tables posted:Yes! poo poo is going to rock! CA can take their sweet time on it, I want this to be perfect. Open ETW and NTW up for modding, that'll keep everyone busy for over a year while you work on Rome 2. Rome 2 better be development for at least a year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:15 |
|
|
I hope they allow us to make 200+ giant catapults again and put them under AI control when sieging cities once you are rich enough to not worry about repairing every single building from 0%.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:The best thing about Rome 2 is that it'll give us at least two more Total War games' breathing space after it before people start clamouring for Rome 3. Rome is not my first choice but really unless CA starts going with alternate reality settings then there's only so many periods that have enough conflict to base an entire strategy game around. Fall of the Samurai is about as new as they can go, everything after that became small squad combat. Rome is about as old as you can go, combat before then was a bit too basic to justify a full on strategy game. Though seeing a hybrid army management and Risk type board with COH style squad combat on map and awesome Naval battles would be an incredible step forward for CA, I wonder if they would be willing to step outside their box a bit after Rome 2 and tackle WW1 or if we get another sequel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Rome is not my first choice but really unless CA starts going with alternate reality settings then there's only so many periods that have enough conflict to base an entire strategy game around. While they are pretty limited in regards to the period, there are still plenty of possibilities to explore in terms of geography. Shogun 2 has shown that you can still make a great Total War game even if you only focus on a single country. There are still quite a few regions that haven't even been touched. There'd be lots of potential in a TW game set in China, for example. I'm really no expert in history, but there are probably several other countries/empires/regions around with a period of internal strife or civil war during an appropriate time period that could make a good background.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:
Pre-Classical middle eastern history is filled with great time periods to base a war game on. It's the time of chariots, of nomad tribes coming from all directions, bronze and iron weapons, the rise of cavalry and conflicts between the New Kingdom, the Neo Assyrians, the Hittites, the rise of the Greek states and the Sea Peoples who came out of nowhere and hosed poo poo up. You also have the rise of Persia not to forget how interesting a game focused on Greek city states would be. Imagine Shogun Total war but with the added abilities of exploring far flung places and establishing colonies all over the Mediterranean all the while dealing with your neighbours and facing off against Thracians, Persians, Gauls and Macedonians. It would kick rear end. And as been said before, we really need a Renaissance game. What would be truly great would be choosing the starting date. No need to go all Paradox and being able to choose the literal day of the start date, but adding a bit of variety to the game via different scenarios would own and allow a longer longetivity of the game all the while allowing CA to get extra money via the release of payed DLCs. I'd certainly pay 5 bucks to play a scenario about the first triumvirate or any of the million civil wars.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
Has anyone played the Call of Wahammer mod for MTW2? http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1377 It looks cool, but I must have sold off my copy of MTW2 so I'd have to buy it again to play it. Luckily it's only 2.50 on Gamersgate right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Rome is not my first choice but really unless CA starts going with alternate reality settings then there's only so many periods that have enough conflict to base an entire strategy game around. Aye, I'm not asking for more modern or more ancient - I agree that both Fall of the Samurai and Rome are about as far as they can go in both directions. But I'd take a new setting in the intervening period over a Rome sequel any day. That's not to say I wouldn't enjoy Rome 2. I probably would/will. But I'm still holding out for stuff like a proper post-fall-of-Rome game, or a game about the birth and rise of Islam, or the Wars of the Three Kingdoms in 1640s Britain (which would be pretty much exactly along the Shogun 2 lines of restricted map and so on).
