|
So I've gotten back into Shogun 2 after a while and just finished a domination campaign, which was pretty neat but kind of a slog at the end (once you're up to the Long target of 40 provinces, those last 20 really aren't going to be putting up much resistance anyway). Are there any mods for the Shogun 2 campaign that people recommend? Stuff that keeps more or less the same flavour but just adds more stuff - expanding on diplomacy would be nice, too (I get the point of realm divide but it's still a dumb mechanic that renders a lot of the diplomatic options meaningless). Really I'm just looking for anything interesting, though. On an unrelated note, should I take a look at Attila at all? Where I'm someone who's only played Shogun 2 and the DLC for that, and doesn't care about multiplayer at all. The thing about Shogun 2 is I really like the setting and the decisions that arise naturally from it (the choices between Ashigaru/Samurai units, or whether to make use of gunpowder or stick with more antiquated weapons), but from what I've seen of Attila it looks like it's got a lot more going on in the campaign than Shogun 2 which appeals to me.
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
Perestroika posted:Hell, maybe even go whole hog and supply a kind of build-your-unit toolkit. Pick a degree of training, how much armor they wear (e.g. light/medium/heavy), what general type of weapon they use, and then enable as a normal recruitment options in your cities. Research enables further options to pick from, certain nations could have specific unique options exclusive to them. It's probably overkill, but that kind of thing does work pretty well in space 4x games, and it'd have the added bonus of driving TWArena completely mental. That's exactly how Alpha Centauri worked and it's considered one of the best 4X games ever made, so it's certainly a viable option. Although the progression was a bit more linear in SMAC than the TW games, you could still opt for units with strong weapons but no armour, making them cheap shock troops but needing a better armoured escort to survive counter-attacks. FaustianQ posted:Goddamn it, this needs to be in an actual game. Like, make the next Medieval start in the late era and end in the 19th century. Use the tech tree to determine what kind of military reforms you have for your units, confer advantages for different nations into picking different paths, even have governmental reforms to change where and how you draw up troops. It'd be pretty drat cool to go from medieval to pike&shot to line tactics with essentially the base units you started from. Hell Shogun 2 already has all the stuff you need in it between ROTS, the base campaign, and FOTS. Sure there's a few gaps in the middle but you could probably fudge that with civic development requirements. The AI would have to be a hell of a lot more competitive for a game over that long a period to actually work though, since there wouldn't be a lot of point if you could just roll right over everyone in the first century.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
http://www.pcgamer.com/total-war-warhammer-brings-heroes-and-monsters-to-battle/ Some interesting info on Total Warhammer. I don't know how much is new since I haven't really been following it, but they talk about a few things in the article, including the Greenskin "waaagh" system for the campaign, as well as how magic and unique units will be handled. Apparently each side is going to have drastically different campaign mechanics too - they describe it as basically designing a different TW game for each one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
What's the right way to use matchlocks, anyway? I never seem to be able to get much out of them - either they only get one volley off before getting charged, or I just suck it up and have them shoot into my own units backs. If I get lucky I can sometimes maneuver them around to shoot from the side but it's generally not so clean that I can do that easily. Also I've figured out that I shouldn't use ranked firing to take a charge because it takes them FOREVER before they take the first shot, but when IS it useful? Also what the heck should I be using bomb throwers for? I am apparently bad at modern technology.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
They're mostly pretty decent for the price - The new clans all have pretty fundamental differences from the original set so it's more than just playing with a few extra bonuses (The Otomi are probably the most "vanilla" of the set since their main gimmick is that they start the game already converted to Christianity but they have unique units too). The Sengoku Jidai pack adds interesting new unique units to each clan - their quality varies but they're all usable. The Saints and Heroes pack is okay, but probably the least interesting DLC. It gives you a bunch of special "one per clan" units you can research and build that have very low unit size but very high stats and usually several special abilities. I've personally found I don't tend to use it very much just because they're far down the tech tree and by the time I unlock them I've mostly won the game anyway, but you might have fun with them. Rise of the Samurai is a sort of mini-expansion - it's not as different from the base game as Fall, but it does do a few interesting things in the campaign. A lot of the buildings have two branches to follow, so you end up specializing your cities pretty heavily. It also replaces religion with an "allegiance" mechanic where you want to try to influence neutral cities into siding with your own clan and lets you buy them outright when they've strongly aligned with your clan, giving you a non-military expansion option. Money is also a MUCH more significant factor throughout the whole campaign - stuff is expensive to build, agent actions cost a TON and there are far fewer free ones, and generally you'll always feel like you never quite have enough money to just do everything you want, forcing you to make decisions about what you spend it on. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Jun 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Sistergodiva posted:Playing Shogun 2 right now and what really bothers me is that there is rarely any good fights. I manage to take castles when the enemy just abandons them. If there ever is a huge battle it's either me just shooting a castle to bits with archers or me shooting an attacking army to bits from my castle. I really love it when you get those awesome middle of nowhere huge battles, especially when you win them by flanks and stuff when you are greatly outnumbered. The issue here is really the castle fights. The AI for them is really weird - it is completely passive on the defensive side, absolutely refusing to leave the fortress for any reason, meaning you can just mass archers and rain arrows on them until running out of ammo with very little damage having been done to your own army. Hell if you've got cannons you can basically wipe out all the enemy archers from range before moving your archers up and take out most of their army without a single casualty on your side. On the offensive side, it will just have everyone climb up the walls at one on every side, generally taking huge losses both from falling off the walls to the effects of your own ranged attackers (and if your defenders are matchlocks you can often rout several units before they even make it all the way up the wall), while all you have to do is park a good melee unit against the wall and slice them to pieces as they make it over. The best battles in Shogun 2 are in the open fields, especially when the AI thinks it has the advantage since it will actively engage you (if you have the advantage it plays a really annoying turtle game where it just kind of sets up everyone in one giant line and waits until you force an engagement).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Incidentally can anyone sum up the differences between vanilla Shogun 2 and Rise of the Samurai? I remember the general gist is that it's lower 'power level' so to speak and generally has a little better balance. There's some pretty major differences: -Basically every building type has two possible branches you can upgrade it along. An example is the basic troop building (which is separate from castle upgrades now) - you can either upgrade it to improve the garrison of the city, or you can upgrade it to give you more recruitment slots and better replenishment in the province. Most of the other buildings have a similar sort of setup, where you have to pick which particular aspect you want to focus on rather that one building doing both. -Money is a lot more of an issue through the whole campaign. As mentioned above, upkeep costs are high, and income is much lower. Additionally, agent actions are much more expensive and there are much fewer free ones. -Samurai are a lot less specialized than the base campaign - you have horse samurai and foot samurai, and they're both essentially better at everything than any lower tier unit - they have bows but they will also tear up enemy units in melee as well so feel free to have them lead charges. There's a new middle tier called "Attendants" that is more like the samurai in the original campaign in both numbers and specialization. -Religion is replaced with clan allegiance, which is spread by the Metsuke equivalent rather than the Monk equivalent. Cities which have a clan allegiance that's different than their parent clan will gain unrest the same way religious differences does, but if a city has a high allegiance to your clan, you can use the metsuke type agent to literally just buy the city for yourself and incorporate minor clans into your empire without even having to declare war. There's a bunch of other minor differences, like the map layouts for the castle sieges and generals being bow cavalry instead of katana cavalry, but otherwise it will feel pretty familiar aside from the stuff mentioned above.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 07:33
|
|
|
