Total War Megathread V.2: "All of Christendom Will be Awed by this Megathread!" - Games

[QUOTE=-nesto-;36700872]For naval battles in E:TW. I destroy higher classed ships in Shogun no problem but in Empire somehow a Brig always fucks my 5-6th rate ships up. Also I'll use autobattle after I play a battle to kill off the stragglers.[/QUOTE] Fuck that! Port E:TW map and period into Shogun 2 and we got a good game.

[QUOTE=Scientist2;36706598]I have ATI and i almost never have any problems. What card do you have ?[/QUOTE] 5700

If I could control a Galleon in FPmode they way I control Raonokes I would cream my pants and everything in sight.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;36706792]5700[/QUOTE] Strange.. I have a 5770 myself. Maybe check all of your drivers? I have no clue what it could be.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;36701846]I'd love a WW1 RTS but TW's system isn't the place for it. WW1 would fit much much better in a Company of Heroes/DoW2 system.[/QUOTE] Squad based combat? No. One of the most defining features of WWI as opposed to WWII was that units still fought as though it was the Napoleonic Wars, despite technology having increased immensely. That is what caused the massive casualties. Units were commanded in huge numbers and the generals didn't update their tactics till the war neared an end. Also tanks can be possible in the games. Hell, Medieval II's Warhammer mod has STEAM TANKS in it now. And that was an older engine!

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;36707286]Squad based combat? No. One of the most defining features of WWI as opposed to WWII was that units still fought as though it was the Napoleonic Wars, despite technology having increased immensely. That is what caused the massive casualties. Units were commanded in huge numbers and the generals didn't update their tactics till the war neared an end. Also tanks can be possible in the games. Hell, Medieval II's Warhammer mod has STEAM TANKS in it now. And that was an older engine![/QUOTE] What I was thinking along the lines of chemical weapons (I.E. mustard gas, chlorine, etc) is that you could use the lime shot/whatever that other anti-infantry shell is, and have it trigger a fog effect wherever the shells land besides the regular shell effect, and have it fire from artillery pieces as a shell option, like canister shot, shrapnel shot, etc. [editline]10th July 2012[/editline] Also, considering how rare aircraft were during WWI, we could just exclude those entirely. However, if we were to include them, you might be able to call them in like you can call in a naval bombardment in FOTS, and all you get is the silhouette of the bombers.

My CCC keeps randomly crashing on me and I can't even do anything directly with my card and I can't tell whether or not I have updated my drivers.

[QUOTE=ewitwins;36707324]What I was thinking along the lines of chemical weapons (I.E. mustard gas, chlorine, etc) is that you could use the lime shot/whatever that other anti-infantry shell is, and have it trigger a fog effect wherever the shells land besides the regular shell effect, and have it fire from artillery pieces as a shell option, like canister shot, shrapnel shot, etc. [editline]10th July 2012[/editline] Also, considering how rare aircraft were during WWI, we could just exclude those entirely. However, if we were to include them, you might be able to call them in like you can call in a naval bombardment in FOTS, and all you get is the silhouette of the bombers.[/QUOTE] How long would the turns last? They could only be 1 or 2 weeks, like in Napoleon, because of the innovation of rail or road systems.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;36707286]Squad based combat? No. One of the most defining features of WWI as opposed to WWII was that units still fought as though it was the Napoleonic Wars, despite technology having increased immensely. That is what caused the massive casualties. Units were commanded in huge numbers and the generals didn't update their tactics till the war neared an end. Also tanks can be possible in the games. Hell, Medieval II's Warhammer mod has STEAM TANKS in it now. And that was an older engine![/QUOTE] No, not COH's squad based combat but rather the way they deal with cover.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;36707286]Squad based combat? No. One of the most defining features of WWI as opposed to WWII was that units still fought as though it was the Napoleonic Wars, despite technology having increased immensely. That is what caused the massive casualties. Units were commanded in huge numbers and the generals didn't update their tactics till the war neared an end. Also tanks can be possible in the games. Hell, Medieval II's Warhammer mod has STEAM TANKS in it now. And that was an older engine![/QUOTE] That's the stereotype, but European armies did change their tactics in the face of rifled weaponry. Check out the infantry tactics section of American general Emory Upton's "The Armies of Asia and Europe" to get an idea what the Victorian powers were adopting as tactics by the late 1870s: [url]http://archive.org/stream/cu31924030740769#page/n289/mode/2up[/url]

[QUOTE=Tac Error;36707681]That's the stereotype, but European armies did change their tactics in the face of rifled weaponry. Check out the infantry tactics section of American general Emory Upton's "The Armies of Asia and Europe" to get an idea what the Victorian powers were adopting as tactics by the late 1870s: [url]http://archive.org/stream/cu31924030740769#page/n289/mode/2up[/url][/QUOTE] They also took lessons from the American Civil War. When everyones lined up and firing minie bullets at each other, tons of lives are lost.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;36707681]That's the stereotype, but European armies did change their tactics in the face of rifled weaponry. Check out the infantry tactics section of American general Emory Upton's "The Armies of Asia and Europe" to get an idea what the Victorian powers were adopting as tactics by the late 1870s: [URL]http://archive.org/stream/cu31924030740769#page/n289/mode/2up[/URL][/QUOTE] But they didn't change them enough to be make an impact. When I said "Napoleonic Tactics" I was obviously exaggerating, they did not fight with line formations and shit in WWI. However, squad combat with shock troops only became viable near the end of the war, as it was the only thing that would break the trench stalemate and yet it was ignored by most generals. Plus they used Trench Warfare on the Western Front to a rather destructive degree. It protected from machine gun, rifle, and artillery fire but it is really only useful when one side is using them and the other is not. If both sides use trenches, it quickly becomes a stalemate slug-fest based around how many men can be thrown at positions. My point is that even the new tactics developed in the 1870's were still outdated by 1914, which was over 40 years later. Technology, especially then, moves forward in giant leaps in 40 years time. Also, it couldn't honestly be that hard for a major gaming studio to script in trench warfare. Really, the reason why it's best to use Total War is because of the scale, the engine handles the massive amount of units quite well. [editline]aonaopnso[/editline] Also, Rifling and Bolt-Action are two different things. Rifling is when grooves are made in the barrel, causing the bullet to spin and therefore be more stable and accurate, much like throwing a football. Bolt-action enables units to have a high rate of fire. The British had limited experience with it when fighting the Boer War and the Japanese has the most recent use of it when fighting Russia, who was defeated in that war largely do to their outdated tactics and over reliance on numbers.

[QUOTE=Gurant;36703647]It's all in Swedish though[/QUOTE] ah well that wouldn't be much good for me

[QUOTE=ewitwins;36707324]What I was thinking along the lines of chemical weapons (I.E. mustard gas, chlorine, etc) is that you could use the lime shot/whatever that other anti-infantry shell is, and have it trigger a fog effect wherever the shells land besides the regular shell effect, and have it fire from artillery pieces as a shell option, like canister shot, shrapnel shot, etc. [editline]10th July 2012[/editline] [B]Also, considering how rare aircraft were during WWI, we could just exclude those entirely. [/B] However, if we were to include them, you might be able to call them in like you can call in a naval bombardment in FOTS, and all you get is the silhouette of the bombers.[/QUOTE] at the starting months of WW1 then yeah but as WW1 went on aircraft was VERY important for recon

[QUOTE=krakadict;36709000]at the starting months of WW1 then yeah but as WW1 went on aircraft was VERY important for recon[/QUOTE] I guess you got your new spy units, then.

Okay, what just happened? I was playing Medieval, I held down alt to order my crossbowmen to engage in melee, and my sound for the game cut off. The sound is at it's highest and I've even restarted on a different module, but nothing worked. I'm gonna have to re-install again, aren't I?

Check your speakers or some shit or look up bug fixes for it on google

The major problem of a WW1 Total War is that the battles would be fucking boring. Either you just camp in your trenches looking at the enemy charging while they are decimated by your machine guns and cannons or you are outnumbering them and just send all your troops forward and win the battle with a 75% loss. Maybe it would get interesting with tanks and shit but if the first half of the campaign is camping it wouldn't be really interesting. And the scale of WW1 is to small, in the sense that it only lasted four years and battles didn't resulted in territorial changes of more than 100 metres. (I'm exaggerating a little bit) There would be little to no cities management and territorial expansion, no royal family management, few diplomatic and political changes. The variety of units and difference between factions would be at least as poor as Shogun 2's and the only realistic campaign objective would be forcing the enemy factions to surrender. The only good thing about that game is that the battles would look absolutely amazing. But otherwise it would be the worst Total War ever made imo.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;36709661]The major problem of a WW1 Total War is that the battles would be fucking boring. Either you just camp in your trenches looking at the enemy charging while they are decimated by your machine guns and cannons or you are outnumbering them and just send all your troops forward and win the battle with a 75% loss. Maybe it would get interesting with tanks and shit but if the first half of the campaign is camping it wouldn't be really interesting. And the scale of WW1 is to small, in the sense that it only lasted four years and battles didn't resulted in territorial changes of more than 100 metres. (I'm exaggerating a little bit) There would be little to no cities management and territorial expansion, no royal family management, few diplomatic and political changes. The variety of units and difference between factions would be at least as poor as Shogun 2's and the only realistic campaign objective would be forcing the enemy factions to surrender. The only good thing about that game is that the battles would look absolutely amazing. But otherwise it would be the worst Total War ever made imo.[/QUOTE] That's where your wrong. Trench warfare would be optional, but obviously not enforced. Part of the fun of the Total War games is doing the wars your own way. It would be significantly larger than any Total War game to date, as unit sizes (especially for infantry) would need to be massive to counter the machine guns, tanks, and airplanes. It wouldn't have to be just those 4 years, if could span anywhere from 1900 to 1920 or even 1940 if you wanted it to. You have to remember, we aren't going by historical boundaries here because YOU are making the history. Conquest is still viable. Just because history turned out and/or worked one way in real life doesn't mean it will go that way in the game. Your just using the same terrible argument that the game studios use, which is "oh trench warfare is boring" WWI wasn't all trench warfare either. Look at the Eastern front. Entire kilometers were switching hands and being fought over, thousands of people clashed, and epic battles like Tannenberg were fought. That was the prime example of what a WWI game should be. Battles on an even larger scale than the second World War.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;36708827]But they didn't change them enough to be make an impact. When I said "Napoleonic Tactics" I was obviously exaggerating, they did not fight with line formations and shit in WWI. However, squad combat with shock troops only became viable near the end of the war, as it was the only thing that would break the trench stalemate and yet it was ignored by most generals. My point is that even the new tactics developed in the 1870's were still outdated by 1914, which was over 40 years later. Technology, especially then, moves forward in giant leaps in 40 years time.[/quote] Yes, that's a given then we consider developments and the adoption of things such as (but not limited to) smokeless powder, the Maxim gun and repeating firearms, but I thought we were talking about if Napoleonic tactics were (or not) the same as 1914 tactics as you stated earlier, not the need for changing contemporary tactics in the face of newer and upcoming technical developments? There are also other developments outside the technical sphere that were factors in changing the battlefield, but that's for another time. [quote][editline]aonaopnso[/editline] Also, Rifling and Bolt-Action are two different things. Rifling is when grooves are made in the barrel, causing the bullet to spin and therefore be more stable and accurate, much like throwing a football. Bolt-action enables units to have a high rate of fire. The British had limited experience with it when fighting the Boer War and the Japanese has the most recent use of it when fighting Russia, who was defeated in that war largely do to their outdated tactics and over reliance on numbers.[/QUOTE] Did you really need to quibble with exact terminology? If you read Upton's book, the tactics he described were adopted in the face of breech-loading black powder firearms, not just with the widespread adoption of rifled weapons: "The adoption of [i]breech-loaders[/i] [emphasis mine] has not changed the principles of strategy and grand tactics [...] It has simply demonstrated the impossibility of attacking positions in battalion columns, and, as a consequence, has necessitated a division of the troops into smaller fractions, which under fire can be moved with the greatest rapidity and least exposure, thereby insuring the least loss of life. The open or skirmish order has, therefore, been adopted, and is employed by the first line whenever troops approach the zone covered by the enemy's fire."

[QUOTE=Tac Error;36710933]Yes, that's a given then we consider developments and the adoption of things such as (but not limited to) smokeless powder, the Maxim gun and repeating firearms, but I thought we were talking about if Napoleonic tactics were (or not) the same as 1914 tactics as you stated earlier, not the need for changing contemporary tactics in the face of newer and upcoming technical developments? There are also other developments outside the technical sphere that were factors in changing the battlefield, but that's for another time. Did you really need to quibble with exact terminology? If you read Upton's book, the tactics he described were adopted in the face of breech-loading black powder firearms, not just with the widespread adoption of rifled weapons: "The adoption of [i]breech-loaders[/i] [emphasis mine] has not changed the principles of strategy and grand tactics [...] It has simply demonstrated the impossibility of attacking positions in battalion columns, and, as a consequence, has necessitated a division of the troops into smaller fractions, which under fire can be moved with the greatest rapidity and least exposure, thereby insuring the least loss of life. The open or skirmish order has, therefore, been adopted, and is employed by the first line whenever troops approach the zone covered by the enemy's fire."[/QUOTE] I did indeed read that. I wasn't talking about the book. No offense, I honestly thought you had the two confused for a moment. And like I said, the Napoleonic Tactics was an exaggeration to help get the point across. The tactics did indeed change, just not enough. Machine guns were the biggy that they forgot to cover, probably thinking that it wouldn't be a whole lot different than assaulting fortified artillery.

Started a new game as the Plains Nations. Once you get Mexico shit gets fun as hell. Got a mod that disables New Spain/13 Colonies/Louisiana from becoming integrated with their respected parent nations. Great Britain declared on me for taking Texas although I'm not sure why. Allied with Louisiana incase the 13 colonies decide down the road to jump into the war. Furs and tobacco are making me fairly rich thanks to the French which in turn allows me to have a standing army of musket Indians. I think now I'll hop north to the Huron-Wynot lands then over to GB's territory. Seriously, fuck the British. No matter which nation I play as or what course of actions I take they will always declare on me. I don't think I can ever get ships so I'll settle with using the French as a proxy to drive the Brits from Europe once and for all.

I've got a computer that can run games well now. Should I go for Shogun 2 or the Fall of the Samurai? I'm thinking Shogun 2, since I've had my musket fix in E:TW and Napoleon. Not to mention I loved Shogun 1. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] Nevermind, I went with vanilla shogun.

The mighty Mongol horde shatters to pieces upon the gates of Antioch and her defenders! [t]http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/1155422234297990340/B81BCE3CBE6D2FC128DB34499566ED4A7278E472/[/t]

[QUOTE=NoDachi;36720715]I've got a computer that can run games well now. Should I go for Shogun 2 or the Fall of the Samurai? I'm thinking Shogun 2, since I've had my musket fix in E:TW and Napoleon. Not to mention I loved Shogun 1. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] Nevermind, I went with vanilla shogun.[/QUOTE] You should get FOTS later on down the road. It feels like an entirely different game once vanilla Shogun gets stale.

[QUOTE=PollytheParrot;36724247]The mighty Mongol horde shatters to pieces upon the gates of Antioch and her defenders! [t]http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/1155422234297990340/B81BCE3CBE6D2FC128DB34499566ED4A7278E472/[/t][/QUOTE] Is that vanilla M2?

[QUOTE=-nesto-;36725167]You should get FOTS later on down the road. It feels like an entirely different game once vanilla Shogun gets stale.[/QUOTE] All I do really is re-enact battles from The Last Samurai. Its awesome. Anyway its so fucking weird that I can't run Rome Total War with more than like, 2000 men. But I can run Medieval 2 with Third Age and have like 10,000 men and still run at 30 FPS.

This update is killing me for Shogun 2. I haven't played in the longest time, so I go to play and then I have this update. 81%, 8 hours left it says.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;36725167]You should get FOTS later on down the road. It feels like an entirely different game once vanilla Shogun gets stale.[/QUOTE] Hell, they fixed naval combat. That's more than enough reason to buy it.

[QUOTE=Nikota;36726073]Hell, they fixed naval combat. That's more than enough reason to buy it.[/QUOTE] Pathfinding is still pretty shit through, at least my ships don't surrender within seconds of seeing an enemy.