|
On September 05 2013 03:28 ACrow wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 02:45 andrewlt wrote:On September 05 2013 02:04 aXa wrote:
Why don't people having problem with the UI just ask here what they are looking for ? I'll be glad to answer Alright, I'll bite. What do gravitas and ambition do? How does zeal, cunning and authority affect the stats of generals, admirals and the various other agents? What affects the number of judges (Carthage's version of the senate) you get? What bonuses and/or penalties do you get from the number or judges you control? I have no clue if the following is right (the encyclopedia and UI's tooltips suck big time), but here is my understanding so far: -a General/Admiral/stateman's gravitas determines how much he contributes to your factions influence in the senate (I guess the same for Carthage's judges) -ambition is a stat only members of an opposing subfaction can have; I think the higher it is, the more likely they are to plot against you (plot = frame you, assassinate your guys, openly rebell against you etc) - the three attributes of agents determine how proficient they are at performing certain actions and defendiung against them; i.e. the spy's poison is a cunning based attack, so the success percentage will be calculated somehow (no clue about the specifics) based on the spy's and the target's cunning; there are other options to achieve the same for the other stats, such as hidden weapons attack and zeal -a general's cunning determines the accuracy of auto resolve prediction (and together with troop numbers the success percentages?); certain levels of authority/zeal/cunning are required to enable a general's active skills (like Rally, Inspire Confidence...) - the senate seats should be determined by the gravitas of the subfaction's guys, political plotting such as framing and I believe successful actions of characters of the faction? like, if you won a big battle in which a Cornelian was the general, the influence of House of Cornelia will rise? -the Senators can be used as kind of currency, if you want to appoint one of your House members as general, you pay a fee of seats in the senate. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that the higher the number of Senators your house holds, the less likely a civil war If anybody can fill in more detail or correct errors, please do so, this is just the high level gist afaik.
Funny enough, I tried searching for gravitas in the encyclopedia and came up with nothing. I got the description during one of the tooltips on the loading screen. Even then, it was not very informative. It did make it sound like lower gravitas on an opposing faction is a good thing.
Another problem is CA's objective of putting the information in a small box at the bottom of the screen. That's what makes the diplomacy and technology screens annoying. They were full screen in Shogun 2 and rightly so. There's too much information to be shoved into the bottom of the screen so they had to use an excessive amount of menus to convey the information. Or in the case of diplomacy, requiring an excessive amount of scrolling since only 4 of the maybe 100 factions in the game can be displayed at one time.
|
Just had my first massive battle (on v hard). You guys who are complaining about quick battles I have no idea what you're talking about because it was incredibly tooth and nail in this fight. My athenians vs the defenders of rhodes. Constant back and forth, with different lines having different success, the archers and slingers attempting to outmanoeuvre each other and take advantage of the cover of mighty phalanxes. In the end the battle tipped in my favour after I sent 4 of my finest hoplite units into the centre of the hurricane...to stand with phalanx formation in front of their core. They charged me and my men were losing but they held out just long enough for my flanks to win their battles and come in from the sides. A grand day for the forces of athens.
|
Okay, the AI obviously cheats on the campaign map, and here's one way that it can really fuck you. Apparently they get some huge food bonus, so they never build any food infrastructure. This means that when you conquer other territories, you could end up with a huge food deficit and have to rebuild conquered settlements from the ground up to fix it.
|
On September 05 2013 04:35 xDaunt wrote:
Okay, the AI obviously cheats on the campaign map, and here's one way that it can really fuck you. Apparently they get some huge food bonus, so they never build any food infrastructure. This means that when you conquer other territories, you could end up with a huge food deficit and have to rebuild conquered settlements from the ground up to fix it.
