TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
edited September 2014
Honestly my biggest gripe about Rome 2 is the building mechanics.
Take the classic building interface from say Medieval 2, spread out the buildings like Empire did, use the province system as in Rome 2 to give those smaller villages and shit some actual tactical/strategic significance and bam.
I'd be fine with a Total War game that isn't completely fucked out of the gate, as Rome 2 was. Sure, patches have made it better, but that's after about a year since release.
Unless the next game looks utterly amazing, I'll be sitting out on preordering because of that.
I'd be fine with a Total War game that isn't completely fucked out of the gate, as Rome 2 was. Sure, patches have made it better, but that's after about a year since release.
Unless the next game looks utterly amazing, I'll be sitting out on preordering because of that.
Shogun 2 was broken out of the box too.
So was Empire.
Medieval 2
Rome
I mean all to a separate degree of course (I'd argue Empire was the worst, although that game is a hidden gem now and I recommend anyone bored with the sword and shields go play that) but no Total War game is perfect out of the box.
Hell, with the amount of dedication and actually listening to the fanbase they've done with Rome 2 I'm willing to forgive them the state Rome 2 was in when it released. They've earned my forgiveness.
Of course it'd be a shame if they had to earn it again with the next title.
And we all know the next game is going to look utterly amazing. It's Total War.
Edit: To be less snarky, I have been on the Total War ride for a while, and am well aware of the, shall we say, generous definition of 'releasable' that CA seems to have. Rome 2's state was utterly unacceptable to me though, to the point where I don't want to reward them for it by preordering again.
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Then don't. I've never preordered a Total War game in my life and I don't intend to start now.
I'm just saying it's not like they haven't supported Rome 2 and turned it into a good Total War game. It's not great, probably won't ever be but it's far from the worst now.
But yeah Warhammer on a modern engine would be completely awesome.
Anyone know where I can download this from? The links from the post send me to download sites that are giving me snail like speeds (i.e. 12 hours to download a 1.8 gigs). Looks cool and I just reinstalled to Medieval 2 to give it a shot.
I'm maybe the wrong person to be playing Total War games these days.
I mean, I LOVE Medieval 2. Fucking pinnacle for me.
I don't think that I like having to track down little buildings on the map and build them up. I like everything building out of the city there. Just simplifies things.
Although maybe I just need to give it another shot, and I'll get used to it.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
+1
Options
Fleebhas all of the fleeb juiceRegistered Userregular
But yeah Warhammer on a modern engine would be completely awesome.
Anyone know where I can download this from? The links from the post send me to download sites that are giving me snail like speeds (i.e. 12 hours to download a 1.8 gigs). Looks cool and I just reinstalled to Medieval 2 to give it a shot.
I don't recall any non-Russian mirrors, sorry. Maybe the Googles can help, but it's a pretty niche mod for an old engine, so a bit unlikely. On their DL page they do have it broken down into smaller chunks: http://empiretw.ru/board/index.php?showtopic=24936
But hey as long as you have M2TW installed give EB2 a shot! They just released a little update too.
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
edited September 2014
I used to loathe Empire. But there you kind find a diamond in the rough with it. It helps that I really like musket-based warfare. Also Darthmod cleans away some of the bad.
With Darthmod, I think my chief complaints about Empire are: America being cut up into half of North America and only having North South America (Isn't that confusing) was not a good idea. It also doesn't help that some of the regions in North America feel a little too big or out of place, like how Mexico is one giant region, or how there are missing spots of the North American map which it looked like they planned for regions to be, but didn't. I really wish they had opened up all of North and South America.
Some European regions are too big. What's with Spain and France respectively being one region? Ok, you have Gibraltar for Spain and Alsace-Lorraine for France, but it's weird when you compare them to say England, which has three regions, two non-England regions which I have never seen revolt under the AI. They were great for me to buy them for 10,000 for ten turns and then double cross and kill off the English as Austria but I feel like the regions of Spain and France should have been represented by at least three regions each.
Quicklime is overpowered. And I say that when I use it to kill off four Mauryan stacks attacking one fort which has most of the regiments at half strength, and I have four units of howitzers fucking destroying these dudes like proto-napalm or some shit.
There are really only three types of factions in Empire: European-based, Native American based, and Ottoman-Indian based. Seriously, the Indian units are just reskins of Ottoman units. (I don't mind this in Shogun 2 having only one type of faction with a similar pool of units, because they're all Japanese clans)
But, Native Americans are actually really fun and tense to fight against as a European country. Actually, I've had times where the Iroquois and the Cherokee have actually TEAMED UP and took back North America from the French, Spanish, and British. I remember this because when I was Austria I took over Canada from Britain and always had to watch their stacks of doom on my borders.
Unit collision basically doesn't exist.
All the dudes look the damn same.
If you get fire by rank before anyone else, you're overpowered as hell. At least concerning Infantry.
Other than that? It can be a fun as shit game.
Kadoken on
0
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Did they fix the issues with the UI in Empire? That was my biggest gripe. I swear, I couldn't read anything in the game...
This is terribly pedantic of me, but I can't help myself. Also, I offer this with no judgment
It's "diamond in the rough"
Sorry.
Back to things at hand.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
0
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
Like the rough on a golf course. It's the unkempt grass off the course proper. A diamond in the rough is something valuable among a lot of worthless drek.
I mean, as far as I know. We could probably do some better history on the idiom with a little research.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
+1
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
I'd be fine with a Total War game that isn't completely fucked out of the gate, as Rome 2 was. Sure, patches have made it better, but that's after about a year since release.
Unless the next game looks utterly amazing, I'll be sitting out on preordering because of that.
