that image is probably a bit dramatized but men were unironically built different back then
high infant mortality meant that weaklings dropped like fleas before they could even walk, leaving only those who are naturally robust. the average man did much more physical labor, even in the upper classes which owned slaves. military training was also much more extreme. this meant that only the strongest survived and those strong men became even stronger
It is not - one Spanish duke or something outlived healing through mercury several times.
3 months ago
Anonymous
And Alison Botha from South Africa survived being tortured for hours and almost decapitated. And there are children being killed in Ukraine because a bomb has fallen on them while they were doing their normal chores.
There are also weak pathetic junkies surviving a million overdoses. What's your point?
World isn't just, sometimes you just die because of bad luck and sometimes you survive hell because of good luck. Don't romantisize the past too much
3 months ago
Anonymous
no civilians are being killed in ukraine, moron
3 months ago
Anonymous
Now he'll start shitting on you with fakes from Bucha, brace yourself.
3 months ago
Anonymous
You are just moron.It has been objectively proven that people of the past had better immunity and were more tough than people today. >And there are children being killed in Ukraine because a bomb has fallen on them
Why the frick is this even involved here?
3 months ago
Anonymous
no civilians are being killed in ukraine, moron
Ok any fricking war then. >You are just moron.It has been objectively proven that people of the past had better immunity and were more tough than people today.
I mean yeah, they were tougher, no shit, I just disagree with literally everything else that was said in that post like that "high infant mortality meant that weaklings dropped like fleas before they could even walk". There were proven record of disabled and morons in ancient rome,
smetimes they were considered good puppets for their masters
Also he assumed physical labor with strength and natural selection, discarding IQ, natural immunity, and economic situation etc.
I just fricking hate when people do not unerstand natural selection. Got it now? homosexuals
3 months ago
Anonymous
Romans had laws regarding viability and “monstrous” infants, but I really doubt they enforced it literally on every birth.
At best such rules were used often among rich and influent families to stabilize succession.
tens of thousands of people went to battle, very likely that there would have been some "quiet" spots on the battlefield that you could rout from without dying.
For a lot of history battles followed a fairly similar pattern: >Opposing armies arrive at battlefield >Maneuver around each other a little until both are satisfied >Engage >One side clearly starts to lose, begins an orderly retreat >Other side pursues until they'd be over extended, then also pulls back >Side that retreated sues for peace
Losing >10% of your force in most engagements was considered a catastrophe. The only time things like that happened was if for whatever reason an orderly retreat broke down into a full rout, which is when you'd see a lot more mass killings. Also if forces were cut off or totally surrounded, although even then a lot of times rather than being killed to the man they'd be forced to throw down their gear and be humiliated/enslaved.
This is one of the reasons the Romans grew to be such a force and why all their neighbors fricking hated them: they didn't play by those rules. They'd fight well past the point they "should" retreat, they'd refuse to sue for peace when they did retreat, and even if you annihilated one of their armies they'd just raise another one and come back to try again until they beat you. An massive empire built on the back of absolutely refusing to ever take the L.
I think you've probably read to much outdated accounts of "Chivalerous" Greeks.
Even before the Peleponesian wars, War was fricking brutal, they did not show mercy for the conquered. Mass slaughter of the retreating force was the norm. This was true everywhere in the world, MIGHT makes RIGHT. Woe to the vanquished and all that.
Where did he say anything about chivalry or mercy? He was describing war as it has existed for thousands of years across many cultures with only a few exceptions.
Xenophon describes what the first anon said though for everything up to the Battle of Cunaxa
Only when the Ten-Thousand were isolated in the middle of enemy territory is where the Greeks switch from pitched battles to skirmishing and unconvential tactics to keep the Persians and their allies at a distance
bruh how did anyone return from battle alive when they were like this
The battle of Carrhae was unprecedented. The parthians had never before assembled a pure cavalry army, and never would again.
It was the work of a single parthian general, who would later be assassinated by the parthian king for being too successful against the romans.
While Crassus get a lot of shit for the route he took, it wasn't really considered a controversial strategy. And keep in mind that Crassus was considered just a capable general as Caesar by their contemporaries.
people shit on the pajama boyz, but they're pretty decent when used for what they are supposed to do.
Tanks elephants
Tanks chariots
Tanks horse archers
In fact, Tanks all archers, just wave them in front of them and watch 3 of them waste all their ammo and not kill half of a unit.
