|
CharlestheHammer posted:Yeah another good example is the RPG Trails of Cold Steel. I thought that anything under the hardest difficulty was boring when I was playing Wolfenstein: TNO, but only like 14% of the people who have played the game beat the last mission on that difficulty and I'm not sure if every other option should be removed or not just because I, personally don't prefer them.
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 19:32 |
|
|
I only completely a legendary campaign once, in Shogun 2(FotS), and it was awful and that game was actually great. The TW AI never gets better with further difficulty, it only gets more cheats and the player more handicaps, none of which translates to good or fun gameplay.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 10:40
|
|
|
Electronico6 posted:I only completely a legendary campaign once, in Shogun 2(FotS), and it was awful and that game was actually great. The TW AI never gets better with further difficulty, it only gets more cheats and the player more handicaps, none of which translates to good or fun gameplay. Been 7 years since Shogun 2 tho, so things have changed.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 10:52
|
|
|
The AI still doesn't get any better with difficulty though, just more bonuses A game should be good at it's base difficulty level, this doesn't seem controversial. From what Iv played of ToB (about 7 hours across 3 abortive campaigns) it isn't very good sadly. If it's your jam you might like it though, it actually works and runs reasonably well though not as well as launch Warhammer given how small and undetailed the units are imo. Communist Thoughts fucked around with this message at 11:05 on May 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 11:02
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:The AI still doesn't get any better with difficulty though, just more bonuses are you sure?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 11:05
|
|
|
Plavski posted:are you sure? Nope cause I haven't played it since giving up yesterday, probably should have said smarter than better, cause the AI does generally get more aggressive on the campaign map. I don't think it would affect battle AI though. AFAIK people saying to play it on legendary haven't actually played the game at all. But I might be wrong there. I'll give it a try when I'm back home in a few days but I'm not looking forward to playing again which is a shame, I was quite excited for this game. E: Fwiw the AI does fight you in even battles more often than it does in Warhammer which is nice. I really dislike them removing ambush stance and their reasoning though. The reasoning was that player metrics show very few ambush battles were fought in Attila but that misses the point imo. The primary use of ambush stance is to leave the AI in a disadvantageous position so you can attack them next turn, rarely to actually catch them in an ambush. That, the army raising replenishment system and no garrisons in minor towns are system changes I actively dislike. Other things I think are just mediocre like the skills system, where food+replenishment is pretty much always the best option for all characters, or the building system where your minor settlements just have one or two fixed buildings you can't change. I can see the point but I think it's a step backward from the previous regional resource system. Communist Thoughts fucked around with this message at 11:24 on May 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 11:09
|
|
|
To be fair they did get rid of March stance also.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 11:57
|
|
|
Fangz posted:To be fair they did get rid of March stance also. That's true, I think the CAI is a little more willing to fight you at equal strength too which is a nice change from warhams where it will just run forever.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 12:15
|
|
|
Electronico6 posted:I only completely a legendary campaign once, in Shogun 2(FotS), and it was awful and that game was actually great. The TW AI never gets better with further difficulty, it only gets more cheats and the player more handicaps, none of which translates to good or fun gameplay. The AI was redesigned after Shogun 2 and now works in a fundamentally different way. nopantsjack posted:AFAIK people saying to play it on legendary haven't actually played the game at all. But I might be wrong there. I'll give it a try when I'm back home in a few days but I'm not looking forward to playing again which is a shame, I was quite excited for this game. I'm saying that because it's what CA's AI devs have said about how their AI works and it seems like a weird thing to lie about in GDC presentations and the like. I'm not sure how much of a difference it actually makes, but again, the person who I know actually has played out a campaign on legendary has said that the AI is better.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 12:21
|
|
|
So I'd need to try to reproduce this situation to make sure if this is an actual feature but I think it is. You know that age-old Total War thing of "we know where the enemy reinforcements are coming in so we'll deploy right on the edge of the map next to them and then murder them before they can really respond"? I just tried that, because of course I would, and when the battle started the enemy reinforcement point actually shifted to the other end of the same map edge, away from my forces. Had to re-align my entire army and actually fight a combined force (slightly staggered) rather than defeating the enemy in detail perfectly. I think it's intentional and a reaction to this particular form of cheese and I like it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 12:47
|
|
|