Shogun 2 was broken out of the box too.
So was Empire.
Medieval 2
Rome
I mean all to a separate degree of course (I'd argue Empire was the worst, although that game is a hidden gem now and I recommend anyone bored with the sword and shields go play that) but no Total War game is perfect out of the box.
Hell, with the amount of dedication and actually listening to the fanbase they've done with Rome 2 I'm willing to forgive them the state Rome 2 was in when it released. They've earned my forgiveness.
Of course it'd be a shame if they had to earn it again with the next title.
And we all know the next game is going to look utterly amazing. It's Total War.
lol?
Which Total War games aside from Rome 2 had AI that was so broken out of the box that they would literally do nothing in a battle?
Even after a perpetual patch cycle, the only way you can get the Rome 2 AI to actually siege a city with some degree of success is with 3rd party mods. It's embarassing.
If you played Shogun 2 at release and thought it was as bad as Rome 2, I don't know what to say aside from, "Nope,"
With Love and Courage
0
Options
FreiA French Prometheus UnboundDeadwoodRegistered Userregular
some people will misrepresent a game to fit their negative opinion of it, due to bias or nostalgia or both.
Kadoken, nearly everything you complained about has been fixed or changed. Rome 2 at launch had problems, but Rome 2 now is a fully realized, balanced, and great game - just as great as Shogun 2 and some of the predecessors. it's a shame you'll never see that because you'd rather keep your outdated and ill-informed opinion and talk about how it was totally better back in the olden days (or neon samurai days).
Like the rough on a golf course. It's the unkempt grass off the course proper. A diamond in the rough is something valuable among a lot of worthless drek.
I mean, as far as I know. We could probably do some better history on the idiom with a little research.
I always thought it was a metaphor for things that are valuable but unpolished. You know, like rough diamonds before they are cut and polished.
some people will misrepresent a game to fit their negative opinion of it, due to bias or nostalgia or both.
Kadoken, nearly everything you complained about has been fixed or changed. Rome 2 at launch had problems, but Rome 2 now is a fully realized, balanced, and great game - just as great as Shogun 2 and some of the predecessors. it's a shame you'll never see that because you'd rather keep your outdated and ill-informed opinion and talk about how it was totally better back in the olden days (or neon samurai days).
I still think it's boring, and you can't change my opinion about it? You can like it, but you can't convince me to like it. Also, I think that Warhammer:Total War could be really good even if I didn't like Rome 2?
Also, I have played Rome 2 recently (I have owned it for less than a year). Then I played the newly released at the time Europa Barbarorum II. I liked EB2 better.
I will not say that Rome 2 is a bad game and one is bad for playing it, but I will say that I think Rome 2 is a sub-par game compared to the rest of the series, and is in my opinion, bad.
Also, what was with the bolded bit? Sorry if I won't accept your opinion as my own and am "Living in the past".
Literally, a "rough diamond" is one that hasn't been cut and polished yet.
A rough diamond looks, to the untrained eye, an awful lot like any other rock with some embedded crystal (uncountable varieties of which exist, and most of which are not worth much*).
However, with some work, you can get rid of the rock encasing the diamond, cut it, grind it, and polish it into one of the most beautiful stones in the world.
Thus, a "diamond in the rough" is something which is secretly beautiful and valuable, but takes a practiced eye and some work to bring that out.
* Leaving aside the discussion on what a diamond is actually "worth" in any objective sense of the word.
some people will misrepresent a game to fit their negative opinion of it, due to bias or nostalgia or both.
Kadoken, nearly everything you complained about has been fixed or changed. Rome 2 at launch had problems, but Rome 2 now is a fully realized, balanced, and great game - just as great as Shogun 2 and some of the predecessors. it's a shame you'll never see that because you'd rather keep your outdated and ill-informed opinion and talk about how it was totally better back in the olden days (or neon samurai days).
I still think it's boring, and you can't change my opinion about it? You can like it, but you can't convince me to like it. Also, I think that Warhammer:Total War could be really good even if I didn't like Rome 2?
Also, I have played Rome 2 recently (I have owned it for less than a year). Then I played the newly released at the time Europa Barbarorum II. I liked EB2 better.
I will not say that Rome 2 is a bad game and one is bad for playing it, but I will say that I think Rome 2 is a sub-par game compared to the rest of the series, and is in my opinion, bad.
Also, what was with the bolded bit? Sorry if I won't accept your opinion as my own and am "Living in the past".
I'm not trying to change your opinion. I don't care if you have the same opinion as me, and I have no idea why you would think that. The entirety of your previous post about Rome 2 (except for obvious subjective opinion stuff) is filled with outdated or just incorrect info. If I had a problem at all, it would be the way you twist facts to support your opinion of why Rome 2 is so bad, especially when trying to talk about how games like Empire are such underrated "diamonds in the ruft" (sic) in the same breath.
I have tried for many years to get into the Total War series. Each time I was turned off by what felt like clunky design and bland battles. Every single total war game was like this for me, up until Shogun 2. I'm not sure what it was, but the game finally clicked for me (aside from the bland battles).
That being said, Shogun 2 quickly bored me to tears because each faction felt so samey. I realize the devil is in the details with that one, with the "Your archers are 10% more efficient" whatnots, but it was just bland.
Rome 2 hit and I finally, FINALLY understand the TW Fanatics. A setting I'm familiar with and find interesting, enough unit variety to not be looking at a bunch of conical hats and samurai, and I feel like the unit cards are much more clear. Battles still feel bland to me, but I'm sure that's just me not understanding the game well enough to get past it feeling like two blobs smashing into each other, and I realize that.
