Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


It's a good idea for a thread but could I make a suggestion?

The OP should describe the series and then offer short descriptions of each game with the relevant features, best mods, expansions etc.As it is it starts off looking like a FoTS thread not a General Total War thread and there's way too much information on each game so it's hard to compare them.

I'm not sure I'm describing this well but the Paradox Megathread (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3472418) is a good example of what I'm talking about.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


John Charity Spring posted:

As long as Paradox keeps the pausable real-time gameplay (and why wouldn't they? It's perfect for their games) there will never, ever be playable battles in any of their games.
I agree, but I would like to see a better fleshed out combat system. Not sure in what way exactly though.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


VDay posted:

What's the general consensus on Fall of the Samurai? Civ 5's expansion triggered my yearly strategy binge. I bought Shogun 2 when it came out, does FotS add/change enough besides just some units to be worth it or should I just stick with the base game?

It's a solid expansion, but only if you like gun based battles.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Vargs posted:

Toss me into the "might buy during the steam summer sale" group. Is the unit variety any better in FOTS? That was one of my biggest issues with Shogun 2. It's difficult to go from Rome or Stainless Steel over to Shogun with its completely identical clans, all sharing relatively few unit types. The other things I didn't really like were the very hard rock-paper-scissors gameplay and how melee didn't feel anywhere near as weighty as previous games (which I assume isn't as big of an issue with guns being the focus of the expansion).
There's more unit variety than shogun, though not nearly enough. It's the main reason I'm itching for Rome 2. It's been four games since we had one with some real faction difference.

Speaking of, assuming its next, how do you think multiplayer will be handled in Rome 2? I'm hoping they don't go the Shogun/Fots route of allowing all unit types from all factions to be mixed however you like, but I'm not sure how they would square multiple factions with avatar progression. Perhaps an avatar per faction?

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


SeanBeansShako posted:

Also, since it is summer, the summer sale has hit and a several other issues I'm putting Goony Officer Club multiplayer events on hold for a few months.
The sale hasn't hit yet...

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Am I the only person who actually likes tracers? I've just been looking at the modding scene for Empire and Napoleon and pretty much every single mod disables them or at least has them disabled by default.

Is it such a crime to want to know what is actually going on with your missile units at a glance?

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


peer posted:

The move from controlling individual units to "legions" sounds interesting. Wonder how that'll work out.

Yeah. Also that quote about "fewer but more significant battles" has me both excited and nervous, because that's something I think the series has always needed, but it all depends on implementation.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


RPS interview is up. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/07/02/total-war-rome-2-interview/

I haven't read it all yet but there's some interesting bits, a legion can gain traits independently of its generals, I just hope you don't get to directly choose them.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


VDay posted:

Pretty excited about Rome 2 now, although I'll be cautiously optimistic until we see some actual gameplay. It's pretty easy to overstate features and keep the descriptions vague so that people just assume things and get carried away. With that said though, as long as they improve the AI some more then I'll probably buy it and enjoy it because I'm a sucker for total war games.

The last few games have really begun to emphasise multiplayer, and for me that has really made me realise just how lacking Aai Is for a game like this.
Not just CA's AI but AI in general. Even playing against the dumbest pubbie is a completely different experience than playing the computer, and that won't change unless something really really drastically changes in the field of game AI.

In many ways I wonder if it hasn't spoilt the campaign experience for me.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Profanity posted:

Well, part 2 of RPS's interview tomorrow seems like it will be all about AI, so fingers crossed they've made radical improvements. Of course, it's CA and they say that with every new game, but hey-ho battered wife syndrome.

That's kinda my point though, they promise better AI every time but really all they can do is shore up holes in a system which even when working perfectly is woefully inadequate.

I'm kinda hoping they find a way to incentivise drop in battles more, those things are great when you can get them going. I'd also like an option to be available for other peoples drop in battles when in a campaign yourself (not sure how feasible this would be though).