Plavski posted:are you sure? Majority of TW veterans advise against playing on higher battle difficulties cause the AI will just get flat bonus to their stats, instead of better. Majority of mods, like DeI, are all balanced and made to play on normal difficulty, cause on higher than that the AI will get cheats and break the balance of the mod. The AI gets more aggressive in higher difficulties not due to being better or smarter but cause it's getting twice or more of the resources it should be getting, thus enabling it, but it still behaves the same fundamental way as it does on easy or normal. Majority of legendary runs are completed because you just exploit the AI, as going 1 to 1 is unfair to the player. I mean LegendOfTotalWar(or was it HeirofCarthage) got big in the community due to being the legendary campaign youtuber that knew all the ins and outs of the AI, and showed how to beat the campaigns in legendary. You should see the TW difficulty slider as a threshold for how much nonsense and bullshit you're willing to go through to have some fun. If legendary is your thing, that's fine, but don't try it to pass it off as some "The real Total War starts here" Also the selling point of legendary ToB is that you get 3 endgame invasions at the same time. Fun and interactive.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 13:52
|
|
|
My favorite change in total warhammer is higher difficulties remove the avoid_player tag
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 13:58
|
|
|
Electronico6 posted:The AI gets more aggressive in higher difficulties not due to being better or smarter but cause it's getting twice or more of the resources it should be getting, thus enabling it, but it still behaves the same fundamental way as it does on easy or normal. His point is that CA devs have directly stated that they changed this for ToB and that it does in fact get smarter on legendary, and doesn't receive as many flat bonuses. I haven't played ToB myself so I can't comment on the accuracy of this, but you keep banging the drum about how previous games worked when the whole argument here is that ToB specifically doesn't work that way. Yes, true, previous Total War games work that way, nobody cares, that's not the issue at hand.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 14:23
|
|
|
Electronico6 posted:Majority of TW veterans advise against playing on higher battle difficulties cause the AI will just get flat bonus to their stats, instead of better. i know some veterans (like heir) feel this but I don’t think it’s a majority at all, tons of people play on the higher difficulties I agree the game should be serviceable on normal but saying worst tw ever after a single campaign is a bit premature all the same. Also it is launch after all.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 14:25
|
|
|
To be honest, I haven't played a TW title that wasn't a breeze below Hard. Legendary typically comes down to working with the diplomacy game, knowing which triggers to avoid so that you don't get dogpiled, and being willing to play cautiously enough that you can weather some defeats. It's a very specific sort of challenge, and I typically don't have the patience to continue playing it through to a victory screen, but it's fun in its own way.
Kaal fucked around with this message at 14:53 on May 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 14:51
|
|
|
Tomn posted:His point is that CA devs have directly stated that they changed this for ToB and that it does in fact get smarter on legendary, and doesn't receive as many flat bonuses. CA devs also state the reason Atilla runs poorly is due to being designed for future hardware. ´ CA devs also said that ToB would have story driven campaigns with branching paths, and what story driven campaign means is you get a mission as an Irish king to conquer all Irish ports, and branching paths means that every once in awhile once you fight enough battles you get to chose an event where you send boats to Russia or France, and 30 turns later maybe you'll get some gold. Koramei posted:i know some veterans (like heir) feel this but I don’t think it’s a majority at all, tons of people play on the higher difficulties How many campaigns should I play more, when in the very first campaign I could spot the exact same issues that existed in the previous title that this game was built on? I'm doing a Gwyned campaign and it's more or less the same thing as Dyflin. Heroism works the same way as plunder. You win battles and numbers go up, you get bonus stuff. Lose battles and settlements number goes down. Roster is more or less the same, but I get wardogs, instead of an extra sword man. This is not my first TW game, and right now ToB is just very poor. It is however important to note that it plays perfectly out of the gate, unlike Rome 2 or Atilla.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
Electronico6 posted:CA devs also state the reason Atilla runs poorly is due to being designed for future hardware. ´ 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 15:09
|
|
|
Electronico6 posted:CA devs also state the reason Atilla runs poorly is due to being designed for future hardware. ´ So basically you're arguing from skepticism. "I don't believe it's true, therefore it isn't." I've got no beef with skepticism, and it's well-deserved in CA's case, but it's one thing to be skeptical and another to claim that your statement is a true and solid fact solely because you're skeptical. Especially when there's people with actual experience of legendary apparently saying that it IS different.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 15:17
|
|
|
Electronico6 posted:CA devs also state the reason Atilla runs poorly is due to being designed for future hardware. ´ Interesting thing about designing for any PC hardware - sometimes you gamble and sometimes you get it wrong. There was a good article from Digital Foundry on why Crysis still runs like poo poo on modern machines. Turns out they gambled on the future being in really fast single cores, not medium fast multiple cores. When this didn't turn out, CPU speeds never got fast enough to enable Crysis to work right. https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-why-crysis-still-melts-the-fastest-gaming-pcs-10-years-later
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 15:25
|
|
|