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
After Rome 2, they should hopefully pick up a decent AI Engineer coder at some point and they should consider doing a Musket and Shot era game (1600) and build the other black powder era DLC ontop of it.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:After Rome 2, they should hopefully pick up a decent AI Engineer coder at some point and they should consider doing a Musket and Shot era game (1600) and build the other black powder era DLC ontop of it. I would love to seem them go a Kingdoms route on this and do north and south America from first settlement up to the civil war era, but that's also because I'm a sucker for forced anachronisms and love using the Cherokee to push the French back into the sea and toppling the Aztec empire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
The problem with pre-Classical warfare is that it's basically the same as Classical Warfare except a bit less interesting and with a bit less variety. If you want to do an 'ancient' game set in Europe then Rome is the era to do it in because Rome is the nation that actually did the 'Total War' thing and conquered the known world. As CA have already shown, you can happily adapt the assets you create for a Rome game in order to do DLC for an Alexander Campaign or otherwise. We also don't need a Renaissance game. Medieval goes up to 1530 and at the end of the tech tree takes you to the point where filling your armies with musketmen actually starts to be a viable strategy. Empire starts at 1700, when that transition was complete and covers as a whole the development of gunpowder warfare. The only thing a Renaissance game could do is cover that transition period, which: a) is actually done right now by Fall of the Samuri b) would be quite boring because it would essentially be either Empire with some low grade hand-cannoners and pikemen at the bottom of the tech tree or Medieval with some more gunpowder units at the top of the tech tree. CA have been getting better and better at modelling individual soldiers in their units with each engine, I'd be interested in seeing their take on an American Civil War game. After we get Rome, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 00:15
|
|
|
Personally I think they should just do a sci-fi or fantasy game (or steampunk or post-apocalyptic or whatever). Historical accuracy is only a secondary attraction for Total War games, at least vanilla ones. With a fantastical setting they would be free to develop both a strategic map AND a unit roster focused entirely on good and interesting gameplay, instead of being forced into awkward compromises like Mummy Returns Egypt or You Only Live Twice ninjas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 00:26
|
|
|
I've just started playing empire after not playing TW in a few years since Rome and just looking at the internet for whatever tactics the kids are playing shows a lot of support for a zigzag line with artillery behind and the rapid fire guns at certain points. Am I correct in thinking this works brilliantly up until your opponent swarms a flank and either waits for you to try and redeploy or rolls you up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:Personally I think they should just do a sci-fi or fantasy game (or steampunk or post-apocalyptic or whatever). Historical accuracy is only a secondary attraction for Total War games, at least vanilla ones. With a fantastical setting they would be free to develop both a strategic map AND a unit roster focused entirely on good and interesting gameplay, instead of being forced into awkward compromises like Mummy Returns Egypt or You Only Live Twice ninjas. It still needs (until CA strike out and attempt a different concept) a game in a setting where people fight wars by lining up in blocks of men and charging at each other. That's why 1860-70 is about as far as you can go with the Total War concept before warfare changes so much that it would only make sense if you really drew the scale back and had each unit be a division or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:Personally I think they should just do a sci-fi or fantasy game Cataphract. Centaurs. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 01:56
|
|
|
Given the 'Charge at People' is required: Total War: Eras. Civ meets Total War. Start in 'prehistory'(Clubs, axes (much?)later, spears, maybe rare 'Fire Throwers'. If a ram is required, just use a log). Less 'Cities', maybe even none at all, but the 'Rebels' are wild beasts. Kill to live, avoid diseases. The 'restock dudes in the field' would work perfectly for that that of Hunter-Gatherer. Move to settling down in your standard cities(Do they 'spawn' for you or are they just invisible until a certain point?), basic farming, scouting and meeting others. Still hard to really grow. Small advantages pay off. Classical, as bronze and iron start to take off. Rome and so on. Then Medieval/2-Shogun, through to Empire. The real issue is 'tech'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:Personally I think they should just do a sci-fi or fantasy game (or steampunk or post-apocalyptic or whatever). Historical accuracy is only a secondary attraction for Total War games, at least vanilla ones. With a fantastical setting they would be free to develop both a strategic map AND a unit roster focused entirely on good and interesting gameplay, instead of being forced into awkward compromises like Mummy Returns Egypt or You Only Live Twice ninjas. There is no way the Total War community would let this happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
Imapanda posted:There is no way the Total War community would let this happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The problem with pre-Classical warfare is that it's basically the same as Classical Warfare except a bit less interesting and with a bit less variety. If you want to do an 'ancient' game set in Europe then Rome is the era to do it in because Rome is the nation that actually did the 'Total War' thing and conquered the known world. As CA have already shown, you can happily adapt the assets you create for a Rome game in order to do DLC for an Alexander Campaign or otherwise. I dunno about that. The problem with using Medieval to cover the Renaissance is, well, pretty simply, by the time the Renaissance units are rolling out odds are good that you're already steamrollering everything in sight anyways, and good luck seeing AI armies of similar units in reasonable army compositions. Plus, slogging through the whole early medieval thing over and over to get to the good stuff is irritating (and don't talk to me about custom battles - I like my fights to have context!)
