On September 06 2013 20:54 DonKey_ wrote: Well so far I have about 50 turns into a Rome, Egypt, and Carthage. With a bit played on Macedon, and Suebi as well.
The order of difficulty so far from easiest to hardest has been: Rome >>>>>> Egypt >> Macedon > Carthage > Suebi.
Rome is expectantly CRAZY broken with the most efficient and elite units at every point in the game so far, as well as having a very nice starting position. Egypt was much stronger than I expected due to the fact that starting turn 1 with a province is REALLY strong, and everyone around you is a nomadic nobody with no allies. Another fun thing with Egypt is just how much easier it is to trade with others since you start with a province that has 2 wheat, and an iron(and 2 wonders...), plus they actually have good units when you hit their tier 2 barracks. Being Hellenic is nice too. Macedon felt like you could have a nice set up, but I lost 2 cities in Macedon to Sparta who was my ally, and pretty much everyone around me hated me. Carthage was kind of annoying with it feeling like your client sates hurt you more than help you. I love their hoplite shields though. Suebi felt kinda fun with the confederation mechanic, but then I realized when I got powerful I had basically 2 units(beserkers and swordmasters) to look forward too.
I really want balance mods to come out fast. ><
I don't know nearly enough about ancient warfare to be confident, but wouldn't it make sense that roman soldiers pre-marian reform would be somewhat weaker than that of other nations? IIRC, they weren't used to the chain of command and things like that, so you couldn't pull off crazy maneuvers in battles and stuff. Their armament wasn't any more technologically advanced than that of their enemies (leather/iron chainmail, etc.). They really won mostly through their numbers, no? After Marian reforms legions did start owning all other infantry, but they were still kinda weak against heavy cavalry and horse archers, as shown by unsuccessful wars against Parthia and surrounding areas. Correct me if I am wrong on anything I said please :3
Marian reforms happened in 107 BC. Rome had already completely destroyed Macedon and Carthage by 146 BC. The Seleucids have been reduced to almost nothing by then. The Marian reforms happened because of an invasion of Germanic tribes. They won partly through numbers, but their infantry wasn't weaker than that of other factions.
The comically overrated ones are the Spartans. By this time frame, Spartan hoplites were pretty much everybody's bitches. I blame Hollywood.
On September 06 2013 20:54 DonKey_ wrote: Well so far I have about 50 turns into a Rome, Egypt, and Carthage. With a bit played on Macedon, and Suebi as well.
The order of difficulty so far from easiest to hardest has been: Rome >>>>>> Egypt >> Macedon > Carthage > Suebi.
Rome is expectantly CRAZY broken with the most efficient and elite units at every point in the game so far, as well as having a very nice starting position. Egypt was much stronger than I expected due to the fact that starting turn 1 with a province is REALLY strong, and everyone around you is a nomadic nobody with no allies. Another fun thing with Egypt is just how much easier it is to trade with others since you start with a province that has 2 wheat, and an iron(and 2 wonders...), plus they actually have good units when you hit their tier 2 barracks. Being Hellenic is nice too. Macedon felt like you could have a nice set up, but I lost 2 cities in Macedon to Sparta who was my ally, and pretty much everyone around me hated me. Carthage was kind of annoying with it feeling like your client sates hurt you more than help you. I love their hoplite shields though. Suebi felt kinda fun with the confederation mechanic, but then I realized when I got powerful I had basically 2 units(beserkers and swordmasters) to look forward too.
I really want balance mods to come out fast. ><
I don't know nearly enough about ancient warfare to be confident, but wouldn't it make sense that roman soldiers pre-marian reform would be somewhat weaker than that of other nations? IIRC, they weren't used to the chain of command and things like that, so you couldn't pull off crazy maneuvers in battles and stuff. Their armament wasn't any more technologically advanced than that of their enemies (leather/iron chainmail, etc.). They really won mostly through their numbers, no? After Marian reforms legions did start owning all other infantry, but they were still kinda weak against heavy cavalry and horse archers, as shown by unsuccessful wars against Parthia and surrounding areas. Correct me if I am wrong on anything I said please :3
When it comes to personnal armament, romans where never superior nore inferior to most of their opponnent. The explanation for this is that they had absolutely no problem changing their weapons whenever they found better on their ennemies. For instance, Gallic armament was far superior, thanks to the quality iron you could find in Gaul. Roman immediately started using that to make new swords. Another example in naval warfare is in the first punic war, when they captured a carthaginian ship and started building the same with retro-engineering. Roman engineer were the absolute best at their time, and actually for the millenia to last. Regarding military tech, they obviously had the best siege engine. Construction wise, Middle-age forgot pretty much everything the roman new, most notably in city building and sanitation. Aqueducts were never build again.
