|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Best agents are warhammer ones, because you can stick them in your armies to buff dudes/kill poo poo/cast spells and ignore the campaign map agent game I like that the Tomb Kings can just straight up buy set followers via their research tree that have fairly specific niches, so if you have a lord that provides a lot of bonuses to archers you can specifically recruit the follower that also buffs them. It promotes a nice variety of weird compositions instead of just fielding a dozen identical forces, which I think is a trap that historical titles have fallen into previously. I haven't watched much ToB stuff, have they changed the unit stat allocations to be closer to Warhammer than Attila? I liked the changes that they made to normal/armor piercing/anti-large/anti-infantry damage ratios as well as melee attack/defense and armor. There's actually a pretty meaningful amount of variety in just "guy with sword" in those games, whereas in Rome 2 it felt like you wound up with linear unit upgrades.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
turn off the TV posted:I haven't watched much ToB stuff, have they changed the unit stat allocations to be closer to Warhammer than Attila? I liked the changes that they made to normal/armor piercing/anti-large/anti-infantry damage ratios as well as melee attack/defense and armor. There's actually a pretty meaningful amount of variety in just "guy with sword" in those games, whereas in Rome 2 it felt like you wound up with linear unit upgrades. not sure what the units will be like, but you have a recruitment pool that slows down how many units you can recruit. So you might only be able to recruit 3 swordmans before waiting 4 turns for one more to pop back up in the pool. the state goal of this is to force experimentation in the early game
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Interesting. Kinda reminds me of one of the recruitment submods for Stainless Steel in M2. Anyone else remember what I'm talking about? Been a while since I played it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
It seems similar to the Tomb Kings recruitment, for Warham owners. Not identical but TK definitely seem like a Thrones beta. Basically TK have no recruit or upkeep cost, they are bound purely by a cap on how many armies they can field, and those armies are bound by what specific units they can field. Tech gives you more armies, and each +army tech also unlocks a specific cool lord with a new set of stats. You don't have to choose that one though, you still can fill the slot with a random, cheaper dude with random traits. Unit wise, you have unlimited skeleton warriors and spearmen. Beyond them, you have to build buildings. So say you own one Tier 3 city, you can build a skellington barracks that gives you 4 elite warriors, two royal guard, and six bowmen, and then a workshop that gives you two chariots, two archer chariots, and one catapult, and then an ancient egyptian tank factory that gives you one unit of murderstatues. The more buildings you build, the more units you get. But your lovely levy chaff is unlimited and always available. It's a fun change, and IMO it encourages more thought about what buildings you build because you can't have one "recruitment province" and then every other province is focused on making beaucoup bucks. If you want a big, elite army, you have to keep building military buildings to increase your unit caps. Instead of being limited by upkeep, it's opportunity cost. "Do I want more chariots or do I want money/trade goods/public order/walls/etc? Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Feb 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 04:16
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Interesting. Kinda reminds me of one of the recruitment submods for Stainless Steel in M2. Anyone else remember what I'm talking about? Been a while since I played it. Yeah. Basically having recruitment buildings would feed a unit into the recruitment pool every X turns and you could only recruit if a unit was available from the pool. There was also a cap on how many units of a certain type could be in the pool so you couldn't stockpile them to mass produce later. It meant that you needed to be slowly adding units to your armies and if you wanted to use units in decent numbers you needed more than one recruitment place as they stacked the speed units were added to the pool. Don't quote me on that being the same mod though, it's been ages since I've played it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 04:52
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:The minor cities just look like the villages of Empire/Napoleon. Hopefully the AI doesn't just torch your poo poo constantly. If it's total war AI it'll be torching and running away. It sounds potentially annoying that your resource buildings are tangible locations on the map, S2 AI would cross over a border, set fire to your mines or silk then walk back. John Charity Spring posted:Follower spam has never been worse than in Rome 2, where you end up with 50 followers of different names but the exact same mechanical effect. One of the most subscribed mods for R2 drastically overhauls followers so they're distinct and significant bonuses. I can't say the same for TWW.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 05:57
|
|
|