I think what helped me like Rome 2 as much as I do is having very little experience with the previous entries. Its sorta like how D3 was ripped on when it first came out for being "terrible" and "not diablo" but if it was named anything else, it would have been a massive commercial success (more than it already was/is).
some people will misrepresent a game to fit their negative opinion of it, due to bias or nostalgia or both.
Kadoken, nearly everything you complained about has been fixed or changed. Rome 2 at launch had problems, but Rome 2 now is a fully realized, balanced, and great game - just as great as Shogun 2 and some of the predecessors. it's a shame you'll never see that because you'd rather keep your outdated and ill-informed opinion and talk about how it was totally better back in the olden days (or neon samurai days).
Everything in his post was listed as an opinion. He didn't mention any of the ridiculous bugs that the game shipped with.
And the game is still broken, sorry. When 90% of the game is city battles, and the Ai is so terrible that it cannot siege your walls, I'd say that's a pretty big fucking problem.
some people will misrepresent a game to fit their negative opinion of it, due to bias or nostalgia or both.
Kadoken, nearly everything you complained about has been fixed or changed. Rome 2 at launch had problems, but Rome 2 now is a fully realized, balanced, and great game - just as great as Shogun 2 and some of the predecessors. it's a shame you'll never see that because you'd rather keep your outdated and ill-informed opinion and talk about how it was totally better back in the olden days (or neon samurai days).
Everything in his post was listed as an opinion. He didn't mention any of the ridiculous bugs that the game shipped with.
And the game is still broken, sorry. When 90% of the game is city battles, and the Ai is so terrible that it cannot siege your walls, I'd say that's a pretty big fucking problem.
I've had exactly one city battle in my 5 hour Gatea play through.
EDIT: Though, this is my first shot at playing it since... the 2nd major patch, I think? I know it did have problems like you mentioned for a while, I saw them myself and its why I stopped, but I'm not encountering that sort of issue anymore. AI still has trouble trying to siege my holdings, but they do actually attack and use siege equipment now.
some people will misrepresent a game to fit their negative opinion of it, due to bias or nostalgia or both.
Kadoken, nearly everything you complained about has been fixed or changed. Rome 2 at launch had problems, but Rome 2 now is a fully realized, balanced, and great game - just as great as Shogun 2 and some of the predecessors. it's a shame you'll never see that because you'd rather keep your outdated and ill-informed opinion and talk about how it was totally better back in the olden days (or neon samurai days).
Everything in his post was listed as an opinion. He didn't mention any of the ridiculous bugs that the game shipped with.
And the game is still broken, sorry. When 90% of the game is city battles, and the Ai is so terrible that it cannot siege your walls, I'd say that's a pretty big fucking problem.
I've had exactly one city battle in my 5 hour Gatea play through.
EDIT: Though, this is my first shot at playing it since... the 2nd major patch, I think? I know it did have problems like you mentioned for a while, I saw them myself and its why I stopped, but I'm not encountering that sort of issue anymore. AI still has trouble trying to siege my holdings, but they do actually attack and use siege equipment now.
Yes, they will bring siege equipment, but last I checked (which was last month; I try to check up on the progress / lack thereof) they just derp around with it because lol pathfinding, and the ladders never get to your walls.
The only way to fix this is to use 3rd party mods.
some people will misrepresent a game to fit their negative opinion of it, due to bias or nostalgia or both.
Kadoken, nearly everything you complained about has been fixed or changed. Rome 2 at launch had problems, but Rome 2 now is a fully realized, balanced, and great game - just as great as Shogun 2 and some of the predecessors. it's a shame you'll never see that because you'd rather keep your outdated and ill-informed opinion and talk about how it was totally better back in the olden days (or neon samurai days).
Everything in his post was listed as an opinion. He didn't mention any of the ridiculous bugs that the game shipped with.
And the game is still broken, sorry. When 90% of the game is city battles, and the Ai is so terrible that it cannot siege your walls, I'd say that's a pretty big fucking problem.
I've had exactly one city battle in my 5 hour Gatea play through.
EDIT: Though, this is my first shot at playing it since... the 2nd major patch, I think? I know it did have problems like you mentioned for a while, I saw them myself and its why I stopped, but I'm not encountering that sort of issue anymore. AI still has trouble trying to siege my holdings, but they do actually attack and use siege equipment now.
Yes, they will bring siege equipment, but last I checked (which was last month; I try to check up on the progress / lack thereof) they just derp around with it because lol pathfinding, and the ladders never get to your walls.
The only way to fix this is to use 3rd party mods.
That might be true. Like I said, I've only had one city battle since I decided to fire it up to test all the patches and whatnot, and I've only got about 5 hours in it since.
Just checked the 'Tubes, and it looks like - finally - Patch 14 did fix the most egregious siege AI bugs in July.
Only took them... how long has it been out now?
i suppose the thing that most pisses me off is that Sega conned people into buying / pre-ordering the game, when Steam has a built-in service for exactly this sort of staggered release of a game (Early Access). Small publishers use it all of the time, but for some reason the larger publishers choose to turn their noses up at it and just rip off consumers with false advertisments & incomplete products that it's then up to the studio to support (while dealing with a lot of rightly angry customers).
Just checked the 'Tubes, and it looks like - finally - Patch 14 did fix the most egregious siege AI bugs in July.
Only took them... how long has it been out now?
i suppose the thing that most pisses me off is that Sega conned people into buying / pre-ordering the game, when Steam has a built-in service for exactly this sort of staggered release of a game (Early Access). Small publishers use it all of the time, but for some reason the larger publishers choose to turn their noses up at it and just rip off consumers with false advertisments & incomplete products that it's then up to the studio to support (while dealing with a lot of rightly angry customers).