Plavski posted:Interesting thing about designing for any PC hardware - sometimes you gamble and sometimes you get it wrong. There was a good article from Digital Foundry on why Crysis still runs like poo poo on modern machines. Turns out they gambled on the future being in really fast single cores, not medium fast multiple cores. When this didn't turn out, CPU speeds never got fast enough to enable Crysis to work right. Seems like a bad call even for 2007
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
The Duggler posted:Seems like a bad call even for 2007 quote:But Crysis also hails from an era where the future of CPU technology was heading in a very different direction than Crytek may have originally envisaged. It is multi-core aware to a certain extent - gaming workloads can be seen across four threads - but the expectation for PC computing, especially from Intel with its Netburst architecture, was that the real increase in speed in computing would happen from massive increases in clock speed, with the expectations of anything up to 8GHz Pentiums in the future. It never happened, of course, and that's the key reason why it is impossible to run Crysis at 60fps, even on a Core i7 8700K overclocked to 5GHz. At its nadir in the Ascension stage (sensibly removed from the console versions), the fastest gaming CPU money can buy struggles to move beyond the mid-30s. 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 15:31
|
|
|
Noted insane asylum escapee Radious and associates likely suffering from stockholm syndrome have released a mod for Thrones of Britannia. https://www.patreon.com/posts/radious-total-of-18576918 Trigger warning: includes changes to AI decision making, but does introduce settlement garrisons. Tomn posted:Especially when there's people with actual experience of legendary apparently saying that it IS different. The dude I'm talking about who said that is Ellich, who has uh  some experience playing TW games on legendary. turn off the TV fucked around with this message at 15:42 on May 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
Plavski posted:When they were architecting it out in 2005-2006, that was the current wisdom Oooh right, I guess it helps to remember that games need to be developed and poo poo and that can take a few years
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
This is kinda a dumb argument imo. Might see if it can run on my laptop and try legendary but for me my issues with ToB were never campaign AI ones they were campaign mechanics ones and low faction diversity (even expecting just Vikings and assorted Brits) My only CAI issue is the Benny hill chasing of armies who take your settlements automatically without a fight but that's due to system changes not AI ones. There's a bunch of mods for this stuff but I'm not sure just adding these things back in would work very well in ToB. I'm willing to give it another go but I can't think of any remaining faction I'm super excited to try. My experience with the game basically deteriorated over time, I liked it for the first couple hours but the faction campaigns are all very similar it's a weird halfway house between atilla and warhams where it has the simplified campaign layer of Warhammer but it wants you to spend a lot of time penny pinching and scraping by like Attila, resulting in few fights and a lot of spamming turns to upgrade the buildings you're allowed. I'm not sure it's worse than atilla and Rome 2 didn't even work for me at all for about 4 months at launch, but it's less interesting so far than either. It's entirely possible I just don't know how to play it right yet though. Maybe it requires lightning acquisitions of unguarded minors for cash and food (though how do you defend them?) I just also don't trust CA to make an entirely coherent gameplay experience either so can't tell yet if it's me or them. CA make the unique games I crave but they are also often adorable fuckups too
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
I havent played one since the last rome which i liked but never got in to. My impression is that its moderately better in every aspect. I liked shogun the most but i have no knowledge of japans history so i have no context and the story is harder to follow so this is basically my favorite tw. I like how they simplified stuff and diplomacy is more important and actually works. The faction stuff and stats has a lot of information to fill out the story beats i get a ck2 feel from it because it gives you all this info about personality and whatnot its kinda of like a story generator. Like i let an ally down so hard last night by accidently misclicking and taking another turn i let my brother die lol. If you min max and go strictly for the win yeah youll bounce off this one, the focus on this is the personality and the story it generates otherwise rome is better for the variety and scope. Its like if you just engage ck2 on a mechanical level its actually pretty boring. I hope they keep doing these for different areas and time periods. I get much more into these focused games i guess. Imo if you liked shogun and you like this era or location this is better in every way. Well its been a long time, but thats my impression from memory.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:It's entirely possible I just don't know how to play it right yet though. Maybe it requires lightning acquisitions of unguarded minors for cash and food (though how do you defend them?) I don't have the game so I'm just spitballing here, but would it work to think of secondary settlements as "disposable"? I.E. Gaining and losing the undefended minor settlements are the equivalent of viking raids and you should focus on knocking out major settlements and cleaning up the minors and their raiders only after kneecapping the important stuff in the majors. Again, I don't know what ToB's gameplay is like exactly, but there've been games in the past for me where what looked like an impossible strategic situation only started making sense when I gave up on the idea of keeping everything I gained and focused on knocking out centers of power and/or going on long raids instead.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:it has the simplified campaign layer of Warhammer but it wants you to spend a lot of time penny pinching and scraping by like Attila 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I don't have the game so I'm just spitballing here, but would it work to think of secondary settlements as "disposable"? I.E. Gaining and losing the undefended minor settlements are the equivalent of viking raids and you should focus on knocking out major settlements and cleaning up the minors and their raiders only after kneecapping the important stuff in the majors. The important stuff are the minor settlements, as it's where all the food actually is. The major settlements are more economic boosters and supply depots. Major settlements only become important from mid game as factions start to upgrade the garrisons that give penalties to movement to invading armies. But like previous TW mid point in the game is where you just start running away with it. When other rivals in my Dyflin game started to upgrade their major garrisons, I already had 4 full stacks and 2 other half stacks running around with over 500 food, and the only thing that was a bottleneck was unit recruitment recharge, so at that point I was no longer caring that the AI could take my lil villages, I could just brute force them. One thing that the game doesn't really make it clear, is that you can go on with negative food for a lot longer than it appears. With Dyflin you have a very precarious start, but you can go comfortably in the red for food during 5 or 6 turns, which are more than enough to mop up your northern and southern neighbor and get back to the green. (The southern Dylfin neighbors also for some reason love to go to Wales, so you can take their main province without resistance.)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
Tbh I’m glad ToB isn’t great because that puts pressure on CA to make 3k really good
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
ToB and 3Kingdoms are different teams, right?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
While it's entirely fair that the game is a buggy mess because that's standard total war release pratice, I really don't feel like paying 40 euros for what seems like an extended Charlemagne DLC. I'll plow that money right into 3K but specially now that it's confirmed that the game based on a boring setting is, well...boring, i'll wait for it to eventually be at 20 euros + blood dlc. 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:ToB and 3Kingdoms are different teams, right? Yeah, ToB is Jack Lusted's little project. 3K is done by the main group, then there's another group working on Warhams 3, and more working on Arena. Oh yeah, and more working on other poo poo too... CA have grown massively in recent years. Mans posted:While it's entirely fair that the game is a buggy mess because that's standard total war release pratice, I really don't feel like paying 40 euros for what seems like an extended Charlemagne DLC.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 19:11
|
|
Mans posted:While it's entirely fair that the game is a buggy mess because that's standard total war release pratice, I really don't feel like paying 40 euros for what seems like an extended Charlemagne DLC. This is what STEAM sales are for basically, It sounds decent but I'll grab it discounted around Christmas.
|
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 19:14
|
|
|
Plavski posted:Yeah, ToB is Jack Lusted's little project. 3K is done by the main group, then there's another group working on Warhams 3, and more working on Arena. Oh yeah, and more working on other poo poo too... CA have grown massively in recent years. In one battle I saw a unit climb over a fence but another unit walked into the fence and broke it so five or six guys climbed over an invisible fence. I would say that's at least on par with how unplayable and broken vanilla Empire or Rome 2 were.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
Plavski posted:Yeah, ToB is Jack Lusted's little project. 3K is done by the main group, then there's another group working on Warhams 3, and more working on Arena. Oh yeah, and more working on other poo poo too... CA have grown massively in recent years. The AI was physically incapable of responding to ranged fire in release Warhammer 2 other than running in circles. Warhammer 1 AI would not attack unless it had a 4 to 1 advantage and Chaos would regularly die due to buggy auto resolves.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:In one battle I saw a unit climb over a fence but another unit walked into the fence and broke it so five or six guys climbed over an invisible fence. I would say that's at least on par with how unplayable and broken vanilla Empire or Rome 2 were. Wait ahaha are you for real? Thats broken to you?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
ETW broken is an entire unit forever stuck either in reloading or not being able to move up into their formation because one guys reload or movement animation is stuck and refuses to finish. Or the invincible artillery crew.
|
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:ETW broken is an entire unit forever stuck either in reloading or not being able to move up into their formation because one guys reload or movement animation is stuck and refuses to finish. Or the invincible artillery crew. Or the AI being unable to conduct naval invasions, or units getting stuck trying to go through a breech in the wall or artillery guns shooting themselves...
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
And not a bug but glitch monarchs living until one hundred. A terrifying prospect for Spain in that game.
|
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 19:32 |
|
|
Mans posted:The AI was physically incapable of responding to ranged fire in release Warhammer 2 other than running in circles. That is not a gamebreaking bug on par with any issues we had at launch in older games. I played the poo poo out of Warhams 2 at launch with no issues. Do people forget what a mess Empire shipped in? That was reason enough to give CA the reputation it had, but the Warhams releases have been marvelously playable with no particular crashes or flat out broken nonsense preventing play.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 20:15
|
|