|
i found the most frustrating bug ive ever encountered in a game today.
doing a coastal defence, have a port so have 2 ships as garrison, entire enemy force will be attacking from sea, decide to try and damage some of the transports if i can before fighting on the beach. one of my ships gets stuck after it rams into the enemy ship, who promptly routs and drags my ship to the edge of the map where it gets stuck and then swarmed by 20 ships.
the best part? that ship is now invulnerable but can't move or fire and the AI decides to halt the invasion completely until they kill the invulnerable ship. for 60 minutes........
FML
|
Actually the paint on battlemaps feature was in the Total War series for awhile.
|
Its pretty interesting to see that Rome 2 suffer from performance issues from many users. Was the case for all their last games, and the rage about it is also the same :p
|
Just played the game for about 5 hours! I TOTALLY love it. I didn't really play shogun too much so everything is pretty new for me. I love how there are multiple settlements in a province so you can either "spread the wealth" or "focus on the capital", and the freedom of choosing among a variety of buildings to cater to your needs. Having limited number of armies is a good change though it will take some time getting use to. The tech tree is also diverse and every tech seems useful in some way.
The battles are much better too, especially taking cities now is more fun I feel. Haven't really played too many naval battles. Plus I mostly autoresolve those because I kinda suck at them 
Anyway I LOVE this game and I can't wait to play every faction.
|
Don't play Coop campaign yet , it's plagued with desynchs and bugs.Turns take 2-3 min for the AI.
Lost ~5 hours of gameplay to desnych T_T
Sadly kinda expected this.
|
I'm not sure how I feel about limited armies yet.
If the garrisons could actually defend a city from a small sized army of medium grade troops I'd be ok with it, but as of now the defense of a city without a general there is just a formality.
|
On September 04 2013 09:17 KillerSOS wrote:
I'm not sure how I feel about limited armies yet.
If the garrisons could actually defend a city from a small sized army of medium grade troops I'd be ok with it, but as of now the defense of a city without a general there is just a formality.
As you upgrade your cities, you start getting real troops for your garrison. But yeah, I have murdered ludicrous numbers of garrison troops with my regulars.
|
I have played a good few hours of this game now and the most disappointing thing about it is the speed of the battles. 5-8 minutes for a battle is just not enough, or 10-15 with big armies. Its easily moddable, but i don't see how it got past testing. Its kind of a shame because the graphics are so good, but you don't get any time to enjoy them, because you have to constantly keep track of your units for the whole 2-3 minutes of full on engagement that you get.
|
On September 04 2013 08:14 rezoacken wrote:
Its pretty interesting to see that Rome 2 suffer from performance issues from many users. Was the case for all their last games, and the rage about it is also the same :p
I kept the settings at medium, and even with my stream off, it's suffering from the same choppy framerate as before. Shogun 2 played optimally on my laptop a few months ago; I sure hope CA optimizes Rome II in the same manner.
On September 04 2013 09:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 09:17 KillerSOS wrote:
I'm not sure how I feel about limited armies yet.
If the garrisons could actually defend a city from a small sized army of medium grade troops I'd be ok with it, but as of now the defense of a city without a general there is just a formality. As you upgrade your cities, you start getting real troops for your garrison. But yeah, I have murdered ludicrous numbers of garrison troops with my regulars.
Have you figured out how to upgrade city walls yet? A research, maybe? I feel bare without any physical defenses, lol.
|
On September 04 2013 09:25 Jockmcplop wrote:
I have played a good few hours of this game now and the most disappointing thing about it is the speed of the battles. 5-8 minutes for a battle is just not enough, or 10-15 with big armies. Its easily moddable, but i don't see how it got past testing. Its kind of a shame because the graphics are so good, but you don't get any time to enjoy them, because you have to constantly keep track of your units for the whole 2-3 minutes of full on engagement that you get.
You're the first person who said the battles are too short to my knowledge. I think they're pretty much on par.
|
holy shit they need to nerf spartan bodyguard units. I attacked a walled city by mistake, but i had never done battle with a walled city yet. So just to do a test i sent my guys in to burn the gate down. After the gate burned i sent my general in just for shits and giggles and he end up slautering like 500 troops on the other side of the door and end up losing like only 50 guys by the end.
|
On September 04 2013 09:29 KillerSOS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 09:25 Jockmcplop wrote:
I have played a good few hours of this game now and the most disappointing thing about it is the speed of the battles. 5-8 minutes for a battle is just not enough, or 10-15 with big armies. Its easily moddable, but i don't see how it got past testing. Its kind of a shame because the graphics are so good, but you don't get any time to enjoy them, because you have to constantly keep track of your units for the whole 2-3 minutes of full on engagement that you get. You're the first person who said the battles are too short to my knowledge. I think they're pretty much on par.
Fair enough. I just got off a thread on the admittedly depressing RTW forums and literally every person agreed that they are too short. Maybe its because everyone who likes the battles are too busy playing battles to be posting on forums.
Its a personal preference thing, i guess, but i much prefer the Rome 1 style of making your decisions, and then watching the battles play out, occasionally adjusting something or trying to hit that perfectly timed cavalry charge.
At the moment, the battles seem like a case of running your army into your enemy army and seeing which one routs first. You don't have to wait long.
Don't get me wrong, i do think this game is great, the campaign map and UI a first class, and it presents a new, and interesting way to play Total War, but i don't think i'll ever get used to how the battles are at the moment. Its the first day of release and i'm already auto-resolving most of them.
|
|
|
On September 04 2013 09:28 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 08:14 rezoacken wrote:
Its pretty interesting to see that Rome 2 suffer from performance issues from many users. Was the case for all their last games, and the rage about it is also the same :p I kept the settings at medium, and even with my stream off, it's suffering from the same choppy framerate as before. Shogun 2 played optimally on my laptop a few months ago; I sure hope CA optimizes Rome II in the same manner. Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 09:20 xDaunt wrote:On September 04 2013 09:17 KillerSOS wrote:
I'm not sure how I feel about limited armies yet.