>Pope says that if I attack another Christian I will be excommunicated >another Christian attacks me >defend myself >get excommunicated
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW
>M3 would generate maximum hype just like Rome 2 did >M3 would also be seen with extreme scepticism from anyone not buying into the hype >it would be plagued by all of the poor designs from past games >warscape >it gets review bombed when it doesn't live up to expectations
I'm going to eat a tablecloth if they make Medieval 3. Even Empire 2 is highly unlikely and I'd love to see a great E2.
I fully expect CA to transition into only making fantasy games now, for better and worse.
They might now. There was a poll about which fantasy setting players wanted to see in the next game and they had just about everything on the list including Marvel and Star Wars.
1)Make kriegspiel the classic game but in a simulated European 1:1 landscape.
2)Use kreigspiel as a middle layer between battlefield tactics and the strategy layer. Total War simulates the middle lawyer with bullshit like running out the clock in a battle
3) in the strategy layer, have a more in depth administrative system where partial control of territory allows for taxation but only full control allows for governance.
4) add more of the world. Siam etc. maybe frick it as dlc
Also, beyond CA’s ability, but make it work somewhat properly. For example the Dutch are set up for the war of Austrian succession but E:TW is unable to remotely simulate how that war progressed.
The starting alliances of Netherlands become more of a handicap to work around than a realistic set up modeling history.
Fix that
If you can take the jank, they’re definitely among the best.
I tried Rome2 the other day but it just felt awful to battle and move units around. Coastal settlements have naval garrisons and the AI won’t land properly when attacking or defending so everything comes to a halt if you can’t deploy naval units.
It’s horrible. I hated it.
Rome2 left such a bad taste in mu mouth I’m hesitant to try newer ones. Maybe on another huge sale.
Also units insta replenish but you can’t have smaller reinforcing armies anymore. You gotta retreat a general to a recruitment province or something. It’s like everything was made to be played around giant stacks all the time.
Shogun 2 was the last Total War that I would say is legitimately great. Atilla is what Rome 2 should have been but still has some of the flaws and everything else afterwards has its own host of problems.
3 Kingdoms unironically was a big step forward from the past mechanically speaking but it was stuck in a pretty boring chink setting, focused too much on the 'Romance' part of the 3 Kingdoms novels, and had the most bizarre DLC choices early on.
Excellent taste. I don't know how it can be nostalgia if I am still playing them.
If you can take the jank, they’re definitely among the best.
I tried Rome2 the other day but it just felt awful to battle and move units around. Coastal settlements have naval garrisons and the AI won’t land properly when attacking or defending so everything comes to a halt if you can’t deploy naval units.
It’s horrible. I hated it.
All of the warscape games are so extremely different from R1 and M2. I could never put my finger on the why but they never really clicked with me.
All rome 1 needs to be perfect is better camera/unit controls. Modern TW games spoiled me in that regard. The gameplay itself is excellent.
I thought the camera was fine. I'm not sure what you mean by unit control. You can enable the minimal UI and use control groups just the same as any of the modern games.
Better pathfinding and campaign AI is what I'd ask for but I've been playing them as they are for so long I'm used to it. I always get surprised whenever the AI in a mod makes a non-moronic move.
what do they have? i did like that in rome 2 i could set a precise path for my units to run by creating waypoints. helped with cavalry to set them to take a wide loop around the enemy
Medieval 2's AI and balance are entirely fricked. Like game-ruining fricked. You can win every battle with a single unit of heavy cavalry cycle charging straight into them and NOTHING else, not even a single other unit.
Balance is ok, heavy cav is super strong but it makes sense based on the setting and makes pikes, who melt to regular infantry, make sense.
But the AI, oh god the AI. CA doesn't get enough credit for making the battle AI actually functional starting in shogun 2 and actually good by warhammer 2, flanking and hammer and anviling and all. Without exaggerating, 1/3 of all battles and 1/2 of siege battles in Medieval 2 will have the AI bug out completely to where they become unresponsive and just sit there in a broken formation while you pick them apart. Or just charge everything at you without bothering to flank or doing anything clever at all.
People shit on the battle AI in Med2 despite it being perfectly functional. The reason why you win everything so easily is because the AI recruits piss poor armies on the campaign map, doesn't even get a full stack and then forgets to let a general lead it.
The siege AI in Med2 is the best in the series, I have no clue what you're talking about.
