|
Youtube has the weirdest videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9EQsCjqiMk
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
MadJackMcJack posted:The "TRIARI!" guy was the second best thing about vanilla Rome (the first being HOUNDS!) Also they don't need to make an WW2 one, you could always try finding Empires Dawn of the Modern World which is a great RTS and the noob cheat is glorious. E: And the Patton campaign is awesome achillesforever6 fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Jul 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
What are the best Medieval 2 mods? Is Stainless Steel still the go to? Diogines fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Jul 21, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
Diogines posted:What are the best Medieval 2 mods?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
I am probably one of the few who found Third Age to be pretty ho-hum. On a technical level it's pretty amazing, but I thought the gameplay was kind of boring and the unit selection was bland.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 06:54
|
|
|
They've tried to make things more interesting(or obnoxious, depending on how you look at it) on the recruitment front with the recent versions of Third Age. Every province has a 'Terrain type' now, which modifies the replenish rate of troops. Men recruit normally in grasslands, half rate in forests, quarter rate in desert and mountains, as an example. Unique/Area specific units aren't affected by this, but they're...area specific. To help keep track of this, they've added 'buildings' to all settlements which give Lore on the place, tells you the terrain type, and most importantly, tell you which places have a garrison script in place. So, now it's even more annoying to hold lands outside your preferred type, as reinforcements will likely have to be ferried from more favourable lands(And some lands end up unfavourable despite being strongholds). On the other hand, it encourages trading-at least on the player's end. Oh, and the Fellowship Campaign's come back after a hiatus. Also they've added events to the Grand Campaign to allow you to destroy/claim the Ring. Mordor can even get Sauron as a battle unit these days if they follow through. A lot more of the signature characters have special abilities to mess with the battlefield. There are Giant Spiders in Mirkwood now. Mordor can hire them as mercs. They're very powerful and actually have numbers, unlike trolls. They cost a lot, though. The appropriate factions have access to Palantirs, the Eye of Sauron, and the Mirror of Galadriel for remote viewing of places. quote:and the unit selection was bland. I'm curious. I'm not exactly a drooling fan of Third Age(In many ways I have severe issues with how things have been chosen to be done), but what would make it 'Not Bland' in your eyes? Or rather, 'What makes it bland to you?' Bloodly fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Jul 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 08:54
|
|
|
Not getting enough love, By Jupiter.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 15:49
|
|
|
Another question about Fall of the Samurai: If I have the base Shogun 2, will FotS become DLC for that game, only getting the new stuff, or will it be its own game, and I will have another fatass 15 gig game sitting on my hard drive? Why are these stupid games so big?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 10:36
|
|
|
I believe Shogun 2 already has all the FotS data patched in so nothing extra needs to be downloaded. It also explains Shogun 2's large size.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 10:46
|
|
|
Zettace posted:I believe Shogun 2 already has all the FotS data patched in so nothing extra needs to be downloaded. It also explains Shogun 2's large size. This is correct. No new information needs to be downloaded, it just unlocks it in the menu.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 12:35
|
|
|
Is it just me, or does the unit in white that's engaged with the Romans look like it is doing the whole, "charge in and stop while only the first rank engages" thing from Medieval 2 that annoyed the hell out of me? Edit: fixed. Friendly Fire fucked around with this message at 12:54 on Jul 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 12:49
|
|
|
It's probably not real game footage, if that is actual footage then the game will be awful (look at the way both formations are positioned, all scrambled and chaotic).
