the flanks and pick off militia or skirmisher units with fast rear charges and take minimal casualties. When choosing artillery targets, all else being equal, prioritize killing the best soldiers you can hit. You'd rather go toe to toe against a 60% strength Grenadier unit and a 100% strength militia unit than a 100% strength Grenadier unit and a 60% militia unit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:Good stuff Thanks for the tips, combat in NTW always has been awkward for me, any tips about artillery positioning?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Zoom in when placing artillery. Make sure there are no hills or whatever in front of them, because they will shoot directly into the dirt. Best positions are on top of a hill slanted towards the enemy, or at the bottom of a gentle slope. Otherwise, just make sure you aren't shooting dirt/your soldiers. Arty only has a small arc to it, so generally if you zoom in and can't see the enemy, they aren't going to hit. Infantry get bowled over by arty but some will get back up. Cav can only die to artiller, so you might want to focus the early shots at the horses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
I should also note that ranged cavalry is pretty worthless. If you are trying to use two units of ranged cav in concert, you have to micromanage carefully to not have them shoot each other in the back.* Also, if you're shooting at something that can shoot back, the large target profile of cavalry and smaller unit counts means that even a garbage levy formation can hold the line at range very well against your much more expensive cavalry units. When you charge to melee range you'll probably wreck 'em, but if melee cavalry are available, just recruit those exclusively. Also, if the hills are perfectly steep or with a ridge, you can position infantry in front of your cannons on the summit as long as they are low enough down the hill. When it all works out, it's awesome. Don't forget to overlap fields of fire. This is done by wrapping the ends of your line around the end of your enemy's line and firing on their sides or back. You can also do this by making V shapes in your line where needed if you have the numbers. *When ordering a melee charge, the unit will default to fire a salvo right as they are closing in unless you turn OFF fire-at-will. If you have two units of Chasseurs mixing together as they charge, they'll shoot each other in the back of the head and you'll lose half of each unit before they even make contact with the enemy. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
I wouldn't say utterly worthless. A reserve unit or two of dragoons to guard your artillery and patch up some of the lines fire power always helps.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
In Empire multiplayer, I liked sending a unit or two of dragoons to peel off any cavalry guarding the arty, then luring them back to a unit of pikemen or line infantry with bayonets in hiding in the woods, then when the cavalry is dead going after their artillery. I forget if that works in Napoleon since I haven't played in ages, but it worked great in Fall of the Samurai, replacing pikemen with Yari levies. EDIT: Oh, ranged cavalry. Yeah, I hated using more than one unit in a charge, but I found them pretty effective in a flank attack if you had two units attacking from different directions, the salvo they fire right before they hit was pretty effective. Don Gato fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:I should also note that ranged cavalry is pretty worthless. If you are trying to use two units of ranged cav in concert, you have to micromanage carefully to not have them shoot each other in the back.* Also, if you're shooting at something that can shoot back, the large target profile of cavalry and smaller unit counts means that even a garbage levy formation can hold the line at range very well against your much more expensive cavalry units. When you charge to melee range you'll probably wreck 'em, but if melee cavalry are available, just recruit those exclusively. Light Dragoons and Chasseurs a Cheval are great, you get them so early and they're really powerful. but they need to be micromanaged. They'll especially gently caress up other cavalry. I don't know what you're doing trying to stand-off infantry with them, don't do that. You have the mobility to avoid infantry, so you may as well use it. On the other hand, I can never think of a good use for mounted infantry - Dragoons, because they're not very good cavalry and not very good infantry either. I've never been in a situation where I need a-third of a regular infantry unit immediately, because it really doesn't take long for you to march some light infantry somewhere and have them plug away. Edit: The difference between line infantry and light infantry is that lights will fire as a big group if they can, while line will only shoot from the front rank. Try playing Prussia to see what good lights can do, it's amazing. Portugal, btw has the best light infantry in the game, in exchange for sub-par line and dinky-winky baby cavalry. Slim Jim Pickens fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Gamers Gate is selling all the Total Wars cheap again today.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Gamers Gate is selling all the Total Wars cheap again today. Friendly advice, everyone should be picking up Fall of the Samurai! EDIT: And I had just enough Blue Coins to get Shogun 1. Just for the hell of it, really. Is Medieval 1 sold online anywhere? I need to complete my Total War collection. jivjov fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Feb 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
