Rome 2 Has Failed So Here Goes Nothing...

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

So I got Rome 2 and a bunch of epiphanies hit me in the face.

Diplomacy in TW games have always sucked.

Unit variety is fake and pretty much all the units are the same.

The game should be more about tactics and strategy rather than recruiting units with better stats.

I wanted this for a long time, obviously since I am Chinese, but I told myself, no it would be selfish to want a game all to myself. This is considering most TW players are from areas where Chinese history is relatively unknown, and would probably not enjoy a game set in China. However I have done a 180.

Rome 2 is a grand failurel. All the units are pretty much the same. CA doesn't even pay attention to historical "plausibility" anymore. So there goes basically all the same units argument. Honestly I was really surprised by this. I did not expect for the units in Rome 2 to feel so alike, but they do. The stat differences are minimal, and most of them don't matter in comparison to actual knowledge of battle tactics. Naval combat is also a joke as all but the top top tier units have differences in terms of gameplay style.

Please, CA, just make TW Dynasties. Make it so we can equip basic units with weapons instead of recruiting better stat units. Make it so we can increase the effectiveness of troops by spending money on training them. Please make diplomacy realistic. Please give us family trees. Please iron out the bugs before releasing a game. Please don't ruin the already awesome Shogun 2 UI. Please don't be stupid. Ok?

My point is that CA does SEEM to work much better within a limited cultural landscape when it comes to creating TW games, so why not ancient China? It'll be like a larger Shogun 2.

You can start off as a warlord during the decline of a dynasty, how about Tang? Tang Dynasty is in decline and An Lushan is reaking havoc in China, proclaiming his new Yan Dynasty. You can play as him or the Tang Loyalists, or any of the other factions. Tang Dynasty attacked Korea for example. CA can include the new Silla Dynasty in Korea as one of the factions. Hell, even Yamato proto Samurai. Wouldn't that be sweet? Also there's the far western end of the Tang Dynasty. You can play as remnant factions cut off from the Tang after the rebellion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Lushan_Rebellion#Legacy

Romance of the Three Kingdoms era.

Warring States era is probably impossible considering the lack of information.

Changes That Need to Be Made For the TW Franchiese to EVOLVE:

1. Get rid of the fake "unit variety." The player should be able to recruit any certain number of troops as long as he has the resources. What that means is that you should be able to recruit 177 men, 98 men, or even 62 men. These will be the player's "basic troops." The player should be able to outfit them with supplies he purchases. So that means armor, weapons, rations, and housing. These troops should perform based on their military training, their commander, and their active service history. The armies need to feel like YOU MADE THEM.

2. Diplomacy needs to change. There should be more ways to affect the relations between two countries, aside from just waging war on one and not the other. There should be combined arms practices, joint military operations, political deals, marriages, sworn brotherhood banquets, celebrations after defeating a mutual enemy, backstabbings, sale of land, purchases of land, etc. Even the internal administration of the player "empire" should change. It no longer feels personal or realistic for the player to control such a vast empire. I suggest CA take the Crusader King's route. The player will play a "dynasty" of characters, with succession, death, marriage, concubines, the whole shabang. Conquered territories should have to have local rulers when the player's character leaves, if he chooses to even personally lead the army himself. Ministers should grow bold and challenge the player's sovereignty if left unchecked. The player should have advisers, master of coin, master of intrigue, etc. These should all be included.

3. The map needs to feel compact, but relevant. In Rome 2, CA took out all the gold mines, the farms, the little things on the map that made it relevant. What they added instead were choke points, narrow corridors, and more fake "map." Each part of the map should feel like it matters. The yellow river or the yangtze should play crucial parts in the game to control rice cultivation, essentially blocking access to rations from your enemies the more contorl of it you have. Farms, silver mines, gold mines, tea plantations, silk makers, paper makers, should all be interactive destinations on the map. Most of all, the map should BE ATMOSPHERIC. It should make you feel like you're a part of the setting, and not just an empty, ugly, piece of cardboard.

I don't see China being in a Total War game for awhile. I feel a good majority of the player-base would not be interested in that time period. I think we will either see a Warhammer Total War or Medieval 3. Onto your points.

1. Your idea is interesting. It sounds fun, but it also sounds rather complex. Strategy games have few enough casual players. I don't think they would want to drive them off by making recruiting units so complex. It also sounds like it would get rather tedious if you are in a rush.

2. Diplomacy could be more complex, but once again if you make it to complex it's going to drive away more casual players.

3. This I agree with. The map needs to return to Shogun 2 and Empire style. I really don't know why they decided to do this.

The game may have had a shaky launch, but I feel many of the problems have been fixed. Or maybe it's because I've been running the Radious mod since the workshop started up.

100% with you on diplomacy. In Shogun 2 it was immensely frustrating to have 'Very Friendly' clans declare war on me out of the blue (particularly when I was already a force to be reckoned with) and then to have clans refuse peace even when I've done nothing but kick their collective cans up and down the island for months.

I feel there should be more options with diplomacy, and a bit more 'motivation' on behalf of the participants. Weak nations should be clamoring for alliances with stronger ones; creating a diplomatic dilemma on behalf of the player. If he has too many allies, then he might be forced to break alliances if a superpower he's unprepared to fight attacks one of his smaller allies. However, for every alliance he refuses; he potentially strengthens his enemies.

