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

The problem with late-period Total War game are that armies have essentially been standardized. Unit variety is what leads to fun and unique experiences against different nations and armies, but you lose that as you start delving into the gunpowder age. It's why Rome still stands as one of the best TW games, in my opinion! Every empire had their own unique armies and methods of warfare--which meant that you had to adapt new tactics for every front. With Napolean and Empire, the units were quite a bit more standardized. Even with a huge number of different units, they were still all just minor variations of the same basic idea--riflemen are riflemen. Even Medieval 2 suffered from this, to a lesser degree, since the European armies were all rather standardized and official by that point in history. Nothing beats the variety of tactics and brutality seen in early warfare, before the adoption of general-purpose militaries. It was very thrilling marching your campaign through Greece in Total War, and learning how to counter the hoplites and phalanxes and whatnot, then sailing into Egypt and suddenly finding huge waves of camel riders and scythe chariots. At the same time, you're rolling through Germania and being accosted by massive hordes of impetuous, charging barbarians. I had fun with all the Total War games, but I don't think any of them did variety in tactics, units, and overall experiences quite so well as Rome did.

Cavalry are melee supplements, and skirmisher hunters to me. I use them when I engage someone else in melee, from the flank, or if they're heavy cav, just send them against non pike/spear infantry. General Bodyguards in MTW2 are OP as shit.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;38186343]The problem with late-period Total War game are that armies have essentially been standardized. Unit variety is what leads to fun and unique experiences against different nations and armies, but you lose that as you start delving into the gunpowder age. It's why Rome still stands as one of the best TW games, in my opinion! Every empire had their own unique armies and methods of warfare--which meant that you had to adapt new tactics for every front. With Napolean and Empire, the units were quite a bit more standardized. Even with a huge number of different units, they were still all just minor variations of the same basic idea--riflemen are riflemen. Even Medieval 2 suffered from this, to a lesser degree, since the European armies were all rather standardized and official by that point in history. Nothing beats the variety of tactics and brutality seen in early warfare, before the adoption of general-purpose militaries. It was very thrilling marching your campaign through Greece in Total War, and learning how to counter the hoplites and phalanxes and whatnot, then sailing into Egypt and suddenly finding huge waves of camel riders and scythe chariots. At the same time, you're rolling through Germania and being accosted by massive hordes of impetuous, charging barbarians. I had fun with all the Total War games, but I don't think any of them did variety in tactics, units, and overall experiences quite so well as Rome did.[/QUOTE] And this is why I can't wait until Rome II.

Yeah I'm really excited to see what they've done with the barbarian tribes in Rome 2 in terms of their looks and how they're notorious ferocity will affect their units battle animations/troop formations.

[QUOTE=Chocolate.;38186676]Yeah I'm really excited to see what they've done with the barbarian tribes in Rome 2 in terms of their looks and how they're notorious ferocity will affect their units battle animations/troop formations.[/QUOTE] I hope they can balance them well. They said Gauls and other barbarians would fight in ragged mobs for the most part, and as history shows, that is useless against the Roman meatgrinder. No idea how they can make it balanced.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;38187087]I hope they can balance them well. They said Gauls and other barbarians would fight in ragged mobs for the most part, and as history shows, that is useless against the Roman meatgrinder. No idea how they can make it balanced.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Chickens!;38186019][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/k89HE.png[/IMG] Sun Tzu said that.[/QUOTE]

Dammit, this great war mod crashes every time I enter a battle, I got all the patches and stuff but it still won't work.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;38187087]I hope they can balance them well. They said Gauls and other barbarians would fight in ragged mobs for the most part, and as history shows, that is useless against the Roman meatgrinder. No idea how they can make it balanced.[/QUOTE] Probably with strength in numbers and possibly bonuses to morale shock. [IMG]http://i978.photobucket.com/albums/ae262/HistoryTwistOfLime/NakedGauls.jpg[/IMG] The gauls were well known for being scary as fuck on the battlefield after all. [editline]25th October 2012[/editline] And naked.