I've been trying to go back to Rome 1 (since I'm poor and can't buy Rome 2), but now I'm gonna try some mods. Is Europa Barbarum still the best mod for Rome 1 or are there any other interesting options?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
radlum posted:I've been trying to go back to Rome 1 (since I'm poor and can't buy Rome 2), but now I'm gonna try some mods. Is Europa Barbarum still the best mod for Rome 1 or are there any other interesting options? Matter of complete personal opinion, but I can't get over Rome total Realism Plat 1.9. There's some fundamental changes to the recruiting of units (Every settlement has one or more 'local' units that any nation in possession of that settlement can train/retrain, instead of different levels of cities having higher quality troops you can build all of your own side's troops in anything Large Town or larger with upkeep being the major limiting factor preventing you from creating doomstacks of elite units), and the units themselves are altered in a way that makes battles longer, flanking more important, and management of fatigue crucial. The troop training buildings are a bit ridiculous, which was a conscious decision to make supply lines more important and transiting troops from your home provinces overseas a consideration to be mindful of (You'd need to hold a settlement for about 16+ turns before building all of your nation's unique units), however you can just edit the time to construct them in the buildings stat text file if you want a faster-paced game where nations can develop their military capability more quickly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
Is there a mod for any version of Total War that removes the specific recruitment of units? By this I mean that instead of choosing to recruit 19 Praetorian Guard units and a general for your army, you instead click "Recruit" and get a motley collection of units based on the makeup of the settlement you recruit from? Elite units don't mean much when your entire stack is made up of elite units.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
I think that was originally what they were planning in Rome 2, ie recruiting "legions" rather than specific units, but at some point in development they changed their minds. Far as I know there's unfortunately no way to do this with modding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
I'd like to see something like tabletop Warhammer's Rare/Special/Core unit limitations where your army (or each stack in the case of TW) can only have a certain number of each unit. For TW you'd probably make it Elite/Veteran/Regular/Auxiliary or something. So you might have two or three Elite units allowed in addition to your General's unit, say five or six Veteran and divide the rest between Regular and Auxiliary. That way you'd have an actual use for the early troops after the first few turns and not have entire armies comprised of units that are supposedly the creme de la creme of your fighting force.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
When playing as Rome I just mandate the my armies follow proper manipular principles. There must be fewer principes than hastati and there must be fewer triarii than principes. Also I delay cohort organization for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:I'd like to see something like tabletop Warhammer's Rare/Special/Core unit limitations where your army (or each stack in the case of TW) can only have a certain number of each unit. For TW you'd probably make it Elite/Veteran/Regular/Auxiliary or something. So you might have two or three Elite units allowed in addition to your General's unit, say five or six Veteran and divide the rest between Regular and Auxiliary. That way you'd have an actual use for the early troops after the first few turns and not have entire armies comprised of units that are supposedly the creme de la creme of your fighting force. None of this is really needed though. Actual upkeep that matters combined with the effort and time required to reach troops of a certain level (building requirements) and time requirements to actually recruit serve to achieve this naturally in a manner that allows the player flexibility to deploy their forces where and how they want, where stack based limitations wouldn't. The system works, although I'm sure it could stand some minor tweaks (replenishment penalties based on distance from recruiting provinces?). The problem is not with the concept behind it all, but the actual numbers and the fact that with the notable exception of Shogun 2, balance in Total War games has always been a complete after thought despite having systems that relied upon a certain level of balance being achieved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 11:22
|
|
|
shalcar posted:None of this is really needed though. Actual upkeep that matters combined with the effort and time required to reach troops of a certain level (building requirements) and time requirements to actually recruit serve to achieve this naturally in a manner that allows the player flexibility to deploy their forces where and how they want, where stack based limitations wouldn't. The system works, although I'm sure it could stand some minor tweaks (replenishment penalties based on distance from recruiting provinces?). The problem is not with the concept behind it all, but the actual numbers and the fact that with the notable exception of Shogun 2, balance in Total War games has always been a complete after thought despite having systems that relied upon a certain level of balance being achieved. I disagree - even if it's difficult to get to buildings that allow you to build Praetorian Legions, you've still got the issue that once you reach that point you can make your entire military out of Praetorian Legions, and you in fact should because you can only have 20 units in an army so you want to make those units as elite as possible - after a point numbers become meaningless. The increased difficulty simply delays the point at which you do this. Perhaps elite unit limits would work best if they were applied across your entire military. So you'd be fine to have 100 "elite" units as long as you also had 200 "regular" units. I'm still more in favour of just being given a ragtag band of units based on your castles and cities and having to find uses for them all. Otherwise the optimal play is always going to be to find the most overpowered unit for any given role and spam it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 12:41