Troop trading, or 'leasing' could add an interesting dynamic to proceedings. Exclusive trade deals on a particular resource is also an idea. Hell, you could even have nations attempt to bribe each other into not joining a war so that you have *some* option when you're staring down the barrel of a major alliance conflict.

Even something as simple as a sense of 'what they want' would be good for diplomacy as at least it would take the confusion out of offering a good deal to a friendly nation and having it soundly rejected.

I haven't played Rome 2 yet, so I can't really comment on the diplomacy or unit types arguments, but what you propose sounds feasible. And you're not the first person I've heard critic sing the mechanics in the latest Total War.

On the other hand I wholeheartedly agree that I'd like to see some Total War games take place in new places. I think a Chinese one would be amazing, although I'd really like to see one set in the pre-Colombian Americas, or maybe Africa, or really any areas that don't get much coverage on most video games.

Sadly though you're probably right, the fanbase and developers probably take too much of a Eurocentric view to use settings that aren't European. On the other hand they did do one set in Japan, so maybe they might do something set in China. It would certainly be worth playing if they did.

Wait wait wait....Eurotards?............. Anyway whatever, I agree with what you're saying, I've screamed on this site before about setting one in ancient/"medieval" China, theres just so much scope. Plus being a big fan of the Chinese cinema epics also greases the wheels massively on this aspect.

Medieval 2 was a step up (and made me fall behind in high school), Shogun 2 was a massive step up (and made me fall behind in university), Rome 2......I've actually thrown the game into the pond in the back yard a month or so ago. Never mind what you've addressed up there, the overall game execution is poor, even the music is boring.

I digress, as much as I'd like to see a different setting, China being the most feasible, I can see a pattern emerging here. Would NOT surprise me in the least if the next game in the series was Medieval 3, then we can truly say that this license is circling the drain.

What do you mean that it failed? That you don't like it? That it didn't live up to the inevitable hype of being a sequel to Rome: Total War? I happen to like it for the most part, certainly more than I liked Shogun 2. And it was a hell of a lot less buggy at launch than Empire. Some of the changes I don't like and some I do. But Mods help with most of the things that I don't like. Still hate not being able to attack cities that are under blockade by other factions. Especially since the AI is very fond of blockading stuff.

I like some of your ideas but I don't think they would be at home in a TW game. Seems more like a Paradox game to me. Maybe more streamlined versions could be added to a TW game. I would for example really like if you could convert more units to better units of the same type. Seems to me that a peasant militia that has fought in a dozen battles would be retrained and reequipped and made into a proper unit. On that note their really should be some kind of natural attrition and loss of experience. After all it's not really the same people doing the fighting decade after decade.

Sadly, you're right. Rome 2 was a massive step backward for the series. I would buy a TW game set in China... after careful research and giving CA at least 6 months to patch up their broken garbage... during a steam sale... maybe. After Rome 2, I'm erring on the side of caution, no matter how good the premise.

1. Sounds a little too complicated. I know they completely dumbed things down, but you don't want to swing too far in the other direction either.

2. Sounds good, though I think the diplomacy AI in Shogun 2 is about as good as CA is ever going to get.

3. Agreed.

Aside from the 'Eurotards' comment I'm totally with the OP. I never got round to playing Shogun 2 but I got burned by Rome 2. I preordered and everything too. What a waste.

As for a game focused on China, sure I'd play it, but I want fantasy Warhammer first.

Haukur Isleifsson:
What do you mean that it failed?

JNo it was just objectively bad when it was first released. The graphics bugged out, the AI was incredibly stupid, half the features they were on about during the lead up to the game didnt work correctly, the units all mashed together in a really lazy swarm everyone clipping into everyone else where as in the first rome they had ordered lines like they should have, the naval units being objectively worse than ground units on transports...It was just a mess.

I uninstalled it and havent tried it with any of the new patches though.

As for the OT:

1. That seems like an interesting idea, but not really like Total war, the unit variety was rarely fake in previous iterations, its just in Rome 2 it all felt very samey due to the aforementioned mob retardedness on the games part.

2. I would really like a more in depth diplomacy system, they coulda done much better.

3. I didn't enjoy the Rome 2 map it was kind of...lazy I guess.

But I dont think I would enjoy a china or africa or whatever game. I do think they should take a swing at a fantasy game like Warhammer or maybe even Warmachine universes.

I think you are judging a bit harsh on how the fan base would react to a TW set in China, I would love to play a game set in China. Hell I don't think anyone really cares where the next one is set as long as it is not the steaming heap of shit that Rome 2 is

I wont lie, i thought Rome 2 was a pile of shit and that is me being nice about it. After reading your post i defiantly wouldn't object to a Chinese campaign, i dont know much about the history of china but i didnt know much about Japan and i like Shogun 2 (long after release once they patched the crap out of it).

Onto your surgestions

1. This actually sounds pretty awesome, I do fear it might be a little too complex for TotalWar but it really does sound pretty good. It would also let you customize your nation more to how you want it.