Roman won most of their battle due to a combination of factors, number wasn't particularly one of them. The use of formation and discipline should be listed at the top one reason. They could out manoeuvre their ennemy because legions were heavily trained to accomplish a certain number of formations, the most famous being testudo. Logistic is another aspect, and the formidable speed of roman legion was a decisive factor in most war (up to 40km per day !). They had a great chain of commands: -The consul or pro-consul was leading the army -A legatus was in charge of a legion, that is between 4000 to 6000 men -Centurion were in charge of 10 decurions -Decurion were in charge of ten mens
They had a banner and cor system to communicate, also their general wasn't busy fighting: he was busy giving orders, which was a great advantage over hellenic style of leadership.
To me the most interesting argument in Roman militaristic superiority is to be found in their political system during the republic. The fact that patricians were seeking for glory and honour is the main explaining factor to roman expansion at that time, and the same can be said about citizens who formed the core of the Roman war machine. To gain gravitas, or credibility in public life, you had to serve your time. Up to 20 years of military service ! The financial aspect of roman militaristic history is also a topic on its own.
There's literally nothing in this game that's an improvement on shogun 2.
The AI is worse, its unstable (even worse after the latest patch), the iOS icons only hide the actual tech tree, army control/recruitement/reinforcement are all dumbed down to the point where you can barely make any meaningful choices. I know its CA so they'll provide patches, but overall the direction they took the series really disappoints me.
On September 07 2013 07:49 Derez wrote: There's literally nothing in this game that's an improvement on shogun 2.
The AI is worse, its unstable (even worse after the latest patch), the iOS icons only hide the actual tech tree, army control/recruitement/reinforcement are all dumbed down to the point where you can barely make any meaningful choices. I know its CA so they'll provide patches, but overall the direction they took the series really disappoints me.
Someone will invariably come along and tell you "unit variety" even though more than half the factions seem completely unfinished, especially the barbarian tribes.
This really is a bad game, even the battles look bad somehow. I went back to Shogun 2 and was amazed at how much better the animations were, how units actually made contact with eachother. This game is a mess not just from a technical perspective with bugs and performance, everything is just poor. The exception being the campaign map looks kind of nice.
What does the green haze/aura around my unit mean? At first I couldn't attack anything, and it had spikes protruding from it, which I didn't order. I think this was an effect of agents, but I don't know how to get rid of the effect.
you cant really see it on the picture but a green poison cloud indicates that an enemy spy poisoned your supplies. I did that to some enemy armies, i know it kills about 1/4 of their units but didnt know it hinders you at attacking stuff.
Spikes around your army indicate the fortify stance which is a seperate thing and not related to the action of an enemy agent.
Thanks. I figured it out after playing many many many more hours of playing the game non-stop I'm going to assume that the agent gave an order to my unit to fortify. It was probably due to the Persuasion or Temptation actions.
How much of your resources do you guys put into these agent battles? I just ignored using them entirely in my Rome campaign.
On September 07 2013 07:49 Derez wrote: There's literally nothing in this game that's an improvement on shogun 2.
The AI is worse, its unstable (even worse after the latest patch), the iOS icons only hide the actual tech tree, army control/recruitement/reinforcement are all dumbed down to the point where you can barely make any meaningful choices. I know its CA so they'll provide patches, but overall the direction they took the series really disappoints me.
Someone will invariably come along and tell you "unit variety" even though more than half the factions seem completely unfinished, especially the barbarian tribes.
This really is a bad game, even the battles look bad somehow. I went back to Shogun 2 and was amazed at how much better the animations were, how units actually made contact with eachother. This game is a mess not just from a technical perspective with bugs and performance, everything is just poor. The exception being the campaign map looks kind of nice.
Yeah, even something i noticed is that with Egypt, the units for the most part don't even look egyptian. Although the game is the best looking out of all the TW games, it feels the least complete.
What does the green haze/aura around my unit mean? At first I couldn't attack anything, and it had spikes protruding from it, which I didn't order. I think this was an effect of agents, but I don't know how to get rid of the effect.
you cant really see it on the picture but a green poison cloud indicates that an enemy spy poisoned your supplies. I did that to some enemy armies, i know it kills about 1/4 of their units but didnt know it hinders you at attacking stuff.