shalcar posted:Yeah. Basically having recruitment buildings would feed a unit into the recruitment pool every X turns and you could only recruit if a unit was available from the pool. There was also a cap on how many units of a certain type could be in the pool so you couldn't stockpile them to mass produce later. It meant that you needed to be slowly adding units to your armies and if you wanted to use units in decent numbers you needed more than one recruitment place as they stacked the speed units were added to the pool. It's been a long time, but wasn't this basically how M2 worked to begin with? Still super hyped for the death of agents.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 07:11
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:It's been a long time, but wasn't this basically how M2 worked to begin with? It had caps but you still had to build x building to recruit y unit, after which you had unlimited y units as long as you waited around, and also said units could not afterwards replenish unless you manually walked them back to the home province. So no, not really M2 is frankly unplayable unless you're desperate for a spreadsheet with a GUI Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Feb 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 07:34
|
|
|
Delacroix posted:One of the most subscribed mods for R2 drastically overhauls followers so they're distinct and significant bonuses. I can't say the same for TWW. IIRC a goon made a mod revamping followers for all the races in TWW1, but unfortunately he stopped doing it for TWW2. Real bummer, because a lot of followers across all the races are useless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 08:43
|
|
|
drat this is Attila but better in any way and i loved Atilla. Hyped!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 14:10
|
|
|
Having gone back to dicking around in Rome 2 a bit after months of warhammer only, I really really hope future campaign diplomacy AI follows the WH model In warhammer their traits are relevant: a defensive isolationist will park a terrifying stack in his city but be amicable if you aren’t pushy. An imperial with imperial distrust will be contrarian and probably need murdering. A high elf that’s a diplomatic guardian will be happy to play second-fiddle to a player elf, but a wary one that hates elven politics will probably not deal with you. The AIs, while still dumb, feel like they have goals and you can reasonably predict what they might do. It makes for a world that feels “lived in” In Rome though, diplo is meaningless. If you look weak, people with multiple treaties and green relations will trip over themselves to war you and only you. Some especially stupid AIs will perpetually DoW and then offer gold for peace a few turns later. Get too strong or play as a major power though and every single faction does a total 180 and will offee their whole treasury for NAPs, evenif you are an obvious menace, mechanically murdering minors one faction at a time and blithely ignoring treaties. It feels like a world where every peasant knows exactly who the player is and acts accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 14:21
|
|
|
So what's the word on Thrones of Britannia? I haven't played TW since Rome 2 and am wondering if y'all think ToB will be good. Is it based off Attila, if so, was Attila good?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:So what's the word on Thrones of Britannia? Look through the past two or three pages.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
Attila is good and has some vicious combat, but it's engine runs poorly and it has an issue with unit variety among the western European factions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:So what's the word on Thrones of Britannia? Attila was really good, but there are a few complaints from fans of other games. First, it breaks the format of starting as a 2 province minor and then painting the map through conquest until you win. You can start as the crumbling Eastern or Western Roman Empire which is an incredible challenge as every two-bit band of barbarians chips away at your frontiers. You can still start as a small minor though. The ever present threat of mobile cities of Huns parking themselves in your territory and killing everyone is a problem for every player. Also there's a climate change mechanic that makes farm yields decrease and the world just gets smaller, deader, and more empty. Also, unit upkeep is HUGELY EXPENSIVE and it's difficult to afford big stacks of anything, much less of high tier units. Reason I like it is because it felt more like a survival experience, rather than building an unstoppable juggernaut empire and then autoresolving a hundred battles. It really hit with me, but I can understand why other people didn't like it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
there's a few other things, like a lot of tech unit upgrades being a trap due to trading often marginal upgrades for increased upkeep, with no way to go back. sometimes you can lose your access to things like skirmishers. climate change is also a gotcha, until you learn to only use goats, basically, unless you're far south enough. its a good game, though. imo the difficulty for most factions is overstated by goons, you just need to know how to settle and tech up smartly or you can fall into a death spiral where upkeep is too high but youre under too much pressure to cut units.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Grab Great Britain and turn it into your frozen death kingdom after you boot all those pesky caledonians and irishmen out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