2. Ok, Diplomacy needs to be more complex, but before we do that we need to have the AI be remotely competant with the basic diplomacy first.... Which it isnt by a long shot. So i agree again with this bit but we first need to get somewhat good AI first.
Also btw i think Shogun 2's AI was all over the place, I was able to end some wars really quickly after defeating armies and they realise they couldnt fight anymore, and they would then give into some demands like peace, offer money etc (this is good AI). Then i had times when the nation would be wiped out but they refused to accept even a white peace. And the amount of times ive had Allies who loved me declare war on me for no reason at all.... AHHHHFHFHDSDDSFGSFTGSHAKJ! (This is bad AI)

3. OH GOD SWEET JESUS YES! Having a reason to want "that territory" would be amazing beyong beliefe and i think Shogun 2 did this really well. Like if i didnt have access to horses i couldnt recruit cavalry. Having stone gave me cheaper buildings (or some other bonus, its been a while).

Idlemessiah:
Aside from the 'Eurotards' comment I'm totally with the OP. I never got round to playing Shogun 2 but I got burned by Rome 2. I preordered and everything too. What a waste.

As for a game focused on China, sure I'd play it, but I want fantasy Warhammer first.

I don't think CA has even said the Warhammer title will be a part of the TW franchise.

As for the Eurotard comment, read pages 13 and 14 of this thread:

http://steamcommunity.com/app/214950/discussions/0/648814844496542652/#p13

Desert Punk:

Haukur Isleifsson:
What do you mean that it failed?

JNo it was just objectively bad when it was first released. The graphics bugged out, the AI was incredibly stupid, half the features they were on about during the lead up to the game didnt work correctly, the units all mashed together in a really lazy swarm everyone clipping into everyone else where as in the first rome they had ordered lines like they should have, the naval units being objectively worse than ground units on transports...It was just a mess.

I uninstalled it and havent tried it with any of the new patches though.

As for the OT:

1. That seems like an interesting idea, but not really like Total war, the unit variety was rarely fake in previous iterations, its just in Rome 2 it all felt very samey due to the aforementioned mob retardedness on the games part.

2. I would really like a more in depth diplomacy system, they coulda done much better.

3. I didn't enjoy the Rome 2 map it was kind of...lazy I guess.

But I dont think I would enjoy a china or africa or whatever game. I do think they should take a swing at a fantasy game like Warhammer or maybe even Warmachine universes.

1. This could be true. I started with Medieval 2 tbh and never played Rome 1. Also what I feel Rome 2 is dearly in need of is a soul. All the units felt the same to me in a way because I couldn't relate to the faction I was playing. The family tree was gone, the UI made it impossible to view information, the cutscenes... were cut out, and the mosh pit sliding effect made battles unenjoyable. What really got to me was that THIS IS 2014. How could CA not even get what they did right 10 years ago? It blows my mind. I want more than original formula, I want this game to be moving forwards. Holy fucking shit CA what have you DONE? 40% bigger budget right up the asspipe.

2. I love how players keep blaming the Warscape engine. This is true the Warscape engine is horrible, but that does not explain the horrible map texture popping, the stutter lag on the map, the hover lag, the all sorts of horrible design decisions. Family tree had nothing to do with the warscape engine. The transport shit bs also had nothing to do with the warscape engine. Horrible UI. Not Warscape. Taking out toggle fire. Warscape could have that function. All in all it feels like CA just doesn't care.

3. Lazy is a mild way of putting it. It looks horrible compared to Shogun 2 imo. It's bland and lacking in almost every way. At least back in the days of bland maps they didn't stutter or lag or have texture popping. Now they do.

The fact that you would not enjoy a game set in China or Africa, or think that those two can even be compared, is really at the crux of this problem. The games will not sell unless they're about Europe to some extent. CA is just panning to the masses and there's no real way to innovate. Even when Fall of the Samurai released, Empire still sold more than it. That piece of shit Empire. CA and SEGA are one and they're onto the big money. When Warhammer becomes a success they'll probably roll out Medieval: Kingdom of Heaven and you'll all have forgotten about Rome 2, just like you how you've forgotten about Empire.

rome 2 bit CA in the ass big time and even they admit that. i will be curious to see how they respond with their next game. after the stable release of shogun 2 its honestly like they threw everything they have learned from the first total war game out the window and started from scratch again. heck units didnt even have loose formations or an actual number on the unit cards and had to be patched back in.

honestly if they had just added amphibious assaults and provinces to what we got in shogun 2, no one would be complaining and they wouldnt of been in this mess.

as for what the OP said. ancient china would be a very interesting era to play a total war game but i wouldnt mind seeing it cover more than just china, but the whole of south east asia

one thing that i wouldnt mind seeing is a "unit designer" where instead of ust unlocking unit x with weapons and armour z and z like we currently do, you get to choose what weapons and armour, etc the unit has, go historical if you would like or go a different path from history

SNIP (hit quote instead of edit, whoops)

wombat_of_war:
as for what the OP said. ancient china would be a very interesting era to play a total war game but i wouldnt mind seeing it cover more than just china, but the whole of south east asia

This sounds tempting, but an overly ambitious scale was one of the many flaws Rome 2 had. And Shogun 2 was so good in part because it focused on precisely one long and drawn out conflict. It's always tempting to say "more and bigger" but sometimes less IS more, and I believe this is very much so the case with Total War games. It's also for this reason Napoleon worked where Empire didn't. And China itself is already plenty enormous for one game. That's just a theory on my part though.

