|
Decus posted:I think that's the endgame for most Rome 2 games without a short game victory conditions mod. People either use their massive gold to bribe their way to victory via buying alliances themselves or give up since while your endgame armies probably could conquer the required territory, it probably wouldn't be much fun due to how veteran your troops are at that point. THat is one of the problems I have with this game... I'm the kind of guy who doesn't like mods all that much. The way I see it, when a game comes out, it should be good enough that people do not have to make mods. I feel like mods are the way gaming companies find to get you to work for them for free. "Here's this unfinished/unbalanced game. Please fix it for us so that we can make more profit from it without having to pay our own people for the work." Mods that add to the game are fun. Mods that fix the game should not exist.
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
So I'm a bit behind on Total War news...is Attila a standalone expansion like FOTS (with the associated lower price point?) or an entirely new title?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
jivjov posted:So I'm a bit behind on Total War news...is Attila a standalone expansion like FOTS (with the associated lower price point?) or an entirely new title? Atilla is completely standalone, but they have not released pricing yet. Everyone is expecting it to be priced like a Napoleon/FotS, but we have not received any information one way or the other. They seem to be doing a bit to distance it from Rome 2, but whether that is for the fact they consider it a sequel or if they want to avoid the bad press around Rome 2 only CA knows. Incidentally, some people in the Rome 2 thread seem to be concerned about thread cross pollination (God knows why), but I would like to reiterate that this thread is for the discussion of ALL the Total War games from Shogun 1 through to Atilla and that while there is a Rome 2 thread, there is no reason to not post your Rome 2/Atilla questions or stories in here if you want to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
Dalael posted:THat is one of the problems I have with this game... I'm the kind of guy who doesn't like mods all that much. The way I see it, when a game comes out, it should be good enough that people do not have to make mods. I feel like mods are the way gaming companies find to get you to work for them for free. Not really, tons of mods are massive overhauls or alternatives to the game design that are extremely interesting but that you really shouldn't expect to be made by the devs. You can't really attack CA for not making total wars based on LOTR, Warhammer, Zelda, Iliad or some twenty regional historical conflicts and timeframes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Dalael posted:THat is one of the problems I have with this game... I'm the kind of guy who doesn't like mods all that much. The way I see it, when a game comes out, it should be good enough that people do not have to make mods. I feel like mods are the way gaming companies find to get you to work for them for free. I know that the original release of Rome 2 is a mess, but I've been playing Empire Edition without any mods and it's still a great game. And in spite of that lovely original release, I don't think CA in general has a tendency to rely on modders with this series, most of the games were great right out of the box, really only Rome 2 and arguably Empire were so bad on release that mods were necessary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Mans posted:Not really, tons of mods are massive overhauls or alternatives to the game design that are extremely interesting but that you really shouldn't expect to be made by the devs. Those are mods that add to the game. I'm ok with those even though I usually don't use them. But some mods pretty much just fix games without adding much stuff. quote:
As for how bad Rome 2 was on release, I wouldn't know. I bought it a while after it came out. Decided to wait it out and I am glad that I did, after all the stuff I read about how broken it was. When it comes to Empire, I didn't like it very much. I thought the campain was waaay too short. I've also never been a fan of the way people fought back in those days. Lines of guys shooting at each other until a rank break... not for me. Shogun 1 and 2, Medieval 1 and 2, Rome 1 and 2... Those were the great total wars in my book.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
Oh no I meant the Empire Edition of Rome 2 its just a more patched up version of the game with some extras.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:Oh no I meant the Empire Edition of Rome 2 its just a more patched up version of the game with some extras. *Emperor Edition.  The unpatched original release of Rome 2 was effectively the Empire edition  edit: I think like 2 weeks after release the Rome 2 thread was subtitled "Empire Strikes Back" canyoneer fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Oct 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
 I like Gatling Guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Roobanguy posted:
Republican Marines and Engineers? What mod are those from?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
How do you effectively use gatling guns, anyway? Their range is so short that I barely get a few shots off before they get shot to pieces or mauled by cavalry or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
