|
Owning Shogun 2 and both Warhammers, if I were going to get a cool historical game this sale would it be Rome II or Atilla or are they still bad and should be avoided?
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
Thanks for the advice, I'll start watching videos and seeing which one I get. Maybe both eventually. Except the blood DLC. gently caress that gross business practice.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
I've read their statement several times before and it won't change my stance on it. It's a stupid little minor cosmetic thing so I miss NOTHING by not having it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:Steam has minimum prices now for some reason, or so I've been told. Still a dumb thing but its not like the Attila blood DLC adds events like the warhammer one so it can safely be ignored. I still got it because I demand all my total war games look like offerings to the blood god, of course but I get why people wouldnt want to pay for that. Wait, what?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
That's dumb, okay.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Yeah, AIGameDev used to be a loving fascinating site but most of their poo poo hasn't archived or is inaccessible due to one reason or another and it's frustrating. They had an AI sandbox you could play with but the site and all the stuff associated with it are dead and gone.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
I'm still saying vikings and (visi)goths. This is with a poor grasp of history, but I believe that's the same that CA has, right?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Wait, they're teasing two things? I thought the saga was a standalone expansion for Rome II.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
Considering how much people have been begging for Three Kingdoms it'll keep their lights on for decades if they make it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:woah calm down lindybeige! Recently was linked to this dude. Seems funny enough, is he a secret shitlord?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:The A/T MilHist thread recently had some discussion of him starting here. Basically, his methodology consists of thinking about what makes most sense to him and deciding, regardless of textual or other evidence, that that's how a thing worked. He also doesn't understand that people, across millennia of time and thousands of miles of space and myriad cultures, place different values on different things and thus, for example, claims ritual warfare never existed. Those aren't his only issues, though: I am so unknowledgeable about history and such that I do not understand the complaints. Obviously his opinions on women, sure, but as for the other stuff I just have to take other goons' words for it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2017 22:08
|
|