Spikes around your army indicate the fortify stance which is a seperate thing and not related to the action of an enemy agent.
Thanks. I figured it out after playing many many many more hours of playing the game non-stop I'm going to assume that the agent gave an order to my unit to fortify. It was probably due to the Persuasion or Temptation actions.
How much of your resources do you guys put into these agent battles? I just ignored using them entirely in my Rome campaign.
Stick a Veteran/Champion in your army and max the skills for increased experiance. Enjoy your gold level soldiers after only a hand full of battles. Other then that i use em for scouting and not much else. Heck the spy is even bugged atm and a sabotaged army can still recruit despite the "cannot recruit" status icon.
Is it possible to sync save files from RTW2 on two comps? Basically half the time I can play on my pc, other half only on laptop. So far it seems like saves are only kept locally, as I couldn't continue prologue that I started on my pc when I launched the game on the laptop.
Also when attacking cities, it seems like my troops refuse to go through an open gate for a long time even if there are few enemy troops blocking the way. Is it part of the game, as in you have to "capture" gate first?
the province system is an improvement on shogun. the art style is better. The battles actaly have more then one faction (instead of one faction with different recolors and bonus's to different troops). The recruitment style is literaly no different then any other total war game. back with rome you just had to spend one turn in a city that had the recruitment and your entire army instantly came back. in empire your army only needed 2 turns in somewhat friendly territory. in shogun you didn't even need to spend money and they just magically replenished. I mean shit guys if you're going to complain about shit at least give coherent reasons other then "factions appear unfinished to me". apparently the balance in multiplier is pretty good past rome being 1a masters. Its far better that every province has an actual faction now instead of rome 1 and m2tw where everywhere there was random rebel provinces for you to easymode take for the first dozen turns or so.
I don't get what people are seeing so wrong about the game. are my standards really this low? after a really substandard season of games this year (outside of EU4 I guess) I guess I'm just willing to
On September 07 2013 08:30 iokke wrote: Is it possible to sync save files from RTW2 on two comps? Basically half the time I can play on my pc, other half only on laptop. So far it seems like saves are only kept locally, as I couldn't continue prologue that I started on my pc when I launched the game on the laptop.
Also when attacking cities, it seems like my troops refuse to go through an open gate for a long time even if there are few enemy troops blocking the way. Is it part of the game, as in you have to "capture" gate first?
When you press save game on the campaign map check the cloud button thats right there.
On September 07 2013 07:49 Derez wrote: There's literally nothing in this game that's an improvement on shogun 2.
The AI is worse, its unstable (even worse after the latest patch), the iOS icons only hide the actual tech tree, army control/recruitement/reinforcement are all dumbed down to the point where you can barely make any meaningful choices. I know its CA so they'll provide patches, but overall the direction they took the series really disappoints me.
Someone will invariably come along and tell you "unit variety" even though more than half the factions seem completely unfinished, especially the barbarian tribes.
This really is a bad game, even the battles look bad somehow. I went back to Shogun 2 and was amazed at how much better the animations were, how units actually made contact with eachother. This game is a mess not just from a technical perspective with bugs and performance, everything is just poor. The exception being the campaign map looks kind of nice.
Yeah, even something i noticed is that with Egypt, the units for the most part don't even look egyptian. Although the game is the best looking out of all the TW games, it feels the least complete.
beacuse thats historically accurate, Theres this guy named alexander the great who took over the whole area and modeled it after his own. then when he died the guy who took over the area was one of alexanders generals and modeled the whole army after the hellenic style.
On September 06 2013 20:54 DonKey_ wrote: Well so far I have about 50 turns into a Rome, Egypt, and Carthage. With a bit played on Macedon, and Suebi as well.
The order of difficulty so far from easiest to hardest has been: Rome >>>>>> Egypt >> Macedon > Carthage > Suebi.
Rome is expectantly CRAZY broken with the most efficient and elite units at every point in the game so far, as well as having a very nice starting position. Egypt was much stronger than I expected due to the fact that starting turn 1 with a province is REALLY strong, and everyone around you is a nomadic nobody with no allies. Another fun thing with Egypt is just how much easier it is to trade with others since you start with a province that has 2 wheat, and an iron(and 2 wonders...), plus they actually have good units when you hit their tier 2 barracks. Being Hellenic is nice too. Macedon felt like you could have a nice set up, but I lost 2 cities in Macedon to Sparta who was my ally, and pretty much everyone around me hated me. Carthage was kind of annoying with it feeling like your client sates hurt you more than help you. I love their hoplite shields though. Suebi felt kinda fun with the confederation mechanic, but then I realized when I got powerful I had basically 2 units(beserkers and swordmasters) to look forward too.
I really want balance mods to come out fast. ><
I don't know nearly enough about ancient warfare to be confident, but wouldn't it make sense that roman soldiers pre-marian reform would be somewhat weaker than that of other nations? IIRC, they weren't used to the chain of command and things like that, so you couldn't pull off crazy maneuvers in battles and stuff. Their armament wasn't any more technologically advanced than that of their enemies (leather/iron chainmail, etc.). They really won mostly through their numbers, no? After Marian reforms legions did start owning all other infantry, but they were still kinda weak against heavy cavalry and horse archers, as shown by unsuccessful wars against Parthia and surrounding areas. Correct me if I am wrong on anything I said please :3
Roman won most of their battle due to a combination of factors, number wasn't particularly one of them. The use of formation and discipline should be listed at the top one reason. They could out manoeuvre their ennemy because legions were heavily trained to accomplish a certain number of formations, the most famous being testudo. Logistic is another aspect, and the formidable speed of roman legion was a decisive factor in most war (up to 40km per day !). They had a great chain of commands: -The consul or pro-consul was leading the army -A legatus was in charge of a legion, that is between 4000 to 6000 men -Centurion were in charge of 10 decurions -Decurion were in charge of ten mens
They had a banner and cor system to communicate, also their general wasn't busy fighting: he was busy giving orders, which was a great advantage over hellenic style of leadership.
To me the most interesting argument in Roman militaristic superiority is to be found in their political system during the republic. The fact that patricians were seeking for glory and honour is the main explaining factor to roman expansion at that time, and the same can be said about citizens who formed the core of the Roman war machine. To gain gravitas, or credibility in public life, you had to serve your time. Up to 20 years of military service ! The financial aspect of roman militaristic history is also a topic on its own.
Note that I agree with the parts I've removed from your post, but I do have some small quibbles with this post. You are mixing and matching a number of different periods of the roman army here. The famous 40km a day (point of order, 40km was a forced march, 30km was the goal Caesar set, and he was considered a harsh disciplinarian in that aspect) was only achievable after Marius removed 90% of the baggage train with his reforms. Any prior army was exactly as slow as any other ancient army (with the exception of Nomadic cultures, one of the reasons they had such problems with the Cimbri).
At the start of the republic the chain of command was indeed very clear, One consul would be sent out with an army (usually around 2 Legions maximum) the other would mind the fort at home. The title of proconsul (properly put imperium pro consule) was invented at the time when rome started to field more armies than they had consuls or praetors they could send away (some disagreement here, but usually people cite the creation of the pronvinces as this point so sometime during the punic wars).
The individual chain of command varied a lot depending on how the general wanted to use his legates. Some of the most famous Roman blunders happened when two senior dignitaries did not agree with each other (Aurasia, Cannae to name the most famous examples).
Until the second Punic War Rome fielded their legions in a pseudo phalanx formation (haestati in the first two lines, followed by 2 lines of principes and a line of triarii was considered the ideal formation 1000man wide 5 ranks deep, if I wasn't on vacation I could cite you a latin source for that). They were actually very inflexible tactically and won their wars against the other latin tribes through a combination of good diplomacy, attrition and pure grit. After Hannibal wrecked them twice Cornelius Scipio (later called Africanus) reformed the Army around the maniple and Centuriae and instituted many of the things you list (chain of command, Centurions, Standards to orient the men, Horn signals to name a few). Before that point few Historians actually considered Rome anything special military wise. The difference between them and their neighbours was that they simply didn't know how to quit, most guesses as to why that was, indeed list the idea of long military service as a "standard" to become a good Roman. While 20 years would be exceptional if the sources can be believed (they are rather scarce for that time period) Almost anyone did at least 5 Campaigns in the Legions. More if you wanted to become a politician (Military Tribune and later Legate was one of the few ways to get noticed as a Youngish Man if you were not an outstanding orator/lawyer).
Anyway, back on topic. At the start of the game the Romans probably should be weaker, but frankly it's kinda difficult to code that. You'd need to include at least 3 distinct steps and it would make the game flow much stranger (with the barracks system it already feels artificial enough, but at least does are linked to research, imagine if you simply had to wait and hold out for 60 turns before you could deploy your units in the typical Rome formation...). They kind of gimped Carthage heavily with the two 2 client states. I can understand why they did so, because by rights they should rule 2 entire provinces to start which would overpower them, but the First Punic War can be described best as "Superpower against the annoying gnat who just won't quit and accept peace". The Romans simply kept fighting until Carthage went bankrupt because their entire military was set up around hiring mercenaries (until Hamilcar barcas came around after this specific loss and had to fight 3 years of Rebellion). Since Carthage can recruit units normally in this game, they had to nerf them harshly in some other way
One last comment from the historian, the one area where Rome truly outshone all their opponents was Siegecraft. Both the mobile artillery and their construction to siege cities was unmatched until the Trebuchet was reinvented in the late middle ages.
Edit: after watching the extra credit episode, I must give those guys credit they actually condensed the first punic war down well for a 5 minute clip. Guess I'll show that episode to my students in the review session at some point
On September 07 2013 08:30 iokke wrote: Is it possible to sync save files from RTW2 on two comps? Basically half the time I can play on my pc, other half only on laptop. So far it seems like saves are only kept locally, as I couldn't continue prologue that I started on my pc when I launched the game on the laptop.
Also when attacking cities, it seems like my troops refuse to go through an open gate for a long time even if there are few enemy troops blocking the way. Is it part of the game, as in you have to "capture" gate first?
Open gates (because enemy's are passing through) feel very buggy. 90% of the time you cant go through them yourselves, andyou cant have your soldiers set it on fire. And 10% of the time it lets you go through
Considering the bad AI i would advice just parking 2 units in front of every gate during deployment since the AI will only guard 1 gate with archers and not move them so long as there is a unit in front of the gate (even if they stand out of range). And entering through all the other gates
On September 07 2013 08:30 iokke wrote: Is it possible to sync save files from RTW2 on two comps? Basically half the time I can play on my pc, other half only on laptop. So far it seems like saves are only kept locally, as I couldn't continue prologue that I started on my pc when I launched the game on the laptop.
Also when attacking cities, it seems like my troops refuse to go through an open gate for a long time even if there are few enemy troops blocking the way. Is it part of the game, as in you have to "capture" gate first?
When you press save game on the campaign map check the cloud button thats right there.
On September 07 2013 07:49 Derez wrote: There's literally nothing in this game that's an improvement on shogun 2.
The AI is worse, its unstable (even worse after the latest patch), the iOS icons only hide the actual tech tree, army control/recruitement/reinforcement are all dumbed down to the point where you can barely make any meaningful choices. I know its CA so they'll provide patches, but overall the direction they took the series really disappoints me.
Someone will invariably come along and tell you "unit variety" even though more than half the factions seem completely unfinished, especially the barbarian tribes.
This really is a bad game, even the battles look bad somehow. I went back to Shogun 2 and was amazed at how much better the animations were, how units actually made contact with eachother. This game is a mess not just from a technical perspective with bugs and performance, everything is just poor. The exception being the campaign map looks kind of nice.
Even the campaign map lags as hell and I'm far over recommended sytem reqs and tried everything. I don't mind playing on a lower quality setting if it means less pretty graphics but its just poorly optimized. Today's patch made it a little better but introduced a bug with me where my last savegame will always crash on Rhodos' turn next round. The game is not finished.
It has the potential to be a great game but it would have need another 6 months of development. Create an good AI barbarians start allying against you, balance out the actual units so you can have overwhelming barbarian hordes attacking elite romans/greeks in and it would have been amazing. Right now it's an empty experience where you just conquer province after province without any real tactical consideration.
On September 07 2013 08:30 iokke wrote: Is it possible to sync save files from RTW2 on two comps? Basically half the time I can play on my pc, other half only on laptop. So far it seems like saves are only kept locally, as I couldn't continue prologue that I started on my pc when I launched the game on the laptop.
Also when attacking cities, it seems like my troops refuse to go through an open gate for a long time even if there are few enemy troops blocking the way. Is it part of the game, as in you have to "capture" gate first?
When you press save game on the campaign map check the cloud button thats right there.
On September 07 2013 07:49 Derez wrote: There's literally nothing in this game that's an improvement on shogun 2.
The AI is worse, its unstable (even worse after the latest patch), the iOS icons only hide the actual tech tree, army control/recruitement/reinforcement are all dumbed down to the point where you can barely make any meaningful choices. I know its CA so they'll provide patches, but overall the direction they took the series really disappoints me.
Someone will invariably come along and tell you "unit variety" even though more than half the factions seem completely unfinished, especially the barbarian tribes.
This really is a bad game, even the battles look bad somehow. I went back to Shogun 2 and was amazed at how much better the animations were, how units actually made contact with eachother. This game is a mess not just from a technical perspective with bugs and performance, everything is just poor. The exception being the campaign map looks kind of nice.
Yeah, even something i noticed is that with Egypt, the units for the most part don't even look egyptian. Although the game is the best looking out of all the TW games, it feels the least complete.
beacuse thats historically accurate, Theres this guy named alexander the great who took over the whole area and modeled it after his own. then when he died the guy who took over the area was one of alexanders generals and modeled the whole army after the hellenic style.
Its one thing to model the army after the hellenic style, but the units themselves don't look Egyptian. They look Roman. Their skin colour is what more I'm talking about.
On September 07 2013 08:16 julianto wrote: How much of your resources do you guys put into these agent battles? I just ignored using them entirely in my Rome campaign.
I think I'm investing "too much" into them, believe it or not. But I have the money to burn, so it's no biggie. The agents are powerful and game-changing, like they were in Shogun 2. I never felt like the ones in Rome I and Medieval 2 did that much compared to the agents in the most recent titles. I say that because these will actually ruin your day if an opponent lands a successful hit. It's like they absolutely matter all of a sudden, whereas before they were less imperative.
Yeah if your level 8 General gets killed by a Spy because you've simply ignored them the entire game (so you don't have even mid level champions to counter it you'll be pissed). Generally I have one champion (or equivalent) in my main army for exp (moving him to my "newest" army when appropriate, 1 spy running ahead of my main force to scout around, and one dignitary following up to make the culture penalty go down faster. If the game goes late (frankly I usually stop playing once I have 70 provinces or so, nothing can stop you from that point onwards so why bother) and I have 3 plus armies working a front i'll go up to 2 of each in that area.
Only Agents I usually have the maximum of are Champions for military training. The experience alone is gamechanging, and once he levels up I usually invest the 3 points into zeal for campaign movement speed.
The "kill their Spies" minigame on the other hand is basically a waste of money against the AI. Somehow they always have new agents even if their settlements are built in such a way that they should be flat out broke.
Btw, regarding my Rant on Carthage and their weakness earlier, in my newest game on hard they got broken by punic rebels. Not by Lybia or anything, simply rebels rule in all Carthagian provinces. Wonder how that happened.
On September 07 2013 08:30 iokke wrote: Is it possible to sync save files from RTW2 on two comps? Basically half the time I can play on my pc, other half only on laptop. So far it seems like saves are only kept locally, as I couldn't continue prologue that I started on my pc when I launched the game on the laptop.
Also when attacking cities, it seems like my troops refuse to go through an open gate for a long time even if there are few enemy troops blocking the way. Is it part of the game, as in you have to "capture" gate first?
When you press save game on the campaign map check the cloud button thats right there.
On September 07 2013 08:21 masterbreti wrote:
On September 07 2013 08:14 floor exercise wrote:
On September 07 2013 07:49 Derez wrote: There's literally nothing in this game that's an improvement on shogun 2.
The AI is worse, its unstable (even worse after the latest patch), the iOS icons only hide the actual tech tree, army control/recruitement/reinforcement are all dumbed down to the point where you can barely make any meaningful choices. I know its CA so they'll provide patches, but overall the direction they took the series really disappoints me.
Someone will invariably come along and tell you "unit variety" even though more than half the factions seem completely unfinished, especially the barbarian tribes.
This really is a bad game, even the battles look bad somehow. I went back to Shogun 2 and was amazed at how much better the animations were, how units actually made contact with eachother. This game is a mess not just from a technical perspective with bugs and performance, everything is just poor. The exception being the campaign map looks kind of nice.
Yeah, even something i noticed is that with Egypt, the units for the most part don't even look egyptian. Although the game is the best looking out of all the TW games, it feels the least complete.
beacuse thats historically accurate, Theres this guy named alexander the great who took over the whole area and modeled it after his own. then when he died the guy who took over the area was one of alexanders generals and modeled the whole army after the hellenic style.
Its one thing to model the army after the hellenic style, but the units themselves don't look Egyptian. They look Roman. Their skin colour is what more I'm talking about.
Not entirely sure about this, and I haven't seen the "Egyptians" in game yet, but the Hellenes established colonies where they conquered. Macedonian soldiers settled and intermarried with the locals. So a successor kingdom would have units of hellenic soldiers, perhaps by now "mingled" though, and local levies.
Heh you've surely heard of the extent to which the Ptolemies went to keep their blood purely hellenic.
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/kq77LGR)