>the build-a-bear construction system
VGH. I hate the nu provincial and limited building system so much. If I want to build a farm in a barren arid landscape then let me. They should have just balanced it so you could absolutely frick yourself building things in stupid places.
so much THIS
they already have farm fertility systems so why not just have it so that farms barely give you any income or whatever from a shit settlement? Oh, that's already how it works in R1 with fertility levels...
spartans honestly not worth it, armored hoplites are top tier infantry on their own while spartans are expensive, can only be trained in two cities, take two turns to train, and require a maxed out barracks. meanwhile armored hoplites can be shit out anywhere and can go toe-to-toe with legionaries (if used correctly)
RTR for remastered is fantastic. Doing my first playthrough of it as Rome, absolutely crazy amount of settlements. The only thing that makes Remastered worth it is that based Feral removed the settlement and faction limits. Makes for a truly global style map. I'm about 15 hours in and pretty much only hold Italia and a small beachhead in Syracuse.
But frick CA at this point man, they can't do ANYTHING right, I love the series, but it has just been a shitshow since Rome 2, don't even get me started on Warhammer
>absolutely crazy amount of settlements. The only thing that makes Remastered worth it is that based Feral removed the settlement and faction limits
It's mostly nice, but there's that one map with 1000 settlements or something. Dunno how anyone can play that, a full campaign would take me a year to play.
>Dividing Rome to no less than 4 different factions in a game centered around Rome >Egyptians being woefully and purposefully ahistorical >Cheating AI that can pop family members out of their ass making things like assassinating the faction leadership via assassing nigh impossible and/or pointless >Cheating AI that can spawn 3 full stacks of units and maintain them with income from 1 Minor City >Dumbfrick AI that can't make nonmoronic moves either in the campaign map or in the battles (ie. declaring war with you for absolutely no reason when you have 50 provinces and they have 1 and you have been allied for the last 100 turns) >Briton Chariots goddamn FRICKS >Head Hurlers, Screeching Women, Bull Wariors etc. >Domus Dulcis Domus and Amazon brigade >Seleucids that will always get dogpiled by Egypt
Despite these minor flaws I will forever and ever love Rome Total War and play it for the next 20 years as well
Rome being split though is very KINO.
Rome was anything but a 100% unified Empire, even in its heyday. Rome 1s interpitation of it is obviously wrong, but it does give you a rat race feel vs other Romans, which IS correct
>but it does give you a rat race feel vs other Romans, which IS correct
>100 turns in >the scipii have finally managed to conquer sicily >the julii have just managed to secure north italy >the brutii (you), taking things at a leisurely pace, have finally reached the hanging gardens of babylon and have finished painting the eastern half of the map puke green
it's a shame the AI is so slow to conquer when not engaged with you. I remember cheating in med 2 as scotland to abandon my settlements and put myself in the ass end of nowhere to let the world do its thing. after 500 turns, england still hadn't conquered the rebel scottish settlements, and I think only the venetians had been destroyed. there were settlements exchanged, but not nearly as much as you'd think for how long things had gone on. I think I recall even the mongols and timurids losing steam and becoming regular factions due to their income bonuses drying up and having to downsize their armies
Rome to no less than 4 different factions in a game centered around Rome
Honestly another good idea. Limitations of the game mechanics meant it would be very hard to implement an interesting civil war system without it. BI and Rome 2 are proof of this. They're civil wars are far less interesting than fighting it out with the other major Roman powers.
It also meant the Roman actually expanded and conquered. 1 AI running 1 faction is always going to struggle, but 3 with 3 factions that can expand in different directions is cracked.
god, yeah, rome 2's civil mechanics were dogshit. it boiled down to spending money every turn to give every internal faction something to do to placate them and then ignoring it the rest of the time. never a good sign when a mechanic is useless and numbing at best and obstructive and annoying at worst. but I can't be surprised given CA
Egypt being completely ahistorical only makes sense from a dev point of view to me because I can imagine them trying to include something that's not yet another Hellenic faction but not knowing enough about the period to do it properly.
>absolutely crazy amount of settlements. The only thing that makes Remastered worth it is that based Feral removed the settlement and faction limits
It's mostly nice, but there's that one map with 1000 settlements or something. Dunno how anyone can play that, a full campaign would take me a year to play.
Ironically, this is one of the things that makes me less interested in the remaster mods. They will put EVERYTHING they can think of in instead of making the best use of the limitations that are forced on them. Hell, it took me a whole year (down to the week) to complete my first campaign of EB1, and that mod only had 198 settlements to conquer but it was amazing.