Overall, I think a TW in China could be very interesting, but it's probably also true that it doesn't appeal as strongly to many as a European setting would, which is a damn shame. But to be honest, as long they get THE GODDAMN GAMEPLAY back on track, I'm confident they'll find an interesting. It's not as if history doesn't have enough to offer.

And on a personal note: Hey guess what, Creative Assembly! I don't give a shit about your wonderful mo-capped unit animations, I rarely zoom in that closely anyway, and you should focus on the actual game and get rid of your massive boners for realistic unit movement. Nobody really gives a shit, even if your trailers look cool.

Fat_Hippo:
[quote="wombat_of_war" post="9.838383.20575950"]

Overall, I think a TW in China could be very interesting, but it's probably also true that it doesn't appeal as strongly to many as a European setting would, which is a damn shame. But to be honest, as long they get THE GODDAMN GAMEPLAY back on track, I'm confident they'll find an interesting. It's not as if history doesn't have enough to offer.

And on a personal note: Hey guess what, Creative Assembly! I don't give a shit about your wonderful mo-capped unit animations, I rarely zoom in that closely anyway, and you should focus on the actual game and get rid of your massive boners for realistic unit movement. Nobody really gives a shit, even if your trailers look cool.

You know how to tell it's true that games set in Europe sell better?

Even when Fall of the Samurai came out, Empire still had better sales than it.

It woiuld probably have been possible to have a TW Dynasties when CA was just a small company, but now they're into DLCs and big money. Rome 2 sold 7x what the number of copies Shogun 2 did.

X Rebirth

Sim City

Battlefield 4

Rome 2

Colonial Marines

I see where the games industry is heading.

Diodius:

Idlemessiah:
Aside from the 'Eurotards' comment I'm totally with the OP. I never got round to playing Shogun 2 but I got burned by Rome 2. I preordered and everything too. What a waste.

As for a game focused on China, sure I'd play it, but I want fantasy Warhammer first.

I don't think CA has even said the Warhammer title will be a part of the TW franchise.

As for the Eurotard comment, read pages 13 and 14 of this thread:

http://steamcommunity.com/app/214950/discussions/0/648814844496542652/#p13

I'm reading and all I see is the OP (you, I assume) trying and being a douche?

"I wrote it because I really mean it", "all you do is insult people", and "You are offensive, and people agree with me, that's the difference though." lulz
Hypocrisy, hypocrisy everywhere.

Diodius:

You know how to tell it's true that games set in Europe sell better?

Even when Fall of the Samurai came out, Empire still had better sales than it.

It woiuld probably have been possible to have a TW Dynasties when CA was just a small company, but now they're into DLCs and big money. Rome 2 sold 7x what the number of copies Shogun 2 did.

X Rebirth

Sim City

Battlefield 4

Rome 2

Colonial Marines

I see where the games industry is heading.

So a game that failed sold 7 times than the previous one, odd definition of failure. Perhaps its just you that thinks it failed because 7 times more people bought than the previous one.

Diodius:
So I got Rome 2 and a bunch of epiphanies hit me in the face.

Diplomacy in TW games have always sucked.

Unit variety is fake and pretty much all the units are the same.

The game should be more about tactics and strategy rather than recruiting units with better stats.

I agree on all these points.

I wanted this for a long time, obviously since I am Chinese, but I told myself, no it would be selfish to want a game all to myself. This is considering most TW players are Eurotards (no offense),

No worries East-Asia-tard (no offence).

and would probably not enjoy a game set in China. However I have done a 180.

I've never actually understood why people who develop games feel that players will only be interested if those games are set in their target audiences "culture" as it were - I mean, Sci Fi and Fantasy all do incredibly well, and whilst many of those do have nice fuzzy similarities to our culture, it still (in my opinion) negates the whole "A Western Audience won't care for a game set in China".

This is especially valid in the TW series - Given that it began as 'SHOGUN: TOTAL WAR', a game set in Japan (And, as a 'Eurotard' as you so nicely put it, Japan and China may as well be the same thing).

Rome 2 is a grand failurel. All the units are pretty much the same. CA doesn't even pay attention to historical "plausibility" anymore. So there goes basically all the same units argument. Honestly I was really surprised by this. I did not expect for the units in Rome 2 to feel so alike, but they do. The stat differences are minimal, and most of them don't matter in comparison to actual knowledge of battle tactics.

This seems to be in opposition to the opinion you put forth at the start: "The game should be more about tactics and strategy rather than recruiting units with better stats." ... So, which is R2:TW doing?

Also from my "Eurotard" point of view: How exactly would a Chinese based game allow for a greater variety of units? Did the different Dynasties take completely different approaches to war? I'm very, very ignorant of the history of Chinese warfare, so please, enlighten me: What exactly about a Chino-centric(?) game would give it greater variety than a European one?

Not saying it wouldn't, and I'd happily play a TW game set in China but:

You can start off as a warlord during the decline of a dynasty, how about Tang? Tang Dynasty is in decline and An Lushan is reaking havoc in China, proclaiming his new Yan Dynasty. You can play as him or the Tang Loyalists, or any of the other factions.

This is meaningless to me. You could easily replace, in the above, the following words:

Tang = Plantagent
Lushan = Richard
Yan = York

And you've got exactly the same game, but set in a much more identifiable European era.

