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

[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;38202133][IMG]http://i46.tinypic.com/2m76ps2.png[/IMG] [img]http://i46.tinypic.com/245byhs.png[/img] Trench Warfare to the max![/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/gnV4n.png[/img] All about the confidence; just fucking act like you're [I]totally[/I] supposed to be in London and nobody will stop you.

[QUOTE=Bert the Turtle;38203170]i always find myself drawn back to playing empire for some reason[/QUOTE] it's a good game.

Playing as Russia on hard in Empire is goddamn exhausting holy shit. Fighting on the European Ottoman front, the Middle-Eastern Ottoman front, the Swedish front, and I have a shitty new Courland-Polish front in the making. I may have taxed my people too much, with high and ultra-high taxes for a large portion of my first ~15 years, and I think that killed my economy. Also holy shit the Ottomans have annoying tendencies. They send tiny, 5 unit civilian armies around supported by a howitzer unit or two and just take and burn everything not defended by a cav / major army. I just captured Istanbul fairly smoothly but the riots were uncontrollable even with 10 units of line infantry, 2 generals, and a bunch of Viborniye Streltsky (who are twice as good at quelling unrest). Now I have 3 Ottoman mini-armies re-capturing everything from here to Moscow and a rebellion running around in Istanbul.

dont spread yourself out.

[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;38202133][IMG]http://i46.tinypic.com/2m76ps2.png[/IMG] [img]http://i46.tinypic.com/245byhs.png[/img] Trench Warfare to the max![/QUOTE] Is this Empire: Total Wars WW1 mod or Napoleon: Total Wars WW1 mod?

[QUOTE=Bert the Turtle;38203170]i always find myself drawn back to playing empire for some reason[/QUOTE] I feel that it has the most re-playability.

[QUOTE=Careld;38204332]Is this Empire: Total Wars WW1 mod or Napoleon: Total Wars WW1 mod?[/QUOTE] Napoleon

[QUOTE=maniac;38200834]Any hope of running Empire on integrated intel graphics?[/QUOTE] I tried running the demo with Intel HD 2000 on a i5-2320 and i barely scraped by on a medium resolution with all low settings so i doubt it unless the 4000 series (which you might not have, i dunno) is a significant improvement.

[QUOTE=Zarjk;38204268]dont spread yourself out.[/QUOTE] It's like telling a person that just got shot: "Don't lose blood". I can't just make peace with Sweden or the Ottoman empire. Whether they would like to or not (which they would not), I'm conquering this side of the Mediterranean to make peace. If I didn't suppress and capture Istanbul for example I would have had a constant stream of troops coming into Crimea and moving on towards Moscow. Honestly I wanted to make a joke game where I took the Balkans and then proceeding to conquer all of the Americas but nobody wants to make peace :(.

[QUOTE=Mbbird;38204724]It's like telling a person that just got shot: "Don't lose blood". I can't just make peace with Sweden or the Ottoman empire. Whether they would like to or not (which they would not), I'm conquering this side of the Mediterranean to make peace. If I didn't suppress and capture Istanbul for example I would have had a constant stream of troops coming into Crimea and moving on towards Moscow. Honestly I wanted to make a joke game where I took the Balkans and then proceeding to conquer all of the Americas but nobody wants to make peace :(.[/QUOTE] I vote that if Istanbul can't be reigned in within the next few turns or so, you raze it to the ground.

[QUOTE=Mbbird;38204724]It's like telling a person that just got shot: "Don't lose blood". I can't just make peace with Sweden or the Ottoman empire. Whether they would like to or not (which they would not), I'm conquering this side of the Mediterranean to make peace. If I didn't suppress and capture Istanbul for example I would have had a constant stream of troops coming into Crimea and moving on towards Moscow. Honestly I wanted to make a joke game where I took the Balkans and then proceeding to conquer all of the Americas but nobody wants to make peace :(.[/QUOTE] The Swedish are such dicks, and the worst part is that they're best friends with the Ottomans so fighting them risks losing a huge chunk of trade.

