|
Agesilaus posted:It's a shame the new total war is just a rehash of rome; they should have picked a more interesting time period, like the fifth and fourth century hellenic world. I dunno, a whole game based on the Hellenic world during the Persian War and Peloponnesian War would be pretty boring. It works fine as a mods or maybe even as DLC, but I don't think a game with a dozen different Greek factions with different skins for their hoplites is something that tons of people would be clamoring to buy. It's an interesting part of history but it doesn't make for a very interesting game. Maybe if you started just before the fall of Assyria at the end of the seventh century, say 610 BC and ended just before the rise of Macedonia, maybe 350 BC. Or you could go even further, maybe for fun you can have the Macedonian invasions be a world event like the Mongols in Medieval. You could have Assyria itself, the factions which eventually became the Persian empire but were still subjects to the Assyrians at the time (Persia, Media, Babylon, Lydia, etc), plus the nomads to the north/east (Saka, Sogdians, Bactrians, etc), plus the various Greek poleis, Egypt, maybe even India and Italy. I think the problem with this (huge) period of history is while it would be interesting and cool for big history nerds like us, your average person would be all like "well why didn't they just make Rome, you could still have all these factions and more, plus a bigger map" Plus it's pretty silly to say that any timer period is "more interesting" than another.
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 16:42 |
|
|
canuckanese posted:I dunno, a whole game based on the Hellenic world during the Persian War and Peloponnesian War would be pretty boring. It works fine as a mods or maybe even as DLC, but I don't think a game with a dozen different Greek factions with different skins for their hoplites is something that tons of people would be clamoring to buy. It's an interesting part of history but it doesn't make for a very interesting game. On the other hand, this period is distant enough that they could probably get away with a bunch of wacky "historical" units and factions and it wouldn't feel jarring. And hell, historically this was basically a time of Total War. Ancient, ancient history doesn't get nearly enough love.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 05:06
|
|
|
Yeah, every other city getting burned to the ground and everyone killed. Entire populations being relocated on the whims of the conquerors. It would definitely make for an interesting game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
Mock and Droll posted:I bought Rome during the Steam sale recently, and I'm having trouble getting it to run in 1920x1080. Whenever I select it in the settings, my monitor goes black and I just get an 'Input Not Supported' message. Never had this problem with any other games. Anyone got any ideas? You have to go into a config file and change some text in there. It's all in plain text, so it's stupid easy. While you're there, you can unlock all the unlockable factions, and even some unplayable ones too, if you're so inclined. Google "Rome Total War widescreen fix" or something like that, I don't remember the exact filepath off the top of my head.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 05:32
|
|
|
Sky Shadowing posted:I'm partially surprised that it's not Victorian-era Total War, since that's what FotS seemed to be setting up, but not surprised because everyone desperately wanted it (myself included). It's a drat shame so much of Empire and Napoleon are locked away from modders. There is an excellent Sudan/Zulu War mod for Napoleon but since they can't edit the campaign map you can only play with the Zulu units in custom battles, and the Sudan campaign is just a re purposed Egypt campaign, except the AI is confused and pretty much sits there and does nothing. 10 minutes of playing that and/or FOTS and it's clear just how fun a Victorian eera Total War game could be, even if it was just a bunch of mini-campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 06:06
|
|
|
Cakeequals posted:You have to go into a config file and change some text in there. It's all in plain text, so it's stupid easy. While you're there, you can unlock all the unlockable factions, and even some unplayable ones too, if you're so inclined. Google "Rome Total War widescreen fix" or something like that, I don't remember the exact filepath off the top of my head. Thanks so much for this. I was getting really annoyed with why I couldn't get it to work. Then I realised Europa Barbarorum has it's own preferences file I had to change. Not the vanilla one. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 07:09
|
|
|
I would love to see how a World War 2 Total War would turn out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 09:49
|
|
|
primelaw posted:I would love to see how a World War 2 Total War would turn out. WW2 has been done to death by other franchises, but I still think a TW:WW2 would be amazing, mostly for the multiplayer battles. My favorite thing about TW has always been playing big 1v1 custom multiplayer battles against friends. It would work quite differently from the rest of the series, though. For one, units would be much smaller and much more spread out, and the maps would probably need to be way bigger to accommodate the increased weapon ranges.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 10:13
|
|
|
primelaw posted:I would love to see how a World War 2 Total War would turn out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 10:51
|
|
|
Yea but once they reworked the entire game they could do Modern Warfare: Total War and then Robot Wars: Total War Totally sweet brah killstreaks 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 11:00
|
|
|
Warhammer Fantasy: Total War. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 11:09
|
|
|
Someone should make Hearts of Iron 3 style strategical map with the ability to zoom in on the battles and control the units. Sort of like Wargame: European escalation, but on a bigger scale. I just bought Empire: Total War and I'm wondering, should I play vanilla first, or get a realism mod? If I do, which one is the best (if any)?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 11:54