>Hell, it took me a whole year (down to the week) to complete my first campaign of EB1, and that mod only had 198 settlements to conquer but it was amazing.
what'd you like about the mod? It felt like I was just playing "conquer rebel settlements: the game". It was just super tedious to me.
Have you played it for more than a dozen turns? I like it precisely because it doesn't devolve into only fighting rebels for the whole game. The AI factions will take decent chunks of the map for themselves even if you play at a very fast pace. It was incredible to fight huge Parthian and Egyptian empires by the end of the game.
Unless you played EB2 which has that exact problem and is why I don't like it.
Probably because they wanted to do a special intro for them but had no time. Same with factions like Armenia, Pontus, Thrace, etc. Their campaigns are still fully functional once unlocked.
Pretty much only the romans were playable, maybe carthage too I don't remember, but you can easily play as any faction in the game just by editing 1 line of code, the other factions were lackluster in their roster compared to romans but still fun to play.
>the other factions were lackluster in their roster compared to romans but still fun to play.
For the Greeks it didn't matter to me, because armoured hoplites could go up against anything with good odds for them
3 months ago
Anonymous
when I was like 12 I would take on the Romans by goading them into an attack then corner camp
>Install Shogun 2 >Start the tutorial rebel battle >They sit in the trees on a hill for 10 minutes until I finally send a squad over and they get immediately swamped >Any sort of planning or strategy vanishes and I need to just throw my troops into a giant frickblob melee
I really don't see what people see in this. Every TW game I've played plays like this. There's no strategy on the overworld map or in combat because the AI is always two steps ahead of the player. You can't even break off troops to flank without the AI deciding to randomly send three squads in the same direction while completely across the map.
It goes from "how can I strategically win this battle" to "how can I manipulate the AI". It's not even fun to lose because once you're behind you're pretty much boned, the problems snowball much faster for the player than for the AI.
>the AI is always two steps ahead of the player
I really don't know what you mean by that. the only advantage the AI has over the player is being able to immediately react to changing circumstance, which it often fails to do or does so poorly.
from what you described, you walked into an unfavorable situation and got punished for it. you could have tried baiting them off the hill using cavalry (if you had them) or perhaps through skirmishing. you could say that's manipulating the AI, but would the result be so much different if you were fighting another player?
I will agree that moshpits are an issue with total war games and that battles can often become 1 on 1 unit brawls rather than two cohesive entities clashing. I'd say older TW games did it better, but I recall that happening as far back as rome 1. Hard to say where that issue lies.
It's not like I lost, it was the first battle of the game. I just found it funny that the AI was totally willing to wait out the clock because it knew it had a massive advantage by spawning on the high ground in a forest. There was nothing I could do to eek out an advantage in that situation, whatever I did that unit would going to get attacked from three sides just to bait out the AI.
I played TWWH 2 the most and that's where the AI advantage was the most apparent, probably just from playtime. Whatever I did or tried to do the AI would have an instantaneous response, the AI always had the advantage. I never felt like I had an advantage going into a battle with a balanced army, only with doomstacks of missile units or whatever high tier unit I could train at the moment. Their weaknesses would get covered instantly and I would be forced on the offensive without fail, the only defensive battles I ever played were sieges. I would shift, they would find the one chink in the armor, then bam, instant combat blob when I shift my units. Backlines were worthless unless I babysat them, all the AI needs to do is save a single unit and rush them and now I need to focus on two fights at the same time.
>I just found it funny that the AI was totally willing to wait out the clock because it knew it had a massive advantage by spawning on the high ground in a forest.
well, duh? if you had the high ground and were defending why would you abandon your advantage? in R1/M2 being on higher ground actually confers advantages because the battle engine was more in depth as well
yes, though understandable, it is frustrating when the AI plays it smart like that. and it's hard to say given I don't know the army compositions and I don't believe I ever did tutorial battles for shogun 2. the AI will just have the better/bigger army where your tactical options are limited and you might be screwed. I guess it'd just be weird for that to be the case for a tutorial battle where you'd think it'd be about showing the player different ways to balance an unbalanced situation using various units.
warhammer is also a tricky one given you can absolutely get stomped due to the almost rock, paper, scissor army compositions. if you're fighting an army that just nullifies your own, you can't do much about that painlessly. but once again, it's hard to know what's going wrong when you're not seeing the battle for yourself. but generally, if you don't have an advantage in mobility, ranged, or general killing power, you're going to have a bad time unless you find a terrain advantage to nullify the enemy's.
