|
Decided to say screw it and started a FOTS campaign instead. Now my biggest annoyance with FOTS is the endless naval battles. Should I just get the HMS Death Star when I want to play a battle and drown the enemy fleets with swarms of pissy wooden kanran marus autoresolving their way to victory? Saigo Takamori has been conquering Kyushu all by his lonesome while my daimyo sits in Satsuma being fat and lazy waiting for the railway to be finished.
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
StashAugustine posted:otomo are fun if you like guns, their unique unit is basically katana samurai with guns Otomo owns. gently caress diplomacy, praise the Lord, and blow everyone away with gunpowder, Portuguese mercenaries, and massive warships.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
Vargatron posted:And once you do pin them down you have to force them to march out during a siege, because offensive siege battles are zero fun to try and win. Unless you have cannons, in which case you can annihilate most of the enemy army without a single casualty because the AI refuses to step outside of the fortress under any circumstances, and will happily line the walls with targets to explode.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:Decided to say screw it and started a FOTS campaign instead. Now my biggest annoyance with FOTS is the endless naval battles. Should I just get the HMS Death Star when I want to play a battle and drown the enemy fleets with swarms of pissy wooden kanran marus autoresolving their way to victory? Ironclads basically poo poo all over all other botes in FotS, and iron-plated ones poo poo all over anything not an ironclad. Hell, without AP shells ironclads are basically next to invulnerable to cannonfire. The only small bote that is really threatening to an ironclad is the torpedo boat, and good luck getting that researched in the average FotS campaign. (Though torpedos are loving devastating. The freakin' Warrior is the only ship that has so much as a chance to survive a single one, and two will hilariously overkill her.) Magni fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Jul 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
Some more information about the upcoming changes to Thrones of Britannia: Beta Patch Notes: https://www.totalwar.com/blog/thrones-of-britannia-allegiance-update-beta Interview with Jack Lusted about the game and the upcoming patch: https://www.totalwar.com/blog/blood-and-allegiance-an-interview-with-thrones-of-britannia-game-director-jack-lusted While the initial release of Thrones was lacking in polish, the first patch really made it a solid game and this next set of changes look likely to really give it a place in the Total War stable. Stripping it right back to the basics and making some solid but fundamental changes (like recruitment being completely re-imagined) was such a good step, but I really wasn't expecting them to notice where they stripped back perhaps a little too far and add in some more mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 10:52
|
|
|
That Allegiance mechanic does seem surprisingly a big addition for the game, and it sounds great. Maybe this one actually just needed more time in the oven and that was planned to originally be there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 11:21
|
|
|
Thrones isn't bad at all, I just wish there were more historical tidbits. I loved those things in Rome and Medieval II; random "events" that told you about this and that historically significant discovery.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 12:40
|
|
|
I've gone back to thrones a few times and just never gotten a good campaign out of it. Dublin is the only faction that seems to have a fun warry time without having to spend 10 turns recruiting or marchijg cause something unexpected happened. Also turn times are surprisingly long, if it was like FotS length I'd play it more but Attila engine so lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 14:08
|
|
|
I want to like Thrones, but it really needs to do more to explain how everything works. It feels like it was designed on the assumption that the player would already be familiar with Attila, which I've never played, so for example I keep on needing to look up how the food system works before I decide what to use a building slot for. I think I'd enjoy it a lot more if it had a proper tutorial for the campaign map.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
I've subscribed to the Rome2 'ancestors' beta, and it crashes to desktop frequently. All mods disabled, I'll try to either delete them completely or just wait a bit for the proper release.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 10:45
|
|
|
https://store.steampowered.com/app/850010/Total_War_ROME_II__Rise_of_the_Republic_Campaign_Pack/ August 9th quote:Rome – a growing republic, vulnerable and surrounded by enemies
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/SXwC8jnP4Y4 When you conquer Rome with peasants
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 05:43
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:https://youtu.be/SXwC8jnP4Y4 Nice. RTW:Barbarian Invasion taught me peasant-fu because as the Roman Empires on hardest difficulty, peasants are the only units you can really afford to garrison non-frontier cities and kill rebels with if you want to be able to also afford building up an economy and expanding. As long as the enemy doesn't have too much cavalry and just runs you down, you can just tire out and isolate individual infantry units and dogpile them. 3 units of peasants will easily crush a tired unit of comnitatenses with fairly low casualties. (The "holy poo poo, I'm surrounded by a lot, and I mean a lot of guys" modifier is pretty potent)
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 07:25
|
|
|