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Captain Beans posted:

This already exists. If you turn on drop in battles you are not only prompted to ask if you want to call in another player into your game, but can also be requested to drop in another player's battle. It just pops up while you are on the world map. I've never seen it happen that much though.

Probably because people using the auto matcher to find drop in battles fill up all the slots. I don't think too many people turn on drop in battles because they are big babies that reload any time something doesn't go their way.

They need to add some incentive to get everyone doing them, maybe give units that fight in human battles 2x exp or something. Also add a rating system so you can vote down shitheads who corner camp or something.
I did not know that, i've never had it happen to me so I thought it just allowed people into your games.

Speaking of reloading I have to admit that I used to be a chronic reloader back in the day, and I still get tempted sometimes. I kinda hope they make the no reload feature of legendary difficulty and make it an option for all modes.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Sober posted:


Also, what I miss most moving out of the RTW/M2TW engine to the Empire one is being able to alt+right click move units. They would keep their facing and everything without them turning to face another direction because I didn't click perfectly in front of them. It was awesome in the times where I could rush a group of infantry in front of something weaker to absorb a cavalry charge on an exposed archer group or something similar.

This reminds me of a feature I've been wishing for since the original shogun, a toggle (which should be on my default) to keep line depth constant when dragging out battle lines, regardless of unit size. It's so annoying when different unit sizes screw up my pretty battle lines.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Nimmy posted:

At the very least they have to have Roman, Greek, European Barbarian, and Steppe Barbarian.

Controversial as it is, new kingdom Egyptions are in as well.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Sole Survivor posted:

Is there any proof of this?

Yes, it was in one of the recent interviews though I forget which.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Mans posted:

The funny thing about AI in Med2 is that even attacking Rebel towns lowers your reputation. Taking cities, even if you were attacked, is also a reputation killer.

It's pretty much impossible to play Med2 unmoded with allies. Try Stainless Steel, the game is much better there.

I don't believe you.
I could have sworn it was but I can't find it now I look. I may be wrong.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


RentACop posted:

Yeah, there's a bunch of ways they could jazz up the egyptians without going completely bonkers with it.

Speaking of bonkers I hope they bring back all the crazy/bloodthirsty pre-battle speeches
I kinda want the speech to be given during deployment though and not before, I love hearing them, but I'd rather not have to do nothing whilst listening.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


physeter posted:

Dunno about that but steer clear of Roma Surrectum for now. The current build (2.5) is kitchen sinkier than usual and they've got some really bad scripting issues. Europa Barbarbarbar seems really popular, you might give it a shot.
EB is really good but it's far from simple.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Lemon Curdistan posted:

Wikipedia disagrees with you:

He said stone, and whilst technically that's incorrect (there were some stone sections in the mountains during the quin) there were no brick sections. which is what I assume he meant since that is what is depicted in the mod.

Edit: Although as Seanbeansako says, it is a silly reason not to give it a try.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Gringo Heisenberg posted:

I've got Rome: Total War and really really enjoyed it. Played more campaigns than I can remember. Tried Medieval 2 and wasn't so crazy about it.

Since the entire Total War series is so cheap for the next 30 or so hours, should I buy Shogun 2/Napolean/Empire vanillas, no add ons? Or go for the Master or Grand Master Collection? Not sure how worth it the add ons are.
I assume Shogun 2 is the best of them too?

Shogun 2 and Fall of the Samurai are the most polished total war games to date but I'm not sure I would go so far as to say they are the best since that is largely down to preference for things like era/scale and so on. Personaly I'd get the collection and play in the order of release because the improvement in polish shogun provides will make it harder to go back to older titles.

For a quick summery

Empire: Huge scale (three theaters: Europe India and North America) possibly too big. Absolutely broken at release but largely playable now, especially with mods. 18th century gun warfare which is very different to the melee focus of previous games. Some people like it some don't. First introduction of battle engine naval combat.