Yeah that's something that bugs me in a lot of TW games - terrain features can be a huge advantage but there's basically no way to actually force an engagement on favourable terrain because there's no reason to go over there. If you've got time limits on then the attacker will have to engage EVENTUALLY, but it would be more interesting if claiming certain areas gave enough advantage to be worth fighting over them. Shogun 2 multiplayer had that but for some reason they never included it in any of the single player maps (despite including it in the siege tutorial for some reason). I guess maybe the concern is that it would be difficult to get the AI to be smart enough to make good use of map objectives - if it values them too heavily it divides its forces up between all of them and you can easily overwhelm it with your full army despite the buffs it gets, and if it doesn't value them enough then all the player needs is a token force to take all of them. Threading the needle of when knowing when to capture a point and when to cede it to the enemy to conserve your resources is a problem a lot of humans have trouble with, so getting the AI to do it right would be even more difficult.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Well, I think in UGG they don't have the burden of being a thing where we need to have one army come out the obvious victor when two armies meet on a bigger map. The thing is that I don't think you really need that in the TW games either - the lack of stalemates as an outcome is kind of odd, especially considering that a lot of ancient battles really DID basically go "two armies line up and stare/shout at each other for about a day, then go back to their tents and sleep". Refusal to engage is a valid tactic that isn't actually possible in TW because every battle HAS to have a winner. You could easily have field battles that end in stalemates because the time limit expired result in both armies essentially standing next to each other on the strategic map, and have it function kind of like a town siege, where neither army can move until either the battle is actually decisively engaged or one side withdraws. Damage dealt in indecisive battles could still be meaningful if you have armies engaged in stalemates be unable to replenish, and seasonal attrition would also kick in so you couldn't just sit there forever. Hell, maybe make battle map objectives retain their owners after a stalemate, so if you can capture and hold a point until the time limit expires, you get to start with the bonus (and the point itself as a deployment area) in the next battle, giving even them even more strategic weight.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:Yeah, this is one of the things TW stuggles with. By making decisive action mandatory whenever two armies meet on the campaign map, you end up with players compelled to fight out battles that never would have happened in real life. Hill Shogun MP-stype hill camping is a very effective strategy torn right from the pages of history, but it doesn't make for very fun gameplay Yeah, I mean constant stalemates is obviously boring, but I think that's why having strategic map objectives would make it worthwhile. By giving both sides something to fight over rather than making just wiping out the other army your only objective, you give both sides an incentive to give up their hill to gain whatever advantage is granted by the capturable points - basically forcing both sides into each other. At the same time, if you REALLY don't want to give up your hill, having stalemates means you don't actually have to, but you're allowing the enemy to control the battlefield and putting yourself at a big disadvantage in your next engagement.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Murderion posted:FotS is total war with the brakes off - it's a mad race to get the most money for the biggest, baddest toys you can get your hands on. While in Shogun you have to balance food against development, in FotS the only things holding you back are money and people getting prissy when you demolish a tea house to build a sweatshop. It's utter apocalyptic hellfire that pushes the engine to its limits and makes a downright mockery of a lot of the battle mechanics. The agent and general skill trees are streamlined and a lot better than vanilla S2. I think Shogun 2 probably has the most interesting setting in terms of the variety of units it gives you - every different unit actually plays a different role and nothing is really a straight upgrade, rather than the various units in something like Rome 2/Medieval where you have a bunch of different factions with slightly different units that aren't really much different from each other at all. The battle AI definitely has a few weaknesses though - it's very bad at sieges, either on offense or defense, and in the open field battles it has a habit of just forming one HUGE line of all its troops and then refusing to move until you attack it. Still, it's a setting I'd like to see them go back to at some point, since it's a fairly unique one as far as military history goes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
Auditore posted:Related to the general's position in the frontline, is there any particular way to protect him in Attila? I often want to use his unit (palatina guards as ERE) especially in smaller armies but he dies easily and I lose. This is kind of an issue with every TW game and there isn't a whole lot you can really do about it - whether or not the little man specifically representing the general in his unit dies is more or less random, so you're never totally safe when using your general unit in combat. The most you can do is to use the same kind of tactics that would normally keep a unit safe - engage from the front with a separate unit first, then bring your general in on the flank or the rear so most of the enemy will be focused on the first unit and thus very few casualties will go to the general. If it's a cav general, you can use rolling charges so the general unit never stays engaged long enough to take much damage. I don't know what abilities palatina guards have specifically since I haven't played ERE yet but stuff like shield wall or defensive testudo is always useful to increase a unit's survival chances.