So I actually really enjoyed Empire and Napoleon naval battles and how they were implemented. I thought Napoleon in particular did well because rather than being a game of chasing army transports, navies played their own game around attacking and protecting the trade routes and that solved a lot of problems of the AI kiting you. In Shogun and Rome 2 however the Naval battles are so aggressively badly implemented that they're a major downer on the whole game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:So I actually really enjoyed Empire and Napoleon naval battles and how they were implemented. I thought Napoleon in particular did well because rather than being a game of chasing army transports, navies played their own game around attacking and protecting the trade routes and that solved a lot of problems of the AI kiting you. The naval battles were such a step back in Shogun. Rome 2 is excusable, because they well, don't have ships of the line and cannon, though some greek fire would've been rad. The Shogun AI didn't exist. Also having no land models like Empire was such a bummer. Just gimme a game that ties it all together CA. (put ships of the line and cannon into Total: Warhammer 2 please)
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
I legitimately want them to add naval combat to the Warhammer series. Naval combat in TW is usually pretty dull, but think of how magic and sea monsters could mix up the formula.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 17:09
|
|
|
TheTrend posted:The naval battles were such a step back in Shogun. Rome 2 is excusable, because they well, don't have ships of the line and cannon, though some greek fire would've been rad. The Shogun AI didn't exist. Also having no land models like Empire was such a bummer. Rome 2 isn't excusable, if they can't make it fun they should have been brave enough to remove it from the game completely. Instead they wanted their Classical-Saving-Private-Ryan mixed battles and they're terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Rome 2 isn't excusable, if they can't make it fun they should have been brave enough to remove it from the game completely. Instead they wanted their Classical-Saving-Private-Ryan mixed battles and they're terrible. I disagree. Were they as cool as they could be? Probably not, would I rather they not be in the game? Nah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
The Attila naval battles are pretty fun when you are playing northern factions with longships. Watching proto Vikings mail the crap out of Romans is fun. And the Attila AI doesn't like to flee as much which is nice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Rome 2 isn't excusable, if they can't make it fun they should have been brave enough to remove it from the game completely. Instead they wanted their Classical-Saving-Private-Ryan mixed battles and they're terrible. the work pretty good when you have a solid Navy vs Navy battle, the issue is that in my experience the ai only attacks when it out numbers you so it always attacks with land armies in transports which were the best navy by a longshot Attila fixed this by adding in sea sickness so a transport full of archers didn't become a platform that kills a ship with every volley, but they still haven't back ported that to Rome 2 yet for some reason
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
Bit off topic but has anyone tried field of glory? Seems like a decent game in theory.Agean90 posted:the work pretty good when you have a solid Navy vs Navy battle, the issue is that in my experience the ai only attacks when it out numbers you so it always attacks with land armies in transports which were the best navy by a longshot Transport navies sink instantly with a single ram by a real boat btw
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
IIRC actual naval ships are also massively favored against transports by autoresolve so there's no reason to play it out if you face a chance of losing that way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
Mans posted:Bit off topic but has anyone tried field of glory? Seems like a decent game in theory. In theory. In practice you sink one boat, another boat boards your ship and butchers the rammers and you l have to micromanage everything, pausing after every action lest you leave any boat still long enough to get boarded and killed by landlubbers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
IMO actual naval battles in Rome 2 mostly suck rear end but the sea-land battles are amazing and the game would be poorer without them. Amphibious siege battles have been straight up some of the most fun I've ever had in Total War; assaulting a fully decked out city of Carthage simultaneously from land and sea was amazing. Now that boats will be able to disembark after landing too it should be even better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
Mans posted:Bit off topic but has anyone tried field of glory? Seems like a decent game in theory. Field of Glory is based on a long-running historical minis wargame that at least at the time it was hugely popular (not quite DBA or Warhammer Historical, but close). IIRC people were praising it in the Historical Wargames thread, but I'd double check there for sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 08:38
|
|
|
Mans posted:Transport navies sink instantly with a single ram by a real boat btw
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 10:58
|
|
|