I love old total war games, why were they so good? Med 2 and rome 1 were the best. I loved playing as the Teutonic order and the Byzantium empire. Shogun 2 was alright but lacked replay value.
>Timurids spawn in >immediately gift them a city in Ireland >they cut a path of death and destruction across the world to their new home and ignore my armies
Good times
for me, it's still Shogun 2, to this day.
comfiest map, largely best music or ambience (especially the victory music) and the best blend of simplicity and usefulness.
my most kino campaign was one where I basically split the country 60/40 with another clan which I declared my bro from the very start (I think it was Takeda, my based horse nikkas) and I was stressing the inevitable breaking of our brotherhood once realm divide happened, but the fricker stuck with me throughout it until I won the game.
i'm surprised how poorly received the remastered was. maybe it's because I just don't give a shit about how the UI looks within a reasonable degree, but the fact that I can play the game at good framerates is all I ever wanted and has me content. the fact that a lot of the mods for it have been ported over is the cherry on top. shame that the randomizer mod for base rome 1 wasn't ported tho
no no no, remastered still uses the old engine, just with higher res textures and environments. I actually really like it.
(I play on my shitty laptop so ignore the mediocre graphics in this screenshot)
i've heard the best way to do it is to enslave settlements to increase population increase in core regions as well as recruiting peasants from places you can spare the population to dump into a single settlement and get it to a huge city. once you build the imperial palace, it should trigger
can anyone give me advice on how to win on Very Hard in Shogun 2. I do well but when realm divide hits I lose all my trading partners and I can't fund a army.
also I hate how shit Cav is in shogun 2. Historically, Taekea would legit just charge entire lines and destroy them. But in shogun 2 good luck charging head on.
I played as takes a on hard and you basically just have to bait people to attack the keep and use gun troops on the walls and samurai sacrificial lambs below. Then it’s a nightmare when they all start attacking you
>think about doing a peasant only challenge >play as britain so I can safely build up my peasant hordes because AI to dumb too boat >finally have my peasant doomstack (upgraded armor and weapons >do my first rebel settlement battle >peasants break at the first contact which leads to a mass rout every single time, even with general present
I swear peasants are more resilient when they're alone than together. is it even possible to play with only peasants if they're just going to rout instantly?
Hahahahaha, holy shit. I tried the same challenge last year. It was miserable. And yes, units are much more likely to rout if they see their friends running. I'm just going to do a no general challenge instead.
>And yes, units are much more likely to rout if they see their friends running.
I figured that's what was causing the avalanche of frick, but I have no idea why the first few units are routing when they're surrounded by friendlies and are only going against warband. no point arguing game mechanics given that's just how they are, but it sucks it isn't viable at all
It is possible to do it, but you need to get shrines that give them experience. Send them in one by one and let them get spent before sending more which will also help by exhausting the enemy. Remeber their basic morale is poor and you have no general which are colossal disadvantages in R1.
yeah, I was thinking more experience could help as well as letting them grind on enemies individually. just feels like it gets in the way of the spirit of what I was trying to accomplish, of having thousands of shitters surrounding and swallowing up stronger enemies.
I sort of did a version of this with the mughal empire in darthmod empire, I decided to go melee only with maximum unit sizes and 40 unit armies and it was way too funny. I would field something like 6000 men per stack and charge across the field at my technologically superior foe.
If you want something like that I'd recommend going melee only in a gunpowder game, it's too fun.
>horse archers block your path
It's gonna be a long day
Gods, I fricking HATE horse archers!
Based Parthia
Pajama bros...
bruh how did anyone return from battle alive when they were like this
that image is probably a bit dramatized but men were unironically built different back then
high infant mortality meant that weaklings dropped like fleas before they could even walk, leaving only those who are naturally robust. the average man did much more physical labor, even in the upper classes which owned slaves. military training was also much more extreme. this meant that only the strongest survived and those strong men became even stronger
What a bunch of bullshit pulled out of the ass
It is not - one Spanish duke or something outlived healing through mercury several times.
And Alison Botha from South Africa survived being tortured for hours and almost decapitated. And there are children being killed in Ukraine because a bomb has fallen on them while they were doing their normal chores.
There are also weak pathetic junkies surviving a million overdoses. What's your point?
World isn't just, sometimes you just die because of bad luck and sometimes you survive hell because of good luck. Don't romantisize the past too much
no civilians are being killed in ukraine, moron
Now he'll start shitting on you with fakes from Bucha, brace yourself.
You are just moron.It has been objectively proven that people of the past had better immunity and were more tough than people today.
