Showing 1-20 of 10,261 entries
6 hours ago
In topic Let this game die already CA.
Originally posted by chubbyninja89 (The Ninja Brony):
Originally posted by Berserk Smurf:
I'm not ignoring things that don't conform with my opinion, I've invited you to persuade us with reason by answering my question, I literally said just that.

Why don't you stop trying to "call me what you are", and simply answer the question?

You are. You just said it yourself.

Things that don't confirm your opinion.

That just shows that you're truly afaid of being wrong, and over a video game no less.

This is a very strange clump of words that you've just posted. It was a perfectly reasonable question, answer it if you can, or don't.

Accept a friend request I send you, and I'll actually show you some of these issues.

Then you won't be able to just ignore them.

Very kind of you to offer, but I think just keeping the discussion in this thread will be quite sufficient, thank you. :)

Originally posted by WitchingSnake:
Originally posted by Hydra:
You 'really hope' that CA stops producing popular content for a popular game?

And you profess to be a fan of the Total War series?

Do you understand how business works? They need to make money, and they need to keep their customer base loyal. This is a prime opportunity for them.

I really, really don't see any logic in what you're saying.

I see a load of low-level nitpicking and misplaced angst that misses the bigger picture of what's going on here.


First reply said it all no need to read the rest.

I think you may be right, on reflection we probably should all have left it there.

7 hours ago
In topic Let this game die already CA.
Originally posted by chubbyninja89 (The Ninja Brony):
Originally posted by Berserk Smurf:
What?

I'm ignoring points?

Ok, let me condense it down for you so you can answer:

Factions and units are often going to be similar or the same in a big history game for historical, cultural and obviously, biological reasons. How would you propose to make it otherwise?



"People like you", "you're one of those people". You make a lot of assumptions.

Yeah, you're ignoring the point I've made about how the factions within the game are supposed to be different, if in a few units and other special units.

And I also brought out how it's complete BS when those units get screwed over by the nerf bat. And you just try to flat out ignore that valid point.

And I know you won't go look at the units, or do anything like that that might possibly threaten your opinion

But I've seen people back on the TW forums who fanatically defended stupid crap like spam and other "cheese" tactics, which no doubt pointed to them being the type of people who spam cheap and cheesy crap in the games.

I've been around the forum block enough times to know that people who do cheap or cheesy crap don't tend to like the very idea of their spam being threatened.

So yeah, I tend to think that people like you, people who seemingly try so hard to fight against things like just moving on to another TW game or making the existing game more balanced, are indeed the ones who like to and spam the overpowered armies like the Roman factions.

I'm not ignoring things that don't conform with my opinion, I've invited you to persuade us with reason by answering my question, I literally said just that.

Why don't you stop trying to "call me what you are", and simply answer the question? It was reasonably put and might actually lead to an interesting conversation.
8 hours ago
In topic Let this game die already CA.
Originally posted by chubbyninja89 (The Ninja Brony):
Originally posted by Berserk Smurf:

Now you're just trying to ignore the points anyone else makes, and pretend that you're the only one with something to say that matters. And people like you say I'm childish.

What?

I'm ignoring points?

Ok, let me condense it down for you so you can answer:

Factions and units are often going to be similar or the same in a big history game for historical, cultural and obviously, biological reasons. How would you propose to make it otherwise?


But of course, you're one of those people who will just look the other way because you probably mainly play some power faction like Rome or whatever and it doesn't matter to you.
"People like you", "you're one of those people". You make a lot of assumptions.
9 hours ago
In topic Let this game die already CA.
Originally posted by chubbyninja89 (The Ninja Brony):
Originally posted by Berserk Smurf:

You say "copy paste". Why would men with two arms, two legs, the odd horse and primitive weapons have to be significantly different or even "unique" compared to other units which are, when all's said and done, other men with two arms, two legs, the odd horse and primitive weapons. What would making them "not the same" even look like in a historically plausible setting?

Within the limits of what you can do for a historical game set in antiquity, Rome II has a relatively diverse array of units. I'm sure we could all think of more we'd like, but there isn't a lot of scope for stopping them looking a bit like each other.

I'm open to having my mind changed. What historically plausible changes would you make across this game's setting that would stop men with weapons looking a bit similar?


