EPThttp://imgbox.com/abiMsZVP
Total War: Rome II - Page 76
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
http://imgbox.com/abiMsZVP | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13933 Posts
Edit beacuse missle troops are fodder anyway and you might as well just get a lot of slingers and out firepower the archers. archers will die to slings just as easy as other arrows beacuse they have no armor almost all of the time. nothing else has their range as well so they have that advantage as well. | ||
|
LaNague
Germany9118 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13933 Posts
| ||
|
Darpa
Canada4413 Posts
On September 19 2013 09:16 LaNague wrote: so which total war game has the best battles in your opinion? Ill wait till they fix rome 2, but i can try out older games. IMO Medieval Total War 2. There were so many different types of units and factions, that the battles were always interesting. No stupid capture points in the middle of open field maps, and cavalry were lethal if used right, useless if not. Longbow men/muskateers had great utility in diff ways. All in all its my favorite game. I just wish they would tone down the spy and assassin shit in that game. (Literally always had someone being assassinated or my merchants being taken over/killed) Also you could move armies around without having a general on them, was awesome. I hate that about rome 2 | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
| ||
|
Latham
9560 Posts
I'd have to go with Shogun 2 siege because the earlier titles' siege mechanics like Rome I and Medieval I and Shogun 1 escape me at the moment. For pure army vs army open field I'd say Rome 1. Still, there's a softspot in my heart for Medieval 1 and Shogun 1... Although CA seems to have made the game playable (at least for me) ATM, I'm still waiting for some big overhaul mods a la Europa Barbarium or Stainless Steel... | ||
|
Arevall
Sweden1133 Posts
The expansions are pretty ok too. But singleplayer rise of the samurai feels like just mass foot samurai. And fall of the samurai - get some cannons. I just won against a 2k army with my 1k army when I sieged. Lost 1 guy, poor bastard (also not heroic victory :/) | ||
|
RolleMcKnolle
Germany1054 Posts
On September 19 2013 16:14 Arevall wrote: I really like Shogun 2. Downside is the low unit variation, but I can live with it. The expansions are pretty ok too. But singleplayer rise of the samurai feels like just mass foot samurai. And fall of the samurai - get some cannons. I just won against a 2k army with my 1k army when I sieged. Lost 1 guy, poor bastard (also not heroic victory :/) I didnt figure out yet when I'll get a heroic victory. I once had one so they still exist. But even when winning with 1200 simple barbarian garrison against 5000 attackers and losing about 600 of them its not heroic, no its obviously a costly victory... | ||
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
PS: and almost forgot the tech trees oh how much I hate them in Rome 2. The nice thing in Shogun 2 was that you could plan properly because you had the tech tree in one nice overview. More then once have I been left wondering in the Rome 2 why I should get this tech and what it'll do for me. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On September 19 2013 09:16 LaNague wrote: so which total war game has the best battles in your opinion? Ill wait till they fix rome 2, but i can try out older games. They are all good, it's just about which period you prefer. Empire is tactically awesome. On September 19 2013 10:15 Darpa wrote: Also you could move armies around without having a general on them, was awesome. I hate that about rome 2 I love that about Rome 2, the restriction is more realistic than just being able to run small groups around. Managing an army in the field was all about supplies and all the extra-curricular stuff. On September 19 2013 20:13 Skilledblob wrote: PS: and almost forgot the tech trees oh how much I hate them in Rome 2. The nice thing in Shogun 2 was that you could plan properly because you had the tech tree in one nice overview. More then once have I been left wondering in the Rome 2 why I should get this tech and what it'll do for me. This is true, it really makes absolutely no sense. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6210 Posts
On September 19 2013 19:37 RolleMcKnolle wrote: I didnt figure out yet when I'll get a heroic victory. I once had one so they still exist. But even when winning with 1200 simple barbarian garrison against 5000 attackers and losing about 600 of them its not heroic, no its obviously a costly victory... I had a heroic victory when I auto resolved, never had that before in a TW game. | ||
|
qotsager
Germany585 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
For me the fact that there are holes makes the game enjoyable in a different way. If you avoid using forums and other outside information and instead try to work out how to counteract the game's superior *everything* including numbers, income and unit variety/exp, using only your own ingenuity and wiliness, it is ludicrously rewarding and enjoyable. Granted if you just look for the gimpiest strategy online you might lose all semblance of challenge but imo that's only a step away from just hacking the game for infinite money. There are times I had to get out of tight situations and had to very carefully work out of ways around the pickle I was in and doing that was extremely fun." There's nothing superhman about beating the AI on VH. When did I say I have to pause the game? The obvious assumption is that you don't. Its like a SC2 multiplayer gamer talking to a campaign gamer. Because that is what it is, I suspect. Afterall, if you can micro a little bit in SC2, TW micro is easy, the speed is like a 16th of sc2, the only real limitation is speed of responce of unit and moving the camera around. And yes, difficult factions aren't that hard, when you can win every battle except for those where you are totally outnumbered. What holes? it's just the basic Battle AI is ridiculously poor. It's rewardable and enjoyable beating the AI, till it feels empty, same way beating the AI in SC2 feels empty. So you went from claiming you have to be superhuman to beat VH AI to that you have to "look for the gimpiest strategy online". Except it doesn't exist. Only good micro and tactics is enough. The AI can't even protect it own flanks, or flank itself, or form a defensive line all game long except by coincidence. I really don't understand how you can even think the battles "are a considerable challenge". | ||
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
 But still beating shogun 2 legendary is still something you had to work on, you had to know what to do in the first 20 turns to not die, you needed decent strategies etc. But Rome 2 on legendary so far has been a cakewalk. Might be that some factions are considerably harder on legendary then others, same was true for shogun 2 as well, but this still does not explain the level of AI stupidity Rome 2 has compared to Shogun | ||
|
Darpa
Canada4413 Posts
On September 19 2013 12:02 cLAN.Anax wrote: Rome I for its simplicity, Shogun 2 for its tactics. Sorry, Darpa, but I think Medieval 2 had some of the worst combat in any TW game. It was always a mechanical nightmare for me; units took five seconds to respond to orders, horsemen never seemed to want to go where I told them to, and charges left me highly unsatisfied. Hey everyone has their opinion, no worries. But I always found that Units responded fine until they were engaged. Once they were fighting its very hard to control them and they take along time respond.. but I figured that was fairly realistic, its not like in real life you could cavalry charge into a group of units, and then instantly break off and charge across the map and hit another group. Men went wild in battle so it was hard to control them from afar. Just gave it a sense of realism and difficulty for me, better make sure your positioning is right, otherwise its hard to maneuver. edit. although I will admit that sieges were a hot mess. I generally just auto resolved them. The sieges in rome 2 are much better from my perspective | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On September 19 2013 22:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote: There's nothing superhman about beating the AI on VH. When did I say I have to pause the game? The obvious assumption is that you don't. Its like a SC2 multiplayer gamer talking to a campaign gamer. Because that is what it is, I suspect. Afterall, if you can micro a little bit in SC2, TW micro is easy, the speed is like a 16th of sc2, the only real limitation is speed of responce of unit and moving the camera around. And yes, difficult factions aren't that hard, when you can win every battle except for those where you are totally outnumbered. What holes? it's just the basic Battle AI is ridiculously poor. It's rewardable and enjoyable beating the AI, till it feels empty, same way beating the AI in SC2 feels empty. So you went from claiming you have to be superhuman to beat VH AI to that you have to "look for the gimpiest strategy online". Except it doesn't exist. Only good micro and tactics is enough. The AI can't even protect it own flanks, or flank itself, or form a defensive line all game long except by coincidence. I really don't understand how you can even think the battles "are a considerable challenge". Actually you do have a point, I am a campaign gamer on TW. That's the way I enjoy it. I think if you play multiplayer on Total War you will certainly spoil the singleplayer. Unfortunate I guess. I have no training in using micro to play TW and my friend who plays it online does, and he thrashed me in two battles. I'm still surprised that you and the other guy have found it easy to beat the campaign on legendary when one considers the outrageous numbers your enemy can achieve. But meh, I guess you have a legitimate reason not to enjoy it. I on the other hand enjoy having little micro ability in the game, I like to play like a general making sweeping movements with my troops! The game is exciting for the big battles and the grand scenes. It's no Brood War in my mind and I don't play it as such  . | ||
|
TSORG
293 Posts
On September 19 2013 09:16 LaNague wrote: so which total war game has the best battles in your opinion? Ill wait till they fix rome 2, but i can try out older games. the first 2 tw games actually had the "best" ai, or hardest to beat anyway. | ||
|
TSORG
293 Posts
On September 18 2013 22:46 sc4k wrote: Meh, you may be a virtual savant at the game but if you play most of the games on the max difficulty (esp legendary on Shogun) the battles are not easy, and require a lot of attention and hard work. If you play Rome, M2, Empire on vh and don't save/load, it's a considerable challenge, especially for some of the more precarious factions. And you should indeed only be playing total war if you enjoy the battles. If you enjoy EU that's good for you but I find it to be half a game when compared to TW. I agree, when compared to Empire especially it's absurdly fast. They need to have battles about 25% the speed they are now. But it will get there... :O how do you manage to get 20 min battles. mine dont go past 5... and at the end like 6k ppl are dead. | ||
|
Vaporeon
Canada68 Posts
I on the other hand enjoy having little micro ability in the game, I like to play like a general making sweeping movements with my troops! The game is exciting for the big battles and the grand scenes. It's no Brood War in my mind and I don't play it as such .Yeah, I like to immerse myself in the game more than enjoy the mechanics. The setting itself is enough to enjoy it. Play out some stories and etc. | ||
| ||