>And there are children being killed in Ukraine because a bomb has fallen on them
Why the frick is this even involved here?
Ok any fricking war then.
>You are just moron.It has been objectively proven that people of the past had better immunity and were more tough than people today.
I mean yeah, they were tougher, no shit, I just disagree with literally everything else that was said in that post like that "high infant mortality meant that weaklings dropped like fleas before they could even walk". There were proven record of disabled and morons in ancient rome,
smetimes they were considered good puppets for their masters
Also he assumed physical labor with strength and natural selection, discarding IQ, natural immunity, and economic situation etc.
I just fricking hate when people do not unerstand natural selection. Got it now? homosexuals
Romans had laws regarding viability and “monstrous” infants, but I really doubt they enforced it literally on every birth.
At best such rules were used often among rich and influent families to stabilize succession.
They did regularly march 20-30 miles a day with gear on while eating bread that they themselves had to make, so there is some truth to it.
tens of thousands of people went to battle, very likely that there would have been some "quiet" spots on the battlefield that you could rout from without dying.
I cant even imagine what it must have been like
Horrific. I couldn't imagine being a Roman soldier at Cannae for example
Carrhae was worse
For a lot of history battles followed a fairly similar pattern:
>Opposing armies arrive at battlefield
>Maneuver around each other a little until both are satisfied
>Engage
>One side clearly starts to lose, begins an orderly retreat
>Other side pursues until they'd be over extended, then also pulls back
>Side that retreated sues for peace
Losing >10% of your force in most engagements was considered a catastrophe. The only time things like that happened was if for whatever reason an orderly retreat broke down into a full rout, which is when you'd see a lot more mass killings. Also if forces were cut off or totally surrounded, although even then a lot of times rather than being killed to the man they'd be forced to throw down their gear and be humiliated/enslaved.
This is one of the reasons the Romans grew to be such a force and why all their neighbors fricking hated them: they didn't play by those rules. They'd fight well past the point they "should" retreat, they'd refuse to sue for peace when they did retreat, and even if you annihilated one of their armies they'd just raise another one and come back to try again until they beat you. An massive empire built on the back of absolutely refusing to ever take the L.
I think you've probably read to much outdated accounts of "Chivalerous" Greeks.
Even before the Peleponesian wars, War was fricking brutal, they did not show mercy for the conquered. Mass slaughter of the retreating force was the norm. This was true everywhere in the world, MIGHT makes RIGHT. Woe to the vanquished and all that.
Where did he say anything about chivalry or mercy? He was describing war as it has existed for thousands of years across many cultures with only a few exceptions.
Xenophon describes what the first anon said though for everything up to the Battle of Cunaxa
Only when the Ten-Thousand were isolated in the middle of enemy territory is where the Greeks switch from pitched battles to skirmishing and unconvential tactics to keep the Persians and their allies at a distance
People back then were way less moronic than nowadays, at some point they would go "frick this shit" and run the frick away en mass.
The battle of Carrhae was unprecedented. The parthians had never before assembled a pure cavalry army, and never would again.
It was the work of a single parthian general, who would later be assassinated by the parthian king for being too successful against the romans.
While Crassus get a lot of shit for the route he took, it wasn't really considered a controversial strategy. And keep in mind that Crassus was considered just a capable general as Caesar by their contemporaries.
If you have a phalanx unit that has at least 30 men you can defend an alley and 2000 men will die
Pontus Pajamas.
>play Medieval 2 and Rome 1 since release
>never played multiplayer
I wonder what it's like.
The fricking pajamas were the funniest thing I saw. I was surprised to find them in Europa Barbarorum too.
For me, it's cavalry. All of it.
For me it's a French army of 80% crossbowman 20% heavy infantry in Medieval 2 Total War. Get shot horse pussies.
You're supposed to spam horses as france man, wtf are you even doing, go play HRE or some GAY shit like that, UNCHIVALROUS
Its like playing Brettonia in Warhammer. You've got murderstacks of cav for field battles and peasant rabble for sieges.
Unironically... yes
FOR THE LADY
>"Do it fer Love! Do it fer yer pox mum! Do it for your fellow ass pirating english bungjaws!"
>Loud cheering
Total War will never be this based again.
*blocks your path*
why were they the strongest unit?
people shit on the pajama boyz, but they're pretty decent when used for what they are supposed to do.
Tanks elephants
Tanks chariots
Tanks horse archers
In fact, Tanks all archers, just wave them in front of them and watch 3 of them waste all their ammo and not kill half of a unit.
>Pope says that if I attack another Christian I will be excommunicated
>another Christian attacks me
>defend myself
>get excommunicated
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW
Should've listened to God's will and accepted death.
Enjoy burning in hell, miscreant.
As much as CA needs to make a good Empire 2, you know they’re just gonna do medieval 3.
I hope they don't, they're talentless hacks.
I hope they don't touch Empire or Medieval again
All their talented devs are long gone
You know they’ll make a shiny, shitty Med III
>M3 would generate maximum hype just like Rome 2 did
>M3 would also be seen with extreme scepticism from anyone not buying into the hype
>it would be plagued by all of the poor designs from past games
>warscape
>it gets review bombed when it doesn't live up to expectations
I'm going to eat a tablecloth if they make Medieval 3. Even Empire 2 is highly unlikely and I'd love to see a great E2.
I fully expect CA to transition into only making fantasy games now, for better and worse.
I never understood why they didn’t make a licensed Westeros game
They might now. There was a poll about which fantasy setting players wanted to see in the next game and they had just about everything on the list including Marvel and Star Wars.
Speaking of Empire 2 what I’d do is very simple:
1)Make kriegspiel the classic game but in a simulated European 1:1 landscape.
2)Use kreigspiel as a middle layer between battlefield tactics and the strategy layer. Total War simulates the middle lawyer with bullshit like running out the clock in a battle
3) in the strategy layer, have a more in depth administrative system where partial control of territory allows for taxation but only full control allows for governance.
4) add more of the world. Siam etc. maybe frick it as dlc
Also, beyond CA’s ability, but make it work somewhat properly. For example the Dutch are set up for the war of Austrian succession but E:TW is unable to remotely simulate how that war progressed.
The starting alliances of Netherlands become more of a handicap to work around than a realistic set up modeling history.
Fix that
>everyone tells me rome 1 and medieval 2 are only liked because of nostalgia
>start playing TW circa 2015
>both of those are my favourites
hmmm
If you can take the jank, they’re definitely among the best.
I tried Rome2 the other day but it just felt awful to battle and move units around. Coastal settlements have naval garrisons and the AI won’t land properly when attacking or defending so everything comes to a halt if you can’t deploy naval units.
It’s horrible. I hated it.
Atilla is significantly better than Rome 2
Rome2 left such a bad taste in mu mouth I’m hesitant to try newer ones. Maybe on another huge sale.
Also units insta replenish but you can’t have smaller reinforcing armies anymore. You gotta retreat a general to a recruitment province or something. It’s like everything was made to be played around giant stacks all the time.
it was a shift in game design to make it streamlined as much as possible for COD-gays and strategy noobs (to increase sales and shit)
Attila is still based on that game design tho
Shogun 2 was the last Total War that I would say is legitimately great. Atilla is what Rome 2 should have been but still has some of the flaws and everything else afterwards has its own host of problems.
3 Kingdoms unironically was a big step forward from the past mechanically speaking but it was stuck in a pretty boring chink setting, focused too much on the 'Romance' part of the 3 Kingdoms novels, and had the most bizarre DLC choices early on.
All rome 1 needs to be perfect is better camera/unit controls. Modern TW games spoiled me in that regard. The gameplay itself is excellent.
Excellent taste. I don't know how it can be nostalgia if I am still playing them.
All of the warscape games are so extremely different from R1 and M2. I could never put my finger on the why but they never really clicked with me.
I thought the camera was fine. I'm not sure what you mean by unit control. You can enable the minimal UI and use control groups just the same as any of the modern games.
Better pathfinding and campaign AI is what I'd ask for but I've been playing them as they are for so long I'm used to it. I always get surprised whenever the AI in a mod makes a non-moronic move.
> I'm not sure what you mean by unit control.
I guess you don't use any of the neat features modern TW games have.
what do they have? i did like that in rome 2 i could set a precise path for my units to run by creating waypoints. helped with cavalry to set them to take a wide loop around the enemy
Medieval 2's AI and balance are entirely fricked. Like game-ruining fricked. You can win every battle with a single unit of heavy cavalry cycle charging straight into them and NOTHING else, not even a single other unit.
Balance is ok, heavy cav is super strong but it makes sense based on the setting and makes pikes, who melt to regular infantry, make sense.