You know damn well what I mean by copy paste when it comes to factions.

I'm clearly talking about how many of the factions in Rome 2, that are supposedly suppose to be different from others, even those within their overall culture, aren't anything but a copy and paste of a faction that came before them.

Take Athens and Syracuse. They are pretty much the EXACT same faction, aside from the Mercenary Samnite Warriors.

And yeah, I don't expect one of them to be packing guns or anything, but they could maybe offer Syracuse a few mercenaries, or something to help them feel just a little more different from Athens.

And don't get me started on how many of the "barbarian" special units got screwed over in Rome 2. Many of them were nerfed to a truly ridiculous level. But I've just give you 3 examples.

I think you missed my point. I already deconstructed this idea and asked you if you could put it back together - to change our minds with reason.

Many of the units in the game are similar and pretty much should be. Syracuse yes is a tacked-on unit (weren't sold in a faction pack by the way, they came with HatG) and pretty much have the same units as Athens etc, but the thing is there's nothing wrong with that, historically they should. The campaign plays differently (again as it should) but if there's some glaring historical reason they shouldn't have units like Athens, tell us.

Otherwise it's all just the same old "because feels" thing, and that's fine but it does boil down to difference for the sake of it.

Every time they do difference for its own sake they have to invent history to do it, and personally I'd rather they were a bit conservative about that, or we end up with a complete fantasy setting rather than an even vaguely historical backdrop.


The Lusatani Guerrillas got their already pretty low melee attack of 24 reduced to 18.
The Nervii Fierce Swords and Naked Spears are painfully slow for little armor they have.
The Iberian Swordsmen no longer have the 5 light infantry javelins, but only 2 regular javelins.

Stat/loadout preferences will differ between us all, with one person's terrible nerf being another person's desired mod, a quite separate issue.

Yeah, I bet your "first impressions" was just playing maybe 10 or 15 turns on either race and realizing that this wasn't going to be just like Rome 2, where you can pick from a couple of power factions and steamroller everything. 

Thing is nobody asked to talk about warhammer, and this forum is about Rome II - it's fully to be expected that people who choose to frequent this forum rather than say the warhammer one may have opinions on it that aren't backed up by 10 warhammer campaigns.
10 hours ago
In topic Let this game die already CA.
Originally posted by chubbyninja89 (The Ninja Brony):
Originally posted by Berserk Smurf:

Actually, you'd be wrong.

Because, if you got off your self placed high horse, you might actually realize why Warhammer has attributed so much more variety being brought to the TW games.

CA finally got the picture and fully realized after they had screwed up with DLC for Rome 2 and Attila in general that they can't simply make a bunch of copy paste factions anymore, they actually have to make them more unique and varied. It's just a fact.

CA finally got that a HUGE part of what makes the TW games great and fun to play is the diverse factions in which to play the game with.

Now the historical factions will have to be more unique, if in a smaller way than Warhammer. They can't all just be clones of each other simply because they're human armies

And please, do the test of what I mentioned to Champion of Sparta, the whole testing the Nervii "unique" units.

What "high horse"? I gave a reasoned response.

Going by that and the last few posts, you seem keen to put other words in people's mouths or are misunderstanding. Let's not do that.

Originally posted by chubbyninja89 (The Ninja Brony):
Originally posted by Berserk Smurf:

Actually, you'd be wrong.

Because, if you got off your self placed high horse, you might actually realize why Warhammer has attributed so much more variety being brought to the TW games.

CA finally got the picture and fully realized after they had screwed up with DLC for Rome 2 and Attila in general that they can't simply make a bunch of copy paste factions anymore, they actually have to make them more unique and varied. It's just a fact.

CA finally got that a HUGE part of what makes the TW games great and fun to play is the diverse factions in which to play the game with.

Now the historical factions will have to be more unique, if in a smaller way than Warhammer. They can't all just be clones of each other simply because they're human armies

And please, do the test of what I mentioned to Champion of Sparta, the whole testing the Nervii "unique" units.

You say "copy paste". Why would men with two arms, two legs, the odd horse and primitive weapons have to be significantly different or even "unique" compared to other units which are, when all's said and done, other men with two arms, two legs, the odd horse and primitive weapons. What would making them "not the same" even look like in a historically plausible setting?