[QUOTE=Careld;38204332]Is this Empire: Total Wars empiesWW1 mod or Napoleon: Total Wars WW1 mod?[/QUOTE] Empires naploeons update isn't out

[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] It's like you didn't even read my post :| I never said a WWI Total War would be boring--all I said was that the late-period Total War games became stale faster due to a lack of unit variety as a result of standardized armies. I'm sure a WWI TW game could be quite fun, if it were made correctly, but I'd likely lose interest much faster because every army you fought would have the same basic composition--not like in Rome, or something, where each nation had wildly different armies and tactics. If you have a world domination game with a campaign as long as the Total War campaigns, you've gotta have a whole lot of variety to keep it fresh, you dig? Although it would be pretty interesting to see how they'd incorporate things like aerial units and poison gas, seeing as how those played such important roles in WWI. I imagine the only way to pull it off effectively would be to reduce the unit size to platoon-sized (12-24 men), but allowing you to control more overall units, and have the units react to their environment more intelligently by automatically seeking nearby cover and whatnot, rather than simply marching in formation. But, by that point, you're starting to break free from the "Total War" style of gameplay, and into more traditional RTS territory, which begs the question: why not just play one of the many "contemporary" warfare RTS's already on the market?

You guys have to pay them up to 10k if you must to stop fighting, I've done it. Of course I'm sitting at 400k with 50k coming from trading every turn but yeah.

Ooh, you know what did "unit variety" almost (if not better than) any of the official Total War games? Third Age: Total War. Man, oh man! That was a [i]fantastic[/I] mod! The only thing that really ruined it for me was that the campaign AI blatantly cheated--spawning full-stack armies at random in the middle of your territory, or just outside towns you were sieging, despite the fact that you had them down to two udnerdeveloped little farmtowns and they were bankrupt. I remember how frustrated I got at that game sometimes, haha. One time, I went for a financial campaign, making allies and establishing trade routes and building huge armies and preparing for war with Mumakil and riders and all that other good shit. I start rolling through Mordor, but every time I took a town and advanced my front, new armies would just spawn behind me. Eventually I just got whittled down by the cheating AI. I might redownload the mod (if they fixed the nearly unwinnable campaign map).

BDA whenever you write i imagine a flamboyantly gay statesman speaking to a crowd of neckbearded acne ridden morbidly obese teenagers

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;38207933]But, by that point, you're starting to break free from the "Total War" style of gameplay, and into more traditional RTS territory, which begs the question: why not just play one of the many "contemporary" warfare RTS's already on the market?[/QUOTE] There aren't any good WWI RTS games that I'm aware of. As much fun as games like Medieval and Rome are, they can't just keep remaking them. Rome 2 looks great, but where do they go from there? Medieval 3? Shogun 3? How many times can they keep remaking the same eras before people have had enough? There has to be a point where they move to a new time period. Empire was their first attempt, and while it had a lot of faults at release, it was still a good game. I think a game starting in the early 19th century and ending in the early 20th would be great; much better than seeing another remake of Medieval or Shogun, anyway.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;38207933]It's like you didn't even read my post :| I never said a WWI Total War would be boring--all I said was that the late-period Total War games became stale faster due to a lack of unit variety as a result of standardized armies. I'm sure a WWI TW game could be quite fun, if it were made correctly, but I'd likely lose interest much faster because every army you fought would have the same basic composition--not like in Rome, or something, where each nation had wildly different armies and tactics. If you have a world domination game with a campaign as long as the Total War campaigns, you've gotta have a whole lot of variety to keep it fresh, you dig? Although it would be pretty interesting to see how they'd incorporate things like aerial units and poison gas, seeing as how those played such important roles in WWI. I imagine the only way to pull it off effectively would be to reduce the unit size to platoon-sized (12-24 men), but allowing you to control more overall units, and have the units react to their environment more intelligently by automatically seeking nearby cover and whatnot, rather than simply marching in formation. But, by that point, you're starting to break free from the "Total War" style of gameplay, and into more traditional RTS territory, which begs the question: why not just play one of the many "contemporary" warfare RTS's already on the market?[/QUOTE] I would really like a WW1, WW2 or Modern Warfare RTT game though, Men of war kind of did it but I couldn't really get the hang of that. [editline]27th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=sanitarium.;38208272]There aren't any good WWI RTS games that I'm aware of. As much fun as games like Medieval and Rome are, they can't just keep remaking them. Rome 2 looks great, but where do they go from there? Medieval 3? Shogun 3? How many times can they keep remaking the same eras before people have had enough? There has to be a point where they move to a new time period. Empire was their first attempt, and while it had a lot of faults at release, it was still a good game. I think a game starting in the early 19th century and ending in the early 20th would be great; much better than seeing another remake of Medieval or Shogun, anyway.[/QUOTE] They could always start a new IP for more modern strategy games. As long as they don't make it like Stormrise.