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Keksen posted:TW goons, I read the OP but I'd like to hear some current opinions. Without going on too much of a tangent here, I used to love TW games to death, played the poo poo out of the first 4 or so games. Then Empire and Napoleon happened and I stopped paying attention to the series for a good while. Recently my interest for pixelmen carrying swords was rekindled and so I was looking at Shogun 2. Is it actually worth playing? The reviews are positive but so were the E:TW ones. Basically, did CA fix ridiculous poo poo like AI armies not moving at all and stuff like that? I seem to especially remember reading about that happening in siege battles. Shogun 2 is absolutely worth getting. There are some conveniences from the newer games that would be nice to have in it, but otherwise it's by far the best one. The unit balance is better/more interesting than any other TW title - there are still a lot of good reasons to use the basic starting units in your army even when you've completely filled your tech tree.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 12:18
|
|
|
Are the faction DLCs for Attila worth getting if I don't plan on playing that faction? Like do they add anything new outside of the playable factions?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Agents in S2 were fine except after realm divide where every clan in japan would spam them at you constantly and it got annoying as hell Yeah but that's really just a sub-issue of realm divide being a lovely mechanic. I mean I get why it exists - because by the time you trigger it you're big enough that everyone else SHOULD be ganging up on you in order to provide any sort of challenge. It's just that rather than combining their forces to actually pose a significant threat, they end up just coming at you from everywhere at once and so it ends up being about swatting down a bunch of mini-raids with a few troops on cleanup duty while you take the rest of the territory one province at a time with your main army.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I really hope in the distant future when they return to the gun power 16th century and after Total War they have a religion and political system that works and the AI understands. Just do a team up with Paradox to have them do the strategic layer and then the combat is done as a TW type thing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Long yari ashigaru are crazy good. Actually most of the unique units in that pack are good and worthwhile (look up videos of the Shimazu gunners).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:So I just lost a game due to a misunderstanding about the way retreats/surrender works. Basically, yeah. Retreat uses up whatever movement points you had left, which is why sometimes you see an army run a lot farther than another one, and why if you chase down an army after it retreats once, it can't run away again.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
In Attila is there a way to give a direct attack order to a unit in shield/spear/etc. wall without them breaking formation to charge when they get close enough? I know I can just give them a move order that will send them walking through their target, but I'm wondering if there's a more direct way.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:The only important question is this: Can I still hammer & anvil my way to victory or is it all centered around heroes and magic now, like King Arthur: The Roleplaying Wargame (if anyone besides me has played that)? Magic is more useful for buffs/debuffs than direct damage at the moment, with the exception of one spell that's super good at hero sniping but not very effective against standard multi-person units. Heroes can be pretty overpowered, but the bulk of the work is still going to be done by your troops, with heroes being like very mobile, very durable support.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:Is the normal reaction to starting a roman campaign in Attila "YOU MANICS! YOU BLEW IT UP! YOU BLEW IT ALL UP! drat YOU! drat YOU ALL TO HELL!"? Pretty much. You're going to spend a lot of your early turns just hemorrhaging territory. The shot term goal is to pull your armies down into your core territory, get organized, then make a push back to recapture all the stuff you lost.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