Once again - I actively back the idea of a China: Total War, and I'd love to play it (I'd also love to play "War of the Roses: Total War", but I don't see how simply setting something in China somehow makes it actually any different to every single other TW games in terms of gameplay.

Changes That Need to Be Made For the TW Franchiese to EVOLVE:

1. Get rid of the fake "unit variety." The player should be able to recruit any certain number of troops as long as he has the resources. What that means is that you should be able to recruit 177 men, 98 men, or even 62 men. These will be the player's "basic troops." The player should be able to outfit them with supplies he purchases. So that means armor, weapons, rations, and housing. These troops should perform based on their military training, their commander, and their active service history. The armies need to feel like YOU MADE THEM.

I agree. To an extent.

This mechanic, whilst a good idea for giving people a warm, fuzzy feeling about their units, will ultimately end up with everybody building the same units though - No matter how you put it, there will ALWAYS be units that are built to be the best at their jobs, and there will ALWAYS be army compositions which will be stronger than others because of the selection of units in it.

Again, not saying it's a BAD thing, I'd love to be able to customise the units I've recruited, doesn't mean there'd be any more REAL variety than is currently available.

2. Diplomacy needs to change.

Agreed...

There should be more ways to affect the relations between two countries, aside from just waging war on one and not the other. There should be combined arms practices, joint military operations, political deals, marriages, sworn brotherhood banquets, celebrations after defeating a mutual enemy, backstabbings, sale of land, purchases of land, etc. Even the internal administration of the player "empire" should change. It no longer feels personal or realistic for the player to control such a vast empire. I suggest CA take the Crusader King's route. The player will play a "dynasty" of characters, with succession, death, marriage, concubines, the whole shabang. Conquered territories should have to have local rulers when the player's character leaves, if he chooses to even personally lead the army himself. Ministers should grow bold and challenge the player's sovereignty if left unchecked. The player should have advisers, master of coin, master of intrigue, etc. These should all be included.

I'd just like a diplomacy AI where the other factions don't end up simply declaring war on you or hating you "just because". Or where they're actually likely to surrender to preserve their very existence, as opposed to resisting to the bitter end EVERY SINGLE TIME. Once they sort that out, then sure, why not.

Qvar:

Diodius:

Idlemessiah:
Aside from the 'Eurotards' comment I'm totally with the OP. I never got round to playing Shogun 2 but I got burned by Rome 2. I preordered and everything too. What a waste.

As for a game focused on China, sure I'd play it, but I want fantasy Warhammer first.

I don't think CA has even said the Warhammer title will be a part of the TW franchise.

As for the Eurotard comment, read pages 13 and 14 of this thread:

http://steamcommunity.com/app/214950/discussions/0/648814844496542652/#p13

I'm reading and all I see is the OP (you, I assume) trying and being a douche?

"I wrote it because I really mean it", "all you do is insult people", and "You are offensive, and people agree with me, that's the difference though." lulz
Hypocrisy, hypocrisy everywhere.

Me -

Unit variety is fake and pretty much all the units are the same.

Bud389 -

If you were talking about Shogun 2, then you'd be right. Unfortunately, this is not Shogun 2. So you are wrong.

Me -

The game should be more about tactics and strategy rather than recruiting units with better stats.

Bud389 -

You haven't played the game yet, have you? Time and time again, I've beaten larger armies of better units through using those "tactics" and "strategies" you're saying it's lacking.

Me -

I wanted this for a long time, obviously since I am Chinese, but I told myself, no it would be selfish to want a game all to myself. This is considering most TW players are from areas where Chinese history is relatively unknown, and would probably not enjoy a game set in China. However I have done a 180.

Bud389 -

Okay...What?

Me -

Rome 2 is a grand failurel. All the units are pretty much the same.

Bud389 -

Yup, you definitely haven't played the game.

Me -

I did not expect for the units in Rome 2 to feel so alike, but they do.

Bud389 -

So, armoured indian elephants feels the same as Peltasts? Roman Legionaries and Macedonian Hoplites feel the same? Slingers and Javelinmen feel the same? Really? Are you a troll by any chance?

Me -

The stat differences are minimal

Bud389 -

Ok...First you say that you want units that aren't simply dependent on stats, and now you're saying that the stat differences are minimal? Will you make up your mind already.

Me-

and most of them don't matter in comparison to actual knowledge of battle tactics

Bud389 -

Holy ♥♥♥♥, it's unbelievable how much of a troll you are. I guess that's why my Peltasts constantly destroy medium infantry, isn't it? No knowledge of battlefield tactics.

Me -

Naval combat is also a joke as all but the top top tier units have differences in terms of gameplay style

Bud389 -

You either have no idea how Naval battles work, or are a troll.

Me -

Please, CA, just make TW Dynasties.

Bud389 -

Oh. I get it. You're biased and trying to make a point.

Me -

Make it so we can equip basic units with weapons instead of recruiting better stat units

Bud389 -

*Rubs temples* You are literally hurting my brain at this point. What are those buildings called? You know, those things which you build to increase the effectiveness of your units weapons?

Me -

Make it so we can increase the effectiveness of troops by spending money on training them

Bud389 -

http://i.imgur.com/8FY6RWw.jpg

Me -

My point is that CA does SEEM to work much better within a limited cultural landscape when it comes to creating TW games, so why not ancient China? It'll be like a larger Shogun 2.

Bud389 -

That sounds like...An incredibly bland game. Since, ironically, all of Shogun 2's units are the same for every single faction.

And really? They work better within a limited cultural landscape? Then why is Rome 1 the best in the entire franchise?

Me -

1. Get rid of the fake "unit variety." The player should be able to recruit any certain number of troops as long as he has the resources.

Bud389 -

That sounds really tedious and stupid. Why would you ever produce less than the maximum potential of what's possible? To have those 32 special units you hand-crafted to be decimated by a force of 2 to 300? There's no practicality to recruiting your own specific number since it will ultimately boil down to Larger > Smaller, which requires almost no strategy.

Also, it's not "fake" unit variety when it's "real" unit variety. What you're saying is just utterly illogical.

Me -

The player should be able to outfit them with supplies he purchases. So that means armor, weapons, rations, and housing.

This is just needless micro-management that takes away from the true root of the game, which is large-scale conflict. That's why they added buildings for you to build so you can increase the armor and weapon effectiveness of troops.

Bud389 -

These troops should perform based on their military training, their commander, and their active service history.

You mean *GASP* Just like in Rome 2? I mean, what the hell do you think military traditions and unit experience is there for? Just for show?

Me -

There should be combined arms practices, joint military operations, political deals, marriages

Bud389 -

I have come to the conclusion that you have indeed, NOT played a single minute of this game. Not just because you can specifically target individual armies/fleets/locations for a combined assault from you and your allies, on both land and sea, but also because you can create client states and satrapy's, as well as adopt generals into your family's dynasty through marriage.

Me -

I suggest CA take the Crusader King's route

Bud389 -

I suggest not, since that would mean a lesser focus on the battlefield element.

Me -

3. The map needs to feel compact, but relevant. In Rome 2, CA took out all the gold mines, the farms, the little things on the map that made it relevant.

Bud389 -

Now they added attrition zones, the ability to set up ambushes, fortify defenses, or raid the lands for profit.

Me -

What they added instead were choke points, narrow corridors, and more fake "map."

Bud389 -

Having a fully realized map is having a "fake" map? More illogicality that I can't follow.

Me -

Each part of the map should feel like it matters.

Bud389 -

Seeing as ports are a crucial element to trading, I would say they are. It has the less tedious aspect of individually setting up merchants, but the only reason most ever used them in Medieval 2 was for cheap spies. Not to mention, settlements DO have certain items that are valuable for trade, and it will show you if you cared to pay attention to any of the games mechanics.

Me -

Farms, silver mines, gold mines, tea plantations, silk makers, paper makers, should all be interactive destinations on the map.

Bud389 -

That sounds...really boring and entirely useless in a series with the title "Total War".

Me -

Most of all, the map should BE ATMOSPHERIC. It should make you feel like you're a part of the setting, and not just an empty, ugly, piece of cardboard.

Bud389 -

Right, because the clouds, detailed terrain with self-shadowing, weather effects, and so on aren't "atmospheric" enough. Quit talking about a game you clearly have either not played or figured out yet.

http://steamcommunity.com/app/214950/discussions/0/648814844496542652/#p9

SORRY IF I SOUND BIASED, BUT HE FIRST INSULTS EVERYTHING I WROTE.

THEN HE WENT ON TO INSULT OTHER PEOPLE.

SO I TELL HIM TO BACK OFF?

AND HE GETS MAD AT ME?

I DON"T SEE THE I STARTED IT PART. FOR REAL.

I even edited the "Eurotard" part out after something told me it was offensive, however I have put it back in because it best describes the kind of people I'm thinking of.

http://steamcommunity.com/app/214950/discussions/0/648814844496542652/#p2

@9:12 and @9:19pm

Double

albino boo:

Diodius:

You know how to tell it's true that games set in Europe sell better?

Even when Fall of the Samurai came out, Empire still had better sales than it.

It woiuld probably have been possible to have a TW Dynasties when CA was just a small company, but now they're into DLCs and big money. Rome 2 sold 7x what the number of copies Shogun 2 did.

X Rebirth

Sim City

Battlefield 4

Rome 2

Colonial Marines

I see where the games industry is heading.

So a game that failed sold 7 times than the previous one, odd definition of failure. Perhaps its just you that thinks it failed because 7 times more people bought than the previous one.

It's a success from a monetary standpoint however whether this comes to bite them back in the ass or not has yet to be seen.

From a Total War franchise standpoint, it's several step backwards.

Diodius:

It's a success from a monetary standpoint however whether this comes to bite them back in the ass or not has yet to be seen.

From a Total War franchise standpoint, it's several step backwards.

There is this thing know as freedom of choice and 7 times more people chose to but Rome 2 than Shogun 2. No one forced them, they chose to buy one game more than another. You are not the sole arbiter of what is good and what is bad, they only real measure that counts is sales. At the time of posting the peak number of players of Rome 2 was 25,988. The best part of 26000 people are playing a game that you think failed. I strongly suspect that your opinion is a minority of those 26000 people or else why would they be playing?

Diodius:

I even edited the "Eurotard" part out after something told me it was offensive, however I have put it back in because it best describes the kind of people I'm thinking of.