|
|
|
Gort posted:I disagree - even if it's difficult to get to buildings that allow you to build Praetorian Legions, you've still got the issue that once you reach that point you can make your entire military out of Praetorian Legions, and you in fact should because you can only have 20 units in an army so you want to make those units as elite as possible - after a point numbers become meaningless. The increased difficulty simply delays the point at which you do this. This is hugely Rome centric and doesn't actually address my point that upkeep should actually be balanced and that takes care of all elite armies or best unit spamming in an emergant and natural way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
shalcar posted:This is hugely Rome centric and doesn't actually address my point that upkeep should actually be balanced and that takes care of all elite armies or best unit spamming in an emergant and natural way. How would you go about balancing upkeep? Do you just mean, "Make elites more expensive"? You could apply my point to Napoleon just as easily by replacing Praetorian Legions with armies made entirely of Guard units, or to Medieval with armies made entirely of knights, or Shogun with armies made entirely of Samurai. Spamming elites is hardly a tactic unique to Rome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
Gort posted:How would you go about balancing upkeep? Do you just mean, "Make elites more expensive"? Well, the optimum spamming unit in Shogun 2 is ashigaru, not elites but for the sake of argument let's say you are correct. Note that they are the best to spam for the exact same reason that Knights etc are the best to spam. Firstly, I want to qualify my point that your solution is Rome centric by indicating that it only works if units are limited in some meaningful way (the limited stacks of Rome 2) as otherwise to build an army of elites just means you need a proportionately larger army of chaff. I didn't mean that you were referring to Praetorians. Secondly, I assume that the changes you wish to see in the game mean that armies are no longer best composed of a singular "optimum" unit and instead are comprised of a more pyramid shape of troops (chaff, regulars, elites in reducing quantities) with respect to empire wide forces. Thirdly, I should state that my aims are similar in nature, where each unit has a place in the game and a role to play, regardless of the stage as it is my belief that this will achieve a more natural unit composition without limiting the player's choices. I'm going to begin with why your solution does not, and indeed can not, give you the outcome you hope for. Your solution has two possible forms it can take. The first is that units are limited on a stack by stack basis (No more than 3 elite units in a stack, no more than 10 regulars etc) while the second form is that units are limited on an empire proportional basis (1 elite unit per 2 regular units owned per 4 chaff units). Rome 2 limited stacks is mix on both but works as an effective hard cap on regulars and elites. I'm going to digress slightly here; In Total War games, wealth drives two things, the creation of wealth and the expansion and maintaining of military power through which the victory objectives are achieved. In essence, the tradeoff of future power versus power now. Each unit has it's own cost incurred through upkeep, the facilities to produce it, the actual cost, the recruitment time, the construction time of facilities, the research time of the arts, the ability to replenish. You talk about the "optimum" or best unit, but really what you are talking about is the unit that has the lowest cost:combat performance. To illustrate my point, let us imagine that we have three unit types: swordsman, spearman and cavalryman. Swords beats Spears, Spears beats Cavalry and Cavalry beat Swords. If each unit costs the same, the best possible army we can have is 1/3rd of each (assuming we don't know what we will be fighting) which means that the "optimum" unit changes based on our existing army composition. If we know that we are going to fight a lot of swords, Cavalry will be our "optimum" unit, but that's just as likely to be taken advantage of. We can expand by saying that 2 units will beat 1 of their counter unit. If we change it slightly so that swordsmen cost half as much as the others, the best army is suddenly all swordsmen and the best unit to build will always be swordsmen. Despite the unit "stats" being identical, the "optimum" unit has completely changed. You might be wondering "What's your point here?" and the answer to that is simple, that if the game already has "optimum" units (as evidenced by the elite spamming you want to stop) then limiting recruitment in your proposed manner won't help because it simply changes from "Always recruit Praetorians" to "Always recruit Praetorians, unless I can't then recruit Legionnaires, unless I can't then recruit Auxilia". The armies will have exactly the same problem, which is a complete lack of variety. Your solution works only in the