Napoleon: More focused smaller scale (a few mini campaigns culminating in grand campaign on a cut down Europe). Much more polished than Empire, combat improved and refined in both land and naval battles.

Shogun 2: Even smaller than napoleon (islands of Japan). Very little faction variety. Very polished, mainly melee combat. Multiplayer has been balanced better than in the past. Naval combat is godawful.

Fots: Like Shogun 2 but with later 19th century units mixed with traditional melee units. Naval combat slightly better than shogun but still pretty poor.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Gringo Heisenberg posted:

Turned all the settings to low on Shogun 2, and oh god the load times . Also, any tips for campaign? I only tried two battles, and got my rear end thoroughly handed to me trying to assault some compound on a hill. Couldn't even get close with their archers.

Which directx version are you using? It may have changed since I played last but a widely reported issue was that Dx11 made load times significantly longer so I usually kept it on Dx9 . It still wasn't fast (even with an ssd) but it was better. I really hope they fix this for Rome 2 because load times are a big deal in total war games.

Crazy Joe Wilson posted:

Hey, I just saw the Empire collection on Steam on sale for real cheap so I bought it, I just had some general questions about it.

- What's the general consensus for the game, just alright?


Empire is polarising, some people love the scale, some people think its just too big to work properly (not to mention some people were just burned by the release state). Personally I fit into the second category but I think it can be fun to mess around in because of the scale.

Shorter Than Some fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Nov 26, 2012

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Rabhadh posted:

I'd actually like to see a change in the economic system to be more like Supreme Commander. Instead of a flat amount of currency from which you buy stuff, it uses your economic potential instead. For instance you can buy up to and over your potential for a while, until your reserve currency is gone. This would let you buy a massive army in a time of emergency, used it until the crisis is over and then disband without going into the red and ruining the rest of your economy.

Also the giant spider bots with laser death beams.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


shalcar posted:

The Republic is a self choice hard mode, you go into it fully knowing what it's going to be. If you don't like everyone hates you forever, don't go republic.

Considering the previous options were drudge your way through tiny empires that posed no threat or fighting a unified threat, Realm Divide really is the better option (although the was Fall and Rise do it is more palatable than vanilla). People complained because it was a bit gamey, but also because it turned out to be hard when they were used to the total cakewalk of being a major power in earlier Total War games. It's an iterative step forward and I would be sorry to see it go. That's not to say it's perfect, but they are moving in the right direction.

I am one of those people that agrees with the general idea of realm divide but thinks it needs a lot of work as a concept. The good news is as you say it gets better with each iteration so the prognosis looks good for the future.

Also one big problem with it is that when you go all out war with everyone the bullshit parts of the game which are no fun (for example Naval combat) become multiplied as well, I enjoy fighting overwhelming odds land battles, but I really hate the tedium of hunting down 100s of single gunboats blockading your ports.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


liveoctopus posted:

It was not uncommon for a city or castle to prefer a peaceable surrender to being taken, looted, and burned. Often the besieged would prevail upon their monarch for assistance, and they would simultaneously make it understood to the besiegers that if a relieving force didn't arrive by such-and-such a date, they would surrender. That left the outcome up to their king. The besiegers would agree and wait, because they could always just withdraw if a fresh army approached and nobody really enjoyed cracking open a castle by sheer force if they didn't have to.

Sieges also involved tactics that the Total War games don't touch on, like excavating under walls in order to collapse them, with of course counter-excavation from the besieged. And constant negotiation and intimidation tactics that went on every day. A siege was rarely a single battle, but usually a little war all its own.

Anyone interested in siege tactics of the time should consider picking up 1453 by Roger Crowley, which details the siege of Constantinople.