You might want to change that to Euro-fanboy or something similar, "Eurotard" is probably going to be taken as calling Europeans retards.

Otherwise yeah, diplomacy has always been shit, needs a revamp. Personally haven't played Rome 2 so I can't comment much more on it. Warhammer Total War would be my choice.

No worries East-Asia-tard (no offence).

None taken, but I am not an East-Asia-tard. I am a Chinatard. I actually have a lot of difficulty remembering Japanese names and didn't enjoy Shogun 2 vanilla as much as some other people. This is probably how everyone sees China though so I don't really blame the Japanese settings. Rise of the Samurai and Fall of the Samurai however are excellent.

I've never actually understood why people who develop games feel that players will only be interested if those games are set in their target audiences "culture" as it were - I mean, Sci Fi and Fantasy all do incredibly well, and whilst many of those do have nice fuzzy similarities to our culture, it still (in my opinion) negates the whole "A Western Audience won't care for a game set in China.

This is especially valid in the TW series - Given that it began as 'SHOGUN: TOTAL WAR', a game set in Japan (And, as a 'Eurotard' as you so nicely put it, Japan and China may as well be the same thing).

This is sort of how I feel. I'm not actually a BIG BIG proponent of CA going to China in their next TW game, if only because they'll probably screw it up with shitty accents and ahistorical gameplay that by no means adds to the game itself. What I am a big proponent of, is that CA makes the game FEEL like a historical game. Rome, Medieval 2, Shogun 2, and even Empire capture this tone, but Rome 2 for reason does not for me. To me, Gauls and Celt or whatever Germanic faction really seem all the same to me, so CA better put the history in there so I can feel like I'm playing a different faction than, idk, Suebi or something. What has ended up happening is that I've been forced to go to wikipedia pages just to get an understanding of what I'm playing, why I'm playing, and what the historical contexts are. It matters less to me WHERE the game takes place than HOW I feel about the setting. Reading a giant wikipedia about Parthia doesn't really do it for me. There's NOTHING to distinguish one faction from another. The faction icons are boring - SELEUCID, they don't behave any differently, and the fact that Rome almost never creates an empire as the AI in the game is mindblowing. SO many times a random African faction has taken over Carthage, I want to cry. The game claims to have "variety" but in reality it just breaks historical immersion. Getting into it is a chore, plowing threw its UI is a chore, playing the mosh pit battles are a chore, and thus whatever "real" diversity it has is lost on me.

Rome 2 should have had MORE cinematic videos tailored to each faction. NOT LESS. A hellenic CHAMPION bashing THE SHIT OUT OF ROMAN GARRISONS would have been THE SHIT. OR an assassination video where the Parthian champion takes an impossible shot with his bow at a Seleucid general. Wouldn't that have been awesome? These little things create atmosphere. When a Carthaginian elephant general is recruited, I want to see him climbing onto his elephant, and riding through the city of Carthage to the cheers of its citizens.

This seems to be in opposition to the opinion you put forth at the start: "The game should be more about tactics and strategy rather than recruiting units with better stats." ... So, which is R2:TW doing?

The game needs to differentiate the fighting "tactics" of different factions. The formations should play a bigger part, as well as what weapons the units hold. Real things. I don't want to look at a bunch of statistics in a panel and say, oh goody, that guy has +5 weapon damage. The equipment should SERVE to differentiate the units, not the statistics. The stats should exist to a lesser extent, ad it is always needed, but I'd rather have circumstances dictate the effectiveness of my troops rather than binary nonsense units which I can recruit upon researching a higher tech. In my ideal game, the tech would grant me access to better iron technology, which would bestow up my army better swords, which I would have to equip them with, after having forged the swords. Another point that really bothers me is that units in Rome 2 can't attack while in formation. A phalanx un-phalanxes on the attack. It's ridiculous.

Also from my "Eurotard" point of view: How exactly would a Chinese based game allow for a greater variety of units? Did the different Dynasties take completely different approaches to war? I'm very, very ignorant of the history of Chinese warfare, so please, enlighten me: What exactly about a Chino-centric(?) game would give it greater variety than a European one?

It doesn't. That's the thing. With Rome 2's stat based, non-formation centric system, I might as well be playing China Total War and I would never know the difference. What's the real difference between units in real life? Leadership, training, equipment, and politics. Total War as it is doesn't simulate any of those very well. It is in dire need of an overhaul that I describe below.

This is meaningless to me. You could easily replace, in the above, the following words:

Tang = Plantagent
Lushan = Richard
Yan = York

And you've got exactly the same game, but set in a much more identifiable European era.

Once again - I actively back the idea of a China: Total War, and I'd love to play it (I'd also love to play "War of the Roses: Total War", but I don't see how simply setting something in China somehow makes it actually any different to every single other TW games in terms of gameplay.

Yes, this exactly. However Rome 2 doesn't have a dynasty or family tree. How disappointing. I'm merely proposing a a new setting as an example where CA gets to deal with a fairly contained culture and similar warfare, because honestly, I don't think CA is capable of anything else in its current state.

I agree. To an extent.

This mechanic, whilst a good idea for giving people a warm, fuzzy feeling about their units, will ultimately end up with everybody building the same units though - No matter how you put it, there will ALWAYS be units that are built to be the best at their jobs, and there will ALWAYS be army compositions which will be stronger than others because of the selection of units in it.