I forget, but I remember direct control is possible and changes range drastically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
Bloodly posted:I forget, but I remember direct control is possible and changes range drastically. This, and I play some sad orchestral music in the background while I gun down outmatched samurai. TBH, a cannon unit will do a lot more than a gatling gun, but it's not a bad unit to have one of in an army just for fooling around with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 10:35
|
|
|
Shasta Orange Soda posted:How do you effectively use gatling guns, anyway? Their range is so short that I barely get a few shots off before they get shot to pieces or mauled by cavalry or whatever. Yell "Bring up the new guns" in Japanese and the game will understand what you're trying to accomplish.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
Magni posted:Republican Marines and Engineers? What mod are those from? It's called FOTS Unit Pack by evil spleen. There's some filler units but for the most part I like it. It also adds some more traditional units so you have more stuff to mess around with if you decide not to use modern ones. Shasta Orange Soda posted:How do you effectively use gatling guns, anyway? Their range is so short that I barely get a few shots off before they get shot to pieces or mauled by cavalry or whatever. They work best on defense or if you have artillery. Set them up in areas where they can see infront of them while the enemy advances and they kill alot of dudes. They should be able to completely gently caress calvary if you have them target them immediatly as they get into range.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
Shasta Orange Soda posted:How do you effectively use gatling guns, anyway? Their range is so short that I barely get a few shots off before they get shot to pieces or mauled by cavalry or whatever. How are you using them? If you treat them like infantry more than artillery the 250 range they have is amazing, it's twice what any non-skirmisher gunpowder unit gets, you should be shredding enemy infantry before they even manage to get a shot off. Just make sure to keep them supported to ward off cavalry (although if the cavalry charge them head on they should die too, they're incredibly vulnerable to modern weapons). In fact it's the super range they get that's the reason I like them so much, I never really use them in defence 'cause except in a handful of castles there isn't really enough open ground for them to actually capitalize on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Koramei posted:How are you using them? If you treat them like infantry more than artillery the 250 range they have is amazing, it's twice what any non-skirmisher gunpowder unit gets, you should be shredding enemy infantry before they even manage to get a shot off. Just make sure to keep them supported to ward off cavalry (although if the cavalry charge them head on they should die too, they're incredibly vulnerable to modern weapons). The problem I had with this when I tried them was that Armstrongs get way more than 250 range and annihilate anything anyway. I tried swapping out some of my Armstrongs for gatling guns and the overall effect seemed worse. I tried in several battles and they were slower at killing the inf and my units took more casualties. The gap between the 250 range when Gatlings start firing and the range when the infantry can fire back didn't seem long enough for them to do work. And since the Armstrongs let you murder infantry all day when they can't fire back, that seemed like more of a mismatch. I also found positioning the gatlings so they can do sustained damage and support my infantry without hitting them to be a problem. That was my experience with Armstrong guns vs Gatlings. Also Armstrongs are way earlier on the tech tree, and can ruin castles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
You're comparing apples and oranges. Armstrongs are a long range siege weapon, whereas Gatlings are basically an infantry unit on steroids. Yes Armstrongs are incredible and can mulch a lot of units from afar, they're not very useful at close range because they can end up hitting your own line. Gatlings exist to sit in your infantry line and shred anything that is stupid enough to walk into it's cone of fire. They synergize quite well together, so I'm not sure why you're hung up on taking one vs the other.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Sydin posted:You're comparing apples and oranges. Armstrongs are a long range siege weapon, whereas Gatlings are basically an infantry unit on steroids. Yes Armstrongs are incredible and can mulch a lot of units from afar, they're not very useful at close range because they can end up hitting your own line. Gatlings exist to sit in your infantry line and shred anything that is stupid enough to walk into it's cone of fire. They synergize quite well together, so I'm not sure why you're hung up on taking one vs the other. Yep, the way I always set my endgame line up was Infantry-Officer-Gatling-Officer-Gatling-Officer-Infantry. Most of the time AI will try to attack your center part and will get shredded by your gatling guns and officers. If you also have suppressing fire you will basically never lose more than 100 units by the end like that. In fact, my last few battles there has