It may have been highly simplified but medieval 2 did have sappers, though I forget if this was in Rome.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Brownie posted:

I can't resist save scumming most of the time so when I discovered that game saves included RNG seeds I was pretty happy, but maybe I was wrong or this game does it really poorly! I hope you're wrong though, I can't resist save scumming

EDIT: I actually just realized you're not talking about Shogun 2! Whoops

I'm a recovering scum addict myself, I really wish they would detach the ironman mode from the difficulty settings.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Frankly I never could get the hang of sieges in Shogun to the point where I probably actually found them harder to defend than just a plain field battle of comparable force balance. Sieges in Medieval and earlier were gamey as hell but they could feel pretty epic sometimes. I never got that feeling with shogun 2.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Grand Fromage posted:

The shield thing could possibly be as simple as it never occurred to anyone who was in a position to do something about it. Shields seem obvious to us but we're looking at it in such a different context. Doesn't mean they were stupid or anything either, sometimes things just don't happen.

Like Rome had access to primitive steam engines but they never used them for anything except as toys. Or the type of sails used by Chinese ships, which were way better than the stuff the west used and no more complicated, but nobody in the west ever thought of it.

Nobody is saying it's because they were stupid, but it is something which prima facia needs an explanation, shields aren't just something which appeared in Europe but something which seems to have come about in most cultures around the world. Also I believe Rome specifically decided not to use steam engines, something about making the saves lazy I think.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Merchants were a stupid idea, I hope they never come back.

As for the Line of sight thing, it should make things interesting. Seems like the next step from what they were trying with the legendary setting having all units past a certain distance hidden (which was a terrible way to do it).Scouts are likely going to be more useful now, particularly with the larger battlefields.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Sultan Tarquin posted:

I didn't enjoy regular Shogun 2 naval battles but FoTS were pretty entertaining when you figured out that the front facing cannon on your kotetsu was the best gun in the game and could 1 shot basically any ship.

I don't know if they fixed it but a fleet of 3 kotetsu were pretty much unbeatable (I never lost a match with them) in FOTS multiplayer if you used the mastermind strategy of full steam ahead until in range, reverse while firing until the other guys boats explode. I'm ashamed to say I did this a lot, but in my defence I was trying to get all the units unlocked and I hated sea battles.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Koramei posted:

I'm not a computer expert but ... I think run, yes. That's about it though. It hasn't got a dedicated graphics card so I wouldn't be hopeful; aren't the Total War games some of the most demanding on the market now?

Not really no, there are a lot of games more demanding on the GPU than Shogun, they do tax the CPU though when the battles get bigger. Supposedly they're aiming for a high degree of scalability with Rome 2 as well.

Edit: But no, that laptop wouldn't run shogun well, are you committed to having a laptop? Also if its Rome you really want to play it would be better to wait and get something when it's released because you'll get better performance for the price by then.

Shorter Than Some fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Feb 16, 2013

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Tyack posted:

If you train peasants, then disband the unit, does the population go back into the city?

Yes, all units actually.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Kaal posted:

It's really not that bad. People just get intimidated by the non-English spellings and the script. Start up with one of the easier factions like the Romani so that things will be familiar. Honestly you can pretty much just play it normally, there's only a few significant changes in re city development. Just take it slow.

I really hate the non-English spellings stuff that happens in every mod. It's just confusing and makes everything harder to identify for the sake of "realism". I don't really get the rationale, why does it matter that Carthage is not how it was spelled, it's a translation, it wasn't even originally spelled with our alphabet.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Kaal posted:

"Realism" gets a pretty bad rap in this thread, but half the point of mods like EB is to explore historical antiquity. Showcasing the languages is part of that. Besides the English version of the unit names are typically included in parentheses, so it's really not that difficult to identify units on the fly. But it certainly is rather intimidating when you first open up the game, which is too bad.

I'm more referring to the faction names. When I play It's really annoying to see "some unfamiliar name" has declared war on "some other unfamiliar name" where I then have to check and see who that actually means. I'd much rather have the names we all are familiar with.

I don't actually mind all the historical extras but the language bit seems odd to me, since it strikes me as more consistant with that theme to have them fully translated, as that way we get the same experience as we would if we lived at the time (insofar as a total war game can recreate that experience at all that is).