situation where the units are balanced with respect to their cost and power (such as in our first example of the three troop types at same cost) and that also happens to be the situation in which it is not required in the slightest because the system is self correcting. If you want to force limits on players, you need a compelling reason to do so that won't frustrate and annoy the player base, of which unit limits tend to be the number one complaint. After all, they have the money, they have the facilities, why can't they recruit another unit of knights? The problem with Total War is that the economic side has tended to be completely broken, which is what's causing the ludicrous elite stacks in the first place. The existing economic levers already exist in the game to resolve the problem, so my argument is that we should use those instead of bolting on yet another system to juggle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
I didn't actually want empire or stack limits on units, my preferred solution is "click "Recruit" and get a motley collection of units based on the makeup of the settlement you recruit from". So empire or stack limits on elite units are not really "my" solution. They're Wafflecopper's solution. But let's say I'm white-knighting for him. Regarding Rome-centricism because that's the game that limits the number of stacks you can create: Total War's always been slanted towards putting as much power as possible in a single stack/army, since in some games having a second stack reinforcing your battle often means that the reinforcements only come on one at a time once the battle has already been decided and get run over by a victorious mob. Other factors include night attacks which limit the battle to a single stack. So I dispute that trying to get the most powerful single stack is a Rome 2-only feature. quote:it simply changes from "Always recruit Praetorians" to "Always recruit Praetorians, unless I can't then recruit Legionnaires, unless I can't then recruit Auxilia". The armies will have exactly the same problem, which is a complete lack of variety. I see this move as a big improvement over always recruiting Praetorians. It means that your armies (or your nation's military, depending on whether we go with nation or stack limits) will not just be homogenous stacks of units. Where will you deploy the Auxilia, where will you deploy the Praetorians? Deciding where your elite units are going to go and where you're going to put the chaff is a big step up - tactically or strategically - from just putting the same unit everywhere. But again, my preferred solution is the Crusader Kings II solution, where you don't directly recruit units, but you can influence the types you get through your building choices. shalcar posted:Well, the optimum spamming unit in Shogun 2 is ashigaru, not elites but for the sake of argument let's say you are correct. Note that they are the best to spam for the exact same reason that Knights etc are the best to spam. This comment interests me - how are ashigaru the optimum spamming unit? Don't their poor morale and other stats cause trouble? And how is spamming them similar to spamming knights, which are an elite unit? Katana samurai always seemed the obvious spamming unit for Shogun 2 given that they're pretty easy to acquire, have solid stats, and are the counter to the most common enemy unit type - infantry - while their counter is comparatively rare. Gort fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Mar 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Gort posted:I didn't actually want empire or stack limits on units, my preferred solution is "click "Recruit" and get a motley collection of units based on the makeup of the settlement you recruit from". I apologize, I had thought from your earlier comments that you really wanted your Fire Emblem style of units doled out but that you knew it wasn't ever going to happen and so were arguing in favour of the unit limits. Gort posted:Regarding Rome-centricism because that's the game that limits the number of stacks you can create: Total War's always been slanted towards putting as much power as possible in a single stack/army, since in some games having a second stack reinforcing your battle often means that the reinforcements only come on one at a time once the battle has already been decided and get run over by a victorious mob. Other factors include night attacks which limit the battle to a single stack. So I dispute that trying to get the most powerful single stack is a Rome 2-only feature. This is blatantly untrue. Total War is slanted towards having as many armies that will win their fights as possible. Yes, a single army of pure elites will always win their fights, but 3 armies of regulars/elite mix will win the game/war faster. The issue is that elites don't have a cost proportional to their power, so armies naturally trend towards being full elite stacks since the opportunity cost is often the same (and that's the actual problem). Gort posted:I see this move as a big improvement over always recruiting Praetorians. It means that your armies (or your nation's military, depending on whether we go with nation or stack limits) will not just be homogenous stacks of units. Where will you deploy the Auxilia, where will you deploy the Praetorians? Deciding where your elite units are going to go and where you're going to put the chaff is a big step up - tactically or strategically - from just putting the same unit everywhere. Since no-one is arguing for keeping the status quo I'm not sure I see the disagreement here? It's better, but it's hardly good. Gort posted:How are ashigaru the optimum spamming unit? Don't their poor morale and other stats cause trouble? And how is spamming them similar to spamming