dogstile posted:Suppose you can always do the agent mod thing but I never noticed the agents in Shogun Agents in Shogun 2 seem to mostly go after other agents. So if you don't bother much with agents of your own you won't really notice them.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Back To 99 posted:I only wish Shogun 2 had a simple mod where the AI factions don't all gang up on the player (not the realm divide, but just in general). This is especially bad in Fall of the Samurai. Honestly all the TW game AI does this because it would be really easy if they didn't. The AI just doesn't play the strategic game well enough to hold their own against multiple opponents, especially if one of them is the player. It would be nice if the games were more "fair" but I can understand why they do it that way.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Incidentally though, this is one of the many reasons I love Shogun 2 the most. Random gamey diplomacy feels a lot less weird when you're dealing with a civil war on the scale of a tiny country. Not to mention that allies stabbing each other in the back for basically no reason is historically accurate to the setting.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Does Rome 2 use the same food system as Attila? Because Attila is kind of weird about food surplus - it uses both local AND global food supply. The global supply seems to matter mainly if it goes in the negative, where you get public order penalties across the board and all your armies start taking attrition. However if a local food balance is negative, even if your global supply is positive, it will cause public order penalties in that province. They usually aren't too severe and a public order boosting building or some garrisoned troops will counter it, but it's still something to be aware of.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Scalding Coffee posted:Just remember that horses always lose to spears. Well, this is true to a certain extent, but it's kind of tricky in Shogun 2 because the basic unit is spears so if you want to make ANY use of cavalry, you have to learn how to time your charges well. In a straight on fight cav will get shredded by spears, but if you have those spears already engaged by another unit in the front, cav can hit them in the back and inflict pretty heavy damage without taking too much themselves. You have to really micromanage your cavalry though, because even sword cavalry just doesn't have a lot of staying power. So there's a lot of "charge, withdraw, reorganize, charge again"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
I didn't really find naval combat that interesting in Attila, just because it kind of felt weird how maneuverable the ships are coming from Shogun 2, and how ships just instantly lock in place when they touch. I get that it makes it less of a pain, but there still isn't really much variety to ships so it just ends up as this big blob of ships boarding each other. That said, I thought the combination land/naval stuff during siege battles was cool.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:I just started up Attila for the first time, just screwing around in the prologue before starting a campaign proper - is there anything I need to know? I vaguely recall from either sometime earlier in this thread or some other iteration of it somebody mentioning that there is a "trap" in that a lot of the food producing buildings you produce actually turn out to be completely useless about a third of the way into the campaign when the climate suddenly changes or something? Any advice on something like that so I don't get 30+ hours into a game and suddenly find myself completely hosed (unless by my own terrible management skills, that's perfectly fine!) Basically there's an annoying mechanic that lowers the fertility of every province on the map by 1 every so often - I think by the time it finishes it's at -3 or -4. So even in provinces that start with 6 fertility, you get more long term effectiveness out of the things like goat pens that don't depend as much on fertility for food production and money. Although it's not that big a deal - Attila lets you sidegrade any building to the equivalent rank on another branch for a bit of cash, so you can start off with fields and then sidegrade to goats when climate change hits.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Another Attila thing is that you can straight upgrade your units from low-tier to high-tier. Sometimes, you do not want to do that, because the new units will have much higher upkeep and bankrupt you. Even playing out the naval battles dedicated naval units will usually demolish transports - the sea sickness penalty for land units fighting at sea basically reduces all their stats to single digits so even a really strong unit will barely dent a boarding crew from a naval unit.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
Are there any other historical conflicts/time periods like Sengoku Japan, where you have a mix of early gunpowder weapons with traditional swords/bows and such? I think of all the TW game settings I still find that dynamic the most interesting but it seems like they aren't going to do a Shogun 3 any time soon.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:If you want a game that really flips the bird at troop quality it's Shogun, where properly used levies can mulch samurai Shogun 2 is the best balanced TW game for this reason. Not only is everyone using the same units (except for the unique units per clan in that one DLC, some of which are pretty powerful, but 90% of your army is going to be normal dudes), but all of those units remain useful throughout the whole game. In Warhammer the lower tier units aren't total garbage (except for Undead where they're kind of supposed to be since you can poo poo out a whole stack of them in a turn), but for the most part they still get outclassed by the later ones. I prefer Shogun 2's design because it means that winning battles isn't just a matter of racing to the top of the tech tree and building a single uber-army of high tier units. I mean that will still work pretty well in S2, but you don't HAVE to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