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Kaal posted:

Without wanting to get too "history thread", multilingualism was very much part of antiquity. Indeed it still is in most of the world outside of the US. People might speak five different languages, and still need interpreters in order to conduct business. I think that recognizing that is good thing as it adds historical legitimacy. A certain amount of anachronism is okay: I think that it would be very off-putting if the game referred to the Celts and the Romans as the French and the Italians. On the other hand, I agree that it can be a bit overwhelming once you see a list of factions called the Averni, the Aedui, and the Romani instead - particularly when there's dozens of factions. But really you're only going to be fighting a handful of them at once.

Beyond that, I think that those little tidbits of culture help to craft the setting - I like playing in a world there's more of a difference between two armies than a flag and how many standardized spearman and archers there are. Of course at the point you've kind of left the realm of pure videogaming, and entered into a degree of roleplay/simulation that some folks just aren't interested in.

Yeah but my point is that the Romans would still call Carthage and all those other factions by some name familiar to them, yes you would of course encounter unfamiliar names for familiar places and so on, but when talking to your troops and planning you would be reffering to them by Roman names. so to be faced with an untranslated name when you are in effect playing as a Roman is actually more anachronistic.

Anyway, yeah this is getting to be a bit of a derail, but my main criticism was that it was an annoyance whose benefits were questionable anyway.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Lemon Curdistan posted:

Joke's on you, slings are incredibly deadly and were basically the AK-47s (cheap, mass-produced, rugged and resilient, and requiring comparatively little training to use) of antiquity.

Which is kind of the point, they would have been used by anybodies.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Mazz posted:

I don't think rifle type actually matters in RoF.

It does actually, it's been tested, I forget what the exact differences are though.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Yeah I wish they would't hide stats like that. Speed is another one, it was really counter intuitive to find out that Yari cav are faster than Light Cav.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


shalcar posted:

Same speed, I thought? I know they get caught when trying to run away due to the charge speed bonus that all units get, but I'm pretty sure Yari and Light cavalry have the same base speed.

You're probably right, I just remember there being something counter intuitive about it, it may have been just that light cav were no faster. Anyway the point still stands, why not just give us the stats upfront?

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Koramei posted:

And by most accounts the sea battles are much worse than in Shogun 2- but I actually enjoy them more. They're far less tactically worthwhile, but I didn't get much tactical enjoyment out of the Sengoku period ones either and at least this time I get to watch stuff explode. And on that note- that is the biggest change with steam-powered boats. They explode, seemingly randomly, often at the worst possible time.

Much as I hate the FOTS naval battles (seriously how did they manage to make them worse than vanilla?) I have to admit the ship explosions are fantastic, I could watch them all day. So drat satisfying.

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


If they pull off the stated goals of designing the game around less frequent but bigger more decisive battles then drop in battles will probably work a lot better than before. They need to heavily incentivise them though, and provide more opportunities for people to play them. Like having an option to drop into other peoples campaigns while playing your own for example.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Shorter Than Some
May 6, 2009


Tommofork posted:

There's already an option when you start a campaign for Shogun to 'search continuously for other players drop in battles'. An incentive to actually do so would be great, asides from the obvious fun of smashing people.

Really? How did I miss that? I think I assumed it was just the option to have people drop in to your battles for some reason. I never had it happen to me anyway. And yeah, I don't need an incentive, my worry is that no one will play my battles unless they get sweet sweet exp and loot.

Also I just went looking for a compilation of info about Rome II and got distracted because they are still throwing hissy fits on TWC about the 1tpy. It's glorious, who knew such a small issue would be the seed for the most perfect storm of TWC bitching, it has it all: misunderstanding of statistics, HAAAAARDDDCOOOOREEE gamer elitism, anecdotal evidence supremacy, entitlement, complaints of dumbing down and bitching about steam.

I only wish they'd gone with Hollywood Egyptians now just to see their reactions.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply