|
On March 18 2011 19:43 Vequeth wrote:
Siege AI is still really buggy im finding. Especially AI attacker reinforcements, they just seem to stand where they enter the field the whole fight.
are you sure it isnt just horses? horses suck at sieging so they have to dismount and the ai rarely does that. But the function to fight the battle multiplayer is a nice addition. I don't think it existed in any previous games, correct me if im wrong
|
Napoleon did. ETW may have with a patch i cant remember.
|
On March 19 2011 03:52 xccam wrote:
Napoleon did. ETW may have with a patch i cant remember.
N:TW definitely had it as well.
|
On March 18 2011 19:43 Vequeth wrote:
Siege AI is still really buggy im finding. Especially AI attacker reinforcements, they just seem to stand where they enter the field the whole fight.
Yeah, i had the same bug. Nevertheless this game is insane. Really challenging, epic battles, i love the strategic depth. As soon as the realm divide event takes place the pace of the game goes down and you're really struggling to survive.
I love my Chosukabe Archers with golden Plate Naginata support.
|
I love this game. I just conquered the whole of Shikoku, in style. An alliance with a clan on the island made said clan attack one of our common enemies, resulting in heavy losses for both parties. I step in and conquer both my enemy's and my ally's town, while destroying their weakened and outnumbered armies. Granted, I play on normal difficulty, but being a complete asshole is kind of a guilty pleasure.
As usual I seem to have a lot more fun playing around in the TBS-part than in the RTS-part. Maybe I should consider getting Civ 5 when I've got some money on my bank account again. I've noticed the same trend while playing Rome: TW and Napoleon: TW: I autoresolved all battles save the most interesting ones, just to have more time tweaking my provinces and economics (I'm hellbent on keeping everyone happy).
I find the RTS battles to be a lot more interesting than the ones in Napoleon, though graphically somewhat less impressive (due to the lack of gunpowder effects, I guess). It's not that it looks bad, but I'm generally zoomed out way too much to really pay attention to how detailed the units are.
I haven't touched the multiplayer yet, and chances are I never will. Total War isn't the type of game I'd play online.
|
Anyone else's encyclopedia not loading in-game?
|
Gah, I want to buy this game but I can't bring myself to do it. Empire: TW was a huge waste of money and I would feel stupid for falling in that trap twice.
On the other hand, Rome is one of my best game-purchases ever.
|
On March 19 2011 04:10 maartendq wrote:
As usual I seem to have a lot more fun playing around in the TBS-part than in the RTS-part. Maybe I should consider getting Civ 5 when I've got some money on my bank account again. I've noticed the same trend while playing Rome: TW and Napoleon: TW: I autoresolved all battles save the most interesting ones, just to have more time tweaking my provinces and economics (I'm hellbent on keeping everyone happy).
You might also consider Civ 4 instead of 5... Could save you quite some money, Civ 5 seems to be pretty "casual", while it's been critically acclaimed by all the people who never could get into Civ before, most of the older Civ fans were disappointed by it.
Just wanted to throw that out there, back to Shogun 
|
On March 19 2011 07:25 FliedLice wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2011 04:10 maartendq wrote:
As usual I seem to have a lot more fun playing around in the TBS-part than in the RTS-part. Maybe I should consider getting Civ 5 when I've got some money on my bank account again. I've noticed the same trend while playing Rome: TW and Napoleon: TW: I autoresolved all battles save the most interesting ones, just to have more time tweaking my provinces and economics (I'm hellbent on keeping everyone happy). You might also consider Civ 4 instead of 5... Could save you quite some money, Civ 5 seems to be pretty "casual", while it's been critically acclaimed by all the people who never could get into Civ before, most of the older Civ fans were disappointed by it. Just wanted to throw that out there, back to Shogun
Well, the only civilisation games I've played so far were CivNet (for those who remember that game) and Alpha Centauri. I was only 9 when I played the former, so I had little idea of what I was supposed to be doing, and 14 when I played the latter (I always chose the military faction because that one was by far the easiest to steamroll the AI with), so I don't mind a more casual experience. It doesn't have to be a whole lot more complicated than Total War's TBS map.
|
On March 19 2011 03:48 Shauni wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 19:43 Vequeth wrote:
Siege AI is still really buggy im finding. Especially AI attacker reinforcements, they just seem to stand where they enter the field the whole fight. are you sure it isnt just horses? horses suck at sieging so they have to dismount and the ai rarely does that. But the function to fight the battle multiplayer is a nice addition. I don't think it existed in any previous games, correct me if im wrong
Was horses and archers, the first stack that attacked me dismounted fine and attacked. All the reinforcements just stood in the corner doing nothing.
|
On March 19 2011 07:19 Gigaudas wrote:
Gah, I want to buy this game but I can't bring myself to do it. Empire: TW was a huge waste of money and I would feel stupid for falling in that trap twice.
