Rome Total War II

[Spectacle]

So it will be like

Not really. Apparantly you'll also need to 'conquer' all the regions without a city. Dunno how they intend to do that but from recent articles it would seem that they've at the very least introduced more battle types. We'll see. Do hope it won't mean a specific battle that fires for every region you try to take though.

3 minute loading screen to start up a battle for an unfortified village defended by 2 bands of peasants. Try to use auto resolve and you'll take unproportionately high casualties.

 

[Hellraiser]

Auto resolve worked pretty well in Empire and Shogun 2 most of the time. I actually used it for most of my battles including castle assaults, except for naval ones as those always gave you ridiculous casualties.

 

[JarlFrank]

The hunger mechanic should work faster

Then do not bitch about the rest of the ahistorical stuff like flaming pigs and pharaoh troops and so on. Roman era sieges often took years with the besieged usually only falling due to either treason or a lack of supplies instead of head on assaults.

Although Carthage was the exception to the rule. Mind you, that assault was incredibly bloody with Roman troops apparantly even using the bones/dead bodies of people to aid them in making a ramp for the final assault on that ancient enemy. Not something they were keen on doing as routine.

Sieges have always been hardcore shit in TW games unless you have enough siege engines to grind all the enemy towers and lots of wall sections to pulp.

Currently playing Medieval 2 with Bellum Crucis mod (and modified cavalry mass values to make charges less ridiculous; they're still powerful but at least not *entirely* overpowered anymore; although shit like lol losing 50 archers in a squad of 120 who countercharge against enemy heavy cavalry... of a size of 5 soldiers. HURRRR), and it pretty much requires you to take cities by assault because sieges are expensive as fuck and drain your treasury if you keep them going too long.

City/castle assaults are always very casualty-heavy and that's how it should be.

 

[MapMan]

I remember how I took the shogunate: I brought a bunch of catapults and archers. Lost like 50 units, totally burnt the whole city to the ground. I guess the catapults have too much ammo or something...

 

[CaptainAwesome]

I remember how I took the shogunate: I brought a bunch of catapults and archers. Lost like 50 units, totally burnt the whole city to the ground. I guess the catapults have too much ammo or something...

I took it by surrounding them with three full armies and starving them out, while the rest of my campaigns pushed back their allies.

 

[Hellraiser]

I had two doomstacks in the vicinity with one sieging it. AI allies of the shogunate (Oda or Takeda) forced a battle in the open field with numerical superiority. It was a fucking slaughter but my one doomstack was enough to cripple their two siege-breaking armies and achieve victory, barely. I mopped up with my other one and took kyoto. First thing I did was burn down the Buddhist temple and build a church there. Jesus was on my side

This is also why I had no problem with realm divide. I always occupied everything and was christian so I had no friends anyway, only the ouchi converted (apart from some minor on Kyushu I conquered within the first 10 turns) and I conquered them before going deeper into the main island.

 

[Raghar]

Auto resolve worked pretty well in Empire and Shogun 2 most of the time. I actually used it for most of my battles including castle assaults, except for naval ones as those always gave you ridiculous casualties.

I stopped to use autoresolve in S2 when I lost a general which had 5+ units against 3 enemy units. 3 dead one of them the general.
And E TW resolve was just reduction of all units by some ratio. Even these who wouldn't likely participate close enough to have loses.

 

[MapMan]

Two MAJESTIC total war screenshots:

http://tww-data.s3.amazonaws.com/panorama2/index.html

http://tww-data.s3.amazonaws.com/panorama/index.html

 

[Spectacle]

Auto resolve worked pretty well in Empire and Shogun 2 most of the time. I actually used it for most of my battles including castle assaults, except for naval ones as those always gave you ridiculous casualties.

I stopped to use autoresolve in S2 when I lost a general which had 5+ units against 3 enemy units. 3 dead one of them the general.
And E TW resolve was just reduction of all units by some ratio. Even these who wouldn't likely participate close enough to have loses.

I used autoresolve to capture Kyoto in Shogun 2. Two stacks captured the city with only small losses. Much much easier than trying to move my force around in that cramped city map.

 

[Raghar]

Well they improved BAI, but autoresolve remained the same. Thus things are too easy with the autoresolve.

Also have you meant Edo? It was actually a nice change. Moving Yari heroes to hold position and kill enemies with ashigaru and samurai teppo and some cavalry.

 

[Raghar]

Flaming pig thrower?

 

[Corporate_Jew_Master]

I was playing a 30 year war mod for medieval 2 yesterday, which made me wonder.

Why have they never thought of making an expansion for medieval 2 or empire (stand alone game wouldn't work, I admit that much, the modern average total war fan still asks why america isn't in rome total war 2) that is set during the late rennaisance period? It works perfectly.

Early evolution of artillery and split between siege guns and field guns? Check.

Pikemen and musketeers working together and supported by other specialised units such as sappers, swordsmen and pike-formation breakers? Check.

War everywhere due to the biggest religious tensions Europe ever knew coupled with the rise of the middle class and the struggles of monarchs to centralise their states? Check.