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 05:49
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:Personally I think they should just do a sci-fi or fantasy game (or steampunk or post-apocalyptic or whatever). Historical accuracy is only a secondary attraction for Total War games, at least vanilla ones. With a fantastical setting they would be free to develop both a strategic map AND a unit roster focused entirely on good and interesting gameplay, instead of being forced into awkward compromises like Mummy Returns Egypt or You Only Live Twice ninjas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 08:52
|
|
|
Zettace posted:That's why they don't use the "Total War" name. Just create a new series. Eh, CA don't have a good track record with non-historical stuff. Mind you, it's only one game, Stormrise, but it was that bad. Tomn posted:I dunno about that. The problem with using Medieval to cover the Renaissance is, well, pretty simply, by the time the Renaissance units are rolling out odds are good that you're already steamrollering everything in sight anyways, and good luck seeing AI armies of similar units in reasonable army compositions. Plus, slogging through the whole early medieval thing over and over to get to the good stuff is irritating (and don't talk to me about custom battles - I like my fights to have context!) Just set up a late start lime Medieval 2 and extend the end date to the middle of the 17th century.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 08:55
|
|
|
MadJackMcJack posted:Eh, CA don't have a good track record with non-historical stuff. Mind you, it's only one game, Stormrise, but it was that bad. To be fair, Stormrise was by the secondary Australian Creative Assembly, whose only contribution to the main series was Medieval 2 (and you could absolutely tell that they'd never seen a single castle in person in their lives).
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 09:16
|
|
|
My pipe dream for a Total War game would be pretty much a Civilization / Total War crossover. Pick a race and randomly generate a world starting with one city. Then progress from early Greek and Roman times through to the Renassance technologically while fighting on the battle map like the Total War games. It wont happen but I can dream.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 09:25
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:We also don't need a Renaissance game. Medieval goes up to 1530 and at the end of the tech tree takes you to the point where filling your armies with musketmen actually starts to be a viable strategy. Not only that, but CA's naval system would do wonders for a 16th era Total War game. It would be amazing to extend the map to allow you to go on true explorations of the sea, allowing you to colonize different continents. That's whats lacking in Medieval and Empire. In one era the exploration is limited and boring, in the other the exploration is already done. There's no in-between.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Mans posted:I disagree, not only was Medieval warfare completely different from the Renaissance but the political intrigue mas much more interesting. The technology was much better and tactics were diverse, meaning you'd get a lot more variety in units than "feudal knight, sergeant and mercenary spearmen". Plus, Medieval's renaissance era is on the end game, where the game is almost over and you're bored with it. We're talking about a 150ish year period that was the transition between Medieval and full Gunpowder warfare. It's interesting history, but as a game there's nothing there that Medieval and Empire doesn't give.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
There is no way that a long term time period (Ancient Greece to the 19th century for example) would ever work with the gameplay mechanics of the franchise. Unless you intentionally played the campaign very gradually you would never get anywhere close to the endgame. The entire world would always be conquered by the Medieval era. The only way to avoid that problem would be to do away with the turn based system, otherwise you would need to make each turn something like 5 years which would be stupid.
Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Jun 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
Supeerme posted:I fixed it myself. I all I had to do was to crack the exe. I am a bit confused by the sheer numbers of units and buildings though. Read the info cards, they contain the details you need. Here are a few tips for RSII though: 1) At the beginning you'll have a huge income. Spend it wisely as your profits will quickly drop since most buildings incur a tax penalty. Invest in trade buildings, get your diplomats out getting trade agreements and build public order buildings so you can tax the poo poo out of the people. 2) Spam armies. 0-turn recruitment means you can make up to 9 units per city a turn. The AI WILL exploit this, and if you don't you're boned. Plus basic units have such a low upkeep that you can easily maintain large armies. 3) Better units will often have high upkeep. I'm talking "Could buy half an army" high for the top-tier units. Be careful about large armies of these guys, as it can cripple you. 4) Many buildings have multiple upgrades per city level, as opposed to one upgrade per level. This breaks the building browser, so don't rely on it. Use info cards instead. 5) Never leave a general in a city at the end of a turn. The mod has a lot of city-traits that will make them decent governors but useless generals, and you will get pissed off at the loss of a good general.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:We're talking about a 150ish year period that was the transition between Medieval and full Gunpowder warfare. It's interesting history, but as a game there's nothing there that Medieval and Empire doesn't give. Is Total War really about providing entirely different gameplay experiences with each new game, or is it about watching a lot of pretty digital soldiers from your favorite historical period kill each other? Edit: I mean, for that matter, what would you say is the particular fundamental 'game" difference between Rome and Medieval 2? Tomn fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Jun 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Is Total War really about providing entirely different gameplay experiences with each new game, or is it about watching a lot of pretty digital soldiers from your favorite historical period kill each other? The Senate and Roman Civil War. Sure, it wasn't implemented particularly well (nor was the Pope and Crusades in Medieval), but they exist and as concepts are perfectly expandable. e: but that's just taking us away from the fact that your Renaissance Total War game already exists. Just start a Medieval campaign in the late era or start Empire with a mod that prevents any technology progression.