The Allegiance update for Thrones of Britannia is good. I don't think it'll change anyone's mind on the game but it's a significant feature update/change. I can safely say it's the only time in any Total War game that the political side of things has felt meaningful to me, both in terms of loyalty and also family management. Here's a screenshot that will help to tell that story: I played a Mide campaign and actually played it to Ultimate Victory for the first time. In that time I had to deal with a full-on rebellion once, as well as riding the wave of disloyalty as I expanded and had to deal with influence problems, plotting nobles, and power-hungry governors. My heir Donnchad's bastard son - from before his marriage - was the one who led the rebellion. The icon there next to his portrait shows that he left my faction for an usurper faction. One of Donnchad's daughters also died in infancy, and his other daughter had to be bribed to marry because she disapproved of the match. It's about as close to Crusader Kings as I've ever got from Total War. I had to deal with low-loyalty nobles almost constantly and I enjoyed it for the most part. The drawback is that it can be difficult to keep track of everyone's loyalties once you have a couple dozen generals and governors, especially because their traits can shift based on your king's influence and other things. This is nice in one way - a disloyal noble can be brought back into the fold, or a previously secure one can develop rebellious feelings if passed over for advancement - but it also makes it hard to get a handle on the situation when you have 4-5 loyalty changes of this kind every few turns. Allegiance is a neat system, and there's a nice twist on it with Usurper Allegiance being a factor in creating public disorder. When the rebellion started, it pumped up usurper allegiance factionwide, so the longer the rebellion went on the greater chance of other provinces rebelling. The building updates are good, I think, although it's a little sprawling for my taste. Can't speak on the pagan king mechanics because I wasn't playing as Sudreyar or Dyflin.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 14:01
|
|
|
Azran posted:Field of Glory is based on a long-running historical minis wargame that at least at the time it was hugely popular (not quite DBA or Warhammer Historical, but close). IIRC people were praising it in the Historical Wargames thread, but I'd double check there for sure. FOG2 is an adaptation of the minis game and a pretty good one- the battles are better than anything Total War does, though it doesn't do a map campaign. There are dynamic campaigns, but it's just a battle-to-battle generator with some occasional choices in between.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:FOG2 is an adaptation of the minis game and a pretty good one- the battles are better than anything Total War does, though it doesn't do a map campaign. There are dynamic campaigns, but it's just a battle-to-battle generator with some occasional choices in between. this is honestly a big plus in my book so i'll try and grab it when it's cheaper. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
Yeah I really like FOG2. Like Pike and Shot, those games have a way of generating interesting and pretty nail-biting battles that can swing back and forth dramatically. I always wanted to try their Sengoku Jidai game too but never did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 05:59
|
|
|
https://www.totalwar.com/blog/allegiance-update-beta-2 More big changes for Thrones in the beta update. War fervour is removed, supplies reworked, decrees added (equivalent to TWW rites), new faction mechanic for the English kingdoms, reworks of other mechanics. I'm into it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:https://www.totalwar.com/blog/allegiance-update-beta-2 The supplies change in particular seems really good and needed. I'm not sure about the new food requirements for some buildings, but I'll see how it shakes out in practise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2018 04:48
|
|
|
The new version of the beta broke my campaign save  Anyway, so far most of the changes they've applied have made the game harder, and it's great. It's slowly getting kind of Shogun 2-ey: you're just beset on all sides, and you have to constantly worry about unrest and betrayal, and the new recruitment system sort of brings back the old system in which you would be forced to roll around with partial stacks (especially when fighting a sudden, unexpected defence). Also, while I did have one of my vassals attack the other, for the most part the AI seems less psychopathic. It declares war when there's territory it can plausibly take and hold. Dyfflin has a habit of invading across the Irish Sea, but that's a pretty short hop, and I haven't seen them lose their homeland because of it yet. Also the text box for posting gets weird when you string "ffl" together, you can't move the text cursor through it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2018 10:21
|
|
|
shalcar posted:The supplies change in particular seems really good and needed. I'm not sure about the new food requirements for some buildings, but I'll see how it shakes out in practise. I gave a wee play around with it as West Seaxe and the food requirements don't seem too bad from what I've seen so far, but who knows. The thing I don't really like is that the decrees (at least the Witan ones for West Seaxe) cost both money and faction leader influence to enact. Influence is such a precious commodity that I find myself not wanting to do any of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2018 11:13
|
|
|
Was playing ThroB and it's improved but still can get those runs where you'll go a few hours without a battle, so I loaded up Rome 1. I still think this game has my favorite-looking battles, and I think it's because they got the game to look good at close, medium, and far away distances. One thing I love is that when units are winning in melee, they'll actually push the losing units back on their heels and eventually envelope them, Cannae-style. It still looks awesome to see an army trying to break through on a bridge map and they're just pushing the defenders back inch by inch to get a better foothold. Cavalry charges feel impactful, and it's cool to see individual cav break through an enemy clump, driving individual wedges into the formations . It's really bummed me out how they've just not looked back from the goofy-looking fighting engine we've had since Empire that looks so much worse than games from like twenty years ago.
