Which Game is Best?

[Kenough]

I've had my eye on this series for a while now, but now that the Wargame series is on sale, I'm going to buy one or two of them. I'm pretty experienced with strategy games, but which game is the best/most enjoyable? And how demanding would these games be on my 5 year old VAIO laptop? (It runs games like Rome 2 just fine). Thanks for any feedback.

[Mashsmouth]

Rome 2 isn't going to help you here, but anything is better than nothing at all I guess. However, this game runs a lot better than Rome 2 (and it's prettier, in my opinion).

Unlike the Total War series (crap) the Wargame series is better with each release. Wargame Red Dragon is the best, you don't need the other two.

Be prepared for a great difficulty curve unlike you've ever seen.

[Kenough]

Yeah, Rome 2 was probably my least favourite. You watch stats and numbers fight with no tactics at all. But thanks, I'll look into getting it. Hopefully I catch on quick enough. I learned Europa 4 and theres no way it can be more complex than that!

[Mashsmouth]

It is in a different way. The mechanics are easy enough to learn over time, but what's tough is applying them. You'll see what I mean.

I played Victoria 2 before this. It's still going to be a bit of learning.

[Mashsmouth]

Like what?

[GrandHardy]

More isn't always better, and in the case of Rome 2 i'd say thats the case, a lot of the stuff they added isnt all that great, and tactics vary from era to era so you cant really compare the tactics present in Rome 2 to say the tactics present in Empire or Napoleon

[Mashsmouth]

Originally posted by The Cure:

More battle types, more abilities, more deployables, stances, all of which add new tactics and strategies to the TW formula. Should I keep going?

You are aware Rome II has more content than any TW that came before it, right?


Edit: Also, I agree with you that this is the best Wargame.

No, that adds nothing to tactics.

I've seen your apologism in the R2 forum, and I really don't want to deal with it. You have your opinion, and I have mine. This thread has been answered. Go back to the R2 forum if you really want to love all over the game.

[GrandHardy]

Deployables have been in since Empire Total war, the fact that there are different ones don't add new tactics, just different ones, And then when I said new stuff they added wasn't great and you said ambushes and deployables are great, these aren't new stuff, they've been in Total War games for a while. With each new game and different era new stuff is added in and some stuff is taken out, there aren't more tactics, just different ones. But yes, all of this is just irrelevant really.

[GrandHardy]

Originally posted by The Cure:

And Rome II has more. Lots more, hence why I said added, not first introduced.

Rome II has 7, Empire has 2.

And no, the Rome II actual ambush is new. In no previous TW could you attack from two sides during an ambush, with the enemy in march mode and out of formation.

So yeah, Rome II has more tactics than any TW that came before it.

Um Empire has more than two, and actually that is how ambush has worked in most total war games since Medieval 2

[GrandHardy]

No, It had at least 3 that I can remember. And Yes, yes it is, on every single game since Med 2 thats how ambushes have worked, and I think I have a little more playtime and experience on the previous games than you, i've lots of lovely memories of ambushing an enemie in Medieval 2 and them deploying in colomn with my men able to deploy on all sides of them

[GrandHardy]

Originally posted by The Cure:

Originally posted by crazyhardy:

I've seen your apologism in the R2 forum, and I really don't want to deal with it.

Ad Hom. Attack my argument, not me.

Please quote the right person :)

[GrandHardy]

Well there were trenches, Cheval de frise, mines for infantry, arty coud deploy bastions for protection, so theres at least 4. What makes you think I have less then that for previous Total War? My steam values for the game don't reflect the amount of time I spent on both before than. You really are quite deluded aren't you?

[GrandHardy]

Originally posted by The Cure:

I have more hours in the previous games than you. Nearly 2000 hours a piece on Rome I and Med II.

Well this, here, if time in previous games has nothing to do with anything, why bother posting yours?

[GrandHardy]

Originally posted by The Cure:

Originally posted by crazyhardy:

Well this, here, if time in previous games has nothing to do with anything, why bother posting yours?

To own even your fallacious argument. Not to mention you brought it up.

So yeah, fail again.

And are you convieniently ignoring that you didn't really know much about Empire Total war's deployable defences? Or your ignorance about ambushing in previous games? Because if you know so little about the previous games, how can you state that Rome 2 has more tactics than those?

[GrandHardy]

Originally posted by The Cure:

Originally posted by crazyhardy:

And are you convieniently ignoring that you didn't really know much about Empire Total war's deployable defences? Or your ignorance about ambushing in previous games? Because if you know so little about the previous games, how can you state that Rome 2 has more tactics than those?

Nope, I think it's hilarious how you counted 2 abilities that you can do after the battle starts as pre placement deployables. They're not.

The video proved that I was right about ambushes.

Way to fail again, idiot.

They were all pre battle deployments, you really should check before you open your mouth. And the Video proves nothing

[GrandHardy]

Originally posted by The Cure:

Originally posted by crazyhardy:

more fail

No, they were not. Light Infantry deployed theirs an an ability.

You were proven wrong, multiple times now. Get over it. That other newb did.

I think you're mistaken that for stakes which could indeed be deployed by certain light infantry in the battle, however, all the ones that I mentioned did indeed need to be deployed before the start of the battle.