i feel like TW games only work during eras that people fought in rectangles. WWI was kind of the end of that (well probably a little before but that was the first world wide conflict to do it) even then i don't get why cav bunch up in these games during a melee engagement. why the hell wouldn't you just run through the crowd?? trample people for shit's sake

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38208277]I would really like a WW1, WW2 or Modern Warfare RTT game though, Men of war kind of did it but I couldn't really get the hang of that.[/QUOTE] A good WW2 RTS would be the Combat Mission games in terms of battles, haven't tried the campaign on that yet but damn the battles in there are tons of fun. I would recommend trying one of those like Battle for Normandy or the latest Fortress Italy, it takes a bit to get used to but tons of fun once you do.

[QUOTE=Mbbird;38204724]It's like telling a person that just got shot: "Don't lose blood". I can't just make peace with Sweden or the Ottoman empire. Whether they would like to or not (which they would not), I'm conquering this side of the Mediterranean to make peace. If I didn't suppress and capture Istanbul for example I would have had a constant stream of troops coming into Crimea and moving on towards Moscow. Honestly I wanted to make a joke game where I took the Balkans and then proceeding to conquer all of the Americas but nobody wants to make peace :(.[/QUOTE] Conquering the Balkans and invading America is exactly what I just did, I got to Antigua before riots, attacks from the Persians, swedes, and Georgians fucked me over.

[QUOTE=bobsynergy;38208539]A good WW2 RTS would be the Combat Mission games in terms of battles, haven't tried the campaign on that yet but damn the battles in there are tons of fun. I would recommend trying one of those like Battle for Normandy or the latest Fortress Italy, it takes a bit to get used to but tons of fun once you do.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't mind trying out Achtung Panzer at some point, but I've got so many other games on my list to buy I never really get round to buying the side games I look at. [editline]27th October 2012[/editline] Also any advice for taking on Sweden as the Austrians? So far they control most of Russia along with Denmark and are being a general pain in the ass.