Plan Z fucked around with this message at 13:30 on Aug 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2018 12:15
|
|
|
They've made a post about the differences between Classic and Romance modes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
You enjoy the dead game then. My purchase history and command of history shows I'm not, I'm not turning increasingly miserable the more I see the cumulative flaws in the game, and the apparent complete rejection on CA's part to address them. Means these problems will likely stay in the coding and will be around in future games, just like the exploding tower issue was a carry over. It isn't wise to give illhistoric excuses for terrible programming. Defensive siegecraft on this game is completely ♥♥♥♥ed up. If this carries over to 3K it will murder the franchise, the Chinese aren't going to appreciate a contrast between interesting aesthetics but ♥♥♥♥♥♥ gameplay. By overpowering the siege towers on this game, keeping their movements unrealistic, their ability to offload a whole army in a minute or two, and no real sense of a fight or flight response coupled with no physical density when men jump off the towers into a mess of defenders (you can land a whole army in the same spot pretty much, without anything effecting the flow of guys leaping in after, never mind there should be a pile of 20 guys beneath you squashed to death, with you yourself being leaped on soon after. To illustrate the problem of a siege tower, in this game, I refer you to the phenomena of the US Army Airborne 40 Foot Tower (I've jumped out of many): (image) Notice it is loaded up and designed almost identical to the game's siege tower? Those guys can't exit fast enough out if the tower, and they only gotta hand off a static line to the jump master upon exiting. Nothing slowing them down, and it takes a while to offload a platoon. Same with aircraft out side doors. They don't have the immediate threat of landing on 15-30 of their dream or injured comrades immediately below them with infinite waves of enemy surrounding them to intimidate them, in which death would be certain within seconds either from the enemy or 20 more fools from your own side instantly jumping on your head. The way the game shows assaulting a wall is a absolute obscenity. The fact the very few who still bother to play this game don't notice this is very, very bad. Shows the players aren't invested in siege battles on the defensive, or want anything resembling historical accuracy or physics, or logic. There should be a strong advantage for any defender with walls and require much more troops to invest in a successful siege. You achieve this not by needing attacking armies but by making more realistic siege equipment. When it is more realistic players will put much more effort into defending settlements, with troops in a numerical minority, and will pay close attention to how they hold the walls. Instead what we see are video replays on YouTube of absolute absurdities of people building multiple siege towers, rushing the walls, getting the whole army inside in a minute or two, and people not even bothering much to do what every army defending a wall prior to gunpowder did, mass on the walls but rather meet the invading army piecemeal inside the city a few units at a time..... and what is really really sad is that they are sooooooo proud of this style of fighting. OMFG what the hell people. That's not good, it is a clear sign that wall is symbolic at best, might as well be two girls holding a jump rope for your army to jump through. That is so bad, so very very very bad. How the hell are we getting ready to enter into the age of fortifications and protracted battles with the Norman age, prolific castle builders, and Medieval 3, if we can't even pull off a siege correctly in this game involving towers? That isn't trolling, that is a dire warning from a very clear minded assessment of the game, which I had to play for a while to arrive at. I wasn't originally upset with the siege conditions of this game (beyond historical nitpicking, I can forgive a bit on that) but kept noticing of all TW games, this is the worst for defenders in sieges, save maybe Napoleon. Honestly, give me a good hill and forested area in Napoleon near a city and some militia to hold a building or two and I'd have a more realistic and longer lasting defense. I'm not saying nerf other units, not saying stop axemen from hacking gates, or the other stuff or need some mechanic in making siege attrition longer or shorter. I'm saying just really focus hard on fixing the physics of siege towers, make them have weight, slower up hill, require them to be pushed, slow them to be stalled or delayed from a wall, have men hesitant about jumping into a bunch of defenders, have them hesitant about jumping into each other, have special density to death ratios on the walls causing panic with defenders and offensive troops, make sure density relates to morale (if too packed for example, the men can't fight so