I'm trying to get back into R:TW but i always seem to encounter some horseshit that makes me quit such as; enemy light cavalry charging head on into my phalanx making them rout, my archers standing there waiting for the enemy cavalry to murder them all, and entire navies being destroyed by two rebel pirate ships.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;38186343]The problem with late-period Total War game are that armies have essentially been standardized. Unit variety is what leads to fun and unique experiences against different nations and armies, but you lose that as you start delving into the gunpowder age. It's why Rome still stands as one of the best TW games, in my opinion! Every empire had their own unique armies and methods of warfare--which meant that you had to adapt new tactics for every front. With Napolean and Empire, the units were quite a bit more standardized. Even with a huge number of different units, they were still all just minor variations of the same basic idea--riflemen are riflemen. Even Medieval 2 suffered from this, to a lesser degree, since the European armies were all rather standardized and official by that point in history. Nothing beats the variety of tactics and brutality seen in early warfare, before the adoption of general-purpose militaries. It was very thrilling marching your campaign through Greece in Total War, and learning how to counter the hoplites and phalanxes and whatnot, then sailing into Egypt and suddenly finding huge waves of camel riders and scythe chariots. At the same time, you're rolling through Germania and being accosted by massive hordes of impetuous, charging barbarians. I had fun with all the Total War games, but I don't think any of them did variety in tactics, units, and overall experiences quite so well as Rome did.[/QUOTE] Boring? A WWI Total War would be anything but boring. You'll get plenty of tactics, and oh, brutality? You'd get brutality. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwv_ZFld6Ig[/media]

If they made a WW1 Total War game, they would really need to make the map destructible. And maybe if you fought around the same area again, or for many turns in a row, the damage of continuous warfare would not only stay on the battlefield but move to the campaign map too.

[QUOTE=Zarjk;38184861]they are not meant to fuck up moral, their job is to destroy it. just rush them after you have half their force down, I'm pretty sure if I had 60 troops left and had 40 large men on large horses with long ass sabers, I'd run like hell.[/QUOTE] I charged 120 Sillidar Lancers in 70 Qizilbashil cavalry, from the side, just as they were charged by infantry from the front. So they were idle, a huge target and the stats for the two units were pretty much the same, except Sillidar Lancers have a charge rating of 22. I lost most of them while I focused elsewhere. I'm playing Darthmod by the way. [quote]Wrong. I see you edited, but to elaborate They are meant to turn the tide of a battle, not make the battle in the first place and certainly not charge into full strength infantry regiments before they've been so much as seen by your own infantry. If your infantry are sort of losing, maybe both you and the enemy are wavering, cavalry can win the day (so can artillery but that's not nearly as flexible or reliable). Not only that, but having 3 or 4 units of cavalry in a 20 unit vs 20 unit army prevents the enemy can be useful to pick off survivors as they retreat, so you don't end up with 60 enemies you have to deal with behind your lines after they retreat. Cavalry ranks up really fast for that reason. And if you use them right your cavalry will rarely lose more than 10% of their units' max strength per battle.[/quote] Cavalry do fine charging from the front if the enemy unit doesn't get the chance to fire (and the Cav unit is anything better than Hussars and even high tier Dragoons). Also the one time I charged the Qizilbashil infantry they were already depleted to 225 men roughly from 375, against 500 or so Bargir Infantry and 2 units of Cav that charged from the sides, and still the latter got wiped out and the former almost lost. [quote]In my Maratha Confederacy campaign I was early on faced with 1:4 unit ratios against me and came out victorious. To be honest I don't know how it's possible to lose a battle of 240 horsemen vs 70, nevermind with that infantry backing them up. You're relying on cavalry and peasants too much. Back up your infantry with hindu warriors and don't get into melee fights with your line infantry. Also don't bother with peasants, they're not worth it. And place your generals' elephants near one of the flanks. If you find you're losing on that flank you can quite easily charge in, kill 1/3 a unit in that one charge, and demoralize that enemys' entire flank. Edited: Also the Maratha Confederacy is probably one of the most fun factions in the game. Give them a chance, they're not like European nations. Later on since they can't use fire by rank (FOR WHATEVER FUCKING REASON) you'll have to rely on elephants and melee infantry even more.[/quote] Heh, I've been charging enemy infantry because I've just been playing Russia with 2:1 number ratios most of the time. I think it was 120 horsemen with the second occurence actually, because I only had half unit sizes for some dumb reason on all my units at the start of the campaign.

[QUOTE=gamerman345;38155087][/QUOTE] calm down. i already stated that i wasn't repeating MY opinions, you assuming ass. I was drawing attention to the consensus in order to illustrate that humans fear change. Don't be such an asshole. I guess you're one of THOSE people...

I saw those WW1 mod pictures, shat my pants, went to the mod forums and started crying.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;38194520]calm down. i already stated that i wasn't repeating MY opinions, you assuming ass. I was drawing attention to the consensus in order to illustrate that humans fear change. Don't be such an asshole. I guess you're one of THOSE people...[/QUOTE] Please tell me why you're being so overly defensive?

[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;38194612]I saw those WW1 mod pictures, shat my pants, went to the mod forums and started crying.[/QUOTE] Why's that?

After abandoning Moscow and positioning my troops in Ukraine, I managed to get another army out there to hold Moscow. Now I can have an army in the middle of those two capitals and do fine. Now I intend on heading to their most heavily guarded city, Athens. I've also reduced Russia to the areas around Greece, slowly crunching down on them.

[QUOTE=Broguts;38196508]Why's that?[/QUOTE] they be cool [editline]26th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ewitwins;38189963]Boring? A WWI Total War would be anything but boring. You'll get plenty of tactics, and oh, brutality? You'd get brutality. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwv_ZFld6Ig[/media][/QUOTE] I liked pascendale as a movie, but the battles weren't realistic at all lol [editline]26th October 2012[/editline] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq_1aZdnEjg&feature=g-hist[/media] Just watched this movie, damn WWI sucked donkey balls

I just read that Americans accounted for only 2% of losses in WW1, Serbia was 8% and Russia was 30%

[QUOTE=Broguts;38197074]I just read that Americans accounted for only 2% of losses in WW1, Serbia was 8% and Russia was 30%[/QUOTE] We only came in in 1917, a year before the war ended. Serbia and Russia from the start. Also blame Russia's TERRIBLE leadership most exemplified in the battle of Tannenburg.

[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;38197243]We only came in in 1917, a year before the war ended. Serbia and Russia from the start. Also blame Russia's TERRIBLE leadership most exemplified in the battle of Tannenburg.[/QUOTE] Weren't there weapons and ammunition dated and badly distributed too? I really wish I hadn't been falling asleep while going over WWI in Euro last year. Would've gotten so much more out of it if I didn't have it 1st period. Reminds me that I've been trying to see "Admiral" ("Адмиралъ") for a while. [editline]ajkyla[/editline] [url]http://www.imdb.com/list/qRvk7trfzh4/[/url] Great WWI movies and hardly any of them are >8 / 10 stars. I'm glad I'm not a movie critic.

Well I took Athens with a small force of only 1500 line infantry.

[QUOTE=Mbbird;38199331]Weren't there weapons and ammunition dated and badly distributed too? I really wish I hadn't been falling asleep while going over WWI in Euro last year. Would've gotten so much more out of it if I didn't have it 1st period. Reminds me that I've been trying to see "Admiral" for a while. [editline]ajkyla[/editline] [url]http://www.imdb.com/list/qRvk7trfzh4/[/url] Great WWI movies and hardly any of them are >8 / 10 stars. I'm glad I'm not a movie critic.[/QUOTE] Only 1/3 men had firearms I think. Or it might have been 1/3 men didn't but still either ratio is awful considering they had thousands of men. At Tannenberg they threw away the lives of almost the entire 2nd army. Why? two absolutely terrible generals (Alexander Samsanov and Paul Von Renenkampf) who were favoured by the Tsar, despite the fact they completely fucked up the Russo-Japanese war back in 1905 as well by failing to consolidate a victory in even a single battle, losing massive amounts of men and equipment despite outnumbering the enemy almost every time. They hated each other and didn't work well together. Russo Japanese war battles: [img]http://puu.sh/1j5sj[/img] The Tsar should have looked at the war like that and said "jesus christ I need new generals." What did he do? [i]he let Tannenberg happen by keeping these idiots in command.[/i] Then he joined the front to command himself and arguably changed the face of modern world history forever by letting dissent go rampant and breed the eventual birth of Communism in Russia, which killed a disgusting amount of people and influenced the world as we know it.

Russia still had some good generals and successes, (Brusilov offensive) although if the tsar was a more capable leader they could have won the war.

Any hope of running Empire on integrated intel graphics?

[QUOTE=Chocolate.;38187887]Probably with strength in numbers and possibly bonuses to morale shock. [IMG]http://i978.photobucket.com/albums/ae262/HistoryTwistOfLime/NakedGauls.jpg[/IMG] The gauls were well known for being scary as fuck on the battlefield after all. [editline]25th October 2012[/editline] And naked.[/QUOTE] Historical Trivia: Through a combination of clever shield and sword design and straight-up magic, many Gauls were able to achieve mid-battle flight. Pictured: a Gallic airman during takeoff

Why are minor nations such dicks in Empire, Saxony declared war on me for no reason and sent a full stack to attack Paris (A battle I won using mostly Flintlock Citizenry against their well trained line infantry and many cannons). It's rather annoying when I'm trying to fight off a crazy Swedish empire that's taken over most of Russia

[IMG]http://i46.tinypic.com/2m76ps2.png[/IMG] [img]http://i46.tinypic.com/245byhs.png[/img] Trench Warfare to the max!

[QUOTE=Killerjc;38155409] The concept of a total war only came to during WWI[/QUOTE] Actually the term was coined during the 1880 Boer Wars.

i always find myself drawn back to playing empire for some reason