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 13:36
|
|
|
Hi guys, I'm playing Medieval 2 again because it's the best game, but was wondering what mods I can get for it as I've played vanilla and Kingdoms so much I can sort of game the system these days. I'd like to keep it more realistic so the Third Age one, as good as it looks, is a no for me. Any recommendations? Edit: Literally just scrolled up three posts. Checking out Stainless Steel! Edit: Oh christ how do I download Stainless Steel? The main site has megaupload, which doesn't exist anymore. They have provided a shady mirror which requires you to pay them and their torrent is 2.5gb and I'm getting 17kpbs :/ concerned mom fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Jul 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
concerned mom posted:Hi guys, I'm playing Medieval 2 again because it's the best game, but was wondering what mods I can get for it as I've played vanilla and Kingdoms so much I can sort of game the system these days. I'd like to keep it more realistic so the Third Age one, as good as it looks, is a no for me. Any recommendations? The Gamefront one should be fine. Was pretty fast for me and free to boot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
I've encountered a weird glitch. I'm playing a co-op campaign, and while attempting to disband some troops, every time my friend's game crashes. Any idea what may be causing this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 06:00
|
|
|
Can you use the bugged FOTS artillery to draw in the enemy army by placing it ahead of the troops, unlimbered?jivjov posted:I've encountered a weird glitch. I'm playing a co-op campaign, and while attempting to disband some troops, every time my friend's game crashes. Any idea what may be causing this? I crashed in coop recently when I tried to disband a disloyal general during my friends turn, couldn't, and then tried again during mine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 06:43
|
|
|
So what should be my bottom line when doing diplomacy? As far as I can tell, it is "Ensure that you would never need to fight a war on more than two fronts. Everything else is gravy." Okay, not saying that trade agreements, alliances, etc are useless, but it seems better to keep (most) everyone happy so I do not get into a situation where I have two clans on opposite sides of my territory decide to attack at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 07:26
|
|
|
snKestren posted: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. I found the Shogun 2 multiplayer experience to be much more fun and balanced than previous iterations, except for the naval part which was fun up until the aforementioned cannon bunes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 09:29
|
|
|
concerned mom posted:Hi guys, I'm playing Medieval 2 again because it's the best game, but was wondering what mods I can get for it as I've played vanilla and Kingdoms so much I can sort of game the system these days. I'd like to keep it more realistic so the Third Age one, as good as it looks, is a no for me. Any recommendations? If you have the Steam version of the game, you may end up running into a complete pain in the rear end of an install procedure (for Stainless Steel at least, but also presumably TATW). If you run into trouble, I recommend following this guide: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=437017 As for the download itself, I used the torrent, but I got considerably more than 17kbps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 11:53
|
|
|
After the initial shock and surprise of Rome 2 being announced, is it bad that the only thing I'm concerned about now is whether or not they fix their boring lovely general/heir system back to how detailed and fun it was in Rome? No I don't want to pick between two lovely retainers I want to pick up my drunken uncle randomly 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 12:26
|
|
|
What I won't get but would actually like is if they took this opportunity to really distance themselves from the freeform risk-strategy that's what's preventing any kind of interesting diplomacy or storytelling from taking place. They've already hinted at how entering certain areas on the map will trigger event/plot chains etc. Say that instead of controlling a region from the start ala Rome 1, your character is sent to Govern a province of Republic by the Senate. You are responsible for building an army, for sending revenue back to Rome (affecting your prestige and influence there) and for dealing with the inevitable threats on the border, whether through diplomacy or vassalisation or outright annexation. At the end of your term you get to push for another Governorship and your influence in Rome determines how much say you have in where you go. The army you've raised comes with you and you get to benefit from the experience it's gained and the rpg-lite decisions you've made to customise your legions and personally invest in them (raising a legion should be an expensive undertaking, and the difference between rookie and battle-hardened units should be a Big Deal). This all sets you up for an endgame Roman Civil War that makes much more sense and actually matches history - as the factions in the Senate become more and more polarized eventually you get the message to surrender your posts and return to Rome. At that point you get to pull a genuine Julius Caesar, gather your legions and march on Italy (as opposed to just moving the super stack you've had waiting on the Rome border into the city and winning immediately).
