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

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;37132802]So there's finally a fucking post in this thread and it's a damn rage comic. There is no sigh audibly loud enough...[/QUOTE] I did write a rather concise post; I can remove the rage comic if needed.

its not that bad, come on now!

[QUOTE=vizard38;37133042]I did write a rather concise post; I can remove the rage comic if needed.[/QUOTE] No, no, I'm just being ornery, it wasn't all that bad. It's nice that you offered to remove it though, most people aren't so nice. Also, am I the only one who is really worried about Rome II? It seems like more effort is going into the aesthetics than the gameplay and considering how bad Empire, Napoleon, and Shogun II were, I am certainly worried. also, it sounds like there will not be much mod support, which kills it, even if it is a good game. Also, should I get Fall of the Samurai? It looks cool and I like that era in warfare. Plus having swordsmen fight Gatling Guns is a whole new kind of fun!

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;37133229]No, no, I'm just being ornery, it wasn't all that bad. It's nice that you offered to remove it though, most people aren't so nice. Also, am I the only one who is really worried about Rome II? It seems like more effort is going into the aesthetics than the gameplay and considering how bad Empire, Napoleon, and Shogun II were, I am certainly worried. also, it sounds like there will not be much mod support, which kills it, even if it is a good game. Also, should I get Fall of the Samurai? It looks cool and I like that era in warfare. Plus having swordsmen fight Gatling Guns is a whole new kind of fun![/QUOTE] I'm sure the battle gameplay will be excellent, but if they follow Shogun 2's model for the campaign gameplay, then there'll be some issues. CA is also apparently meeting with devs of popular mods, to see what tools and resources they need for modding. I really hope it'll have rome/medieval 2 levels of modding, not just being able to edit stat values like in the later games. [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] Also FOTS is a good pickup imo, best gun-based total war yet. but if you're only into the melee-based total wars then I'd pass it up

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;37133229]considering how bad Shogun II were[/QUOTE] this is news to me

[QUOTE=thisispain;37133349]this is news to me[/QUOTE] Me too. It's the best yet. Empire was unresponsive and is only saved by DMUC. Napoleon... Well, they shoulda gone about that one the same way they did with FoTS. Update the base-game with the same features. Would really have saved Empire. Shogun 2 is pretty much the über hybrid master of the series. There's no parallel variety (factions) but linear variety is like triple the other ones. You've got everything from Medieval warfare to gunpowder warfare and ending in borderline guerrilla. Sure the shield units are missing, but basically every other school of units in the whole series is there and shit's very responsive. My general doesn't refuse to leave the middle of battle anymore, unlike Empire where i rage click for two whole minutes yet he still stays and dies.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;37133416]My general doesn't refuse to leave the middle of battle anymore, unlike Empire where i rage click for two whole minutes yet he still stays and dies.[/QUOTE] This, I've been playing Empire alot lately and as a result I think of generals like the little golden ball in that fucking broomstick flying game they play in harry potter.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;37133416]Me too. It's the best yet. Empire was unresponsive and is only saved by DMUC. Napoleon... Well, they shoulda gone about that one the same way they did with FoTS. Update the base-game with the same features. Would really have saved Empire. Shogun 2 is pretty much the über hybrid master of the series. There's no parallel variety (factions) but linear variety is like triple the other ones. You've got everything from Medieval warfare to gunpowder warfare and ending in borderline guerrilla. Sure the shield units are missing, but basically every other school of units in the whole series is there and shit's very responsive. My general doesn't refuse to leave the middle of battle anymore, unlike Empire where i rage click for two whole minutes yet he still stays and dies.[/QUOTE] I've heard it had small unit variety and generally lacked in many aspects in comparison to the other melee based Total War games like Medieval II despite fixing and improving many already present mechanics. I guess a better word is "disappointing" but not bad in any way, just room for a lot more (which it looks like they capitalized on in FotS) Yeah, Empire is shit. Pathfinding sucks, AI sucks, and even issuing simple commands is beyond it's fucking comprehension. Take an excerpt from a review I wrote for a website: [QUOTE=me]Empire: Total war is the 5th installment in the Total War series of games. It is a mix between RTS and Turn Based Grand Strategy in which you lead one of several nations to victory, usually by conquering Earth. The whole shtick behind the Total War games is that whenever you get into a battle, the game allows you to zoom down from your campaign map to view your troops (who are still the size of ants even at this level) like some kind of omnipotent Zues intricately controlling the lives of men, making them charge into bloody and horrific battles for your own amusement. Or maybe that's just me... Either way, the Total War series is unique in the regard on it's real time battles that are both fun to play and fun to watch. With each installment, the biggest focus has been on the aesthetics as well as examining the hypothetical engagements, like if Prussia invented Steam Ships in 1740 or if the United States was fighting to free itself from an all-dominant French Empire. However, the heavy focus on aesthetics, though it provides and impressive looking experience, seems to end up having shoved a few things aside that in the long run really hurt the game. Either way, nothing is more fun than leading your empire to total domination of Earth (which is impossible if you question how things like trade would work under a single nation, but I'm not sure why I'm questioning it in a game where you can take over Spain as Portugal and conquer America), but there is one major enemy that you will eventually have to face. No, it's not another Empire, No, it's not rebels, It's the god damn AI. Remember when I said that it was World Domination "at the hands of braindead idiots"? Well apparently the shitsmear mongoloids that your nation employs into military service cannot defend themselves properly, nor can they even find their way around the environment or even follow basic orders. The AI is atrocious in this game at certain parts. Take for example when I was playing as Prussia (man, I really do have a thing for Prussia, don't I?) and was defending a fort. I had 4 units of conscripted citizens with guns and they had only 2 regiments of line infantry. I ordered my men to the walls, and the stumbled around for 30 minutes, completely incapable of doing anything for fear that their tiny brains would explode from thinking too hard. They also remained oblivious to the fact that their tiny brains were quickly being drained out of the tiny bullet holes in their tiny heads, as they were being shot at, yet could not for the life of them figure out how to operate a musket and shoot back. I was surprised they didn't accidentally shoot themselves holding it the wrong way. Still, I entrusted them enough that I figured they could at least seek out refuge in a local building. I commanded them to garrison in the armory and they were promptly cut down trying to comprehend how on earth stairs work. I am dead serious.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;37133229]how bad Empire, Napoleon, and Shogun II were[/QUOTE] Heretic [img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/youdunfuckedupnow.png[/img]

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;37133658]I've heard[/QUOTE] did you actually play it?

While I agree with everyone else that NTW is shit, ETW and Shogun II are great games and I've sunk hundreds of hours into them (though not as many as Rome and Medieval II). You could hardly say that they're shit.

I really enjoyed Shogun 2 on a high difficulty for probably 6 or so hours. It was around that point that I realized I only had 3 types of units on the field, and the enemies had the exact same. There's literally regular bowmen and samurai bowmen. That's it. Sure, the few hero units are mildly interesting, but there was a serious lack of unit variety. The siege battles were also pretty boring, when compared to previous total war games. You just kinda walked at the castle... and that's it. Not really any tactics involved, since there isn't really any other approach to be had. There wasn't even any remote need of siege equipment, just guys walking at a wall. Not to mention the AI virtually always got far superior results if I just autoresolved the sieges. I finished my six hours of play by just building a shitload of units, skipping through the turns, then autoresolving my way from ten provinces to all of them. "Hard" difficulty on a "Hard" empire? Apparently not. That said, at least it was playable. In empire, I spent all my time trying to move units. Seriously. Why the hell won't the infantry fire until every last guy is in position? The first 90% of the infantry are just standing around for upwards of 30 seconds, just waiting for the last guy to step into line. Meanwhile, the enemy melee units just walk right across the battlefield and kill them all. Even turning the formations takes ages. You can just walk cavalry around the sides of them, since they're never going to be able to turn and shoot in any reasonable amount of time. I have really high hopes for Rome 2. If they can combine the units from the first game, Medieval 2's sieges, and Shogun 2's AI, it would be unbelievably fun.

[QUOTE=Morcam;37134178] That said, at least it was playable. In empire, I spent all my time trying to move units. Seriously. Why the hell won't the infantry fire until every last guy is in position? The first 90% of the infantry are just standing around for upwards of 30 seconds, just waiting for the last guy to step into line. Meanwhile, the enemy melee units just walk right across the battlefield and kill them all. Even turning the formations takes ages. You can just walk cavalry around the sides of them, since they're never going to be able to turn and shoot in any reasonable amount of time. I have really high hopes for Rome 2. If they can combine the units from the first game, Medieval 2's sieges, and Shogun 2's AI, it would be unbelievably fun.[/QUOTE] I think its fucking bullshit too how they have to get in perfect formation, but after a while you get used to it. You shouldn't move Infantry to intercept if melee infantry are charging and are about to hit your lines. The tried and tested tactic for me is standing at your deployment, blasting them with cannon shells (granted this part is hopeless in standard Empire), tearing apart their flanks with cavalry, counter charging if they reach your lines, and then using superior numbers to outflank and hit every enemy blob from the rear with either cavalry or another infantry regiment. Its more bullshit in FOTS honestly, where every man is made of paper. I had the same problem setting up lines one time outside of a castle, when a group of cavalry came out of the castle to charge my skirmishers. I moved Line Infantry to intercept, but the cavalry went straight past their firing arc before they had fired, slaughtered the skirmishers and then wiped out all of them as I scrambled to reposition, fucking up and realizing the AI doesn't obey orders if you have them set to kneel fire. I had the same problem in my little historical battle rant on this page, my infantry didn't set up in time, cavalry hit them and half of their units died in seconds.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37133801]did you actually play it?[/QUOTE] I really hate it when people bash on things they have literally no experience with. TWC is all like this. Rome and Medieval 2 vets sit and circle jerk about how bad the new ones are, yet only one in 10 of them have experience with the games. It's pretty fucking stupid. Unit response was fixed in Shogun 2. I don't remember if Napoleon addressed it, but one can hope. As for the AI. Darthmod fixes that, so that really is a non-issue 3 years after launch. But Darthmod can't fix that units ignore input... [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=PollytheParrot;37133947]While I agree with everyone else that NTW is shit, ETW and Shogun II are great games and I've sunk hundreds of hours into them (though not as many as Rome and Medieval II). You could hardly say that they're shit.[/QUOTE] If Napoleon had been to Empire what FoTS was for Shogun 2, ( a giant patch and an ingame unlockable expansion), Empire would literally have become the series high-point thanks to all of Napoleons new features. There have been a ton of modding advances and people are right now debating wether to transplant Napoleon features onto Empire or Transplant Empire into Napoleon. But alas, The former is more likely since we can't edit the Campaign map.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37133801]did you actually play it?[/QUOTE] I did. It was actually the first Total War I played. Like I said, certainly not bad, but it doesn't compare to Medieval II. Then again, nothing does. [sp]And for future references, yes, this is just my opinion. I'm not trying to present this as "fact" or anything. Different people like different games.[/sp] It could also be that I'm not really interested in the Shogun Era of Japan either. [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=PollytheParrot;37133947]While I agree with everyone else that NTW is shit, ETW and Shogun II are great games and I've sunk hundreds of hours into them (though not as many as Rome and Medieval II). You could hardly say that they're shit.[/QUOTE] Empire was more broken than Napoleon! But I just felt less ripped off because at least Empire was it's own full game, Napoleon should have been a DLC at most.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;37138033] It could also be that I'm not really interested in the Shogun Era of Japan either. [/QUOTE] Shogun Era is boring as fucking hell. But it's still easily the most functional, polished and diverse game in the series yet. It'd be like if Rome 2 gets Medieval 3 as a standalone expansion and then later Empire 2 as another standalone expansion. People would shit themselves! Personally, i'm of the opinion that they should have gone all valve on the Warscape engine games and updated them all with the iterations of the future titles. But then again, that would break modding.

I have a feeling total war is already devolving into just updated versions of their games. No new eras anymore.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;37139911]Shogun Era is boring as fucking hell. But it's still easily the most functional, polished and diverse game in the series yet. It'd be like if Rome 2 gets Medieval 3 as a standalone expansion and then later Empire 2 as another standalone expansion. People would shit themselves! Personally, i'm of the opinion that they should have gone all valve on the Warscape engine games and updated them all with the iterations of the future titles. But then again, that would break modding.[/QUOTE] I really hope that they don't just keep making sequels. I would prefer having new concepts and ideas and eras (Like the late Victorian Era that FotS takes place in, but on a larger scale) rather than just rehashing the same games, even if they do make them much better and more polished. We still haven't fully explored the possibilities of the engine yet!

I'd totally love empire in the 18th century. Starting with the fall of napoleon and ending before ww1. [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] You could have the American civil war in the game, colonialism and the snatch up for africa. All sorts of fun things. They probably will do something like that after Rome 2 comes out. They have the building blocks in place and I can totally see them having it in preproduction right now. [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] The techtree would be awesome. Going from flintlocks, to rifled percussion cap guns, to breechloaded, to bolt action. [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] And railroad mechanism. [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] I really liked Fots alright.

[QUOTE=Nikota;37140160]I'd totally love empire in the [B]18th[/B] century[/QUOTE] Empire is in the 18th Century. Remember, a century is always 1 number above the actual year, so 19th Century = 1800s and so on.

Oh. Was a typo. Was eating and typing at the same time and wasn't paying attention :v:

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;37140055]I really hope that they don't just keep making sequels. I would prefer having new concepts and ideas and eras (Like the late Victorian Era that FotS takes place in, but on a larger scale) rather than just rehashing the same games, even if they do make them much better and more polished. We still haven't fully explored the possibilities of the engine yet![/QUOTE] What else would they make? Crossing into the 1900s is totally retarded. Total war was dead by then.

I used to hate Empire until I got a new computer and they fixed a lot of the bugs with it. I got addicted to it for a while after.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;37148438]What else would they make? Crossing into the 1900s is totally retarded. Total war was dead by then.[/QUOTE] Yep. War went from regiment based, to company and platoon based because of the increased firepower of bolt action rifles and general purpose machine guns.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;37148438]What else would they make? Crossing into the 1900s is totally retarded. Total war was dead by then.[/QUOTE] Total War dead? Are you serious? Targeting the civilian population, production centers, and other valuable resources (Which is essentially Total War) was rampant in both WWI and WWII. And everybody says "Oh, it's impossible because warfare changed so much" No, a WWI Total War game is not impossible. It would be different, sure, like commanding smaller and more mobile strike units, but it would be unique as a game and you could possibly still keep the massive scale Total War is known for. Besides, it would be nice to employ the different tactics necessary with bolt action rifles and machine guns available, rather than just doing the same old boring "Line up rows of musket men" and other such.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;37152441]Total War dead? Are you serious? Targeting the civilian population, production centers, and other valuable resources (Which is essentially Total War) was rampant in both WWI and WWII. And everybody says "Oh, it's impossible because warfare changed so much" No, a WWI Total War game is not impossible. It would be different, sure, like commanding smaller and more mobile strike units, but it would be unique as a game and you could possibly still keep the massive scale Total War is known for. Besides, it would be nice to employ the different tactics necessary with bolt action rifles and machine guns available, rather than just doing the same old boring "Line up rows of musket men" and other such.[/QUOTE] The concept that total war uses is dead. A world war one total war game would not be fun.

[QUOTE=Killerjc;37153446]The concept that total war uses is dead. A world war one total war game would not be fun.[/QUOTE] Exacly! You cannot have the group based micro that is a squad of 60-200 men in one command group in a WW1 game, [I]especcially[/I] not if you're going to have the game not set on the western front.

Even moreso, ok, you have the battles down. What now? What about the campaign? Say fuck it to diplomacy, because you're at war with a set faction for until the game ends. Your only purpose in the campaign window now is the creation and movement of units, which would have to be massive for an actual world war. You thought empire could be micromanaging at times? Enjoy having about 150 different generals you'll be moving in a single turn to keep a front up.

You guys just aren't thinking outside of the box. A WWI Total War game likely wouldn't be anything like the others as far as control, but we could still have the grand scale. Everyone just bitches about trenches and historically what happened, but since when has Total War even been close to historically accurate?

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;37153524]You guys just aren't thinking outside of the box. A WWI Total War game likely wouldn't be anything like the others as far as control, but we could still have the grand scale. Everyone just bitches about trenches and historically what happened, but since when has Total War even been close to historically accurate?[/QUOTE] The defining feature of World War One were trenches. You cannot release a World War One RTS without trenches. No one would buy it - it would just be Shogun with Austrians or Russians blobbing up and shooting each other with bolt actions.