Again, not saying it's a BAD thing, I'd love to be able to customise the units I've recruited, doesn't mean there'd be any more REAL variety than is currently available.

You make a good argument, but it's the same argument that Blizzard used with the new skill system in Diablo 3, and look how that turned out? Sometimes complexity for complexity's sake is ok. This is mainly to give the player a sense of immersion, something Rome 2 lacks dearly.

Agreed...

HELL YA!!!

I'd just like a diplomacy AI where the other factions don't end up simply declaring war on you or hating you "just because". Or where they're actually likely to surrender to preserve their very existence, as opposed to resisting to the bitter end EVERY SINGLE TIME. Once they sort that out, then sure, why not.

Nicely put. If you've played Crusader Kings 2 or EU3 it's fairly obvious where TW should've gone with Rome 2, but I don't think CA got the memo.

Diodius:

The game should be more about tactics and strategy rather than recruiting units with better stats.

This is the one thing you've mentioned that I disagree with. Recruiting units with better stats (i.e, waiting to research workshop and training field upgrades) before raising troops is an absolutely viable strategy and is much better than relying on fancy maneuvering in tactical fights. Sun Tzu alluded to this when he stated that the best general seeks victory through strategic means (better weapons and training) and does not demand it from his men. If I choose to go that route, then who's to say that I've made the wrong choice?

Diodius....
image
YOU BADASS

Youre pretty much right, i wouldnt even say this is a problem of complexity, i mean the devs of Total War cant even put together a full non-buggy game, at this point i personally believe that Creative Assembly is incapable of fulfilling the task... They keep doing almost the same game with a different setting (or worst; downgraded) over and over and keep failing at it :(

If im honest, while i do like Total War, I haven't enjoyed it that much over the past years as i have recently gotten into the "Paradox Grandstragety Games" which may lack real time battles (which i do mostly enjoy) the campaign map is just everything i want.

Capcha- Get Well, something CA needs to do with the next Total War

I rather liked the game, though I did have a few complaints.

1. The enemy's A.I. on the tactical side of things was pretty bad, but it surprised me a few times, like the time they executed a near perfect pincer attack on me that worked right up until my cavalry made half their spearmen run.

2. Diplomacy wasn't bad, but it wasn't great either. Allies generally stayed allies, enemies usually stayed enemies unless you gave them a big enough smackdown, and your client states will be useless chuckleheads no matter what you do.

Can't say I ever ran into any noteworthy bugs while I was playing. Seen plenty on youtube, but never encountered them myself.

spartandude:
If im honest, while i do like Total War, I haven't enjoyed it that much over the past years as i have recently gotten into the "Paradox Grandstragety Games" which may lack real time battles (which i do mostly enjoy) the campaign map is just everything i want.

Capcha- Get Well, something CA needs to do with the next Total War

Ha!

Everybody on TWC says they've abandoned TW for CK2 or EU4, but they still don't have real time battles, so TW as a niche genre is still safe. Even the campaign is pretty much non-comparable. TW campaign is more like a tabletop whereas PI games are like a really complex modified version of monopoly.

PI is just a better company overall. People don't even realize they're DLC whores because their games are so good.

albino boo:

Diodius:

It's a success from a monetary standpoint however whether this comes to bite them back in the ass or not has yet to be seen.

From a Total War franchise standpoint, it's several step backwards.

There is this thing know as freedom of choice and 7 times more people chose to but Rome 2 than Shogun 2. No one forced them, they chose to buy one game more than another. You are not the sole arbiter of what is good and what is bad, they only real measure that counts is sales. At the time of posting the peak number of players of Rome 2 was 25,988. The best part of 26000 people are playing a game that you think failed. I strongly suspect that your opinion is a minority of those 26000 people or else why would they be playing?

The problem with that is that Rome 2 was a part of a series. The only reason it sold so well is because it capitalized on the success and popularity of the previous installments. Those people bought and played Rome 2 based on word of mouth, marketing, and the belief that Rome 2 would be a worthy continuation of the franchise.

As you say, the only way to measure success is sales, but if you F*** up your product you won't be getting repeat customers, and while many people may still be playing Rome 2 now, there are also plenty of others who have sworn "Fool me once CA, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

The fact is, we won't really find out whether Rome 2 was a success until CA starts trying to convince people to buy the next installment. Then we'll really see how many people have lost interest or faith in the franchise.

Rome: Total War + Roma Surrectum 2.5 mod is still far, far superior to Rome 2.

I just cannot play Rome 2 for long, but i think the reason may be rather that i have been playing a lot of Ck 2 and EU 4 and after that i just cannot go back to TW games. While the real - time battles are nice, the strategy is just so non - existant it feels rather pointless.

Diodius:

PI is just a better company overall. People don't even realize they're DLC whores because their games are so good.

Let me guess, your one of those people that believed dlc is bad no matter what?
In my opinion paradox isn't a dlc whore. They sure have lots of dlcs but they do them in a way that dlcs should work. Their dlc are either major new features and significant improvements to the game that are well worth their money. Or they are purely visual optional dlcs for people that want the extra bit of athmosphere. That's how it should work. Improvements and additions to an allready complete game for a reasonable price. Not small content updates for rediculous prices or features that should have been in the game to begin with.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked