I guess they would have to find a good way to implement powerful single characters into the game. I never got to try the heroes in Shogun II (only played 3 short campaigns) so I am not sure how powerful those are.
They're not as comical as heroes were in the original Shogun (I think), but they're pretty awesome novelties and can actually be used to great effect the same way an elite unit of yari samurai can change even a large scale battle potentially. And their animations are vicious...watching Tome Gozen Heroines throttle enemy monks with their spears over the neck never gets old.
In 9AD, Teutoburg Forest was the scene of a crushing defeat for the Empire. Masterminded by Arminius, the son of a Germanic chieftain taken as a child and raised as a hostage in Rome, the battle saw his betrayal of the Roman general Varus.
Arminius united the tribes, ambushed Varus’ Legion and struck a fatal and shattering blow to the Empire’s expansion.
Teutoburg Forest features as a playable historical battle in Total War: ROME II, and demonstrates some of the game’s thrilling new features, including our true line-of-sight system, deployable battlefield technology, and our tense new style of ambush scenarios.
Factions and Campaign
8 playable Factions
Barbarian Tribes will try to unite with other tribes
This is possible trough
War
Diplomacy
Gaining respect by winning battles and Wars, so they join you
When taht happens, you can form a Nation
Suebi will transform to Germans
Averni will transform to Gauls
Iceni will transform to Britons
AI will try to unite the tribes as well
they want be sucessful all the time
campgain will end after 300 Years (early Emprie time)
There will be short and long Campgains
Roman Politics
Three Roman familes with for the Power in the Senat
You can send members of enemy familes into the field with som they get weakend in the Senat. But if they are sucessfull in Field they will gain Power and an Army.. might end with a Push for Rome to claim the Empire
you can bring loyal Members of your family into the Senat so you have more Power
By achiving Missions you get Influence in the Senat
if you are to sucessful, Senat will get suspicios
Assasins can kill Senat Members
in a Civil War, the Empire can be founded
but the Citizens will be unhappy about it = civil unrest
Other Factions will have an Council
Research
Reserarch will be like in Shogun 2
three kinds: Army, Economy and Community
Diplomacy
No more Diplomats
Diplomacy over usualy Windows like ins S2
You can ask you allies to attack at a certain city or spot
but the Ai will only do it if possible, for example they wont pull troops from endangered Regions
Religions is gonna be important to keep you people happy
Armies
Ever Force has a Sign and a Traditions
Traditions will give Armies Traits
for Example, if an army does a lot of Sieges, it well get better at it.
Traits will stay, even if an army gets wiped
Every army need a general now
Troops can only be recruited from the Region it is in.
Armies move over water automaticly
They will stop for one turn to build ships
Enemy ships cant be take and used by yourself
Armys have different Modes now
Offensiv: More movement points
Defensiv: bigger block radius for enemy armies
Abush: will try to ambush enemy armies
armies get points to build defense if they stay in the same spot longer (they gain pionts)
if you change the mode, the army will have wait one turn
Battles
You dont have the destroy the enemy in a Battle. their are objectives in every battle
In sieges you need to hold Zones
in field battles you need to conquest the enemy deploy zone. and defend your Zone
Ai can lead part of you armies if you want to.
Prisca on
+1
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
I'm glad people aren't bitching about this stuff here as they are at TW center.
One tidbit from those forums: In land battles, defenders have a spot a little like sieges that they defend. This was done so the AI has a defined goal in what to do in a battle.
+2
Options
FreiA French Prometheus UnboundDeadwoodRegistered Userregular
TW Center is a great place to find mods but the general discussion there is absolutely atrocious. Full of some of the worst people I've ever seen on a gaming forum.
Sorta iffy with the idea of localized objectives in field battles. Isn't the point not to take a hill but to wipe out the enemy?
Love everything else I'm seeing though. Hopefully they can deliver.
+2
Options
Fleebhas all of the fleeb juiceRegistered Userregular
edited March 2013
Actually, very often (I'd even say most often) taking ground and key locations is the objective in military actions. Destroying the enemy is secondary at best, especially if taking that ground will lead to or help you destroy the enemy.
Capturing a hill to give yourself a better avenue of attack, securing a bridge, capturing a water supply, holding a key mountain pass, etc. All could be more important tactically and/or strategically than just killing lots of enemy soldiers... especially if it leads to you killing lots of enemy soldiers without endangering your own.
"Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical. If it is to your advantage, make a forward move"
Yes, the way entire armies are routinely wiped out in the TW series is a bit ahistorical. Typically battles were fought over important terrain, objectives, cities, supply lines, etc,
Some armies were wiped out to a man, but that was more an exception than a rule, I'd say.
TW doesn't really have supply lines, so that aspect is abstracted out entirely.
6. The more you issue a command, I.E repeatedly right clicking, there more your soldiers take it as an "urgent" command, and will follow the order regardless of enemies or mass, but at increased risk of casualties.
As someone who right clicks about a thousand times for every command I issue, this could take some getting used to
Why only eight factions? I hated how empire didnt let you choose a minor nation to play as. Just let me play as who ever, eu3 style.
Probably a balance thing with the traditionally ultra-aggressive Total War AI. In EU3, you have diplomatic possibilities as a small nation, in Total War your options are "Be Attacked By All The AI I'm Not Allied With" or "Be Attacked By All The AI I AM Allied With For No Reason".
New stuff sounds pretty exciting! I'm iffy on the objective battles too (in open terrain) but it won't make that big of a difference I imagine. It'll just help the AI.
Why only eight factions? I hated how empire didnt let you choose a minor nation to play as. Just let me play as who ever, eu3 style.
If Shogun 2 is anything to go by, it's because they'll sell those other factions as DLC. On one hand, it does give them a lot more time to work on each individual faction but on the other, it's going to cost even more money.
Why only eight factions? I hated how empire didnt let you choose a minor nation to play as. Just let me play as who ever, eu3 style.
Probably a balance thing with the traditionally ultra-aggressive Total War AI. In EU3, you have diplomatic possibilities as a small nation, in Total War your options are "Be Attacked By All The AI I'm Not Allied With" or "Be Attacked By All The AI I AM Allied With For No Reason".
Many minor factions in an EU game are way harder than anything in a Total War game. Some of them are basically all luck, with a 90% you will lose instantly. You can pick any faction in any Total War game and blitz your enemies for easy conquests.
Prior to Empire, though, there was no real grounds for complaints, as you could simply open a text file in the game folder and manually move the unplayable factions into the playable list. Even the Pope (very fun to play). In more recent games, though, it requires actual modding to play minor factions, which is unacceptable.
Its so they can sell the unavailable factions as DLC probably.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
The ascension to power of Arsaces, leader of the Parni tribe, assured them victory against the Seleucid protectorate of Parthava, who had been weakened in their attempts to break free of Greco-Macedonian rule. Thus began the rise of Parthia, an eastern empire comparable to the Achaemenid dynasty of old and one of the few who came close to matching the power and wealth of Rome.
A confederation of tribes, Parthia is famed for its horses, nomadic horse-archers and heavy cavalry, the latter developing distinctive bronze or iron scaled armour which covers both horse and rider. For its infantry it relies on ethnic Persian/Iranian hillmen, spear and skirmisher units and sometimes mercenaries, armed and drilled in the Seleucid fashion.
Blending Persian, Hellenistic and local cultures, Parthia’s religious practices and philosophies include veneration of both Greek and Iranian Gods, and the practice of Zoroastrianism. Over time, a noble elite has developed, holding key areas of agricultural land upon which the economy is based, while trade via the emerging Silk Road enables its agents to move easily throughout the ancient world.
As an Eastern faction, Parthia profits from the rich heritage established by the Persian Empire both in its capacity for trade and in its cultural strength. A degree of tolerance for foreign cultures further eases Parthian conquest of new lands, but their Zoroastrian practices mean an aversion to slavery, which is detrimental to both the economy and to public order. In battle, their great marksmanship and mastery of cavalry makes them a force to be reckoned with when fighting on open ground.
Medieval II didn't grab me the same way Rome and later Shogun 2 did, I think in large part because I felt like it lacked a sense of scale and grandness. Though I know many people who preferred it for the variety.
Why only eight factions? I hated how empire didnt let you choose a minor nation to play as. Just let me play as who ever, eu3 style.
Probably a balance thing with the traditionally ultra-aggressive Total War AI. In EU3, you have diplomatic possibilities as a small nation, in Total War your options are "Be Attacked By All The AI I'm Not Allied With" or "Be Attacked By All The AI I AM Allied With For No Reason".
Many minor factions in an EU game are way harder than anything in a Total War game. Some of them are basically all luck, with a 90% you will lose instantly. You can pick any faction in any Total War game and blitz your enemies for easy conquests.
Prior to Empire, though, there was no real grounds for complaints, as you could simply open a text file in the game folder and manually move the unplayable factions into the playable list. Even the Pope (very fun to play). In more recent games, though, it requires actual modding to play minor factions, which is unacceptable.
Why?
Kadoken on
0
Options
FreiA French Prometheus UnboundDeadwoodRegistered Userregular
Because everything should be free and open source and companies shouldn't make any money and blowjobs grow on trees.
Are you the magic man?
+1
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
I will admit, Parthia? I was hoping for Egypt and Seleucids. However, Seleucid empire should make a great boss nation for Parthia players, so I guess the challenge makes it worth it.
Medieval II didn't grab me the same way Rome and later Shogun 2 did, I think in large part because I felt like it lacked a sense of scale and grandness. Though I know many people who preferred it for the variety.
There were features I liked but I just didn't have fun with so many units that were just one slight stat point better than their previous iteration. It made replenishing units a pain.
Medieval II didn't grab me the same way Rome and later Shogun 2 did, I think in large part because I felt like it lacked a sense of scale and grandness. Though I know many people who preferred it for the variety.
There were features I liked but I just didn't have fun with so many units that were just one slight stat point better than their previous iteration. It made replenishing units a pain.
Having the pope and crusades to deal with really made the game enjoyable for me. I just with the strategy map AI wasn't so terrible.
Because everything should be free and open source and companies shouldn't make any money and blowjobs grow on trees.
They sure made even one cent by not having Bavaria or the Mughuls as playable in Empire and Napoleon: Total War. What sort of lunatic wants less value in their games and encourages the sort of sloppy laziness CA is notorious for?
Medieval II didn't grab me the same way Rome and later Shogun 2 did, I think in large part because I felt like it lacked a sense of scale and grandness. Though I know many people who preferred it for the variety.
There were features I liked but I just didn't have fun with so many units that were just one slight stat point better than their previous iteration. It made replenishing units a pain.
Certain mechanics were kind of stupid. But I suppose that happens with every game (though Shogun II is very strong in this area).
Princesses were cool, but they weren't going to make or break the game.
On a side note, Shogun II is also one of my favorite demonstrations of completely optional DLC content--namely, aside from very nice campaign packs, the heroes/specialized unit DLC is absolutely brilliant, great for the price (just a few dollars) and extremely well done for something that is totally optional.
Medieval II didn't grab me the same way Rome and later Shogun 2 did, I think in large part because I felt like it lacked a sense of scale and grandness. Though I know many people who preferred it for the variety.
There were features I liked but I just didn't have fun with so many units that were just one slight stat point better than their previous iteration. It made replenishing units a pain.
Certain mechanics were kind of stupid. But I suppose that happens with every game (though Shogun II is very strong in this area).
Shogun 2 definitely felt very tightly focused. It and Empire did do away with one of my favorite aspects of the previous games though, the various traits your generals and agents would accrue. It's much more balanced to not have generals randomly get bonus command stars for being lucky with their RNG rolls, but I miss having a cadre of generals that had severe anger issues from hanging out near so many temples to Mars or other quirks, especially after having spent so much time with Crusader Kings 2 which is all about what kind of weird bonuses your characters pick up.
Because everything should be free and open source and companies shouldn't make any money and blowjobs grow on trees.
They sure made even one cent by not having Bavaria or the Mughuls as playable in Empire and Napoleon: Total War. What sort of lunatic wants less value in their games and encourages the sort of sloppy laziness CA is notorious for?
I think you're confused if you think I actively wish for/encourage "less value" in my games instead of just understanding that DLC is a model that is here to stay. Whatever you may think, CA games provide a ton of content and then they sell extraneous stuff that isn't crucial to the main game, and I'll take that over basically every other form of DLC out there, especially considering how absolutely shitty so many companies are about it. Saying "they're lazy" for not making every faction playable is maybe the only leg you have to stand on, but there are always throwaway factions and the games don't lose out because bumfuck nowhere isn't playable as a civilization. They have development times and deadlines to meet just like any other company does, and I'd thinking filling the game with the most meaningful content/factions is probably priority.
This is the special brand of crazy that keeps me away from the TW Center forums.
Because everything should be free and open source and companies shouldn't make any money and blowjobs grow on trees.
They sure made even one cent by not having Bavaria or the Mughuls as playable in Empire and Napoleon: Total War. What sort of lunatic wants less value in their games and encourages the sort of sloppy laziness CA is notorious for?
I think you're confused if you think I actively wish for/encourage "less value" in my games instead of just understanding that DLC is a model that is here to stay. Whatever you may think, CA games provide a ton of content and then they sell extraneous stuff that isn't crucial to the main game, and I'll take that over basically every other form of DLC out there, especially considering how absolutely shitty so many companies are about it.
There is no faction DLC in Empire or Napoleon: Total War.
0
Options
FreiA French Prometheus UnboundDeadwoodRegistered Userregular
Because everything should be free and open source and companies shouldn't make any money and blowjobs grow on trees.
They sure made even one cent by not having Bavaria or the Mughuls as playable in Empire and Napoleon: Total War. What sort of lunatic wants less value in their games and encourages the sort of sloppy laziness CA is notorious for?
I think you're confused if you think I actively wish for/encourage "less value" in my games instead of just understanding that DLC is a model that is here to stay. Whatever you may think, CA games provide a ton of content and then they sell extraneous stuff that isn't crucial to the main game, and I'll take that over basically every other form of DLC out there, especially considering how absolutely shitty so many companies are about it.
There is no faction DLC in Empire or Napoleon: Total War.
No shit. Read the rest of my post. It's about more than factions in two games.
Medieval II didn't grab me the same way Rome and later Shogun 2 did, I think in large part because I felt like it lacked a sense of scale and grandness. Though I know many people who preferred it for the variety.
There were features I liked but I just didn't have fun with so many units that were just one slight stat point better than their previous iteration. It made replenishing units a pain.
Certain mechanics were kind of stupid. But I suppose that happens with every game (though Shogun II is very strong in this area).
Shogun 2 definitely felt very tightly focused. It and Empire did do away with one of my favorite aspects of the previous games though, the various traits your generals and agents would accrue. It's much more balanced to not have generals randomly get bonus command stars for being lucky with their RNG rolls, but I miss having a cadre of generals that had severe anger issues from hanging out near so many temples to Mars or other quirks, especially after having spent so much time with Crusader Kings 2 which is all about what kind of weird bonuses your characters pick up.
My "problem" is that, for some reason, it seems like 80% - 90% of my generals in M2 ended up as hard-drinking gay men. It got to the point where I was, all, "Really? Another one? I need some heirs here, people."
Your post has nothing relevant to say. They never released "locked" factions as paid DLC, and removed the easy non-modding method make them playable, requiring mods. Which, of course, take time to be developed and distributed, especially in such unfriendly games as the Total War series, post Empire.
It sounds like you just wanted an excuse to go on a rant about how much you love paying for DLC, which has little to nothing to do with my original comment. I wasn't talking about DLC and I don't care to. If you aren't talking about what I was talking about, perhaps you shouldn't post incendiary responses in the first place.
I would argue that changing the content of a game file IS modifying the game, even if it's something as easy as editing a text file.
0
Options
FreiA French Prometheus UnboundDeadwoodRegistered Userregular
edited March 2013
Let's only talk specifically about what xDisruptorX2x wants to talk about, god forbid something relate to what he's saying. DLC and mods including faction unlocking (even pre-Empire modding) are related. If you don't want to talk about it, that's fine, don't talk. You don't dictate what other people talk about, even if it's not directly related to whatever original comments you made.
On to things that actually matter - I hope they strike a nice balance in Rome 2 between the scale of the older games and the focus of the new ones. When playing something like Empire I find myself wishing it was a bit tighter, less sprawling, like more regions actually mattered, and when I'm playing Shogun 2 I find myself wanting the more open nature of older games (which they couldn't really do since they were just in Japan).
I would argue that changing the content of a game file IS modifying the game, even if it's something as easy as editing a text file.
I'd call that tweaking really. I think modding now refers to a more considerable alteration of the game. Either wholly new content or old content implemented in a new way.
I think a smaller number of factions is good. Medieval and particularly Empire felt too sprawling. Everything was spread so thin and it was hard to keep track of the meta game, especially in Empire with the New World being essentially a whole other mission unto itself.
Which is to say nothing of the fidelity of these units. You can't have three dozen factions with all unique units when the models for these units are reaching action game quality, let alone RTS quality.
I don't know much about modelling things for video games but that's gotta be a lot more monkeys sitting at shinier than ever typewriters, I guess.
Because everything should be free and open source and companies shouldn't make any money and blowjobs grow on trees.
They sure made even one cent by not having Bavaria or the Mughuls as playable in Empire and Napoleon: Total War. What sort of lunatic wants less value in their games and encourages the sort of sloppy laziness CA is notorious for?
I think you're confused if you think I actively wish for/encourage "less value" in my games instead of just understanding that DLC is a model that is here to stay. Whatever you may think, CA games provide a ton of content and then they sell extraneous stuff that isn't crucial to the main game, and I'll take that over basically every other form of DLC out there, especially considering how absolutely shitty so many companies are about it. Saying "they're lazy" for not making every faction playable is maybe the only leg you have to stand on, but there are always throwaway factions and the games don't lose out because bumfuck nowhere isn't playable as a civilization. They have development times and deadlines to meet just like any other company does, and I'd thinking filling the game with the most meaningful content/factions is probably priority.
This is the special brand of crazy that keeps me away from the TW Center forums.
There are many special brands of crazy that give good reasons to stay away from the TW Center forums. A large number of them involve hats.
But yeah, Total War games are not the place for small nation gameplay. It just doesn't work with the options supplied and time spent on them would be wasteful.
I'll also agree that I'm hoping they find a better balance on scale. I could never get into Shogun II because it felt too rigid and railroaded (god I HATED the stupid endgame "WAR EVERYWHERE!1!!" bullshit) while Empire was overwhelming (combined with buggy and poorly balanced when I played it).
From Medieval onwards there was certainly feature creep. Empire was probably worse than Shogun 2 though, mainly because of the fragmentation of the world map. Lacked coherency.
Posts
They're not as comical as heroes were in the original Shogun (I think), but they're pretty awesome novelties and can actually be used to great effect the same way an elite unit of yari samurai can change even a large scale battle potentially. And their animations are vicious...watching Tome Gozen Heroines throttle enemy monks with their spears over the neck never gets old.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7fqb3cPPfuM
One tidbit from those forums: In land battles, defenders have a spot a little like sieges that they defend. This was done so the AI has a defined goal in what to do in a battle.
Love everything else I'm seeing though. Hopefully they can deliver.
Capturing a hill to give yourself a better avenue of attack, securing a bridge, capturing a water supply, holding a key mountain pass, etc. All could be more important tactically and/or strategically than just killing lots of enemy soldiers... especially if it leads to you killing lots of enemy soldiers without endangering your own.
Sun Tzu on terrain: http://suntzusaid.com/book/10
"Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical. If it is to your advantage, make a forward move"
Some armies were wiped out to a man, but that was more an exception than a rule, I'd say.
TW doesn't really have supply lines, so that aspect is abstracted out entirely.
As someone who right clicks about a thousand times for every command I issue, this could take some getting used to
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
Probably a balance thing with the traditionally ultra-aggressive Total War AI. In EU3, you have diplomatic possibilities as a small nation, in Total War your options are "Be Attacked By All The AI I'm Not Allied With" or "Be Attacked By All The AI I AM Allied With For No Reason".
If Shogun 2 is anything to go by, it's because they'll sell those other factions as DLC. On one hand, it does give them a lot more time to work on each individual faction but on the other, it's going to cost even more money.
Many minor factions in an EU game are way harder than anything in a Total War game. Some of them are basically all luck, with a 90% you will lose instantly. You can pick any faction in any Total War game and blitz your enemies for easy conquests.
Prior to Empire, though, there was no real grounds for complaints, as you could simply open a text file in the game folder and manually move the unplayable factions into the playable list. Even the Pope (very fun to play). In more recent games, though, it requires actual modding to play minor factions, which is unacceptable.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
Why?
There were features I liked but I just didn't have fun with so many units that were just one slight stat point better than their previous iteration. It made replenishing units a pain.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
Having the pope and crusades to deal with really made the game enjoyable for me. I just with the strategy map AI wasn't so terrible.
They sure made even one cent by not having Bavaria or the Mughuls as playable in Empire and Napoleon: Total War. What sort of lunatic wants less value in their games and encourages the sort of sloppy laziness CA is notorious for?
Certain mechanics were kind of stupid. But I suppose that happens with every game (though Shogun II is very strong in this area).
Princesses were cool, but they weren't going to make or break the game.
On a side note, Shogun II is also one of my favorite demonstrations of completely optional DLC content--namely, aside from very nice campaign packs, the heroes/specialized unit DLC is absolutely brilliant, great for the price (just a few dollars) and extremely well done for something that is totally optional.
Shogun 2 definitely felt very tightly focused. It and Empire did do away with one of my favorite aspects of the previous games though, the various traits your generals and agents would accrue. It's much more balanced to not have generals randomly get bonus command stars for being lucky with their RNG rolls, but I miss having a cadre of generals that had severe anger issues from hanging out near so many temples to Mars or other quirks, especially after having spent so much time with Crusader Kings 2 which is all about what kind of weird bonuses your characters pick up.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
I think you're confused if you think I actively wish for/encourage "less value" in my games instead of just understanding that DLC is a model that is here to stay. Whatever you may think, CA games provide a ton of content and then they sell extraneous stuff that isn't crucial to the main game, and I'll take that over basically every other form of DLC out there, especially considering how absolutely shitty so many companies are about it. Saying "they're lazy" for not making every faction playable is maybe the only leg you have to stand on, but there are always throwaway factions and the games don't lose out because bumfuck nowhere isn't playable as a civilization. They have development times and deadlines to meet just like any other company does, and I'd thinking filling the game with the most meaningful content/factions is probably priority.
This is the special brand of crazy that keeps me away from the TW Center forums.
There is no faction DLC in Empire or Napoleon: Total War.
No shit. Read the rest of my post. It's about more than factions in two games.
My "problem" is that, for some reason, it seems like 80% - 90% of my generals in M2 ended up as hard-drinking gay men. It got to the point where I was, all, "Really? Another one? I need some heirs here, people."
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Your post has nothing relevant to say. They never released "locked" factions as paid DLC, and removed the easy non-modding method make them playable, requiring mods. Which, of course, take time to be developed and distributed, especially in such unfriendly games as the Total War series, post Empire.
It sounds like you just wanted an excuse to go on a rant about how much you love paying for DLC, which has little to nothing to do with my original comment. I wasn't talking about DLC and I don't care to. If you aren't talking about what I was talking about, perhaps you shouldn't post incendiary responses in the first place.
On to things that actually matter - I hope they strike a nice balance in Rome 2 between the scale of the older games and the focus of the new ones. When playing something like Empire I find myself wishing it was a bit tighter, less sprawling, like more regions actually mattered, and when I'm playing Shogun 2 I find myself wanting the more open nature of older games (which they couldn't really do since they were just in Japan).
I'd call that tweaking really. I think modding now refers to a more considerable alteration of the game. Either wholly new content or old content implemented in a new way.
I think a smaller number of factions is good. Medieval and particularly Empire felt too sprawling. Everything was spread so thin and it was hard to keep track of the meta game, especially in Empire with the New World being essentially a whole other mission unto itself.
Which is to say nothing of the fidelity of these units. You can't have three dozen factions with all unique units when the models for these units are reaching action game quality, let alone RTS quality.
I don't know much about modelling things for video games but that's gotta be a lot more monkeys sitting at shinier than ever typewriters, I guess.
There are many special brands of crazy that give good reasons to stay away from the TW Center forums. A large number of them involve hats.
But yeah, Total War games are not the place for small nation gameplay. It just doesn't work with the options supplied and time spent on them would be wasteful.
I'll also agree that I'm hoping they find a better balance on scale. I could never get into Shogun II because it felt too rigid and railroaded (god I HATED the stupid endgame "WAR EVERYWHERE!1!!" bullshit) while Empire was overwhelming (combined with buggy and poorly balanced when I played it).
Parthia was actually a pretty big deal. (See battle of Carrhae)
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
Both are fantastic (or were 4 years ago). If you are playing the old Rome withOUT one of those I think you're missing big time.
Cool. All this RTW2 talk is making me want to lead legions into battle and I doubt my computer will be able to play RTW2.