I never did figure out how to use ninjas effectively. They seem like they could do a lot of damage in theory, especially during a siege battle where you could sneak them in and take out the general, but in practice they just get seen and swarmed by the entire garrison before getting anywhere close.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Mordja posted:Yeah, I played Medieval 2 for a hundred or so turns, messed around with mods (which mostly ended up crashing a few turns in) but couldn't stick with it for how janky it is. By far the most frustrating aspect was unit movement; entire regiments getting stuck on cactuses, cavalry turning 180 degrees on a dime, start-and-stop charges, etc. Been slowly playing a FOTS campaign and its like night and day wrt to responsiveness, and that's leaving aside the metagame improvements. And I'm kind of waiting for TW:W's DLC cycle to wrap up before I buy, but I'm really looking forward to getting lost in the Old World. You might be waiting a while for that - they're planning on two major expansions (about the same in terms of scope as the base release) on top of the smaller DLC releases so it's going to be at least a few years before TW:W is actually "finished".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
StarMinstrel posted:What about an ancient civilization one focused in the fertile crescent? Egypt, babylon, sumerians? I'm struggling to think of another history period they have not done other than China's warring states period. People mentioned WW1, but I always thought that would be super impractical with an engine focused on rank and file battles and cohesive units movement. It'd be cool to see a Total War-style WW1 game, but yeah it absolutely wouldn't work by just taking the existing TW system and slapping a Pickelhaube on everyone. The TW engine is pretty firmly limited to time periods where rank-and-file formation fighting was the standard
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:Yeah I rarely finish grand campaigns because there's a point in every campaign where you realize it's almost impossible to lose. I think with the big grand campaigns you just have to treat it like a Paradox game and decide for yourself when you've won.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Corpses make the best fertilizer.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
shalcar posted:Look at this right as all hell opinion. I would still argue they have never done the world map or title/leader/nobility system as well as medieval 1. It had some really great ideas that I'm sad got dropped in the later games. I'm kind of disappointed they didn't carry the siege mechanics from Attila forward into Warhammer. I mean I know Warhammer is meant to be simpler in general to focus more on the actual combat, but there are so many artillery/siege weapon options yet you can't use them to just burn a city down.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:Matchlocks are real cool, as long as you don't try to think of them as a straight upgrade to bows, because they aren't. They do a different thing. Yeah matchlocks are a weird thing because they serve a much different function to bows. They are absolutely devastating on siege defense - often having them on the walls will rout half the enemy army before they climb all the way up - but they are borderline worthless on siege offense (they can't penetrate the walls with their shots and can't arc over them like bows). Likewise, you can't just put them behind your lines in a field battle like bows because they'll just shoot all your own men in the back (although if you can stand them a bit uphill from your line, they can shoot over their heads which is very effective). I tend to use them the same way I use javelin skirmishers in other TW games, where they're a unit that you hold back until the line is engaged and then flank them around the sides to shoot the enemy infantry in the back. One random thing I've noticed about them as well is that ranked fire takes AGES for them to start shooting, even if you have them set up ahead of time. I'm not really sure why that is, but the upshot is that if you're setting them up to fire a few volleys at a charge before falling back, you want ranked fire to be OFF. Otherwise the enemy charge will cover half their range before they even get the first shots off.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Fanatic posted:I've just started playing as Western Roman Empire on hard in Attila for the first time, and man do I feel like a punching bag for these barbarians. Yeah you generally aren't going to hold on to most of your far flung territory as the WRE, especially up in the British Isles. It's easier to just let the barbarians have it and focus on your wealthier core territories, then start pushing back when you've stabilized.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
I'm interested to see what their next historical game will be. I think the combat and units in Warhammer are the best in the series, but I do kind of miss the more involved strategic layer from the historical games. Given that they mention a period with "key personalities", I'm thinking maybe a Romance of Three Kingdoms game?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 02:09
|
|