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:You can't really do anything past Franco-Prussian/Italian unification wars with the current control schemes and distances. Boer War might work since the forces involved were small, but even that is pushing it. The way combat happens in WW2 is simply unworkable with the current control schemes, they would have to rework the entire game and come up with brand new mechanics. And I mean really brand new, not gradual improvements. As much as the series innovates from title to title, the concepts remain the same, taking someone from Shogun I to FOTS would not be that jarring gameplay-wise. But by structuring it to WW2 (small infantry teams, not 100+; armored units; long-range artillery, planes?) would mean a total rework of the basic gameplay elements. Agree with everything you just said. However, with each new game engine you can see a consistent effort to model individual soldiers with more and more freedom. To use a states of matter metaphor, in Shogun units were 'solid', in Rome and Empire they were more 'liquid', Rome 2 appears to be going for a more 'gaseous' relationship between individual soldiers and the unit they represent. If they keep going in that direction then in 5-6 years they might end up with something that can model small unit tactics. It wouldn't be Total War, and it would mean throwing away the decades of work they've done on modelling infantry melee combat, but I could easily see them ending up with something that looks like this. Of course that begs an obvious question as to why people don't just go buy Shock Force: Normandy and quit wishing that CA would abandon everything that makes Total War unique and great to make a cookie cutter WW2 RTS. Seriously, there is nothing about the Total War games that even remotely suggests their mechanics would work in a WW2 theme and I don't understand why people keep asking for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 12:23
|
|
|
The AI is literally too dumb to be competitive even when the tactics amount to "make a firing line, fire". How the hell does anyone expect CA to develop an AI that can understand covering fire, suppression, artillery support, tank breakthroughs and individual unit AI. A ww2:total war would make the beginning of Enemy at the Gates look like tactical brilliance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 12:44
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:
Because CA makes good large scale strategy games, and a good WW2 large scale strategy game would be cool. Geisladisk fucked around with this message at 12:55 on Jul 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 12:53
|
|
|
Can't wait for my Pink Parthian hordes! I'm guessing they'll do Julii, Scipii and Brutii again?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 13:02
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:Because CA makes good large scale strategy games, and a good WW2 large scale strategy game would be cool. This is completely wrong. The Total War series are tactics games with an risk map attached. They always have been. CA have never done large scale strategy so I have no idea what you are talking about. e: \/\/ yeah, that. Given that literally nothing that makes Total War Total War could be transferred into a WW2 game, asking for CA to make a WW2 game is asking them to abandon all of the experience they have at making games for the last decade to do something in an already flooded genre. There's no reason to think that what resulted would be remarkable in any way. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 13:17 on Jul 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 13:12
|
|
|
People hoping for a WW2: Total War should just go play Company of Heroes. It's more of a standard RTS but it uses similar mechanics as Total War games (morale, the direction a unit faces matters, artillery support, infantry units are squads of multiple soldiers,etc). Personally, I can only see a WW2: Total War gaming just being Company of Heroes with more units and a bigger map.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 13:14
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:This is completely wrong. Well, excuse me for mixing these two totally arbitrary terms up. I'll rephrase my statement: CA makes cool games where I can control a large army of several hundred dudes against another large army of several hundred dudes. These armies will usually proceed to fight one another, usually with the result of one of them emerging victorious. Though CA has in the past exclusively made games set quite a ways in the past, it would please me if they were to use their expertise to make a game set in the Second World War. Zettace posted:People hoping for a WW2: Total War should just go play Company of Heroes. It's more of a standard RTS but it uses similar mechanics as Total War games (morale, the direction a unit faces matters, artillery support, infantry units are squads of multiple soldiers,etc). Personally, I can only see a WW2: Total War gaming just being Company of Heroes with more units and a bigger map. COH has a lot of faffing about with base building, which I don't like. Also, it's really, really small scale. Geisladisk fucked around with this message at 13:26 on Jul 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 13:23
|
|
|
TW depends on large clearly defined and separate groups of soldiers, but WW2 warfare doesn't fit very smoothly into that model (which is also the reason why it's perfect for FPS or small-scale RTS). However, WW1 is a strangely unploughed acre in the video game industry and represents the era when warfare was changing from the clashes of large formations into the modern skirmish. I think CA could make a very interesting game out of that. Oromo fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Jul 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 13:44
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:Well, excuse me for mixing these two totally arbitrary terms up. This game you want already exists and has been mentioned in this thread. It's this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 13:51
|
|
|
Flippycunt posted:This game you want already exists and has been mentioned in this thread. It's this. No man, CA need to do it because
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 14:13