knights, which are an elite unit? Cost, quickly, easily replaced and recruit anywhere. In Shogun 2 you can expand faster than your logistics chain can keep up quite easily, but you can never outpace the ashigaru logistics train. Not to mention you get 2 units of ashi for every samurai you can recruit and every province can make them immediately with no spool up time. The fastest wins and most convincing dominations are always on the back of ashigaru swarm, winning long before a katana stack could realistically be put together, the money invested would be better put into more ashi. It's going to lose to a stack of samurai but you will have far more ashi, can always use a fortification and even if they get bogged down you have more stacks making progress. You gain more provinces, quicker, with ashi than you ever will with Sam. It's even further tilted towards the ashi with the fact that experience awards flat bonuses to units, meaning each level is proportionately more power for cheaper units and the cheaper units also gain ranks more quickly. e: I didn't answer how it was similar to spamming knights. The reason you spam them are the same reason you spam elite units in other Total War games, that they provide the best combat performance for their cost (opportunity and actual) relative to what you can afford (you can afford anything in earlier Total Wars, so it's just the best unit stats you care about). It's not entirely surprising since they worked hard on moving away from elites being the be all and end all in Shogun 2 and they achieved exactly that, but went a bit too far the other way. shalcar fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Mar 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Gort posted:This comment interests me - how are ashigaru the optimum spamming unit? Don't their poor morale and other stats cause trouble? And how is spamming them similar to spamming knights, which are an elite unit? With the Ashigaru Commander general skill they punch way above their weight class and are just about half price samurai. With how cheap they are and one turn recruitment from every province, you can keep them coming forever. e:f;b.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
shalcar posted:I apologize, I had thought from your earlier comments that you really wanted your Fire Emblem style of units doled out but that you knew it wasn't ever going to happen and so were arguing in favour of the unit limits. I've never played Fire Emblem, so let's not bring it up. Crusader Kings 2 has the system I have in mind. quote:Since no-one is arguing for keeping the status quo I'm not sure I see the disagreement here? It's better, but it's hardly good. I agree. But let's not let perfect be the enemy of good. quote:Cost, quickly, easily replaced and recruit anywhere. In Shogun 2 you can expand faster than your logistics chain can keep up quite easily, but you can never outpace the ashigaru logistics train. Not to mention you get 2 units of ashi for every samurai you can recruit and every province can make them immediately with no spool up time. The fastest wins and most convincing dominations are always on the back of ashigaru swarm, winning long before a katana stack could realistically be put together, the money invested would be better put into more ashi. It's going to lose to a stack of samurai but you will have far more ashi, can always use a fortification and even if they get bogged down you have more stacks making progress. You gain more provinces, quicker, with ashi than you ever will with Sam. It's even further tilted towards the ashi with the fact that experience awards flat bonuses to units, meaning each level is proportionately more power for cheaper units and the cheaper units also gain ranks more quickly. Fair enough. I can't say I've done much research on the fastest ways to win a TW game, I usually just play them as the vanity project of building an army that can defeat anything it meets rather than actually trying to win the campaign (since I usually get bored before I get near the victory conditions). Gort fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Mar 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
So guys, somebody is making a Total Conversion (or the closest they can come to with ETW modding) 17th Century Era Mod and This Trailer Makes It Look Amazing.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Gort posted:I've never played Fire Emblem, so let's not bring it up. Crusader Kings 2 has the system I have in mind. Since you have not played, you pick from a list of units which are predefined and have to make your strategy work with the tools you have in differing, persistent encounters. I'm pretty amused that you get to tell me not to bring something up that you have never played and then in the same sentence go on to use a game as your argument, despite having no knowledge of if I have ever played. While I have played it, it's generally not good form to do what you just pulled someone up on doing in the next sentence. Gort posted:I agree. But let's not let perfect be the enemy of good. I'm arguing it's not a good system as evidenced by Shalcar posted:It's better, but it's hardly good. Gort posted:Fair enough. I can't say I've done much research on the fastest ways to win a TW game, I usually just play them as the vanity project of building an army that can defeat anything it meets rather than actually trying to win the campaign (since I usually get bored before I get near the victory conditions). This might be where some of your problems are coming from, since your preferred play-style appears to be to create the exact problems you are upset about. Have you tried a handicap run of only making non elite units or something similar? It's not like the AI is going to beat you with a horde of min/maxed elites. e: SeanBeansShako posted:So guys, somebody is making a Total Conversion (or the closest they can come to with ETW modding) 17th Century Era Mod and This Trailer Makes It Look Amazing. Hey, this looks pretty cool. Cheers SBS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