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 12:55
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:What I won't get but would actually like is if they took this opportunity to really distance themselves from the freeform risk-strategy that's what's preventing any kind of interesting diplomacy or storytelling from taking place. They've already hinted at how entering certain areas on the map will trigger event/plot chains etc. This would be awesome. Totally stoked for Rome 2, but I'm suffering from my usual habit of getting into a game ages before its due out and not being able to satisfy my cravings for the period in the meantime. Tried EURome but eugh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 13:22
|
|
|
I picked up the Sega pack in the steam sale, so I've got all of the total war games. I really do enjoy them, but I'm genuinely pretty atrocious at them. Are there any recommended resources for the gap between the tutorials and actual competent play for the more recent games? Or just some general total war basics?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 13:26
|
|
|
X_ThePerfect posted:I picked up the Sega pack in the steam sale, so I've got all of the total war games. I really do enjoy them, but I'm genuinely pretty atrocious at them. Are there any recommended resources for the gap between the tutorials and actual competent play for the more recent games? Or just some general total war basics? It tends to vary a bit between the games, which ones in particular were you having trouble with?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 13:51
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:What I won't get but would actually like is if they took this opportunity to really distance themselves from the freeform risk-strategy that's what's preventing any kind of interesting diplomacy or storytelling from taking place. They've already hinted at how entering certain areas on the map will trigger event/plot chains etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 14:55
|
|
|
This is a fantastic idea and probably way cooler than anything we'll get.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 15:04
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:What I won't get but would actually like is if they took this opportunity to really distance themselves from the freeform risk-strategy that's what's preventing any kind of interesting diplomacy or storytelling from taking place. They've already hinted at how entering certain areas on the map will trigger event/plot chains etc. Sounds a bit like the progression from Imperium Galactica 1-an old space strategy game that was real time with pause from the DOS era(I still own the thing). It was good for it's time(I think so, at least) but very linear as you were following a fixed story, and early problems caused even bigger headaches later, as everyone else was expanding and growing more powerful and doing their own thing as they had full access to the map, whilst you were still trying to fulfil your objectives and such at lower levels of command. I can see the fun of it as you're actively growing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 15:21
|
|
|
That would be most satisfying to actually start at the bottom and claw your way to the top yeah.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 15:25
|
|
|
Bloodly posted:I assume if you win you grow out into your 'standard Medieval/Rome' of sorts after the Civil War, since you'll be the man in charge? Yeah, the point being that while restricting the freedom of the player somewhat, you can create a better gameplay experience by controlling progression, you can get around traditional pitfalls of Total War by scripting a 'story' into each province zone so you can have armies show up in the right place at the right time so that there are battles worth fighting - and there's plenty of scenarios to draw from Roman history; you could play through Scipio's campaigns against Carthage, Lucullus in the Mithraditic Wars, Caesar in Gaul. You could even get a surprise recall to Rome to deal with a slave uprising. So many choices and a 'Governorship' system would be the ideal in-game justification for moving the player about so he gets to fight against each army 'culture'. For me, Total War is about my army. It's about building an army around my main 2 or three generals and getting attached to those troops as I use them to conquer the map. It's why the change to the replacement system in Empire was so great - it is meaningful to me that my regiments rebuild themselves and thus have continuity of existence, rather than just being a unit that's mashed together with a newly built unit to create a full strength one with slightly better stats. That's also why I want to see a transition to bigger units with customised component parts; it's not just about having more men on the screen, I want to be able to look at my army and say 'that's the Third Legion, it's battle hardened and has a higher proportion of Principes and Triarii, it should be in the centre of my line' or 'that's the Seventh Legion, it has a wing of cavalry auxilia that they picked up while I was in Asia Minor, I want it covering my flanks'. ie. anything that adds personality and flavour to the units I'm moving about with my mouse clicks and makes me care about them more is good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 15:43
|
|
|
shalcar posted:It tends to vary a bit between the games, which ones in particular were you having trouble with? Yeah, with such different games I wasn't sure if there would be any "general" tips. I've mostly been playing Empire (Because I'm not good enough for the difference in AI to bother me, so I like the larger playing field than Napoleon) and Shogun 2. I did have a bit more success when I started using the Shimazu in Shogun though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
I guess the roster would be boring but Alchemar's idea would be great for a Mongol:Total War mod.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
Mans posted:I guess the roster would be boring but Alchemar's idea would be great for a Mongol:Total War mod. How so? The Mongols employed a lot of troops from the various tribes and people's they conquered giving them quite a varied army. Sure the main Mongol guys would be horse archers, but it's not like there were only Mongols in their army! Also while I like Alchemar's idea, I don't think it would really work in a Total War game and would put off a lot of the series fans. A spin-off or clone in the like those King Arthur games would work though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 19:22
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Yeah, the point being that while restricting the freedom of the player somewhat, you can create a better gameplay experience by controlling progression, you can get around traditional pitfalls of Total War by scripting a 'story' into each province zone so you can have armies show up in the right place at the right time so that there are battles worth fighting - and there's plenty of scenarios to draw from Roman history; you could play through Scipio's campaigns against Carthage, Lucullus in the Mithraditic Wars, Caesar in Gaul. You could even get a surprise recall to Rome to deal with a slave uprising. So many choices and a 'Governorship' system would be the ideal in-game justification for moving the player about so he gets to fight against each army 'culture'. I can appreciate that, and Total War seems to be moving that way in a sense. But I also like the big picture where you're sending hordes of men to fight and win under one banner-your banner.(This is not saying I don't like the replenishment-that's far more suited to the EXP system that Total War has had, to be honest). I'm just imagining how Crusade would work under this. That's all. I hope for a pleasing mix. People seem to be loving Shogun, after all. ___ On Religion in Med2. The traits that govern + and -Piety for priests are annoying(Aside from the obvious, like hunting Witches and Heretics). They're based on how much religion push you pull off in a region in a single turn. You want your priests to grow and become Papal candidates? You send them off in gangs, not singly, otherwise they won't make enough push to get good traits and likely will get bad ones. The amount of push by a priest is something like 1-2% per Piety. A 'safe' value of push to deal with regions is 10%.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 19:26
|
|
|
Davincie posted:How so? The Mongols employed a lot of troops from the various tribes and people's they conquered giving them quite a varied army. Sure the main Mongol guys would be horse archers, but it's not like there were only Mongols in their army! I loving hate both of you. e: ^^ I think it comes down to the problem of endgame blob syndrome that Total War games suffer from, ie. the last few dozen turns consist of spamming elite superstacks and autoresolving your way through the last few provinces to total victory. Why don't most people fight those battles? Because they don't mean anything (you've already won) and the troops don't mean anything (you've just spammed them). CA have been struggling with this problem hard ever since Shogun and the results (The Pope, The Senate, The Shogun) have been consistently stronger and stronger in terms of trying to balance out the natural tendency of the player to hit critical mass because when that happens the game suddenly stops being fun. It's that inherent contradiction in Total War games that the player is striving for a goal that actually removes all pleasure from the game - I actually wouldn't mind staying small. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Jul 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 19:26
|
|
|
Aww  I just copied his spelling of your name.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 19:27
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:What I won't get but would actually like is if they took this opportunity to really distance themselves from the freeform risk-strategy that's what's preventing any kind of interesting diplomacy or storytelling from taking place. They've already hinted at how entering certain areas on the map will trigger event/plot chains etc. This would be really awesome. Alchenar posted:For me, Total War is about my army. It's about building an army around my main 2 or three generals and getting attached to those troops as I use them to conquer the map. It's why the change to the replacement system in Empire was so great - it is meaningful to me that my regiments rebuild themselves and thus have continuity of existence, rather than just being a unit that's mashed together with a newly built unit to create a full strength one with slightly better stats. If you put an unit into a city in Rome: TW (and I assume Medieval 2) you can retrain them and they replenish themselves while retaining their experience. Empire had a better system though, true.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:If you put an unit into a city in Rome: TW (and I assume Medieval 2) you can retrain them and they replenish themselves while retaining their experience. Empire had a better system though, true. Yeah, it's about the emotional feeling of continuity of existence - putting them back into a training queue breaks that for me. I wasn't that impressed by FOTS, but it provides an excellent example of what I mean; halfway through the campaign I'm able to recruit Imperial Infantry, but they end up supplementing my existing armies rather than replacing them completely. Why? Because that unit of line infantry that's been with me since turn 1 is now vet 7 and gently caress, he's just as good at the higher tech unit now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2012 20:52
|
|
|
Verviticus posted:After the initial shock and surprise of Rome 2 being announced, is it bad that the only thing I'm concerned about now is whether or not they fix their boring lovely general/heir system back to how detailed and fun it was in Rome?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
I've always loved mousing over the portraits of your Generals companions and the stuff he picks up in this game. Even Empire and Napoleon had some good stuff.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
Holy poo poo, are Knights supposed to be human cannonballs in Stainless Steel 6.4? I've had spear infantry in guard mode, with shields and spears braced and everything, and a head-on charge still kills half of their unit despite them sitting in the ideal position for taking on a heavy cavalry assault. Thankfully, bogging them down in more spears still works, but are charges supposed to be this powerful? toasterwarrior fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Jul 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2012 07:49
|
|