|
|
|
The funniest thing to me about new TW releases is the people that believe the AI 'will be fixed this game for sure, for real guys'. And this is as someone who used to be one of them up until Empire. Hope springs eternal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 14:25
|
|
|
Flippycunt posted:This game you want already exists and has been mentioned in this thread. It's this. Hey, that game looks sweet as hell. I didn't even know it existed. I'll check it out, thanks! Alchenar posted:No man, CA need to do it because It's so dumb when someone makes a game with a concept someone has already done before, I mean UGH what are CA thinking making a strategy game set in the Roman empire, they already did that! That's so dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 14:28
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:Hey, that game looks sweet as hell. I didn't even know it existed. I'll check it out, thanks! If literally all you can see when you look at Total War is 'two armies fight each other' then really all nuance is beyond you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 14:39
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:If literally all you can see when you look at Total War is 'two armies fight each other' then really all nuance is beyond you. I have literally no idea how that is what you got from my post. But hey, if you think that a TW WW2 game wouldn't be neat, that's okay! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 14:44
|
|
|
Has anyone found those scans mentioned earlier yet?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 14:58
|
|
|
Considering the state of Total Wars AI anyone with decent experince with the stuff who joins CA soon will be treated like a god king and showered with whatever they desire. Wish I could code now. Also, I don't recall them saying they were done with Fall of The Samurai and its engine anytime soon. Keep in mind they are still slowly trying to fit STEAM Workshop into all this as well.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 15:27
|
|
|
It's been explicitly said that Rome 2 is on a new engine. And that fits in with CA's modus operandi on how long they stick with one engine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:I have literally no idea how that is what you got from my post. I have to admit i'd laugh seeing big blocks of Americans and Germans just popping shots off at each other with automatic weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 16:12
|
|
|
 NEW ROME 2 SCREENSHOTS  
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 17:30
|
|
|
So is that a photoshop filter they've slapped on there, or does the engine have some sort of thing that makes it look like a painting?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
The less modernization, the better. Gunpowder line infantry are honestly getting old and I'm hungry for a return to spear and cavalry combat. It's a lot more fluid and splashy-- a wave of cavalry routing the enemy in one giant flank is something that I haven't really seen since ME2. And invincible war dogs. The biggest thing I dislike about the shift into gunpowder infantry in recent games is that battles are more straightforward and 'faster.' There's not as much circling and repositioning and troop matching in most of my battles. Besides the obvious logistical problems that a WW1+ TW game would face (including a radical scaling of time that each turn takes, scale of armies, trench warfare, much slower progress, a more complicated diplomacy system, a greater focus on combat where you can't even see the enemy...) I think the most damning point would be that there just wouldn't be enough to do in a battle. Sure, Normandy would be fun (if done to death) but I really can't think of anything less fun than controlling my trenches and staring at the enemy in his trenches, hoping my artillery hit him before he hits me. Being proactive and advancing is punished harshly when range is so powerful. There are games for this, but it sounds miserable for a Total War game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 17:40
|
|
God I fucking love Diablo 3 gold, it even paid for this shitty title|
TRIARI!
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 17:55
|
|
|
Huh. Looks like those Roman units were ripped straight from Roma Surrectum. It can only improve the vanilla game I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
TheGame posted:The less modernization, the better. Gunpowder line infantry are honestly getting old and I'm hungry for a return to spear and cavalry combat. I absolutely agree. Shogun 2 was exciting for me because of the return of armies clashing with swords and spears. Unfortunately, once people started camping forests with matchlock monks with rapid fire that faded pretty quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 18:23
|
|
snKestren posted:I absolutely agree. Shogun 2 was exciting for me because of the return of armies clashing with swords and spears. Unfortunately, once people started camping forests with matchlock monks with rapid fire that faded pretty quickly. Sounds more like dumb idiots abusing mechanics than the issue of said mechanics. Play some proper games with goons. That reminds me to set up the Total War STEAM Group events for the weekend quickly.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Sounds more like dumb idiots abusing mechanics than the issue of said mechanics. Play some proper games with goons. Frankly, multiplayer just isn't thought out very well in any of the TW games. e.g. cannon bunes. I still played the hell out of S2 and had a blast in most of my matches, but with all of the issues CA has with balancing Shogun 2 in both MP and SP, I'm doubtful they could make a fun modern era TW. Something about mods incoming in 3...2...
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 19:08
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:TRIARI! The "TRIARI!" guy was the second best thing about vanilla Rome (the first being HOUNDS!)
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 16:42 |
|
MadJackMcJack posted:The "TRIARI!" guy was the second best thing about vanilla Rome (the first being HOUNDS!) He was just so happy about his job. Shame the Marius reforms put him out of work.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 21:28
|
|