shalcar posted:Since you have not played, you pick from a list of units which are predefined and have to make your strategy work with the tools you have in differing, persistent encounters. I'm pretty amused that you get to tell me not to bring something up that you have never played and then in the same sentence go on to use a game as your argument, despite having no knowledge of if I have ever played. While I have played it, it's generally not good form to do what you just pulled someone up on doing in the next sentence. Sorry if it put you out. I don't see it as the same thing, though - I wasn't saying, "Don't talk about games I haven't played", I was saying, "Don't say the system I'm suggesting is from a game I haven't played rather than the one I actually mentioned, as I have no knowledge if the two games have the same system". I just didn't want you to then pull something from the Fire Emblem system in your next argument. quote:I'm arguing it's not a good system as evidenced by You did say it was a BETTER system, though. Perhaps I should have said "Let's not let perfect be the enemy of improvement". I didn't because that's not the quote. quote:This might be where some of your problems are coming from, since your preferred play-style appears to be to create the exact problems you are upset about. Have you tried a handicap run of only making non elite units or something similar? It's not like the AI is going to beat you with a horde of min/maxed elites. Eh. I prefer to win games than handicap myself, and the best strategy I was aware of was elite spam. Now I've heard that ashigaru spam is a better strategy in Shogun 2, that doesn't sound much more appealing. I would prefer a game where I could play optimally while not spamming unit types, which brings us back to the beginning again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
On the Shogun 2 chat, spamming Ashigaru is indeed a brilliant tactic and will work if you spec a commander to take advantage of ashigaru commander. I had an army made up of a general with the stand and fight ability and full infantry skills. It could hold off samurai quite handily, as a wall of spears with archers behind them fights very well at this point. If you really want to splurge, you can put a single unit of katana samurai on a flank to cut up the line. They'll get a ridiculous amount of kills.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Hrm, on the topic of Shogun 2/Fall: I haven't played any previous titles and pre-apologies for my noobitude but I'm playing the singleplayer campaign and currently using the dirtydick tactic of throwing neighbouring allied provinces into revolt using Shinsengumi and then, once rebels occupy the province, invading. At the moment it's useful to avoid going to war when I don't want to since if I throw a province (that isn't their last one) into revolt, the rebels tends to immediately assault and capture it, whereupon I can take the ground without declaring war on the previous owner. I'm finding though, that when an AI is down to its last province, the rebels are never able to take it. They'll wander up to several turns away to sabotage a building and if they ever do attack the last town, they lose, even if they show up with a full stack of infantry to attack a town with 2 infantry plus a couple generals. Any idea what gives? Is it just set up in the SP campaign that AI clans can't be eliminated by rebels?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
Stacks with a Daimyo in them seem to do incredibly well against rebels, presumably to prevent the faction being eliminated via rebellion. The rebels will still do solid damage to them, so your army can take them without any real opposition. After all, if they are down to one province, it's going to be quite the short war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 13:10
|
|
|
Are there any 'must-have' light mods for Medieval 2? I'm really looking for light balance, maybe some AI improvements, that sort of thing. I don't really want hundreds of new provinces and megamod total rebuilds or whatever. Total War games are slow enough for me anyway. Which is one reason I thought I'd try Medieval. The load times are agonizing for Shogun on my computer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
So I went back to play Ikko Ikki in Shogun 2 for a third time, since I lost my save game for my second attempt. Tried to play slow, got attacked by everyone, ran out of time. Fourth attempt has been throwing diplomacy straight out the window alongside any sort of clever attempt to do things like rush guns and just had me spam the poo poo out of loan swords. Holy poo poo I knew loan swords were good but when you get enough bonuses thrown on them they punch ridiculously above their weight. Had a fight where they took on katana and nodachi samurai in a straight fight and won. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
People underestimate ashigaru in general, they're absolutely able to keep fighting all the way into the endgame, especially if you give them upgrades and veterancy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
Koramei posted:People underestimate ashigaru in general, they're absolutely able to keep fighting all the way into the endgame, especially if you give them upgrades and veterancy. To the chagrin of Nobunaga's enemies and blue-blood samurai too, I bet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 06:59
|
|