Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
Hozzászólási szabályok és irányelvek
Hozzászólás jelentése
One, calling someone a sheep is not likely to make them value your opinion any better.
Two, some of the best mod campaigns need the DLC campaigns because they use the same maps and/or factions as a basis for new things. So advising someone to just get a mod isn't exactly helpful either.
As for the original question, it really depends what you are after.
Caesar in Gaul adds three Gallic Barbarian factions to the Grand (Main) Campaign. They share the base culture with the Arverni, but have their own traits (Nervii are kind of Gallic/Germanic hybrids in style, though not necessarily units. Boii start just south of Suebi, I know some people feel they are a better version of the Arveni in some ways. Galatia are an interesting one, as they are all the way over in the East near Pontus and Pergamon, and also have a Roman inspired Barbarian unit, the Galatian Legionaries): http://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Caesar_in_Gaul_Campaign_Pack
Hannibal at the Gates adds two Iberian Culture Barbarian factions (Lusitani, who have to stand alone due to diplomatic penalty, and have a focus on Javelins and light troops, also one of my favourite factions. And Arevaci, who I haven't played but seem to have a bit more armour and a bit more Cavalry) and Syracuse (who are Greeks in Sicily and share a roster with Athens, not sure if you need this for Athens to get Picked Hoplites) to the Grand Campaign. Also Carthage gets Companion Cavalry): http://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Hannibal_at_the_Gates_Campaign_Pack
Wrath of Sparta is entirely self-contained, so adds nothing to the game outside of the Wrath of Sparta campaign. http://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Wrath_Of_Sparta_Campaign_Pack
If you want to play Sparta and Athens outside of Wrath of Sparta, you will need the Greek Cities DLC.
Hope that helps.
All the Best,
Welsh Dragon.
There seems to be a sega sale on virtually every week if you keep an eye on enough sites, so i'd recommend sitting tight for now and picking something cheap in the future.
Happy to help.
Basically, what he said.
One thing to add about HATG: it is set in an early time frame. Meaning you will not see Roman legionairies. This forces you to play with/against a troop roster that most skip very fast in the GC. Which can be quite interesting.
About CIG: IMHO Arveni are a bit better than Boii because they allow a better unit choice. But Nervii are the best faction to start as barbarians. (slightly out-topic: somehow I feel that the free factions are always easiest/best balanced when compared with the other factions of the same themed DLC; that goes for Arverni (CIG), Getae (PAR), Massilia (BSC))
WOS: no new GC factions, which is a big letdown for me. Also, unlike CIG and HATG I feel that the whole campaign is kind of dragging on. Me thinks it was a compromise to give the players a Greek-themed DLC without doing Alexander again. And I think an other theme would have suited better. E.g. the conquest of Brittania with 2-3 new playable factions.
Ceasar in Gaul is well executed, but it's so easy you can easily become bored with it. Playing as Caesar's forces essentially offers no challenge.
Hannibal at the Gates is pretty easy as well. It doesn't really capture the Punic War imo, as it is far too easy to just invade Rome outright and end things as Carthage, and as Rome, Carthage doesn't have the dynamism you would expect with Hannibal leading the army. Playing as Lusitani is interesting.
Its broken. Roman and Carthaginian armies just sail out to the middle of the sea and die of attrition.
Wrath of Sparta is weak. They decided to adapt a period not known for its large land battles but instead for its naval battles. Naval battles suck in total war so its a weak dlc and the actual land battles lack diversity.. its all hoplites, archers and light cav for the entire thing pretty much.
Ceasar in Gaul is actually pretty good. It can be challenging.
I found Wrath of Sparta the best DLC campaign, its tightly focused map, and the geography of the area, have some interesting effects on play if you like using a navy to project power, and on agent wars which tend to be protracted and concentrated in certain regions. Obviously the diplomacy and trade are lent some character by any knowledge of the history, although like all TW you have to approach it from an extremely forgiving standpoint, historically speaking, to enjoy it.
