|
Darth's Gettysburg game looks really good and I'm going to buy it so thanks Apple for bringing that back to my attention I guess. The gameplay video on Steam really sells it; its an AARP of an engagement that does a lot to spell out what the capabilities of the AI are. It definitely is a spiritual successor to Gettysburg, and it looks like it does the slow burn sort of battle a lot better than trying to modify TW games did.
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:Darth's Gettysburg game looks really good and I'm going to buy it so thanks Apple for bringing that back to my attention I guess. 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).
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 12:48
|
|
|
Also does anyone have advice on how to get into Shogun 2 multi? It looks like there's still a handful of people playing it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
i honestly can't remember the last time someone from any mod scene actually went and made a good game. I guess Lusted kinda counts since he went on to work with CA but i can't thinking of anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Plenty if you go back a decade
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
In Shogun 2 I counquered a Nanban trading port province. If I want to convert will I get another offer to build a port later? I already turned down one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Voyager I posted: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. The thing I like the most about it is its campaign battle structure. I kinda wish Total War would let you do something similar as a parade of battles sidemode where you are making decisions about how your army evolves over time but aren't going into the more tedious aspects of empire management.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Pike and Shot is also a very good military battle game if anyone is looking for recommendations. It's turn based and a bit spergy though, so make sure you're cool with that before buying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Voyager I posted: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. Rome 2 had those at release and everyone howled for their removal
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Yeah that's something that bugs me in a lot of TW games - terrain features can be a huge advantage but there's basically no way to actually force an engagement on favourable terrain because there's no reason to go over there. If you've got time limits on then the attacker will have to engage EVENTUALLY, but it would be more interesting if claiming certain areas gave enough advantage to be worth fighting over them. Shogun 2 multiplayer had that but for some reason they never included it in any of the single player maps (despite including it in the siege tutorial for some reason). I guess maybe the concern is that it would be difficult to get the AI to be smart enough to make good use of map objectives - if it values them too heavily it divides its forces up between all of them and you can easily overwhelm it with your full army despite the buffs it gets, and if it doesn't value them enough then all the player needs is a token force to take all of them. Threading the needle of when knowing when to capture a point and when to cede it to the enemy to conserve your resources is a problem a lot of humans have trouble with, so getting the AI to do it right would be even more difficult.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
I think there's a difference with what gettysburg is trying to simulate, which is mass industrialized warfare across a wide swath of countryside and the much smaller scale of ancient/medieval battle comparatively. I wish they still at least tried like they had in Shogun 2 though, rome 2 meant that a lot of the times in multiplayer battles if the opponent knew you had cavalry superiority they would make a box of their heavy infantry protecting one tiny corner of the map and dare you to charge them. In shogun 2 you could grab the ammo and morale objectives of the map for their bonuses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Sharkopath posted:I think there's a difference with what gettysburg is trying to simulate, which is mass industrialized warfare across a wide swath of countryside and the much smaller scale of ancient/medieval battle comparatively. I wish they still at least tried like they had in Shogun 2 though, rome 2 meant that a lot of the times in multiplayer battles if the opponent knew you had cavalry superiority they would make a box of their heavy infantry protecting one tiny corner of the map and dare you to charge them. In shogun 2 you could grab the ammo and morale objectives of the map for their bonuses. Well, I think in UGG they don't have the burden of being a thing where we need to have one army come out the obvious victor when two armies meet on a bigger map. I mean, once you have the need to have the outcome feed into the strat map, you come under a lot of limitations. Points in the middle of the map don't make sense in that context. In UGG, the battle is the context, so whatever's there makes more sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Well, I think in UGG they don't have the burden of being a thing where we need to have one army come out the obvious victor when two armies meet on a bigger map. 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. You could easily have field battles that end in stalemates because the time limit expired result in both armies essentially standing next to each other on the strategic map, and have it function kind of like a town siege, where neither army can move until either the battle is actually decisively engaged or one side withdraws. Damage dealt in indecisive battles could still be meaningful if you have armies engaged in stalemates be unable to replenish, and seasonal attrition would also kick in so you couldn't just sit there forever. Hell, maybe make battle map objectives retain their owners after a stalemate, so if you can capture and hold a point until the time limit expires, you get to start with the bonus (and the point itself as a deployment area) in the next battle, giving even them even more strategic weight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Voyager I posted: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 Yeah, I mean constant stalemates is obviously boring, but I think that's why having strategic map objectives would make it worthwhile. By giving both sides something to fight over rather than making just wiping out the other army your only objective, you give both sides an incentive to give up their hill to gain whatever advantage is granted by the capturable points - basically forcing both sides into each other. At the same time, if you REALLY don't want to give up your hill, having stalemates means you don't actually have to, but you're allowing the enemy to control the battlefield and putting yourself at a big disadvantage in your next engagement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Speaking of stalemates, I reallllly wish tw would acknowledge that a draw can be a strategic victory rather than always treating it as a loss for the attacker. I liked sending my siege navy into heavily defended enemy cities in RTW2, but it always sucked when 'attacking', killing several thousand enemy troops and not losing any of mine then meant waiting out the battle timer and my navy retreating from the city with the blockade broken. This tactic currently isn't really effective at all, unless I attack with an army the same turn. It's quite frustrating really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