On the other hand, Rome is one of my best game-purchases ever.
You might want to consider it. It feels much more like Rome than Empire, as far as battle mechanics go. Only it's more fast-paced.
The city-builder/world-map part of the game is a great improvement over any of the previous Total War games. The tech-trees, the leveling system for your generals and ninjas, the diplomacy, are all very well done. I can't really comment on it all, except to say it is very much different from any of the previous Total Wars, and overall feels a lot more balanced and interesting. There's a lot of different approaches you can take towards conquering and winning, and a lot of them are perfectly viable. I've taken down several daimyos without even using an army, just a high-level ninja-assassin.
I've played about 12-14 hours of the game, mostly in one campaign. Just conquered Kyoto and claimed the shogunate. Fun times.
|
Oh the pain of legendary mode, the only way to do anything against the infinite full stacks of enemy units is to take a fortified castle and abuse the seige AI to hell, that and not being able to load when you make mistakes, makes the game so much more like an epic struggle than any previous TW
|
Managing sea trade routes is time consuming task. Damn those OP pirate stacks!
edit: I actually lost my entire sea trade infrastructure in 1 turn before, essentially put me in debt... Cant survive in S2TW with just city taxes, and you cant have trade within your own provinces anymore. Only with other factions/clans. Starting to get the hang of things after playing Medieval 2 for so many years.
|
On March 19 2011 18:07 Disregard wrote:
Managing sea trade routes is time consuming task. Damn those OP pirate stacks!
edit: I actually lost my entire sea trade infrastructure in 1 turn before, essentially put me in debt... Cant survive in S2TW with just city taxes, and you cant have trade within your own provinces anymore. Only with other factions/clans. Starting to get the hang of things after playing Medieval 2 for so many years.
I agree, it sucks to manage all of your fleets. Because the sea is so huge, it is practically impossible to "dominate" an entire area. Ships are really cheap though, and the trade routs bring in 2000 per turn for me, which is the only reason why i am not in debt.
I played some multiplayer yesterday and today, it seems quite volatile, the positioning of your general is very important. If you position your general wrong, it is like an autolose. It's like supreme commander, but now you have to take your ACU to the front.
|
51698 Posts
oh man, tried playing campaign with oda, got demolished in two turns hahaha.
i guess the most fun way is by starting from the easiest clan to the hardest clan, boy this is going to take a while then.
|
Anyone want to play Co-OP? I've beat Singleplayer a lot and there's no one ever on multiplayer campaign it seems.
|
1584 Posts
What is the strongest clan, im playing Date now and it's quite easy so far, except the beginning when my enemy was too OP.
My old hardware is really shining through though, the strategic map and the turns are so slow. :l
|
Sorry guys . . I don't find this game as engaging as previous Total War titles . . . not as addicting either. I find myself quite prone to stopping, not the case with other Total War games =P
|
Can't wait to get my computer fixed so I can play this. It looks so cash. TL can sure hype a game.
|
On March 21 2011 07:00 keit wrote:
What is the strongest clan, im playing Date now and it's quite easy so far, except the beginning when my enemy was too OP.
My old hardware is really shining through though, the strategic map and the turns are so slow. :l
By strongest, I assume you mean easiest?
Well there are 2 factors to consider when asking for strongest. Starting position and clan specialty.
I only played the demo so feel free to discard this advice, but I'd say Shimazu would be a perfect faction for a 1st playthrough. They're isolated, which would make them easy to expand with. Their 1st enemy would be the Mori most likely, and then Chosokabe. Very good geopolitical situation basis to form a vast and mighty empire, before engaging the other clans.
Their specialty lies in Katanas and generals. In other TW games I never really had issues with general loyalty, but it's a boon nonetheless. Katanas are a decent choice. Buffing foot soldiers is always good. I never liked heavily ranged armies in other TW games, because archers and musketeers had trouble taking over a city/castle in other games. Strong(er) melee units suits my style greatly.
Date would also be a good choice for similar reasons. Although you're expansion might be temporarily halted by the Uesugi, they'll have their own problems no doubt, spreading themselves thin with time.
Charge bonus is nice, might help breaking morale on enemy lines.
Takeda has improved cavalry, but kinda fucked up starting position. Cavalry are very important/good in battle and having improved cavalry can surely be a great boon in battles. Also they can dismount and rape shit on foot too! If you can survive early-game cavalry superiority will win you many a battle later. Provided you can upkeep decent amounts of it.
I'd assume Mori and Chosokabe can also be rather successful if played right. The other clans are probably for the more advanced/experienced players that like the challenge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