You should know battles are long, grindy and centred on the hoplite phalanx, and you can wield naval power to great effect, both of which I would hope for in a Peloponnesian War campaign and really pleased me, but might not be your cup of tea.
Maps look nice in campaign and on the battlefield. The units look nice and despite things missing from battles that I was hoping for, and some warscape problems persisting, hoplite combat is more satisfying than in the GC, highly atmospheric and by far the best/only thing of its type for the historical setting. If you wish, you can mod the hoplites to look different, and there are some really nice mods around depending on your tastes - you can even add skins to make the Spartans, Athenians etc. look like 300/RoaE if that is your particular desire.
Overall I really enjoyed WoS, look forward to playing it again at some point, too.
Disclaimer: I have not tried Sparta, the period is of real interest to me, and I am well used to allowing TW some dramatic license, so I guess it's a situational recommendation.
considering the lrge provincial capitals in the area also makes culture VERY attractive. allowing you to quickly develop libraries and research.
Yes it doesn't add anything to the main campaign or multiplayer but it is a tightly focused campaign location that lends it self to well to naval combat. More so than HATG. Expect a limited unit roster that is applicable to the time period but the ai can handle that well for recruiting. The diplomatic penalties for taking the relevant opposition capitals adds to the campaign. It can get very Game of Thrones because of this throwing a spanner in the works of your alliances if you choose to go through the route of directly taking them. I am not a fan particuly of this period of warfare but I have enjoyed playing as Sparta and as Athens. Athens campaign was very enjoyable. Played around 100 hours so far and I'm not finished with it.
If you wanted a campaign dlc that adds something new to the grand campaign I would choose HATG as it adds the two Iberian factions and Syracuse. Also for using the mod Rise of Sparticus
Wanted to more barbarian tribes to play with get CIG especially if you wanted to play as the Galatians.There's a mod indevelopement called Hammer of Gaul that is about the Arab invasion of Europe which will be worth alook.
I do recomend all of the campaign dlc as they provide a good alternative to the grand campaign of Rome 2.
To be honest, I haven't played a terrible lot on all three expansions, but I played each of them substantially enough to know them pretty well.
IMO, I recommend HatG. It has the best diversity out of the three with the map ranging from the Iberia to Italia and from southern Gaul to North Africa. It adds three brand new factions as well, two Iberian factions for a culture previously not available to play as at all and a Greek faction. Also, two new historical battles (Cannae and Zama). Certainly offers the most content. Also, this expansion allows for many mods like Spartacus Rises to be played as they require the map.
CiG covers mainly Gaul with a glimpse of southern Brittania. Expect a lot of forested batttles and chokepoints, while fighting mainly the same enemies as Rome (really, most of the factions are barbarians but there's some diversity as in addition to Celts you also see a couple of Germanics, Belgics, and Britons, but Celts will make the majority). Also adds three new factions (all are Celtic though as the Arverni are already playabe and its a Celtic faction, but they do have their own fun twists to them) to GC and custom/multiplayer battles like HatG and comes with a really fun historical battle which takes place at Alesia.
WoS has nowhere as much content value as the former two. It adds two new factions among Sparta and Athens in its own campaign- Biotian League and Korinth, but you can't play as them in the GC nor in custom/historical battles. Nor does this expansion add any new historical battles. And really, most of the factions are very identical. You will be fighting the same generic Greek rosters most of the time, made worse by the fact that they are rosters are stripped down with pikes, artillery, swords, etc. removed, making for repititive army compositions, battle formations, and tactics. The only other two factions that are a different culture and offer completely different unit rosters are Thrace and the Persian Empire. The former though starts off small and there's a high chance it won't survive pass early-mid game; the Persians don't become a threat till late game and even then sometimes they won't invade. Not that this expansion is bad, it does have its ups like cool new unit reskins (still the same units though but with a different look), more emphasis on naval combat, the setting, etc. but I only suggest you buy if you're huge into the period or wait for a sale.