I haven't played UGG myself but I watched quite a bit of footage of it. I would imagine if said always-hypothetical real-time-4X'ish or Paradox/TW mashup existed, probably UGG is a better model to simulate armies meeting on a battlefield. You'd still be able to somewhat maneuver army elements, just nothing as precise as how many ranks/files, etc. Imagine sort of a Sins-style zoom in/out thing where you can manage your empire and poo poo but zoom all the way down and you get the terrain and full breakdown of army elements to control in a similar style.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Is anyone else playing the Belisarius Last Roman DLC for Attilla? I'm having a great time with the loyalist path, which works as an awesome dark ages Stannis simulator. Basically you have to keep moving forward and conquering as a horde, but you make no money out of conquest. So you're always one turn away from bankruptcy and your reinforcements are on the verge of open revolt and the Emperor just told you to march halfway across the map for the next conquest and your troops are now deserting right at the enemy's city wall because you've been force marching them for three turns without a break but if you can just hold out one...more...turn then you can build ladders to storm the city and rest your troops. Meanwhile you are building this hardened core of veterans. The strategic layer is bastard hard and I love it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
If I'm not gonna go Christian is there a real point to stuff that boost damiyo honor?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:If I'm not gonna go Christian is there a real point to stuff that boost damiyo honor? Your Damiyo's honor is, iirc, also a significant diplomacy modifier as well as...I think a morale boost for the army he's leading? And I'm pretty sure it's a modifier for the loyalty of generals, which can be pretty important if you've done something foolish like loving up all of your family loyalties by adopting generals, or just wound up with a non-family/non-heir general who's a complete badass. Basically you should pay attention to it, but if none of the above particularly applies you shouldn't pursue it to the exclusion of anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
LonsomeSon posted:Your Damiyo's honor is, iirc, also a significant diplomacy modifier as well as...I think a morale boost for the army he's leading? And I'm pretty sure it's a modifier for the loyalty of generals, which can be pretty important if you've done something foolish like loving up all of your family loyalties by adopting generals, or just wound up with a non-family/non-heir general who's a complete badass. It also gives a public order bonus, so you don't have to put as many troops to garrison provinces. Thus you have more troops to take with your armies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
I may be in a three-front war with Realm Divide fast approaching and only 15 years or so left but the Oda are still really fun to play.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
Picked up the game again, I keep getting random CTD's during the FoTS for absolutely no reason. Anyone else been having those issues? It used to be maybe 1 or 2 CTD's a day now its like every 10 minutes to an hour. The crashes happen either during combat or in the main map and first person mode.
TwatHammer fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Jul 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
re installed Medieval 2 and i think somethings' wrong with my Crusades campaign
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Mans posted:re installed Medieval 2 and i think somethings' wrong with my Crusades campaign Looks more like something is right 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
I don't see nothing wrong with that picture 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Mans posted:re installed Medieval 2 and i think somethings' wrong with my Crusades campaign Working as intended.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Well, they are green...
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 11:30
|
|
|
Just started playing Fall of the Samurai. It's the first Total War game I've played since Empire and I'm enjoying it so far.I haven't played the original Shogun 2 but I hear it's a lot better, is there any truth to that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Where did you hear that? It depends on what you're looking for but if anything I'd say FotS is better. More refined more dynamic and more diverse. Shogun 2 has a lot to offer too though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Just started playing Fall of the Samurai. It's the first Total War game I've played since Empire and I'm enjoying it so far.I haven't played the original Shogun 2 but I hear it's a lot better, is there any truth to that? FotS is a great side-release. It's not as well balanced as Shogun 2, and the AI doesn't really deal with 19th century firepower properly. It's hella fun, but Shogun 2 is a more cohesive game. Slim Jim Pickens fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:FotS is a great side-release. It's not as well balanced as Shogun 2, and the AI doesn't really deal with 19th century firepower properly. It's hella fun, but Shogun 2 is a more cohesive game. It's really great. Also, am I wrong to feel like playing Sendai for a legendary run was cheating? It just seemed so... easy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:FotS is a great side-release. It's not as well balanced as Shogun 2, and the AI doesn't really deal with 19th century firepower properly. It's hella fun, but Shogun 2 is a more cohesive game. ARMSTRONG GUNS AT THE READY!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Arbite posted:It's really great. Also, am I wrong to feel like playing Sendai for a legendary run was cheating? It just seemed so... easy. once you figure out that the ideal army composition is just to always add more cannons, and that that will beat literally anything the AI can make, FotS kind of loses its challenge. but if you try to set some limits for yourself it can be extremely dynamic. not that just piling on the cannons is at all boring either, mind
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Add the artillery mod that gives you Napoleonic-era artillery early on in the tech tree and then you will learn just exactly why explosive shells were such a huge loving deal vs lobbing big cast iron balls at one another as you progress over the course of your campaign. It's stupid how stark the differences are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Just started playing Fall of the Samurai. It's the first Total War game I've played since Empire and I'm enjoying it so far.I haven't played the original Shogun 2 but I hear it's a lot better, is there any truth to that? FotS is total war with the brakes off - it's a mad race to get the most money for the biggest, baddest toys you can get your hands on. While in Shogun you have to balance food against development, in FotS the only things holding you back are money and people getting prissy when you demolish a tea house to build a sweatshop. It's utter apocalyptic hellfire that pushes the engine to its limits and makes a downright mockery of a lot of the battle mechanics. The agent and general skill trees are streamlined and a lot better than vanilla S2. Shogun 2 is a more balanced experience overall, forcing you to make choices at every single stage of the strategic map. Tactically, every single unit is useful until the end of the game (apart from firebomb throwers, gently caress those guys) - it's entirely possible to take a unit of Ashigaru from the first slapfight in your home province to the gates of Kyoto. You'll need to, too. The economy has been tweaked to the point where it'll take a long, long time before you'll be able to field Samurai in serious numbers. Whether you enjoy the period more is up to you, but having played both the battle AI handles medieval combat far, far better. The factions are a lot more diverse, and the DLC factions play completely differently. Remember not to compare the naval combat of S2 to FotS or Empire. If you instead compare it to a bunch of potatoes in a pond competing to be the Best Potato, you might be pleasantly surprised!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 08:04
|
|