 

[poocolator]

Their target market is unaware of periods of history outside of the usual popular shite... and japanshit. Their minds are swiss cheese, with large swathes of history missing, including the renaissance etc.

 

[Joghurt]

Yes because Assassin's Creed 2, Brotherhood and Revelations were very unsuccessful...

 

[Sranchammer]

30 Years War is THE most underrated military setting in all gaming.

 

[Cursed Beaver]

30 Years War is THE most underrated military setting in all gaming.

Prettty much every historical period is underrated. Except for the overused WW2 setting, which makes for 90% of the history games.

I would also like one that takes place in 16th century Italy. With the French, the Germans, The Italian city states all vying for control of the peninsula. Melee weapons are still not obsolete, so there's a good balance between ranged, melee and cavalry charge. And there's primitive canon and all that.

Or The massive cluster fuck that was the hundred years war.
Or the conflicts in the pre columbian south America. Or following one of those Mongolian leader in their conquest of Asia.

The Indian subcontinent, in the pre muslim era, and south east asia. Those are litteraly never done. All those ancient, millenium civlizations superposed in this area : the rich architectures, all the different faith, temples, traditions, warfare style...

Or pretty much any historical context that was a convoluted mess of civlization/conflict/factions...

 

[not an artichoke]

As much as I'd love to see games made in various fresh historical settings, the twin problems of marketability and availability of information (particularly for non-European settings) make it unlikely.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

I can see only Ageod doing setting like that.

 

[Cursed Beaver]

I can see only Ageod doing setting like that.

Just a big map would be a bit underwhelming when exploring the civlizations of old. A Total War style game would do them more justice. Or a game like Cossack. Or any game where you actually see the culture/soldiers/cities...

 

[BlackAdderBG]

I can see only Ageod doing setting like that.

Just a big map would be a bit underwhelming when exploring the civlizations of old. A Total War style game would do them more justice. Or a game like Cossack. Or any game where you actually see the culture/soldiers/cities...

Not sure what you mean by "civlizations of old",HRE,France,Spain don't look to me like some unknown exotic civilizations to be explored.Also Ageod are not into big maps,only game that try it was Pride of Nations and it showed that the engine couldn't handle it.TW series are a lot of fun,but I wouldn't say they do to the chosen setting much historical justice.Only advantage TW has is the RT battles and for me is a matter of what mood am I.This sometimes is way better than any battle in TW.

 

[Cursed Beaver]

I can see only Ageod doing setting like that.

Just a big map would be a bit underwhelming when exploring the civlizations of old. A Total War style game would do them more justice. Or a game like Cossack. Or any game where you actually see the culture/soldiers/cities...

Not sure what you mean by "civlizations of old",HRE,France,Spain don't look to me like some unknown exotic civilizations to be explored.Also Ageod are not into big maps,only game that try it was Pride of Nations and it showed that the engine couldn't handle it.TW series are a lot of fun,but I wouldn't say they do to the chosen setting much historical justice.Only advantage TW has is the RT battles and for me is a matter of what mood am I.This sometimes is way better than any battle in TW.

Well I did mention the pre muslim Indians and east asians ones, as well as the south american ones.

What I meant, is that it would be much more fun if you see the civilizations ''directly'' : their architecture, the cities, the armies... I assumed Ageod was a map painting simulator, which wouldn't allow that kind of interraction. A total war kinf of game would, since you fight in the cities that you progressively devellop, you control directly the army and must take into consideration each kind of soldiers' fighting style and equipment, and you get to see them in full 5000 polygons glory.
Basically, any kind of game were you really immerse yourself into the realm's culture. If it's just stats and text, that's not enough.

 

[not an artichoke]

Naan-munching Indiaphile wargamers might stroke themselves to thoughts of such a game, but the $200 they'd collectively spend on it wouldn't do much for Sega's bottom line. The problem of relative cultural homogeneity rears its head for Indian and pre-Columbian American games not necessarily because they were all culturally the same, but because we either don't know jack shit about them or CA would never be able to do enough proper research to make anything worth playing. An East Asian Romance of the 3 Kingdoms type game could be fucking awesome, but your average Kwan would just scratch his beer gut and wonder wtf didn't I just pay $100 for Shogun II and all those fuckin awesome blood DLCs? Gook is a gook. Meanwhile, half a billion Chinese would grin and promptly torrent it.

 

[Cursed Beaver]

 

[Cursed Beaver]

http://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Panorama



http://tww-data.s3.amazonaws.com/panorama2/index.html



http://d3sfrpv2p43dtq.cloudfront.net/public/teutoburgPanoramic.jpg

 

[poocolator]

YEAH KILL THOSE GERMANS MY GLORIOUS ROMAN BROTHERS *FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP*

edit:
So they've replaced having to render any distant terrain with cinematic fog and other shit effects? I wonder if there's going to be any campaign map->battle map fidelity at all. It didn't exist in Shogun 2, but was a staple of total war games starting with Rome: TW. And, yeah, I realize the shots are from a canned Teutoburg battle scenario, not from the campaign map.