I'm sure Lusted is going about this with the knowledge that early game half-stack battles of whatever units you can scrounge up and afford in time are the most tense and engaging ones, considering that was the norm in M2TW and he was famous for modding it. Not to mention the emphasis on "realism" elements, except this time he can build them in from the outset instead of jury-rigging code. I'm excited for this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
While I appreciate that generals can die permanently in battle, I relaly hope that there is still the chance of them ending up wounded and unavailable for a number of turns rather than always dying. It always kind of bugged me in the historical TWs where I'd kill an enemy general in every battle, no rivalry with Takeda Shingen in Shogun 2, he'd die in the first battle I fought against him, if he had even survived until then fighting against other AIs. In short I want generals to be a bit more persistent and able to survive defeats than they were in the old Total War games, I want to face the same dude multiple times and remember him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
Well that seems to be the case for Three Kingdoms. But really,, Alfred the Great was I'll during most of his reign, so you're kind of expecting him to die off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
Nemesis system for Total War when?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
In the Hannibal and Caesar scenarios in Rome 2, Hannibal, Caesar and Scipio can't be killed, just wounded
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:Nemesis system for Total War when? Oh, poo poo. That'd be the loving best and I hope someone in CA has already had this idea and is working on doing it for Three Kingdoms at the earliest. Arcsquad12 posted:Well that seems to be the case for Three Kingdoms. But really,, Alfred the Great was I'll during most of his reign, so you're kind of expecting him to die off. Oh, I'm not saying make generals or faction leaders unkillable. Just make it so if they fall in battle there's a chance for them being wounded and escaping, being wounded and captured or being killed, with say being killed having about a 10-20% chance, the two others perhaps dependent on the severity of the defeat and how superior enemy forces were, and everything possibly being modified by traits and followers. For example being strong or something giving less chance of being outright killed, having a loyal bodyguard retainer reducing the chance of being outright killed and making it more likely to be wounded and escaping rather than being captured, and so on. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Feb 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:Well that seems to be the case for Three Kingdoms. But really,, Alfred the Great was I'll during most of his reign, so you're kind of expecting him to die off. All I'm saying is there better be a general named Uthred with Viking traits fighting for Alfred.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
quote:It had caps but you still had to build x building to recruit y unit, after which you had unlimited y units as long as you waited around, and also said units could not afterwards replenish unless you manually walked them back to the home province. The bolded implies a unit trained in London could only retrain in London and not in Spain or Jerusalem, which is false. Any city in your hands that had the right infrastructure could retrain a unit. It helped that most units used the same buildings the world over. They might look different, but a Barracks in Cairo or France could still train and retrain a Seargent Spearman. Kingdoms played around with restrictions based off religion and such, and many mods based off Kingdoms also.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
Bloodly posted:The bolded implies a unit trained in London could only retrain in London and not in Spain or Jerusalem, which is false. Any city in your hands that had the right infrastructure could retrain a unit. It helped that most units used the same buildings the world over. They might look different, but a Barracks in Cairo or France could still train and retrain a Seargent Spearman. Yeah but M2 replenishment still sucked so much rear end and was horrible. Also, peak awful total war diplomacy: dicking around as Epirus while watching the super bowl. Liberate Lucani from Rome. Lucani spawns at peace with Rome. OK, whatever. Two turns later, as the etruscans cap Rome, Lucani wardecs me. Etruscans join the war because we have been in a blood-soaked alliance since turn one trashing those rear end in a top hat romans. Etruscans immediately go from green to red face bc of my "past treaties with Lucani" and cancel our alliance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
How much did CA manage to fix R2 before they moved on to other titles? In terms of expectations vs. results, it was even more disappointing than Empire for me and I gave up about 6 months after release.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 07:01
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:So what's the word on Thrones of Britannia? The Family Tree is back. The Family Tree is back!