they panic and die quicker), and and absolutely not 4-5 units standing in the space meant for 1 or 2, with men away from the fighting squished against the wall swinging at nothing and dying for no apparent reason. You literally need some sort of density register tied into the ground of the ramp of the wall that hurts offensive troops and favors defenders when they try these sardines in a can offloading tactics. Heck, sardines in a can often have better spacing, given they obey the laws of physics. If this is done, people will start smashing troops up against the walls when defending, and armies attacking will have to hit multiple points at once, and thus the need for victory points would go away. As it is now, it is like a bunch of crack heads are having back alley turf wars over their drug supply in Mexico. I'm not even saying the drug dealers, I'm saying the drug users, deranged and high as hell. The game is fundamentally broken as it is. This small oversight, one user even suggested here it was intentional to speed up gameplay, murdered any interest many have to play a good defensive siege. A few maps have chokehold where it is still valid fun, but given this issue many are completely inept, the defensive structures, walls especially, don't match the logic for which they were apparently designed for, in keeping the enemy out. If you were a king, and knew the enemy could enter into your city full force under 2-3 minutes, would you even bother building the walls? That's literally the reason why walled cities until recently died off during the age of gunpowder. Guns could obliterate them very quickly, why bother? In this era, especially the Anglo-Saxon walled settlements, we are past the initial Viking shock, during the reconquest, walls are supposed to be very effective on infantry. It is supposed to be really, really hard later on as well, in the eras everyone keeps asking for, like The Hundred Years War, Medieval 3, the Norman Period. Am I really the only one who has noticed this issue? Do you all not realize being careless now, carrying this over to these other games will destroy these games, that the game reviewers will utterly mock them far worst than ToB was laughed at? We are missing out on half of ancient warfare when we can't focus on good siege craft. It is a absolute joke on this game. It is disgusting, inexcusable, stop being ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ in giving excuses. Demand it gets fixed. Sickening not to once you realize what is going on, and how if it doesn't get checked now will just carry over and really hurt us later in a bigger game, because nobody seemed to of noticed and said anything. Don't care about people's feelings or on the bell curve of the player base or the synergy of programming priority needs matching up on the time table handed t the team and the seaming need to prioritize other mechanisms first before moving on to the next title, rush rush rush..... that doesn't matter as much as making solid sieges, making it challenging for both sides. The non-siege battlemaps are rather plain and boring, you put all that effort into city building, that's the crucial point of long games, what will keep the player base, that's where you need to maximize your efforts. If you master this aspect, the intensity of the game dramatically increases. That's when people are busting their brain trying to figure out how to take these impossible strong points, or in holding them on a string budget as their army if off fighting elsewhere. You have no idea how deeply disappointed I was to see absolutely no effort to fix these issues in the layers update blog. Just screams to me 3K is going to be a absolute failure. At some point you gotta move away from fast place Android style arena style gameplay and focus on the nitty gritty realism of war, as TW traditionally have done. You gotta make the elements of gameplay you add actually balance out realistically so players fight realistically. What is the point of having walls if the youtube videos next to never shoe people fighting in the most obvious and logical of places, on the walls? If you can't pull off something obvious like that, is it even worth bothering with the rest of the game? Is it even possible to get this through people's heads? Do you not see the hell the franchise as a whole will be put through if this mistake is carried over to other games, as far too many problems in total war games are do to shared codes being carried over?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
I mean, I too would like better and more interesting wall fighting. But holy poo poo, get me a link to that comment, I want to see the replies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
Did I walk into TWcenter?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 06:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
I DO want so see total war do a crack head turf war about their Mexican drug supply.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 14:44
|
|