I have seen AI armies take attrition from lack of food before, after I took one of their minor settlements. Just putting that out there.
|
So whats the consensus on the game so far? I've never played Rome 1 and I was wondering if I should buy.
|
pretty good game not as good as the first but adds lots of new things lots of diversity of units combined sea and land battles are awesome as well sea battles hopefully a patch will fix the bugs like when the computer decides 3 of its ships want to just hover off shore and not aid me in a attack
|
On September 05 2013 06:08 liam33 wrote:
pretty good game not as good as the first but adds lots of new things lots of diversity of units combined sea and land battles are awesome as well sea battles hopefully a patch will fix the bugs like when the computer decides 3 of its ships want to just hover off shore and not aid me in a attack
I haven't played it enough to give a full review, but i WILL say that right now if i had to choose i would go back and play Rome 1 rather than Rome 2.
This is not me having a go, the game looks deep and if it wasn't the consistently poor framerates in the campaign map that section of the game would be almost perfect for me. The problem for me is the speed of the battles. If a unit can be broken within 30 seconds of coming into contact with another similar unit, that is too fast for me. I know some people disagree, but this is something i just can't seem to get past. It grates on me every time i play a battle.
Its just my opinion, and in that way, i'm not trying to promote a discussion about it, this is just how i feel about the game irght now.
However, in a few months when the patches have upped the framerates in the campaign map a bit (hopefully) and mods are available to change the battle speed, i'm sure i will absolutely LOVE this game.
|
On September 05 2013 06:17 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 06:08 liam33 wrote:
pretty good game not as good as the first but adds lots of new things lots of diversity of units combined sea and land battles are awesome as well sea battles hopefully a patch will fix the bugs like when the computer decides 3 of its ships want to just hover off shore and not aid me in a attack I haven't played it enough to give a full review, but i WILL say that right now if i had to choose i would go back and play Rome 1 rather than Rome 2. This is not me having a go, the game looks deep and if it wasn't the consistently poor framerates in the campaign map that section of the game would be almost perfect for me. The problem for me is the speed of the battles. If a unit can be broken within 30 seconds of coming into contact with another similar unit, that is too fast for me. I know some people disagree, but this is something i just can't seem to get past. It grates on me every time i play a battle. Its just my opinion, and in that way, i'm not trying to promote a discussion about it, this is just how i feel about the game irght now. However, in a few months when the patches have upped the framerates in the campaign map a bit (hopefully) and mods are available to change the battle speed, i'm sure i will absolutely LOVE this game.
Even in Rome Total War 1 it was extremely easy to cause routs. I don't see the complaints here. Everyone always knew that routs were extremely easy to cause in the Total War Series (and a major reason why people dislike the multiplayer portion of the game).
|
On September 05 2013 06:17 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 06:08 liam33 wrote:
pretty good game not as good as the first but adds lots of new things lots of diversity of units combined sea and land battles are awesome as well sea battles hopefully a patch will fix the bugs like when the computer decides 3 of its ships want to just hover off shore and not aid me in a attack I haven't played it enough to give a full review, but i WILL say that right now if i had to choose i would go back and play Rome 1 rather than Rome 2. This is not me having a go, the game looks deep and if it wasn't the consistently poor framerates in the campaign map that section of the game would be almost perfect for me. The problem for me is the speed of the battles. If a unit can be broken within 30 seconds of coming into contact with another similar unit, that is too fast for me. I know some people disagree, but this is something i just can't seem to get past. It grates on me every time i play a battle. Its just my opinion, and in that way, i'm not trying to promote a discussion about it, this is just how i feel about the game irght now. However, in a few months when the patches have upped the framerates in the campaign map a bit (hopefully) and mods are available to change the battle speed, i'm sure i will absolutely LOVE this game.
yeah battle go to fast and it seems as though the speed up buttons don't work
|
On September 05 2013 06:17 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 06:08 liam33 wrote:
pretty good game not as good as the first but adds lots of new things lots of diversity of units combined sea and land battles are awesome as well sea battles hopefully a patch will fix the bugs like when the computer decides 3 of its ships want to just hover off shore and not aid me in a attack I haven't played it enough to give a full review, but i WILL say that right now if i had to choose i would go back and play Rome 1 rather than Rome 2. This is not me having a go, the game looks deep and if it wasn't the consistently poor framerates in the campaign map that section of the game would be almost perfect for me. The problem for me is the speed of the battles. If a unit can be broken within 30 seconds of coming into contact with another similar unit, that is too fast for me. I know some people disagree, but this is something i just can't seem to get past. It grates on me every time i play a battle. Its just my opinion, and in that way, i'm not trying to promote a discussion about it, this is just how i feel about the game irght now. However, in a few months when the patches have upped the framerates in the campaign map a bit (hopefully) and mods are available to change the battle speed, i'm sure i will absolutely LOVE this game.
I remember Rome 1's battles to be the fastest of the series. Stuff would just melt on the charge. Are you sure you weren't playing a modded version of Rome 1? While I don't like the speed of this one, I don't think it's the fastest of the series.
The walk/run speed seems ok, though, which makes the battle speed more jarring. Stuff just dies before you can reinforce and flank enemies.
|
You guys are probably right, i havne' played the vanilla Rome 1 for years, but it doesn't change the fact that i hate fast battles lol. I always used Darthmod which changed the balance significantly.
Its just personal to me, i'm sure other people do enjoy it, but i like to take my time over the battles so i can enjoy them a little more.
|
other dumb things in this game: ai in a siege mode will run all its troops without any order or plan towards the center/point thingy, and if it happens to get them all massacred by archers/petlasts and then attacked from 3 sides then so be it, just because it outnumbers you and has better quality troops isnt a reason for it not to go full retard.
cavalry is too slow, watching heavy foot spearmen catch up to cavalry is literally the dumbest thing in the world. Cavalary charges get 'stuck' on the unit they charge through, try to disengage? good luck!
roman units are op even during a period when they shouldnt be, before gaius' reforms the legions looked a lot like their greek counterparts. and red wasnt everywhere all the time.
|
On September 05 2013 06:07 Thienan567 wrote:
So whats the consensus on the game so far? I've never played Rome 1 and I was wondering if I should buy.
I'd wait for half a year when the game goes on sale and you can get a good mod for it. As always, the push for visually attractive game > everything else in the CA rulebook.
|
On September 05 2013 06:34 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 06:07 Thienan567 wrote:
So whats the consensus on the game so far? I've never played Rome 1 and I was wondering if I should buy. I'd wait for half a year when the game goes on sale and you can get a good mod for it. As always, the push for visually attractive game > everything else in the CA rulebook.
Its a difficult one. I would wait at least a couple of months, but then there are many, many people who are really enjoying the game as it is now.
It will get much better with time though, i think we can all agree on that.
|
One thing that annoyed me last night was I couldn't attack a settlement that was being blockaded by a neutral army. I was getting ready to declare war on Epirus with my navy. Fortunately, somebody else took them out of their misery and I was able to do a land attack on the settlement. Not sure why a sea blockade would prevent another faction from attacking the land side.
|
On September 05 2013 06:34 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 06:07 Thienan567 wrote:
So whats the consensus on the game so far? I've never played Rome 1 and I was wondering if I should buy. I'd wait for half a year when the game goes on sale and you can get a good mod for it. As always, the push for visually attractive game > everything else in the CA rulebook.
I got the game (+DLC) at 45$ from GMG. At that prize I think its alright. Would have waited a couple months to see how it goes if I was forced to pay 60.
|
|
|
I don't know if the battles are too fast. I haven't had that many battles where evenly matched units have fought each other. In the few times that I have seen it, it looked okay. Right now, my campaign is mostly a function of my legionaries slaughtering barbarian garbage troops, which is a pretty rapid outcome.
|
Its not just the speed but the lack of an ability to keep formation thats a big problem. Why no guard mode? That's the most effective way to play as Rome, letting the enemy come to you and using their excellent defensive skills. As it is the units just all mesh together into a massive chaotic melee for a few seconds then its over. Tactics are literally nonexistent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
