|
I think it's a pretty common opinion that swords, bows, cavalry and spears allow for more interesting gameplay than gun lines. I felt FotS handled gunpowder weapons pretty well, though.
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
I disagree. Musket warfare can be just as fun, but you have to actually make an effort instead of just replacing bows with guns and hoping for the best.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I disagree. Musket warfare can be just as fun, but you have to actually make an effort instead of just replacing bows with guns and hoping for the best. Well, you have to be interested in it and want to do it too 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
Someguy posted:Am I the only person that really does not like gun power weapons in Total War games? I'm replaying MTW2 with Stainless Steel and made an audible groan when the 'discovered gun power' event rolled around. Same reason I'm not really interested in the expansion for Shogun 2 that focuses on that stuff, maybe I'm just weird like that. I'm not even sure about gunpowder being a game changer in M2TW since gunpowder units apart from the higher level artillery and maybe musketeers usually paled in effectiveness to getting more knights/foot knights. Hell, I remember a Scottish game in vanilla where my armies were either knights, foot knights, or pikemen, and they pretty much just rolled over everything in a tide of steel and blood.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
I wonder how you do it, though. I enjoyed Empire for all its warts but all its fights turned out pretty samey in my run throughs until I went nuts and built entire armies of swordguys as the Ottomans. edit: M2 question. If you're playing as an Italian state (Sicily, Milan, or Venice) how much difference does having a Caroccio Standard make in a fight?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:edit: M2 question. If you're playing as an Italian state (Sicily, Milan, or Venice) how much difference does having a Caroccio Standard make in a fight? In Stainless Steel, I found them really useful since militia units would usually have lower morale than professional men-at-arms, and militia is pretty much your bread-and-butter as one of the Italian merchant states. Dunno about vanilla, though I'm under the impression that it'd probably be better to use the slot for more knights instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
Someguy posted:Am I the only person that really does not like gun power weapons in Total War games? I'm replaying MTW2 with Stainless Steel and made an audible groan when the 'discovered gun power' event rolled around. Same reason I'm not really interested in the expansion for Shogun 2 that focuses on that stuff, maybe I'm just weird like that. You're not. I play these games to have giant units of guys with pointy weapons roll into each other ala Gladiator/Braveheart etc. I'm not at all interested in playing a TW game with gunpowder which is probably why the only TW game I've skipped since Rome is Empire and Napoleon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 19:58
|
|
Ice Fist posted:You're not. I play these games to have giant units of guys with pointy weapons roll into each other ala Gladiator/Braveheart etc. I'm not at all interested in playing a TW game with gunpowder which is probably why the only TW game I've skipped since Rome is Empire and Napoleon. I hope Rome 2 satisfies you enough then so the series can try a new direction without loving up in the process. I'm kind of bored of that now.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:You're not. I play these games to have giant units of guys with pointy weapons roll into each other ala Gladiator/Braveheart etc. I'm not at all interested in playing a TW game with gunpowder which is probably why the only TW game I've skipped since Rome is Empire and Napoleon. Same here, the moment guns get involved I lose a ton of interest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
Just think of them as 'spears with tricks'
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
Honestly, I feel like the "melee centric" total wars end up feeling kinda dumb, like, mash blob of man into other man, and I guess i'm just not there for the aesthetics. That being said, I can enjoy just about any of them, though. I really wouldn't like to see shot and pike total war yet because CA hasn't found a way to have units actually interact well or work in deep formations adequately.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
I liked guns, but only because they were so useless early on and it stopped just shy of them being really effective. I remember one game when I was using the arquebus unit and placing it on a hill. As a support unit firing over guys fighting with swords and pikes its really really cool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
Untrue, hand cannoneers were pretty drat effective. Not at the actual shooting bit, but they were best used like even more melee-centric line infantry. Make an army of several units of them, fire off a volley as the enemy closes, then charge in to use their awesome melee stats to break the enemy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
I think Napoleon might have been somewhat more fun (though I enjoy it plenty the way it is) if they'd "gamified" the units just a little more. In Shogun 2 you have a fairly clear-cut and intuitive stone/scissors/papers system where each weapon has a clear role and each unit "type" (ashigaru, samurai, monks) has distinct strengths and weaknesses. In Napoleon the distinctions between units tend to be somewhat more blurry, most of the time it seems like "shoots dudes", "shoots dudes better", "shoots dudes more better" and "shoots dudes and also punches dudes". Maybe something in the vein of: grenadiers kill line inf through charge -> skirmishers kill grenadiers through skirmishing -> line inf kills skirmishers through massed fire. Though of course with the setting you can stretch things only so far in that regard before it becomes just too artificial.