Honestly, I can forgive bugs when games launch. One of my favorite game series of all time is not only riddled with bugs, but its part of the reason to play the games, to see how egregious the bugs are in this iteration as opposed to the last one.
I'm referring to the Elder Scrolls series.
Everything: Konphujun(#1458)
0
Options
FreiA French Prometheus UnboundDeadwoodRegistered Userregular
Just checked the 'Tubes, and it looks like - finally - Patch 14 did fix the most egregious siege AI bugs in July.
Only took them... how long has it been out now?
i suppose the thing that most pisses me off is that Sega conned people into buying / pre-ordering the game, when Steam has a built-in service for exactly this sort of staggered release of a game (Early Access). Small publishers use it all of the time, but for some reason the larger publishers choose to turn their noses up at it and just rip off consumers with false advertisments & incomplete products that it's then up to the studio to support (while dealing with a lot of rightly angry customers).
This is why no one argues/likes to talk to people like you... you argue and complain about one thing, and then you find out you're wrong you move the goal posts to cover your tracks and say it's not acceptable or something else is wrong or blah blah blah. A developer fixing their bugs/mistakes is never good enough because you don't want to genuinely play or like the game or even constructively criticize it, you want your bias that you developed at launch confirmed and you want to shit on things on the internet. There's nothing wrong with being upset at things that are broken within a game, but when your argument style is to continually move goal posts, not admit to any mistakes you make, not give things a constructive/fair shake, then, well, what's the point of you? That kind of stuff pervades discussion communities and it's just fairly pointless because there's no talking to people like that because they simply won't budge from their hate or even try to be modestly objective.
"Our men flee the field of battle! This is a shameful display."
"Our men flee the field of battle! This is a shameful display."
"Our men flee the field of battle! This is a shameful display."
"Our men flee the field of battle! This is a shameful display."
You have won a... DECISIVE VICTORY!
I hate that guy. The one who repeatedly tells you your units are fleeing or whatever? If I listened to him, I would not win many battles. God is he annoying. Probably my biggest annoyance in Rome 2. I'd like to shut him off, but occasionally he does have something useful to add. If I could turn down his comment frequency, that would be grand. Get on it, CA.
Just checked the 'Tubes, and it looks like - finally - Patch 14 did fix the most egregious siege AI bugs in July.
Only took them... how long has it been out now?
i suppose the thing that most pisses me off is that Sega conned people into buying / pre-ordering the game, when Steam has a built-in service for exactly this sort of staggered release of a game (Early Access). Small publishers use it all of the time, but for some reason the larger publishers choose to turn their noses up at it and just rip off consumers with false advertisments & incomplete products that it's then up to the studio to support (while dealing with a lot of rightly angry customers).
This is why no one argues/likes to talk to people like you... you argue and complain about one thing, and then you find out you're wrong you move the goal posts to cover your tracks and say it's not acceptable or something else is wrong or blah blah blah. A developer fixing their bugs/mistakes is never good enough because you don't want to genuinely play or like the game or even constructively criticize it, you want your bias that you developed at launch confirmed and you want to shit on things on the internet. There's nothing wrong with being upset at things that are broken within a game, but when your argument style is to continually move goal posts, not admit to any mistakes you make, not give things a constructive/fair shake, then, well, what's the point of you? That kind of stuff pervades discussion communities and it's just fairly pointless because there's no talking to people like that because they simply won't budge from their hate or even try to be modestly objective.
I pre-ordered having a system that met minimum requirements they had up on Steam, but at launch the game was completely unplayable. After a few months of patches, it's now working as smoothly for me as Shogun II, but I do agree that if they had done some sort of early access or beta program they would have avoided a ton of launch problems. I think the problem was they didn't really test out the launch build on minimum specs and older video cards which is why a lot of people had problems. I can withstand balance issues and whatnot, but to launch a game that is unplayable on advertised minimum specs is pretty unacceptable. I'm a massive Creative Assembly fanboy tho so I can't really stay mad at them
0
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
some people will misrepresent a game to fit their negative opinion of it, due to bias or nostalgia or both.
Kadoken, nearly everything you complained about has been fixed or changed. Rome 2 at launch had problems, but Rome 2 now is a fully realized, balanced, and great game - just as great as Shogun 2 and some of the predecessors. it's a shame you'll never see that because you'd rather keep your outdated and ill-informed opinion and talk about how it was totally better back in the olden days (or neon samurai days).
I still think it's boring, and you can't change my opinion about it? You can like it, but you can't convince me to like it. Also, I think that Warhammer:Total War could be really good even if I didn't like Rome 2?
Also, I have played Rome 2 recently (I have owned it for less than a year). Then I played the newly released at the time Europa Barbarorum II. I liked EB2 better.
I will not say that Rome 2 is a bad game and one is bad for playing it, but I will say that I think Rome 2 is a sub-par game compared to the rest of the series, and is in my opinion, bad.
Also, what was with the bolded bit? Sorry if I won't accept your opinion as my own and am "Living in the past".
I'm not trying to change your opinion. I don't care if you have the same opinion as me, and I have no idea why you would think that. The entirety of your previous post about Rome 2 (except for obvious subjective opinion stuff) is filled with outdated or just incorrect info. If I had a problem at all, it would be the way you twist facts to support your opinion of why Rome 2 is so bad, especially when trying to talk about how games like Empire are such underrated "diamonds in the ruft" (sic) in the same breath.
So I can't say Empire is good just because I had more fun with it than Rome 2, therefore value it more than Rome 2, and the general consensus on Empire is that it was bad. Yet when I say Rome 2 is bad (And I will admit, I have been a dick by replying to some posts by saying "Rome 2 is badlols" in a pointlessly persistent way), and now the general consensus is that it is good, I'm being called out for it.
Also, like Ender said, all of what I said was my opinion. I don't remember twisting facts, although they probably have gotten rid of the bracing ability (Or whatever it was) for pikemen. In a stream of consciousness is how I wrote that list of complaints. Of course my complaints on the graphics are subjective, and so is (somewhat) my complaint that the game is still poorly optimized. I say that while having an ATI 6870 and an AMD Phenon 975 Four Core processor at 3.7 and seeing that even at medium or low graphics and extreme unit sizes, the game can tank. I'll probably have to go back and try again. The combat animations thing is also subjective and my opinion. Over powered artillery and the generals meaning nothing is subjective.
Looking back at my post, pretty much everything I said is based on subjective opinion. I don't see where I twisted facts.
"Our men flee the field of battle! This is a shameful display."
"Our men flee the field of battle! This is a shameful display."
"Our men flee the field of battle! This is a shameful display."
"Our men flee the field of battle! This is a shameful display."
You have won a... DECISIVE VICTORY!
I hate that guy. The one who repeatedly tells you your units are fleeing or whatever? If I listened to him, I would not win many battles. God is he annoying. Probably my biggest annoyance in Rome 2. I'd like to shut him off, but occasionally he does have something useful to add. If I could turn down his comment frequency, that would be grand. Get on it, CA.
There is a mod to remove like 90% of what that guy says. He always speaks during my generals speech so I hate him.
Also, I am loving the new patch. It is amazing. New campaign is awesome. It starts with a bunch of large empires, even on normal it was really touch and go for a long ass time.
The AI really likes sending small stacks to raid your territory, forcing you to divert a larger stack. Also I took all of Pompey's territory (the Syracuse faction), and he sent his last legion (a really good, all legionnaire legion actually) to Italy. He proceeded to take over each small town while I followed him, taking each one back, but never able to catch up to him. He'd take a town, and next turn he would leave for the next and I'd follow behind him and conquer the previously taken town. This lasted two and a half years of back and forth. Finally he was cornered and fled to siege Brundisim where two separate legions cornered him against the city walls. And Pompey was gone.
The AI seems much better, both on and off the battlefield. I've been ambushed twice, but both times it was barbarians versus my romans with equal number of troops so even with the element of surprise you can't win a man-to-man fight against rome with german youths. Although holy hell or wodanaz spears or any of the general's guard units tough. Against veteran legionaries you wouldn't lose a lot of men but that is a long brawl. I can't imagine what Spartan hoplites like now-a-days. Jesus.
You can now build siege towers on barbarian cities where as before it was only ladders. Yay! I love siege towers. Also, attrition for besieging was lowered (for both parties I think, definitely attackers).
Battles last a lot longer. Combat is a terrible meat grinder. It is harder to get units to break now and they are more likely to rally, which I like as the momentary breaking of enemies makes it easier in the short term, rewarding deft movement/strategy, but means battles last a little longer overall as you face units, say, deeper in the city and they flee from the wall. So yeah, combat between units takes longer.
Spearman/hoplites have more defense and although trumped by swordsman still, they can hold their own for a long time, keeping that unit of swordsman held up. A 1v1 of legionaries and hoplites takes a long time but the legionaries will eventually win without terrible cost. If the hoplites had upgraded armor and veterancy then they could win I think. So yeah, you can't carve through barbarian spear walls. It takes time now. They'll eventually lose, but plan accordingly.
Ranged units weren't nerfed but are less dangerous now, and the AI builds far fewer of them (!!!). I used to need a mod for that. Thank god. Ranged units are still perfectly fine. I use velites in my legions because if there is a big meatgrinder then my velites can either harass the enemy skirmishers or throw javelins at the enemy side of the blob.
Buildings are much improved, at least for rome. No longer does every damn building increase squalor. It is more about balancing squalor and food than just squalor. This is a huge quality of life improvement. For example, in the past a barracks would increase squalor, now it just requires food. But fisheries and farms increase squalor. But now you can build a 'yellow' civil line of buildings in villages which has a theatre line of buildings which provides a minor income but also like +4 order with no drawbacks. It's just more expensive than its sister line of buildings which is a market for money and minor food costs. I'm a big fan of coliseums, as they provide a big public order buffer without too severe a food cost, allowing me to upgrade things that supply food (increasing squalor) and things that need food (money buildings and order buildings).
I've noticed that at least on normal the AI can have natural rebel uprisings. In my game I chased Lepidus' Rome out of Spain. By the time I reached the mouth of the Mediterranean a bunch of African nations were picking at his territories. He had lost everything west of Carthage! I took Carthage, and Lepidus was pushed all the way to the Egyptian border in a few years. Lepidus, in a grab for room to flee too, pushed into Alexandria/Egypt. By the time I caught up to Alexandria, the whole province was in control of these crazy stacks of bandits. Lepidus couldn't maintain its order on its own territory as it was in its death throes. Not sure if this is a new addition in patch 15, but when rebels spawn they don't spawn as full stacks, they spawn as a tiny stack but run to the countryside where they recruit more units. They recruit until they are big enough to assault the town/city. This allows for you to cut off a new rebellion more easily.
The new politic system is great and seems lenient. Without trying, I am sitting at 52%-48% of senate control. I just have an equal number of generals from both sides. My political threat-o-meter is at 0%, so a civil was is unlikely. Maybe I'll go all game without one.
Just completed my first campaign in Rome 2, ever. I've played 118 hours total and just now won a campaign.
Never had a civil war. Never even got a greater than zero chance of getting one. Client states are the shit when you've gone really, really far across the map and don't really need your own territory. Especially since if you take losses you can recruit from your allies.
0
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
edited September 2014
OpposingFarce, I reinstalled because of your posts.
Holy fucking shit, that intro movie for Octavian in the new campaign is fantastic!
I'm going to play in this brave new world of the Emperor edition for 200 turns, than come back.
Posts
Take the classic building interface from say Medieval 2, spread out the buildings like Empire did, use the province system as in Rome 2 to give those smaller villages and shit some actual tactical/strategic significance and bam.
at least that'd be my dream.
Unless the next game looks utterly amazing, I'll be sitting out on preordering because of that.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Shogun 2 was broken out of the box too.
So was Empire.
Medieval 2
Rome
I mean all to a separate degree of course (I'd argue Empire was the worst, although that game is a hidden gem now and I recommend anyone bored with the sword and shields go play that) but no Total War game is perfect out of the box.
Hell, with the amount of dedication and actually listening to the fanbase they've done with Rome 2 I'm willing to forgive them the state Rome 2 was in when it released. They've earned my forgiveness.
Of course it'd be a shame if they had to earn it again with the next title.
And we all know the next game is going to look utterly amazing. It's Total War.
That's kind of the point...
Edit: To be less snarky, I have been on the Total War ride for a while, and am well aware of the, shall we say, generous definition of 'releasable' that CA seems to have. Rome 2's state was utterly unacceptable to me though, to the point where I don't want to reward them for it by preordering again.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
I'm just saying it's not like they haven't supported Rome 2 and turned it into a good Total War game. It's not great, probably won't ever be but it's far from the worst now.
Anyone know where I can download this from? The links from the post send me to download sites that are giving me snail like speeds (i.e. 12 hours to download a 1.8 gigs). Looks cool and I just reinstalled to Medieval 2 to give it a shot.
I mean, I LOVE Medieval 2. Fucking pinnacle for me.
I don't think that I like having to track down little buildings on the map and build them up. I like everything building out of the city there. Just simplifies things.
Although maybe I just need to give it another shot, and I'll get used to it.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I don't recall any non-Russian mirrors, sorry. Maybe the Googles can help, but it's a pretty niche mod for an old engine, so a bit unlikely. On their DL page they do have it broken down into smaller chunks: http://empiretw.ru/board/index.php?showtopic=24936
But hey as long as you have M2TW installed give EB2 a shot! They just released a little update too.
With Darthmod, I think my chief complaints about Empire are: America being cut up into half of North America and only having North South America (Isn't that confusing) was not a good idea. It also doesn't help that some of the regions in North America feel a little too big or out of place, like how Mexico is one giant region, or how there are missing spots of the North American map which it looked like they planned for regions to be, but didn't. I really wish they had opened up all of North and South America.
Some European regions are too big. What's with Spain and France respectively being one region? Ok, you have Gibraltar for Spain and Alsace-Lorraine for France, but it's weird when you compare them to say England, which has three regions, two non-England regions which I have never seen revolt under the AI. They were great for me to buy them for 10,000 for ten turns and then double cross and kill off the English as Austria but I feel like the regions of Spain and France should have been represented by at least three regions each.
Quicklime is overpowered. And I say that when I use it to kill off four Mauryan stacks attacking one fort which has most of the regiments at half strength, and I have four units of howitzers fucking destroying these dudes like proto-napalm or some shit.
There are really only three types of factions in Empire: European-based, Native American based, and Ottoman-Indian based. Seriously, the Indian units are just reskins of Ottoman units. (I don't mind this in Shogun 2 having only one type of faction with a similar pool of units, because they're all Japanese clans)
But, Native Americans are actually really fun and tense to fight against as a European country. Actually, I've had times where the Iroquois and the Cherokee have actually TEAMED UP and took back North America from the French, Spanish, and British. I remember this because when I was Austria I took over Canada from Britain and always had to watch their stacks of doom on my borders.
Unit collision basically doesn't exist.
All the dudes look the damn same.
If you get fire by rank before anyone else, you're overpowered as hell. At least concerning Infantry.
Other than that? It can be a fun as shit game.
Even before everything else, that alone would make me prefer Napoleon.
This is terribly pedantic of me, but I can't help myself. Also, I offer this with no judgment
It's "diamond in the rough"
Sorry.
Back to things at hand.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The rough is the stuff that is worthless crap.
Like the rough on a golf course. It's the unkempt grass off the course proper. A diamond in the rough is something valuable among a lot of worthless drek.
I mean, as far as I know. We could probably do some better history on the idiom with a little research.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
lol?
Which Total War games aside from Rome 2 had AI that was so broken out of the box that they would literally do nothing in a battle?
Even after a perpetual patch cycle, the only way you can get the Rome 2 AI to actually siege a city with some degree of success is with 3rd party mods. It's embarassing.
If you played Shogun 2 at release and thought it was as bad as Rome 2, I don't know what to say aside from, "Nope,"
Kadoken, nearly everything you complained about has been fixed or changed. Rome 2 at launch had problems, but Rome 2 now is a fully realized, balanced, and great game - just as great as Shogun 2 and some of the predecessors. it's a shame you'll never see that because you'd rather keep your outdated and ill-informed opinion and talk about how it was totally better back in the olden days (or neon samurai days).
I always thought it was a metaphor for things that are valuable but unpolished. You know, like rough diamonds before they are cut and polished.
Unreal Engine 4 Developers Community.
I'm working on a cute little video game! Here's a link for you.
I still think it's boring, and you can't change my opinion about it? You can like it, but you can't convince me to like it. Also, I think that Warhammer:Total War could be really good even if I didn't like Rome 2?
Also, I have played Rome 2 recently (I have owned it for less than a year). Then I played the newly released at the time Europa Barbarorum II. I liked EB2 better.
I will not say that Rome 2 is a bad game and one is bad for playing it, but I will say that I think Rome 2 is a sub-par game compared to the rest of the series, and is in my opinion, bad.
Also, what was with the bolded bit? Sorry if I won't accept your opinion as my own and am "Living in the past".
A rough diamond looks, to the untrained eye, an awful lot like any other rock with some embedded crystal (uncountable varieties of which exist, and most of which are not worth much*).
However, with some work, you can get rid of the rock encasing the diamond, cut it, grind it, and polish it into one of the most beautiful stones in the world.
Thus, a "diamond in the rough" is something which is secretly beautiful and valuable, but takes a practiced eye and some work to bring that out.
* Leaving aside the discussion on what a diamond is actually "worth" in any objective sense of the word.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
I'm not trying to change your opinion. I don't care if you have the same opinion as me, and I have no idea why you would think that. The entirety of your previous post about Rome 2 (except for obvious subjective opinion stuff) is filled with outdated or just incorrect info. If I had a problem at all, it would be the way you twist facts to support your opinion of why Rome 2 is so bad, especially when trying to talk about how games like Empire are such underrated "diamonds in the ruft" (sic) in the same breath.
That being said, Shogun 2 quickly bored me to tears because each faction felt so samey. I realize the devil is in the details with that one, with the "Your archers are 10% more efficient" whatnots, but it was just bland.
Rome 2 hit and I finally, FINALLY understand the TW Fanatics. A setting I'm familiar with and find interesting, enough unit variety to not be looking at a bunch of conical hats and samurai, and I feel like the unit cards are much more clear. Battles still feel bland to me, but I'm sure that's just me not understanding the game well enough to get past it feeling like two blobs smashing into each other, and I realize that.
I think what helped me like Rome 2 as much as I do is having very little experience with the previous entries. Its sorta like how D3 was ripped on when it first came out for being "terrible" and "not diablo" but if it was named anything else, it would have been a massive commercial success (more than it already was/is).
Everything in his post was listed as an opinion. He didn't mention any of the ridiculous bugs that the game shipped with.
And the game is still broken, sorry. When 90% of the game is city battles, and the Ai is so terrible that it cannot siege your walls, I'd say that's a pretty big fucking problem.
I've had exactly one city battle in my 5 hour Gatea play through.
EDIT: Though, this is my first shot at playing it since... the 2nd major patch, I think? I know it did have problems like you mentioned for a while, I saw them myself and its why I stopped, but I'm not encountering that sort of issue anymore. AI still has trouble trying to siege my holdings, but they do actually attack and use siege equipment now.
Yes, they will bring siege equipment, but last I checked (which was last month; I try to check up on the progress / lack thereof) they just derp around with it because lol pathfinding, and the ladders never get to your walls.
The only way to fix this is to use 3rd party mods.
That might be true. Like I said, I've only had one city battle since I decided to fire it up to test all the patches and whatnot, and I've only got about 5 hours in it since.
Only took them... how long has it been out now?
i suppose the thing that most pisses me off is that Sega conned people into buying / pre-ordering the game, when Steam has a built-in service for exactly this sort of staggered release of a game (Early Access). Small publishers use it all of the time, but for some reason the larger publishers choose to turn their noses up at it and just rip off consumers with false advertisments & incomplete products that it's then up to the studio to support (while dealing with a lot of rightly angry customers).
Honestly, I can forgive bugs when games launch. One of my favorite game series of all time is not only riddled with bugs, but its part of the reason to play the games, to see how egregious the bugs are in this iteration as opposed to the last one.
I'm referring to the Elder Scrolls series.
This is why no one argues/likes to talk to people like you... you argue and complain about one thing, and then you find out you're wrong you move the goal posts to cover your tracks and say it's not acceptable or something else is wrong or blah blah blah. A developer fixing their bugs/mistakes is never good enough because you don't want to genuinely play or like the game or even constructively criticize it, you want your bias that you developed at launch confirmed and you want to shit on things on the internet. There's nothing wrong with being upset at things that are broken within a game, but when your argument style is to continually move goal posts, not admit to any mistakes you make, not give things a constructive/fair shake, then, well, what's the point of you? That kind of stuff pervades discussion communities and it's just fairly pointless because there's no talking to people like that because they simply won't budge from their hate or even try to be modestly objective.
"Our men flee the field of battle! This is a shameful display."
"Our men flee the field of battle! This is a shameful display."
"Our men flee the field of battle! This is a shameful display."
You have won a...
DECISIVE VICTORY!
I hate that guy. The one who repeatedly tells you your units are fleeing or whatever? If I listened to him, I would not win many battles. God is he annoying. Probably my biggest annoyance in Rome 2. I'd like to shut him off, but occasionally he does have something useful to add. If I could turn down his comment frequency, that would be grand. Get on it, CA.
I pre-ordered having a system that met minimum requirements they had up on Steam, but at launch the game was completely unplayable. After a few months of patches, it's now working as smoothly for me as Shogun II, but I do agree that if they had done some sort of early access or beta program they would have avoided a ton of launch problems. I think the problem was they didn't really test out the launch build on minimum specs and older video cards which is why a lot of people had problems. I can withstand balance issues and whatnot, but to launch a game that is unplayable on advertised minimum specs is pretty unacceptable. I'm a massive Creative Assembly fanboy tho so I can't really stay mad at them
So I can't say Empire is good just because I had more fun with it than Rome 2, therefore value it more than Rome 2, and the general consensus on Empire is that it was bad. Yet when I say Rome 2 is bad (And I will admit, I have been a dick by replying to some posts by saying "Rome 2 is badlols" in a pointlessly persistent way), and now the general consensus is that it is good, I'm being called out for it.
Also, like Ender said, all of what I said was my opinion. I don't remember twisting facts, although they probably have gotten rid of the bracing ability (Or whatever it was) for pikemen. In a stream of consciousness is how I wrote that list of complaints. Of course my complaints on the graphics are subjective, and so is (somewhat) my complaint that the game is still poorly optimized. I say that while having an ATI 6870 and an AMD Phenon 975 Four Core processor at 3.7 and seeing that even at medium or low graphics and extreme unit sizes, the game can tank. I'll probably have to go back and try again. The combat animations thing is also subjective and my opinion. Over powered artillery and the generals meaning nothing is subjective.
Looking back at my post, pretty much everything I said is based on subjective opinion. I don't see where I twisted facts.
There is a mod to remove like 90% of what that guy says. He always speaks during my generals speech so I hate him.
Also, I am loving the new patch. It is amazing. New campaign is awesome. It starts with a bunch of large empires, even on normal it was really touch and go for a long ass time.
The AI really likes sending small stacks to raid your territory, forcing you to divert a larger stack. Also I took all of Pompey's territory (the Syracuse faction), and he sent his last legion (a really good, all legionnaire legion actually) to Italy. He proceeded to take over each small town while I followed him, taking each one back, but never able to catch up to him. He'd take a town, and next turn he would leave for the next and I'd follow behind him and conquer the previously taken town. This lasted two and a half years of back and forth. Finally he was cornered and fled to siege Brundisim where two separate legions cornered him against the city walls. And Pompey was gone.
The AI seems much better, both on and off the battlefield. I've been ambushed twice, but both times it was barbarians versus my romans with equal number of troops so even with the element of surprise you can't win a man-to-man fight against rome with german youths. Although holy hell or wodanaz spears or any of the general's guard units tough. Against veteran legionaries you wouldn't lose a lot of men but that is a long brawl. I can't imagine what Spartan hoplites like now-a-days. Jesus.
You can now build siege towers on barbarian cities where as before it was only ladders. Yay! I love siege towers. Also, attrition for besieging was lowered (for both parties I think, definitely attackers).
Battles last a lot longer. Combat is a terrible meat grinder. It is harder to get units to break now and they are more likely to rally, which I like as the momentary breaking of enemies makes it easier in the short term, rewarding deft movement/strategy, but means battles last a little longer overall as you face units, say, deeper in the city and they flee from the wall. So yeah, combat between units takes longer.
Spearman/hoplites have more defense and although trumped by swordsman still, they can hold their own for a long time, keeping that unit of swordsman held up. A 1v1 of legionaries and hoplites takes a long time but the legionaries will eventually win without terrible cost. If the hoplites had upgraded armor and veterancy then they could win I think. So yeah, you can't carve through barbarian spear walls. It takes time now. They'll eventually lose, but plan accordingly.
Ranged units weren't nerfed but are less dangerous now, and the AI builds far fewer of them (!!!). I used to need a mod for that. Thank god. Ranged units are still perfectly fine. I use velites in my legions because if there is a big meatgrinder then my velites can either harass the enemy skirmishers or throw javelins at the enemy side of the blob.
Buildings are much improved, at least for rome. No longer does every damn building increase squalor. It is more about balancing squalor and food than just squalor. This is a huge quality of life improvement. For example, in the past a barracks would increase squalor, now it just requires food. But fisheries and farms increase squalor. But now you can build a 'yellow' civil line of buildings in villages which has a theatre line of buildings which provides a minor income but also like +4 order with no drawbacks. It's just more expensive than its sister line of buildings which is a market for money and minor food costs. I'm a big fan of coliseums, as they provide a big public order buffer without too severe a food cost, allowing me to upgrade things that supply food (increasing squalor) and things that need food (money buildings and order buildings).
I've noticed that at least on normal the AI can have natural rebel uprisings. In my game I chased Lepidus' Rome out of Spain. By the time I reached the mouth of the Mediterranean a bunch of African nations were picking at his territories. He had lost everything west of Carthage! I took Carthage, and Lepidus was pushed all the way to the Egyptian border in a few years. Lepidus, in a grab for room to flee too, pushed into Alexandria/Egypt. By the time I caught up to Alexandria, the whole province was in control of these crazy stacks of bandits. Lepidus couldn't maintain its order on its own territory as it was in its death throes. Not sure if this is a new addition in patch 15, but when rebels spawn they don't spawn as full stacks, they spawn as a tiny stack but run to the countryside where they recruit more units. They recruit until they are big enough to assault the town/city. This allows for you to cut off a new rebellion more easily.
The new politic system is great and seems lenient. Without trying, I am sitting at 52%-48% of senate control. I just have an equal number of generals from both sides. My political threat-o-meter is at 0%, so a civil was is unlikely. Maybe I'll go all game without one.
Never had a civil war. Never even got a greater than zero chance of getting one. Client states are the shit when you've gone really, really far across the map and don't really need your own territory. Especially since if you take losses you can recruit from your allies.
Holy fucking shit, that intro movie for Octavian in the new campaign is fantastic!
I'm going to play in this brave new world of the Emperor edition for 200 turns, than come back.