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 07:10
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:How much did CA manage to fix R2 before they moved on to other titles? In terms of expectations vs. results, it was even more disappointing than Empire for me and I gave up about 6 months after release. They just released another major update for it not 3 months ago. Rome 2 got shitloads of support.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 07:19
|
|
|
The Great Heathen (Viking) Army may have been found. Well, parts of it anyway: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/02/health/viking-graves-repton/index.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 10:40
|
|
|
Huh, when did they change to let you select factions from the DLC campaigns in Rome 2 and Attila custom battles? Shame it doesn't include Persia from Wrath of Sparta but that should be simple to mod in at least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
What do you mean? They were always there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2018 14:56
|
|
|
https://www.totalwar.com/blog/thrones-britannia-gaels CA released some info on the Gaelic factions. quote:Cultural Traits: The first of the two is Mide, in central Ireland: quote:Faction Trait: The Fair of Tailtu The second is Circenn in Scotland: quote:Faction trait: The Stone of Destiny
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
These sound fantastic. How am I more excited for little side game over the dream Total War game I've wanted for years?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
Spears and crossbows, huh? Wish they went for pikes, but whatever, I think I found my faction in the bonny hills of Scotland.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
I'm getting back into Shogun II (as the Mori), and the campaign's going okay so far. But I'm running into the same issue as always: every ten turns or so, a faction on the other end of the country will declare war on me out of nowhere. This will happen, and then like twenty turns later a fleet will drop a deathstack on my coast somewhere. It's just now happened with the Hattori, who are large, distant, and my former trade partner. Why are they doing this? I'm above-average in the strength rankings, my leader is honourable as hell, I'm not Christian, I haven't betrayed anyone, they just decide they hate me. Wouldn't it make sense to conquer someone closer? Also no-one will ever make peace, ever, because being at war is a giant opinion malus that dwarfs everything else, and AIs make decisions based on how cool they think you are, and not on their best interests. Except when that decision is "Should I declare war?", I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 07:36
|
|
|
Unit variety gets brought up a lot and I can understand the reasoning people wanting more diverse units between factions, but I don't think lack of unit variety can necessarily be a bad thing. One of the interesting things to me about S2 was that everybody got the same relative units, so battles were decided by how well you used those units. Then factions had the chance to play out a little differently when they had special units or bonuses. I can go either way, but I don't think lack of variety is automatically a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 08:32
|
|
|
The worst thing is fake or useless variety
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 10:14
|
|
|
Krazyface posted:I'm getting back into Shogun II (as the Mori), and the campaign's going okay so far. But I'm running into the same issue as always: every ten turns or so, a faction on the other end of the country will declare war on me out of nowhere. This will happen, and then like twenty turns later a fleet will drop a deathstack on my coast somewhere. It's just now happened with the Hattori, who are large, distant, and my former trade partner. Why are they doing this? I'm above-average in the strength rankings, my leader is honourable as hell, I'm not Christian, I haven't betrayed anyone, they just decide they hate me. Wouldn't it make sense to conquer someone closer? Could be perceived weakness - if you're at war with a bunch of other factions, the AI does notice that and reckon it's got a better chance. It could also be that the Hattori are really friendly with most of their neighbors, or their neighbors have strong interlocking alliances they don't want to mess with. Potentially, too, if you've been highly successful and expanding rapidly you've generated enough threat that even a distant nation is perking up and taking notice. But yeah, it could also be that the AI decided to brainfart, that does happen sometimes. Check the other potential reasons before getting disgusted, though. Also the AI DOES sign peace, but it only does so if it thinks it's kinda screwed - i.e. you just killed their field armies and are marching on their cities, or someone big nearby just declared war on them, or something along those lines. If it's a large country with a lot of depth and multiple stacks your chances of forcing a peace are near-nil until you've chewed your way through them. As long as they have armies SOMEWHERE that are on paper somewhere in the neighborhood of even with yours the AI will fight on. Stalemate isn't good enough - they have to both be defeated in battle AND be afraid that if they keep fighting they'll lose cities.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 10:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
Plan Z posted:Unit variety gets brought up a lot and I can understand the reasoning people wanting more diverse units between factions, but I don't think lack of unit variety can necessarily be a bad thing. One of the interesting things to me about S2 was that everybody got the same relative units, so battles were decided by how well you used those units. Then factions had the chance to play out a little differently when they had special units or bonuses. I can go either way, but I don't think lack of variety is automatically a bad thing. Unit variety is great when it is meaningful, or at least easily understandable. Shogun 2: Rise of the Samurai was fantastic in spite of having low overall unit variety, because the units were well-balanced and they all contributed to the game. Whereas Rome 2 had far greater diversity of units, but often you still ended up choosing the same handful of key players for each faction - or just upgrading to more elite units that played the same way but had better stats. I still think that RoS is one of the least-appreciated but best editions of the Total War series.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 19:43
|
|