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The Senate and Roman Civil War. Sure, it wasn't implemented particularly well (nor was the Pope and Crusades in Medieval), but they exist and as concepts are perfectly expandable. There is no decent sea exploration, no decent colonial contact with local tribes, no colonial competition with other European states, there aren't deep inter dinastic relationships that would make the game much more interesting and neither a late Medieval 2 or an early Empire do any of that. And i'll ask this, why do we need a Rome 2? You already have Rome in extremely varied tones thanks to vanilla and mods. Your Rome Total War game already exists. Just start a Rome campaign and if you're bored download the other 8 or 9 great mods that give you new scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
Mans posted:There is no decent sea exploration, no decent colonial contact with local tribes, no colonial competition with other European states, there aren't deep inter dinastic relationships that would make the game much more interesting and neither a late Medieval 2 or an early Empire do any of that. Mods really cant replicate the engine / ai / gameplay / building improvements that have happened since Rome was released. Well, that and multiplayer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
Any 16th-17th century Total War needs to make religion important. You have the Reformation and then later the Thirty Years War - it's hugely important for the era.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The Senate and Roman Civil War. Sure, it wasn't implemented particularly well (nor was the Pope and Crusades in Medieval), but they exist and as concepts are perfectly expandable. Oh, come on. If you're going to go THAT route, a game that goes from the early Renaissance to early modern could be centered around things like the spread of Protestantism and the factors that led up to the 30 Years War. You could even argue that a game about the Renaissance should have a special system to represent the Holy Roman Empire. Any major historical period could be said to have various factors that could in turn become special features in the vein of the Senate or Roman Civil War (or Realm Divide, for that matter). As for this stuff about "Renaissance already exists anyways!", I'd like to point out that firstly, Empire was absolutely not balanced around pikes - pikes were nothing but chaff you used when you couldn't afford real troops, so that's not really an option. And as for Medieval, I'd point out that firstly, "Late era" is strictly a mod thing - vanilla just has "Start campaign" and that's it. Secondly, even with such a late start, the game really is still primarily designed with the medieval era in mind, and is not set up to properly represent Renaissance - early modern realities (not to mention that some factions don't really GET properly modern troops anyhow). And even assuming that, it's sure as shootin' that that Medieval 2 in no way tries to depict the age of Gustav Adolf or the English Civil War (and if you try to argue that "Well, the tactics are pretty similar anyways," you could say much the same about Fall of the Samurai and the ACW.) Frankly, it's a bit odd arguing about a game's "need to exist" in this context anyways. The real question is "Is the basic idea going to be an interesting one to romp around in?" The only time a "need to exist" would come into play is if you're discussing over-saturation of the market, but I don't really see a lot of games that focus on the pike-and-shot period, do you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
And don't forget that the Renaissance would actually validate having a merchant system 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:Any 16th-17th century Total War needs to make religion important. You have the Reformation and then later the Thirty Years War - it's hugely important for the era. Ok, I'd take a Total War game that was set in the Holy Roman Empire in the Thirty Years War. Shogun proves very well that you don't need a map the size of a continent for a Total War game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
Playing Shogun 2 FotS made me want to watch The Last Samurai again and I just finished the movie up. Holy poo poo does it make me want to side with the shogun, sending waves of spear men and katana wielding samurai. However, I'm in the middle of a campaign with an Empire aligned faction. This always happens haha. I was in the middle of a Gallic campaign in Rome TW then I watched Centurion. I stopped in the middle of invading Germania, and started a Julii campaign to take over Britannia. drat movies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
Installing Roma Surrectum 2's proving to be a bit of a bitch, it's installed just fine but still gives me an error. I'm probably going to just reinstall Kingdoms instead. I miss the hugely overpopulated unit rosters for every faction.  I liked the variety regardless of whether it was hugely imbalanced/units were slight reskins. Shogun 2's done a great job expanding on the vanilla's unit variety.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 15:55
|
|
|
I never played through the European campaign in Napoleon, so I've been thinking about giving that a try. Do you guys have any advice for the beginning? It seems so loving overwhelming at turn one. Any suggestions for mods? Also, what the hell do you do to fix that campaign map stuttering bug?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 03:14
|
|
|
The easiest one is being the British with it, build up your trading and the Royal Navy smash Frances Navy than begin planning your invasion of Spain and Portugal.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
Are any of the total overhaul mods for NTW good?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:15 |
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Are any of the total overhaul mods for NTW good? I quite enjoyed The Rights Of Man back when they did ETW, I don't mod Napoleon as I quite enjoy it as it is. Crazy I know right? I sperged hard a few weeks back over FOTS loving up Western Marine uniforms yet I don't really give a drat that all the armies in NTW are wearing dress uniforms from 1811 or 1815 because it just looks so drat good!
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 20:39
|
|