Within the limits of what you can do for a historical game set in antiquity, Rome II has a relatively diverse array of units. I'm sure we could all think of more we'd like, but there isn't a lot of scope for stopping them looking a bit like each other.

I'm open to having my mind changed. What historically plausible changes would you make across this game's setting that would stop men with weapons looking a bit similar?
11 hours ago
In topic Let this game die already CA.
@chubbyninja
No, I disagree, actually.

Warhammer is very heavily monetized, and this is fine as it fits with what the fan base of warhammer is used to. It would not be better for the other games to go in that direction.

"Difference" or the lack thereof is not something CA invented in response to a problem for warhammer, it is simply inherent to ancient warfare that factions will generally be men on foot or horse, injuring each other with various kinds of stick, axe, blade or stone. It is just as inherent to warhammer that units will be wildly different. Going back to history games after warhammer affords no potential to make units "more different". Zero effect at all.

Certainly faction packs have not presented us with as much value for money as campaign packs, the DLC for empire at al was spammy in my opinion, and to some extent the campaign packs for Rome II felt like better value. You can actually chart CA's progress in acknowledging people's concerns about value for money DLC in the history games without referring to Warhammer. Starts out with WoS, then you have Langobards which as a faction DLC added new features and took a "kitchen sink" approach to units, throwing in some variety that was arguably not warranted, and then escalating from there in terms of value of money, with Age of Charlemagne being by far the most content they have ever put in a DLC. Now with Rome II they appear to be concentrating on campaign packs, which is again a nice step away from bitty faction packs.

Don't get me wrong, factions are good to have and I'm prepared to buy them. This isn't a fantasy game so there is absolutely no reason they need to be very "different" from each other just for the sake of it - men with swords, spears, bows, chariots, horses and so on are fundamentally all the same, after all. What is important to me is that they take time to research and we see content that reflects the archaeological finds and sources available. This is something they do, and while it may be all but invisible to someone who unaccountably expects warhammer-style diversity in a history game, those of us who love the history do actually appreciate it when they pore over the source material to get the clothes plausible, or painstakingly model a real Brythonic chariot, or sword, or falchion that has been discovered by archaeologists, that they have spent time and money coming up with and making thematically appropriate variations for weapons, clothes etc, that they get some plausible names in there for faction members, that the right units have scare, or bonuses they should have. It's not perfect for sure, but it's also not meaningless because none of them have wings or two heads or cast spells. Each to their own, I suppose.

Not going to get onto pre-order DLC.
Originally posted by Portwills:
Rome 2 is easily their best game with Warhammer 2 at the moment. The only reason I can think of people not welcoming this DLC is because Attila is not getting the same love. Usually people say, well that's cuz nobody plays Attila. While that's true, maybe that's just because the optimization is, you know, terrible, and if they gave Attila some love they could probably bring back a considerable amount of players to it. Still, in reality Rome 2 era will probably always be the pop era and the most played by people, even if Attila has the horde mechanic that Rome 2 lacks. In the end, I sure don't get why all the vocal drama going around sometimes...

I think you're probably right - Warhammer is really just not for me, but I acknowledge it's incredible at what it sets out to do, and Rome II is probably the best of the warscape history games (inb4 someone finds this contentious, I get that people like Shogun 2, I'd give this the edge).

Attila's good, but it's not as good as this for me: features on paper don't describe the whole picture when it comes to playability, and the setting, well it's ancient Rome. It's a shame because Attila needs at least one problem fixed that you don't see in any of the other games - weird performance issues on high end nvidia cards... but Attila isn't drawing players like Rome II and is unlikely to get the same kind of love from the publisher.
13 hours ago
In topic Let this game die already CA.
If I thought the game was perfect, I would say so. I didn't. With that said, they have recently fixed some of the longstanding issues I had with naval assaults and proximity fading. It is not often you get things that have become your personal bugbears 4 years in, fixed in a patch.

I don't see how any of what you said changes my initial comment about warhammer trolls banned elsewhere, so that stands. You would think warhammer was something for discussion not just on another thread, but actually on the warhammer forums. Yet here we are yet again, with warhammer trolls bringing their ire to a history game's forum yet again, and cooking up reasons that aren't explicitly "I'm upset because this isn't warhammer content", yet again.

We are not all on the warhammer forums being dreadful, slating the game and creating an abysmal atmosphere when they make content for you, but this keeps happening. I didn't think it was possible (given how grumpy the TW community was already), I thought there might be an infusion of enthusiastic and positive new fans, but making warhammer actually seems to have made this community even worse. Achievement unlocked, I guess. ^^
14 hours ago
In topic Let this game die already CA.
I've played Warhammer and don't think it's the best example as a Total War game, indeed that would be a terrible direction for the franchise more generally to head in. I think they did a stunning job realising the warhammer universe, though, so an excellent field-leading warhammer game and a mediocre TW game at best.

I'm looking forward to Three Kingdoms as well. It'll be good to have a drastic change of scenery. Don't expect much deviation from the whole men hitting each other with stuff theme, though, that's ancient warfare in the real world for you.
To some extent I agree, supporting this is a good idea and they seem happy to continue making substantial improvements, so support from the history fans is good.

I haven't agreed with everything they've done, but I guess not everyone will.

Originally posted by frostsid:
Originally posted by LuckyPhil:
The warscape engine is an old, bug-ridden mess and CA is still flogging it like a dead horse. The game looks like garbage now.

Let it die already.

Do you even play TW? I mean, I see you in multiple TW forums bashing CA and whatever game depending on which forum you are.
He's a warhammer troll who's upset by historical content being a thing, and is permabanned from several TW forums.

Doesn't mean he can't engage in civil conversation this time, second chances and all that, just answering your question.
Yeah I remember that feature :D I have to confess I didn't use it much, but it was a nice little thing to have.
14 hours ago
In topic Let this game die already CA.
Game is excellent. It had an atrocious start but they stood by it and owned their problems, as they do, and now it is good.

Listening to "idiots whining" or as I'd put it, people giving feedback on historical accuracy is not a bad thing for a history game.

This game has benefited from the fact it has our ongoing business, and long may it do so.

Also I notice from the names here several of the same few warhammer trolls who spread toxic nonsense and spam every time CA dares to make new historical content. Even though you are in some cases permabanned from 2 or 3 of the other TW forums for this everyone deserves a second chance and everyone is entitled to an opinion - still if you could refrain from having a go at the actual gamers this time it'd be much better for everyone.
You manage what is built in cities yes, although it has to be said you are managing cities at a macro level to maximise resource usage, trade, capabilities/upgrades advantageous placement of military build-up replenishment capacity and so on. There is no close-up city builder type gameplay.

It is definitely more involved than Thrones of Britannia, Warhammer etc., though.

PS: meaningless frivolity I know, but if you do play and like city builders, check out the game of thrones TV intro style animations when you grow cities- you wouldn't even notice it if you weren't looking for it, but it's quite cool.
Jul 20 @ 9:21pm
In topic Incompatible Versions???????????
Wow, necromancer! :D

Anyway, Rob: If you are playing with someone you need exactly the same mods. To play publicly this means no mods at all - you can disable them in mod manager/steam, then follow the deletion advice in this thread to achieve that. To verify, look at your build number in the main menu, if it has an asterisk next to it you still have mods loading.

You also need the same version as the other person. That means if you are on the beta you can only play with other people on the beta, if you're on patch 18 you can only play with other people on patch 19, and so on.
You can look forward to more depth and granularity in the Politics system and within building trees

Aww yeah. I'll take that, especially building chains.
Thanks Herne - it finally finished and so far I'm tentatively very pleased with what they've tried to bring to it.

First mission, bring someone who is too powerful to public disgrace and have them commit suicide. This is more like what I had in mind when I saw that trailer; A bit more I, Claudius.

Also, proximity fade toggle! Ships vacating landing spots! I expect there will be bugs at this stage but it's looking like a lot of my wish list items are in this.
Jul 16 @ 11:26am
In topic why does no one play this game anymore
Originally posted by Fozzie Bear:
Originally posted by La Comte de Frou Frou:

+1

Absolutely. Horse warfare in Britain was predominantly a Norman affair - in fact the ASC reacts to the reporting of mounted warfare in France during the ninth century with disbelief. The ASC regarding the Viking invasion of Britain is full of examples of men riding to battle and then dismounting to fight.

Furthermore, the "no-garrison" in small villages is bang-on historically. Alfred brought in the Burgh system sometime after the Battle of Edington and this was only for the large towns (Winchester for example). There was neither the man-power or need to waste men and money defending small villages.

The funny thing about critics of this game is often that, in certain aspects at least, it represents the historic nature of the period quite well.


no garrisons in small villages sure but none of the settlments on any total war map actually represent small villages

Well, except for villages. Pretty sure they represent villages... and those are the settlements people are discussing. There's not a lot of difference between a small village and a big village in terms of whether it's likely to have a garrison that can face down an army or not.

Originally posted by Geffalrus:
Originally posted by Portwills:
I'd never say more mechanics than Rome 2, that's just wrong. And Shogun 2 easily has the most unit diversity of all Total War games, what it doesn't have is different cultures across the board.

Most unit diversity? Seriously?
I thought that. Contentious to say the least, I think most people would consider it to have one of the less diverse arrays of units in the series.
Jul 16 @ 11:00am
In topic How do you add a game to the PFM?
You can kindasorta get away with using the Attila setting, I've modded a few things like this. Not a good enough answer and one you probably already found yourself, but it's what we have for now. Hopefully we'll see an update and schema soon.
Originally posted by Migz - DH:
Originally posted by Welsh Dragon:

That's an interesting question. For me the reason I'm being brought around to liking this family tree is because they haven't just bolted on any old Total War family tree. They've woven it into the existing political system, and made it flexible enough that it can represent a strict heriditary lineage, a meritocracy, a league, a republic etc.

The Intrigues system also I think adds a lot to my enjoyment, as I'm having great fun plotting and scheming, using them to manipulate the different characters and parties to suit my own aims. And sometimes lowering one stat of one character so I can then boost them in some other way, or use them to boost another character.

That's not to say I'm totally won over. The UI is a bit clunky, and I do find myself missing the Characters Screen we had in Patch 19. But overall I'm finding it a fun addition.

Just my thoughts.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

Well, I'm glad that some people like it. (And again, I'm really glad to see many of the other changes that're going to come with this update.)

This new system doesn't sound interesting to me at all though. It seems like it's just a layer of unimportant internal work taking me away from planning and executing the war(s). (You didn't mention anything about incest, patricide, killing one's children, arranging marriages, or the other stuff that was in TW:Attila's system, but if that's all there too, which I expect it is, then that's still the dating simulator I mentioned earlier.)

I'd have preferred CA to implement a new system related to supplying/equipping/training the forces or looting of enemy weapons, armor, and horses or looting enemy cities for food or building on the city-siege/submission mechanic rather than releasing another politics update as that was working even if it wasn't perfect imo. I'm sure there are other potential systems CA could try out that could add something good to the TW games too.

I'll be curious to see the player-usage numbers after this update as compared to previous ones to see if the family tree really was all that lastingly important to the people who've been crying out for it for years.

Yeah, it'd be good to have a bunch of depth features focused on the strategic/operational/tactical aspects of warfare.

Personally I wasn't expecting to see the FT in this game and raised an eyebrow - I'm interested to see how they have made it work (I have almost no internet at the moment, and am bouncing off the walls waiting for a measly 1.4gb download).

If it works well, I'm happy to see them making the game more involved for those of us who want it (whilst presumably making it possible to ignore that stuff for those who don't - the TW fanbase is varied after all and sometimes even lovers of deep gameplay are in the mood to go dull Alexander). I was disappointed with how little meat there was on the bones of the political system at release, it seemed like it was probably not what they planned or hoped to make (remember the politics video :( ) good to see CA going in that direction a bit more now.


Also can I say "incest, patricide, killing one's children, arranging marriages [...] that's still the dating simulator" not sure but I think you might be doing dating wrong.
Jul 16 @ 12:23am
In topic Redshell and you.
CA announced the removal of Redshell from all Total War games some time ago now.

I guess when you searched Reddit for complaints about this series to re-post on the forums that piece of information didn't come up.
Showing 1-20 of 10,261 entries