been more friendly fire kills on my side than actual enemy kills, mainly because my armstrongs will get a little over zealous when enemies close in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Sydin posted:You're comparing apples and oranges. Armstrongs are a long range siege weapon, whereas Gatlings are basically an infantry unit on steroids. Yes Armstrongs are incredible and can mulch a lot of units from afar, they're not very useful at close range because they can end up hitting your own line. Gatlings exist to sit in your infantry line and shred anything that is stupid enough to walk into it's cone of fire. They synergize quite well together, so I'm not sure why you're hung up on taking one vs the other. You have a limited number of slots in your army. If you dedicate 4 slots to cannons, there's different combinations you can come up with, and I tried to figure out which combo worked for me. I don't see how that involves getting hung up on one vs the other. If you have cannon superiority the AI will generally charge to attack you, so I focus on dealing damage in the gap between when they start running in and when they make contact with my lines. Armstrong did more damage from Start of Battle -> troops make contact, and left the enemy units in such shape that my troops could mop them up. I was able to snipe important units with the range / accuracy. I didn't see as much upside to the Gatlings, since they had a lot less time to kill troops, and need direct lines of fire like infantry. I found that with Gatlings in the mix I was working very hard to get them to be a factor in the battle, whereas with the Armstrongs it always happened. So I personally felt like Armstrongs were my go to cannon for much of the campaign (you can beeline them pretty easily) and the Gatlings struck me as a bit of a lategame gimmick weapon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
You completely ignored the gist of his post dude; you don't substitute the gatlings in place of cannons, you substitute them in place of men. In fact gatling guns allow you to bring more cannons, since you need less infantry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:You have a limited number of slots in your army. If you dedicate 4 slots to cannons, there's different combinations you can come up with, and I tried to figure out which combo worked for me. I don't see how that involves getting hung up on one vs the other. Replace Infantry with gatling guns. Don't replace cannons with gatling guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Kinda wished the FOTS artillery mod bumped the Parrott/Armstrong research tiers down one, seeing as they literally smoke the poo poo out of the competition when they arrive, as there isn't really much point in ever buying shittier older cannons again except the horse-drawn ones, and by then you probably have started railroads. What I'm saying is Parrott/Armstrong guns are loving godly and I love this game. Also yes, don't replace cannons with Gatlings, I've made that mistake before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
for reference here's how I'd usually set them up: and my best armies ended up looking like this in my last game: but that was with big navies supporting them; if they were more inland I might have substituted the sharpshooters for more artillery or some cavalry. Although in reality I don't think I tended to bother.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Sober posted:What I'm saying is Parrott/Armstrong guns are loving godly and I love this game. Also yes, don't replace cannons with Gatlings, I've made that mistake before. Yeah this is more or less what I was trying to say. I guess the Gatlings work well as an infantry supplement and I sure didn't try using them that way. There just didn't seem to be much point since I felt Armstrong guns really screw up fights when they arrive, and you can get them relatively early in the campaign.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Well yeah, there isn't really much point to bringing an army of anything but your general + 19 armstrong guns, but it gets a bit boring.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Koramei posted:for reference here's how I'd usually set them up:
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Sober posted:Wait what, the FV exp gains STACK? Pretty much every agent thing stacks, though usually with heavy diminishing returns. The 2nd might give half of the first and the 3rd half of even that, for instance. They still get the same agent exp gains though, unlike generals, so if you only have one main offensive stack it doesn't hurt anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Sober posted:Wait what, the FV exp gains STACK? Yes. The buffs FV's can give to armies like accuracy/reload bonuses, etc stack too.  Rakthar posted:Yeah this is more or less what I was trying to say. I guess the Gatlings work well as an infantry supplement and I sure didn't try using them that way. There just didn't seem to be much point since I felt Armstrong guns really screw up fights when they arrive, and you can get them relatively early in the campaign. Well yeah, you can break the game over your knee if you want to. It's the same thing with R2. Yes - from a meta perspective the best army you can take is your general + 19 praetorians. That's loving boring though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Koramei posted:for reference here's how I'd usually set them up: Thats actually pretty similar to my endgame army. 1 less infantry and marksman so I can have some spear levy just incase a some cavalry flanks me when I'm not paying attention.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Roobanguy posted:Thats actually pretty similar to my endgame army. 1 less infantry and marksman so I can have some spear levy just incase a some cavalry flanks me when I'm not paying attention. Kachi are far better, since they're actually serviceable fighters if you find yourself needing a melee unit in a hurry. They've got better melee than any non-elite ranged infantry in the game, and their speed ability lets you move them around your lines faster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
The funnest of part of FotS for me is creating a Russian civil war simulation where I build a bunch of super fortresses in central Japan and conquer all the railways before I declare war on every faction and build and send off of a 20 unit stack of Imperial/Shogunate infantry every turn at them. That, and posting single units around the AI factions and "reinforcing" their battle to see the AI collapse on itself. It ends up looking like NTW, because the AI doesn't know how to fight itself and they'll march riflemen up to point plank and send them charging in with bayonets. Edit: I think I've posted about this before, but whatever, I don't know what else you would want from a modern TW game besides the ability to pretend you're Douglas Haig. Slim Jim Pickens fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Oct 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Murderion posted:Kachi are far better, since they're actually serviceable fighters if you find yourself needing a melee unit in a hurry. They've got better melee than any non-elite ranged infantry in the game, and their speed ability lets you move them around your lines faster. Alternatively: revolver cavalry. They're fast enough to always be where the enemy cavalry is coming from, and they'll shatter pretty much anything in 1-2 volleys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Alternatively: revolver cavalry. They're fast enough to always be where the enemy cavalry is coming from, and they'll shatter pretty much anything in 1-2 volleys. Not to mention they use their revolvers in melee, so even if they get caught in melee they still mulch everything 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
Personally, I just use some Yari Ki in most armies and consider them kind of a one-shot weapon to be fired at something I really need to go away right now. If they actually survive their glorious death charge, it's a bonus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Anybody have issues with Rome 1 running really poorly on modern computers? I've got it and Medieval II set up on my laptop and Medieval II runs perfectly smoothly even at high settings but no matter how I tweak the settings for Rome it runs really bad on the campaign map while running pretty well in battle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Gobblecoque posted:Anybody have issues with Rome 1 running really poorly on modern computers? I've got it and Medieval II set up on my laptop and Medieval II runs perfectly smoothly even at high settings but no matter how I tweak the settings for Rome it runs really bad on the campaign map while running pretty well in battle. It runs badly for me as well. I think it has something to do with engine limitations. It's kind of funny how someone can run Shogun 2/Rome 2 at 60fps on High but have 15 fps when they hover over some trees on the campaign map in Rome 1.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
It's usually to do with very old versions of direct x using graphical calls which are no longer supported and instead they are cpu rendered to ensure backwards compatability. Generally speaking its old shader effects that are worst impacted. It's common to basically all games of that era.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
So, Medieval 2 and frustration. Half-a-dozen various agents on mostly exploratory missions; I think 9 settlements to check for order, population growth, and religion; 4 nations + rebels at war with me for no clear reasons, alternating between blockading my ports and sieging their favorite of my settlements; ill-defined sprawling borders, randomly spawning rebel armies, having to sufficiently man the vulnerable settlements, but at the same time to make sure the upkeep doesn't eat all my income; ridiculous papal missions, and now a crusade, which I find deplorable as a concept, but I also don't have and don't want to have a beef with the target nation, or to strand one of my commanders 10 regular turns away. First time campaign, on easy difficulty. Each time I launch the game, it's with a mixture of dread and the feeling of "it's a game for smart people". Am I getting some simple point wrong, or do I have a wrong mindset for this genre? Or maybe I should grit my teeth and it'll get better later on?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
Medieval 2 is probably the high watermark in the series for complexity with none of the quality-of-life stuff to make it easier for the player. Starting with Empire things got easier in that regard, mechanically (like not needing to use diplomat agents to conduct diplomacy).
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 14:13
|
|