If the garrisons could actually defend a city from a small sized army of medium grade troops I'd be ok with it, but as of now the defense of a city without a general there is just a formality. As you upgrade your cities, you start getting real troops for your garrison. But yeah, I have murdered ludicrous numbers of garrison troops with my regulars. Have you figured out how to upgrade city walls yet? A research, maybe? I feel bare without any physical defenses, lol.
You get them automatically when you upgrade your city. I think you need tier 3 or 4. I forget.
|
settings on highest graphics, the game looks kind of ugly and there is choppiness on the leader phases but not on the map itself or during fighting. Shogun ran fine so hopefully some optimization patch will come out. Ai still does the suicidal attack thingy. The game feels a lot slower/takes much longer to build up which I suppose is good. All in all I think I should have waited another year/for a sale before getting it but o well. Of the 3 strategy games I bought this summer so far Rome II seems like the purchase Iam least happy with.
|
On September 04 2013 09:39 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 09:29 KillerSOS wrote:On September 04 2013 09:25 Jockmcplop wrote:
I have played a good few hours of this game now and the most disappointing thing about it is the speed of the battles. 5-8 minutes for a battle is just not enough, or 10-15 with big armies. Its easily moddable, but i don't see how it got past testing. Its kind of a shame because the graphics are so good, but you don't get any time to enjoy them, because you have to constantly keep track of your units for the whole 2-3 minutes of full on engagement that you get. You're the first person who said the battles are too short to my knowledge. I think they're pretty much on par. Fair enough. I just got off a thread on the admittedly depressing RTW forums and literally every person agreed that they are too short. Maybe its because everyone who likes the battles are too busy playing battles to be posting on forums. Its a personal preference thing, i guess, but i much prefer the Rome 1 style of making your decisions, and then watching the battles play out, occasionally adjusting something or trying to hit that perfectly timed cavalry charge. At the moment, the battles seem like a case of running your army into your enemy army and seeing which one routs first. You don't have to wait long. Don't get me wrong, i do think this game is great, the campaign map and UI a first class, and it presents a new, and interesting way to play Total War, but i don't think i'll ever get used to how the battles are at the moment. Its the first day of release and i'm already auto-resolving most of them.
Fair enough points.
I suppose they might get longer with better quality troops? Higher morale levels and all.
On September 04 2013 10:04 Sub40APM wrote:
settings on highest graphics, the game looks kind of ugly and there is choppiness on the leader phases but not on the map itself or during fighting. Shogun ran fine so hopefully some optimization patch will come out. Ai still does the suicidal attack thingy. The game feels a lot slower/takes much longer to build up which I suppose is good. All in all I think I should have waited another year/for a sale before getting it but o well. Of the 3 strategy games I bought this summer so far Rome II seems like the purchase Iam least happy with.
Which other two did you get? I'm guessing EU is one of them 
|
Civ:Brave New World/EUIV/This.
|
So my Rome campaign (VH) has gone like this so far. I immediately took Italia from the Etruscans and seized Alalia about 10 turns later. I then stood pat for about 10 turns while I took a little time to consolidate my holdings. I then sent my one good army south to take Syracuse. During this time, Carthage was getting hammered by miscellaneous African factions (mostly Garantia), so I was able to blitz Lilybaeum and Karalis with minimal opposition. Unfortunately, I was unable to cover both settlements, and lost each to the Carthaginians twice before retaking them for good. The problem with this is that the turnover screwed up my public order, so I had to make peace before going any further. Next, I spent about 30-40 turns building my income from 1500 per turn to 6000 per turn. I only had one 20-unit army, and two 3-unit armies, plus one small fleet so as to maximize my net income.. I just built my second 20-unit army and am attacking Patavium, with the goal of securing Cisalpina.
Globally, most of the major factions are dead. The notable exceptions are Sparta and Athens, who seem to be kicking ass. The Seleucids also look strong. The Suebi are still around, but I haven't seen how big their holdings are.
The biggest limiting factor for me right now is research. The tech rate is brutally slow given how many things that you need to unlock early.
|
On September 04 2013 10:04 Sub40APM wrote:
settings on highest graphics, the game looks kind of ugly and there is choppiness on the leader phases but not on the map itself or during fighting. Shogun ran fine so hopefully some optimization patch will come out. Ai still does the suicidal attack thingy. The game feels a lot slower/takes much longer to build up which I suppose is good. All in all I think I should have waited another year/for a sale before getting it but o well. Of the 3 strategy games I bought this summer so far Rome II seems like the purchase Iam least happy with.
Rome 2 automatically changes your settings to compensate if you run out of video memory.
To find out if this is happening go to c:\users\you username\appdata\roaming\the creative assembly\rome 2\logs and open one of the logs(i can't remember which). It will tell you clearly if your graphics have been downgraded.
If they have, you can use the unlimited video memory options in the graphics settings to force the chosen settings, then you can go about finding the right balance for your system. Its a pain that they would do it this way, but the graphics should look awesome.
|
On September 04 2013 10:16 xDaunt wrote:
The biggest limiting factor for me right now is research. The tech rate is brutally slow given how many things that you need to unlock early.
I've learned that if you research everything in a single tier in a single area (say all three Tier 1 Philosophy research items), you'll get a boost to research. You may not get what you want sooner than later, but at least you'll get more things done faster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
