安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
Your understanding of how deep the skill system is. If you take a lot of time to develop generals the way you want them through the skill system you will feel more of an investment towards them. If you groom a general with the skills you want, you won't mind paying a fine to keep him, if you reallly like him. You can also punish other family generals, by not giving them any general skills, and only commander skills, etc. or one general skill tops while you give your family members 2 levels. You can also make some strategy orientated generals by investing in that tree etc. A lot of this maybe for roleplaying, but there maybe more to it.
Not sure if you knew the above already, but I just recently figured it out.
With all due respect thisis very dumb. politics have been a part of total war atleast since rome1 though minor yes. This game is not about warfare its about war and politics are a key element in war. Rome2 and total war in general needs more politics and even religion added into it because you are an emperor / leader of your civilization and that is what you do. Rome and the entire time period is famous for its politics. The entire absence of the senate is a huge flaw. One of the main focuses being on warfare should not rule out a bigger focus on politics as its current share is so tiny its almost shameful. I yet have to find out what Gravitas are good for, what is influence? having to ask such questions after over 100h of playtime puts the game to shame.
this is in response to all of your work and your actions. But this is not an attack , just an exchange with another way of apprehending things .
I do not know what you're doing on starcraft , I know what we're doing here . But apparently the concept of scale that I expose you escape . This is probably my fault , I should develop a little more. I mentioned here in a comprehensive approach designers for all " perspectives" . But you're right , both that deserves further debate.
What I mean is that improved graphics technologies that developers use , can not suffice to satisfy the user as new terms . And this is the major axis of the proposals of this most recent version .
The rest is so little developed, operated and exploitable , it becomes negligible part .
The game what it is under the guise of an interactive form, remains a narrative form. And narrative construction that makes us sad or happy to be done with some principles set by Aristotle in "the Poétic" , for example.
Emotional reactions of stakeholders are probably unlike contingent by the concept of " prisoner of the Cave" by Plato.
That is why in terms of conclusion, I expose the failure of the "why" as a preamble to the grounds of the game
The mere prospect of "how" is insufficient. There are inscribed "political" in in - head about it?
Out if it is a strategy game , the question of why is that relevant, it becomes founder.
Yes!
What we have as the "why" instead of Political Motivations, Religous Motivations, Lebensraum, Tribal Enmities or other geopolitical considerstions in Rome2
is the desire of the player to to do battle and shade a portion of the map with his team's color as a trophy!
Irony is that setting one's sight on a Barbarian Confederation is one of the only hooks available in this regard. Ironic - in that *Rome* has no such higher ingame goal!
At least since one must dismiss the broken mechanics(Politics) of Civil War.
There is no driving *in-game* motivation - no reason to do the things that the player does.
Politics in a TW game is supposed to help the player sculpt his own metagame motivations into something surprising and new. Obstacles overcome and opportunites siezed.
And in that way - it would indeed be more of a sandbox than a primrose narrative weakly structured around same same "Objectives".
This game has been about warfare and diplomacy since shogun 1. And once again politics were really first time introduced to this series in rome 2.
But yeah since you keep claiming with few other people that there was politics then please go ahead and provide evidence of this. QUEST system is not evidence of it.
" The entire absence of the senate is a huge flaw"
Have you even played this game?
" I yet have to find out what Gravitas are good for"
Ah... so you haven't played this game or then you are very slow in figuring out stuff.
Gravitas is good for gaining support of SENATE. Think of it as tug of war, the faction with most generals with high gravitas will gain most support.
" having to ask such questions after over 100h of playtime puts the game to shame"
No offence but it puts you in shame if it took 100h and still you didn't figure it out...
"What I mean is that improved graphics technologies that developers use , can not suffice to satisfy the user as new terms "
They are doing that, but the thing is it isn't as easy as people think of it and in some cases it's impossible in current technology level. You can't satisfy everyone.
"The game what it is under the guise of an interactive form, remains a narrative form. And narrative construction that makes us sad or happy to be done with some principles set by Aristotle in "the Poétic" , for example.
Emotional reactions of stakeholders are probably unlike contingent by the concept of " prisoner of the Cave" by Plato."
You missed me here, why are you talking about narrative and plato in here?
"That is why in terms of conclusion, I expose the failure of the "why" as a preamble to the grounds of the game
The mere prospect of "how" is insufficient. There are inscribed "political" in in - head about it?
Out if it is a strategy game , the question of why is that relevant, it becomes founder. "
Please repeat that in a way which is much easier to understand remember adding context of where you did respond.
Hello appa :) What s up ?
That's the point. It is not.
Except, from an unbelievable pulsion of warrior's mind. Something like primal an animal instinct.
In this case, conquer is an addition, not a motivation.
Greed is a human abstraction, but it can not satisfy the strategic motivation.
Roman project is not to acculturate the rest of humanity. But to enslave their needs. Which is very different from what the game offers. When the Romans grant to acculturation, it is always with great care and very segmented hierarchy.
Then we can dicerter needs.
Why Rome clashes with Carthage ? Commercial domination.
Why Egypt? Wheat.
Why Narbonne? For a terreste trade route with gold Iberia.
What are the motivations of the Gauls who are supposed to invade Macedonia to date and the game starts? Overpopulation.
Nicomedes of Bithynia has understood that installs in a territory between his kingdom and that of Antiochus I of Syria.
Is objectively - that at no time, your conquests are driven by necessity and compelling motivations?
There request, but you understand what I mean, formal and built progressively.
The policy area of our game is reduced to management ambition characters. And whose only motive is to balance to avoid the punishment of the civilian revolt. You will agree that this is a weak signal.
Or where is the political project? How to express it? How materializes it?
And what interaction offers to you ? What gradation beyond the accumulation?
The content of a game can not be satisfied with the offer and then you cope. Use your imagination.
Which replaces the senate are the goals. Everyone wants the Senate, but it is in this form actually. With gratification of the imperium.
Unfortunately, its objectives are sterile without putting in perspective a motivating context. And first, readable and understandable.
Returning to the "needs" Roman. They are primarily a lack. A civilization in an impasse. They needs to be filled, by a way or another. Trade, diplomacy, war as a last resort.
The interface does not returns you to the understanding, analyzing the context, and what family political party could support the cause.
Carelessness of the first game back probably to system construction of cities and regions. As well as research. Under the guise of an apparent complexity and subtlety, with its constraints, it is made a free offer.
I have it already developed in another post here, I will try to find you.
lol , yep, sums it up