Perestroika fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Jul 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
Tarezax posted:Untrue, hand cannoneers were pretty drat effective. Not at the actual shooting bit, but they were best used like even more melee-centric line infantry. Make an army of several units of them, fire off a volley as the enemy closes, then charge in to use their awesome melee stats to break the enemy. Well that's my point, the guns themselves were still a bit eh. I like how FOTS has done it though, because even my melee armies can benefit from a couple of gun lines and vice verse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:I think Napoleon might have been somewhat more fun (though I enjoy it plenty the way it is) if they'd "gamified" the units just a little more. In Shogun 2 you have a fairly clear-cut and intuitive stone/scissors/papers system where each weapon has a clear role and each unit "type" (ashigaru, samurai, monks) has distinct strenghts and weaknesses. In Napoleon the distinctions between units tend to be somewhat more blurry, most of the time it seems like "shoots dudes", "shoots dudes better", "shoots dudes more better" and "shoots dudes and also punches dudes". Maybe something in the vein of: grenadiers kill line inf through charge -> skirmishers kill grenadiers through skirmishing -> Line Inf kills skirmishers through massed fire. Though of course with the setting you can stretch things only so far in that regard before it becomes just too artificial. I wouldn't mind seeing unit roles in Napoleon being a lot more gamey and distinct. The addition of 'sword' units in Shogun, for example, is hella gamey, but it makes sense and adds more to the gameplay. I'm probably in the minority, though, because I don't like what people do with TW mods most of the time. In fact, units armed primarily with swords were also a rarity in the medieval era but you see people roll out the dismounted knights all the time, but it's cool. Let the modders do the sperging.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I wouldn't mind seeing unit roles in Napoleon being a lot more gamey and distinct. The addition of 'sword' units in Shogun, for example, is hella gamey, but it makes sense and adds more to the gameplay. I'm probably in the minority, though, because I don't like what people do with TW mods most of the time. Skirmishers were OP as hell in napoleon because the enemy AI just didn't know how to take them out. Two experienced units could break a line infantry before they get into position to attack you and I remember using my main army to just hold their line and use my skirmished to sort of shoot their way up the line. They were so drat accurate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
dogstile posted:Skirmishers were OP as hell in napoleon because the enemy AI just didn't know how to take them out. Two experienced units could break a line infantry before they get into position to attack you and I remember using my main army to just hold their line and use my skirmished to sort of shoot their way up the line. They were so drat accurate. Weren't they like that in Empire, too? I remember going all minutemen tactics once I unlocked riflemen with the one time I finished the campaign in that game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
dogstile posted:Skirmishers were OP as hell in napoleon because the enemy AI just didn't know how to take them out. Two experienced units could break a line infantry before they get into position to attack you and I remember using my main army to just hold their line and use my skirmished to sort of shoot their way up the line. They were so drat accurate. Yeah, the ability to micro, also, really busts up the AI, too. I'm kinda sad that nobody came out with games with battle systems like Spartan after that game, because that battle system made a lot of sense and was a lot more fun in the sense of a campaign. Basically, you set up your formation at the start and some basic orders and aside from a flee command, you had no control over the battle, which makes a lot more sense in an ancient battle than the stuff you could pull off in Rome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
bobtheconqueror posted:Weren't they like that in Empire, too? I remember going all minutemen tactics once I unlocked riflemen with the one time I finished the campaign in that game. I actually have no idea, i've always wanted to play empire but every time I have the money someone tells me its crap and I spend more money on world of tanks 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Is anyone intending on making a dedicated Rome 2 thread? If not I may give it a shot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
There's a poo poo ton of information and unanswered questions about Rome II so it might be a good idea to start one. We're six weeks away and I'm sure newer and cooler info is about to roll out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
dogstile posted:I actually have no idea, i've always wanted to play empire but every time I have the money someone tells me its crap and I spend more money on world of tanks Riflemen were really good, and used skirmish tactics, but were fewer in number. 25 compared to, like, 60 or 100. The only issue is that rifles were essentially the end-game gun tech, so you don't have access to them for way too long. By the time you get them, you'll have already learned how to use standard muskets and artillery effectively.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
bobtheconqueror posted:Riflemen were really good, and used skirmish tactics, but were fewer in number. 25 compared to, like, 60 or 100. The only issue is that rifles were essentially the end-game gun tech, so you don't have access to them for way too long. By the time you get them, you'll have already learned how to use standard muskets and artillery effectively. Yeah, I only ever used one unit of riflemen ever. The single unit I used fought in spain, france, across italy and into russia when I got there. Once I had that unit I became death. I was trying to limit myself after seeing how overpowered they were, but a single unit is amazing enough as it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
Cavalry is still good in Napoleon and I think you would all have more fun in that game if you used it more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Yeah, the ability to micro, also, really busts up the AI, too. I'm kinda sad that nobody came out with games with battle systems like Spartan after that game, because that battle system made a lot of sense and was a lot more fun in the sense of a campaign. Basically, you set up your formation at the start and some basic orders and aside from a flee command, you had no control over the battle, which makes a lot more sense in an ancient battle than the stuff you could pull off in Rome. In Rome 2 they are bringing back the 'Place units under AI command' ability which could be kind of like what you are looking for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
Why would you ever want to put your precious units under the control of the AI 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
Captain Beans posted:In Rome 2 they are bringing back the 'Place units under AI command' ability which could be kind of like what you are looking for. It already exists in Shogun 2. Simply put the units into a control group, select them and click the buttons that pop up on the edge of the screen. No idea why you would do it though :p
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
Captain Beans posted:In Rome 2 they are bringing back the 'Place units under AI command' ability which could be kind of like what you are looking for. It ain't, really. I mean Spartan's commands were fairly precise, they just weren't adjustable when the battle begun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
After reading this thread I think I may be the only person who enjoyed Empire. I bought Shogun 2 on the steam sale but can't get used to the rock/paper/scissors gameplay. You pick the counter to whomever you are wanting to kill and bam, you have routed the unit pretty much in a few seconds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
Tarezax posted:Untrue, hand cannoneers were pretty drat effective. Not at the actual shooting bit, but they were best used like even more melee-centric line infantry. Make an army of several units of them, fire off a volley as the enemy closes, then charge in to use their awesome melee stats to break the enemy. Hand Cannoneers were basically Roman Legionaries with guns instead of javelins. They were for softening the enemy up before a charge, not mowing them down from range. Nash posted:After reading this thread I think I may be the only person who enjoyed Empire. I bought Shogun 2 on the steam sale but can't get used to the rock/paper/scissors gameplay. You pick the counter to whomever you are wanting to kill and bam, you have routed the unit pretty much in a few seconds. I really enjoyed Empire. It had it's flaws but I've never come across anything so bad to deserve the vitriol it gets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 07:20
|
|
|
MadJackMcJack posted:I really enjoyed Empire. It had it's flaws but I've never come across anything so bad to deserve the vitriol it gets. It doesn't deserve all the vitriol it gets but it deserves at least a little. It's the only game I ever preordered and that's still a decision I regret. Only $60 worth of regret but that money could have got me a different game or something. We're only on Rome 2, but my money's on Medieval 3 after Total Warhammer. I'm hoping the either start if off in 1300 or so and let you play 'til 1700 or they run it from 600-1200 ad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 07:37
|
|
|
I kind of prefer gunpowder over otherwise, as armies in Medevil and such tend to turn into vague blobs of "Hurty units" "Flanking units" and "Ponies" pretty quickly, with a basic repeatable stragey for them. That's not entirely true, of course, but the nature of the terrain and so on didn't mean so much. Empire and Napoleon you had to set up your lines well, which took a bit more tactical grace then ye usual right click enemy. However, in those games it was also almost entirely those lines, which kind of got a little stale. Shogun 2 did it outstandingly well in my opinion, with muskets (Or matchlocks, rather) being available and a option, as well as a extremely potent one, though still having plenty of melee to work with. I was hella pissed off when I found out that they nerfed the amount of Matchlock Monks you could bring for multiplayer. Out ranged by bows, but never out done by anything else. Fall of the Samurai also did it better, though more because it was much more fast paced and with melee. Naval combat was also much more interesting. (And much more bullshit.) I am kind of disappointed the series went back to Rome as a result, but I'll live. With Elephants. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 10:32
|
|
|
New Screenshot from what looks like the tutorial battle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJJPce-e_zU 
Pump it up! Do it! fucked around with this message at 12:28 on Jul 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 12:26
|
|
|
I really loathe that every single movie, TV show, or video game about Ancient Rome is voiced/played by British actors. I realize that CA is British, but even if they weren't we'd likely get British accents on our Romans. I also know why that is. There's a certain amount of pride that the British have for being part of Ancient Rome. But jesus christ, would it kill them to use an Italian accent or someone who actually knows how to speak Latin? (And I do realize that Romans =/= Italians, but it would certainly feel more authentic) Frijolero fucked around with this message at 13:03 on Jul 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 12:59
|
|
|
Once you remove the English accents though you get a lot of people confused, remember what happened to that movie Alexander with all the Irish accents (even though I felt they justified it well enough)
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 13:20
|
|
|
I don't know, I really dig the rugged voice acting they use. It doesn't come across as overly British. If CA used a Latin voice-actor, it'd sound pretty silly, seeing as Latin pronounced so many consonants differently (v is w, and a bunch of other stuff). EDIT: I do hope they polish up that cutscene in the "Lend Me Your Ears" video (the bit where it shows Mark Strong voice acting). I'd love to have a brilliant opening cutscene like in N:TW. Qubee fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Jul 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 14:23
|
|
|
I was under the impression that no one even knows for sure what Latin was actually intended to sound like.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 14:33
|
|
|
There are ancient written accounts on pronunciation. And we can safely assume that it sounded more Italic than Germanic. So I found this interesting, it looks like they are still working on the unit cards: This was from E3  And this is the most recent screenshot 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 14:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
Frijolero posted:And this is the most recent screenshot Apart from the centered unit archetype icon, I'm hoping that being able to see your units' mugs when you select them means you can click on them repeatedly to piss them off 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 15:02
|
|