It might be fun to see them take a slightly different approach and abandon historical eras for a game. Personally, I think it'd be the bees knees to see a fantasy-based Total War game. Like, Warcraft, but with actual TW-level strategy and armies. It'll never happen, but I guess that's what mods are for! [QUOTE=Killerjc;38208078]BDA whenever you write i imagine a flamboyantly gay statesman speaking to a crowd of neckbearded acne ridden morbidly obese teenagers[/QUOTE] 100% accurate on all counts.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;38207933]It's like you didn't even read my post :| I never said a WWI Total War would be boring--all I said was that the late-period Total War games became stale faster due to a lack of unit variety as a result of standardized armies. I'm sure a WWI TW game could be quite fun, if it were made correctly, but I'd likely lose interest much faster because every army you fought would have the same basic composition--not like in Rome, or something, where each nation had wildly different armies and tactics. If you have a world domination game with a campaign as long as the Total War campaigns, you've gotta have a whole lot of variety to keep it fresh, you dig? Although it would be pretty interesting to see how they'd incorporate things like aerial units and poison gas, seeing as how those played such important roles in WWI. I imagine the only way to pull it off effectively would be to reduce the unit size to platoon-sized (12-24 men), but allowing you to control more overall units, and have the units react to their environment more intelligently by automatically seeking nearby cover and whatnot, rather than simply marching in formation. But, by that point, you're starting to break free from the "Total War" style of gameplay, and into more traditional RTS territory, which begs the question: why not just play one of the many "contemporary" warfare RTS's already on the market?[/QUOTE] Commanding many small units of men (platoon size) during the WWI era is by no means "already on the market" anyway. Honestly the closest thing I can think of to do that with a multiplayer community would be Wargame:EE, and that's the Cold War era. I feel if that's what they chose (platoon scale units that act kinda fluidly rather than company scale units that act very fluid) to do that it'd still feel very much like a TW game. Imagine if the smallest infantry unit in Men of War was 12 men strong for example. There's a reason infantry fights in other RTSes of this physical scale rarely rise above the company level: They give you very precise individual control instead of very broad control as in TW games. I think you can maintain that sense of broad control even on a more dynamic 20th century battlefield. And again, it's not like we have any quality late 19th early 20th century RTSes on the market anyway. I'd just love to see what TW could do with the era. If they have learned from Shogun 2, and the seemingly unanimous agreement that it completely lacks variety of any sort, I think they could find plenty of tidbits to work off of to create a different feel for each army. I think Empire is a good example of the bare minimum of unit variety required to keep the game interesting. But beyond that they're going to need to give the different nations different AI patterns. EG: Germany shouldn't fight the same as the Russians.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;38208029]Ooh, you know what did "unit variety" almost (if not better than) any of the official Total War games? Third Age: Total War. Man, oh man! That was a [i]fantastic[/I] mod! The only thing that really ruined it for me was that the campaign AI blatantly cheated--spawning full-stack armies at random in the middle of your territory, or just outside towns you were sieging, despite the fact that you had them down to two udnerdeveloped little farmtowns and they were bankrupt. I remember how frustrated I got at that game sometimes, haha. One time, I went for a financial campaign, making allies and establishing trade routes and building huge armies and preparing for war with Mumakil and riders and all that other good shit. I start rolling through Mordor, but every time I took a town and advanced my front, new armies would just spawn behind me. Eventually I just got whittled down by the cheating AI. I might redownload the mod (if they fixed the nearly unwinnable campaign map).[/QUOTE] Third Age is pretty much the only reason I still play Medieval II. If you are going to download it, also get the MOS submod, it adds a lot of awesome stuff. Also, there's a cheat-removal mod for MOS, which is great.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;38207933]It's like you didn't even read my post :| I never said a WWI Total War would be boring--all I said was that the late-period Total War games became stale faster due to a lack of unit variety as a result of standardized armies. I'm sure a WWI TW game could be quite fun, if it were made correctly, but I'd likely lose interest much faster because every army you fought would have the same basic composition--not like in Rome, or something, where each nation had wildly different armies and tactics. If you have a world domination game with a campaign as long as the Total War campaigns, you've gotta have a whole lot of variety to keep it fresh, you dig? Although it would be pretty interesting to see how they'd incorporate things like aerial units and poison gas, seeing as how those played such important roles in WWI. I imagine the only way to pull it off effectively would be to reduce the unit size to platoon-sized (12-24 men), but allowing you to control more overall units, and have the units react to their environment more intelligently by automatically seeking nearby cover and whatnot, rather than simply marching in formation. But, by that point, you're starting to break free from the "Total War" style of gameplay, and into more traditional RTS territory, which begs the question: why not just play one of the many "contemporary" warfare RTS's already on the market?[/QUOTE] But look at Napoleon TW, all the units were balanced with other countries. Obviously gameplay would have to change to meet the new period but I don't see why Creative Assembly couldn't do it.

[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;38209681]But look at Napoleon TW, all the units were balanced with other countries. Obviously gameplay would have to change to meet the new period but I don't see why Creative Assembly couldn't do it.[/QUOTE] It would deviate from the usual to much and piss a load of the fans off. Even Empire was met with some resistance from some fans because it focused around guns.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38212171]It would deviate from the usual to much and piss a load of the fans off. Even Empire was met with some resistance from some fans because it focused around guns.[/QUOTE] Then TW has a very strange, whiny community.

[QUOTE=Mbbird;38212239]Then TW has a very strange, whiny community.[/QUOTE] TWCenter already has threads about people worrying that Rome 2 is going to be a terrible game because they've only shown the battle of Carthage so far and 'its coming out in 2013!'

[QUOTE=Mbbird;38212239]Then TW has a very strange, whiny community.[/QUOTE] it certainly does I personally loved Empire despite it's problems, I found it a lot easier to manage stuff on it compared to other total wars were I'd just get to a point where I just couldn't conquer any further due to funds randomly drying up, economically it was a lot easier to manage and is the only total war were I've stuck through to finish a campaign. But apparently if every game doesn't revolve around close quarters combat it's a bad game.