But the AI, oh god the AI. CA doesn't get enough credit for making the battle AI actually functional starting in shogun 2 and actually good by warhammer 2, flanking and hammer and anviling and all. Without exaggerating, 1/3 of all battles and 1/2 of siege battles in Medieval 2 will have the AI bug out completely to where they become unresponsive and just sit there in a broken formation while you pick them apart. Or just charge everything at you without bothering to flank or doing anything clever at all.
People shit on the battle AI in Med2 despite it being perfectly functional. The reason why you win everything so easily is because the AI recruits piss poor armies on the campaign map, doesn't even get a full stack and then forgets to let a general lead it.
The siege AI in Med2 is the best in the series, I have no clue what you're talking about.
Then the Timurids arrive and frick your army in the ass.
tells me rome 1 and medieval 2 are only liked because of nostalgia
Which wienersucker said this?
>the build-a-bear construction system
VGH. I hate the nu provincial and limited building system so much. If I want to build a farm in a barren arid landscape then let me. They should have just balanced it so you could absolutely frick yourself building things in stupid places.
so much THIS
they already have farm fertility systems so why not just have it so that farms barely give you any income or whatever from a shit settlement? Oh, that's already how it works in R1 with fertility levels...
sightlet here
the thumbnail looks like there's a bunch of Peter Griffins preparing for battle lol
Your Spartans, bro?
spartans honestly not worth it, armored hoplites are top tier infantry on their own while spartans are expensive, can only be trained in two cities, take two turns to train, and require a maxed out barracks. meanwhile armored hoplites can be shit out anywhere and can go toe-to-toe with legionaries (if used correctly)
For me... GAULS I fricking love 'em
Nah, Carthaginian Sacred Band with Sacred Band Cav, Numidian cav and War Elephants is the GOAT.
The downfall of total war began with the removal of general speeches before battles
>hires one unit of mercenary hoplites as rome to cheese city battles
heh, nothin personel rebels
RTR for remastered is fantastic. Doing my first playthrough of it as Rome, absolutely crazy amount of settlements. The only thing that makes Remastered worth it is that based Feral removed the settlement and faction limits. Makes for a truly global style map. I'm about 15 hours in and pretty much only hold Italia and a small beachhead in Syracuse.
The idea of a remastered Rome 1 is pretty cool.
But frick CA at this point man, they can't do ANYTHING right, I love the series, but it has just been a shitshow since Rome 2, don't even get me started on Warhammer
>absolutely crazy amount of settlements. The only thing that makes Remastered worth it is that based Feral removed the settlement and faction limits
It's mostly nice, but there's that one map with 1000 settlements or something. Dunno how anyone can play that, a full campaign would take me a year to play.
Your favourite TW soundtrack bros?
Gotta be this
M2 didn't have nearly as memorable OST as Rome did
>Crusaders
>Journey to Rome Part II
>Drums of Doom
>Rome: Total War
>Mayhem
>Barbarian Domination
>Forever
I forgot how amazing the Rome 1 OST was. Shogun 2's music is really good too.
for me its Teutonic order main menu.
>Dividing Rome to no less than 4 different factions in a game centered around Rome
>Egyptians being woefully and purposefully ahistorical
>Cheating AI that can pop family members out of their ass making things like assassinating the faction leadership via assassing nigh impossible and/or pointless
>Cheating AI that can spawn 3 full stacks of units and maintain them with income from 1 Minor City
>Dumbfrick AI that can't make nonmoronic moves either in the campaign map or in the battles (ie. declaring war with you for absolutely no reason when you have 50 provinces and they have 1 and you have been allied for the last 100 turns)
>Briton Chariots goddamn FRICKS
>Head Hurlers, Screeching Women, Bull Wariors etc.
>Domus Dulcis Domus and Amazon brigade
>Seleucids that will always get dogpiled by Egypt
Despite these minor flaws I will forever and ever love Rome Total War and play it for the next 20 years as well
Rome being split though is very KINO.
Rome was anything but a 100% unified Empire, even in its heyday. Rome 1s interpitation of it is obviously wrong, but it does give you a rat race feel vs other Romans, which IS correct
>but it does give you a rat race feel vs other Romans, which IS correct
>100 turns in
>the scipii have finally managed to conquer sicily
>the julii have just managed to secure north italy
>the brutii (you), taking things at a leisurely pace, have finally reached the hanging gardens of babylon and have finished painting the eastern half of the map puke green
it's a shame the AI is so slow to conquer when not engaged with you. I remember cheating in med 2 as scotland to abandon my settlements and put myself in the ass end of nowhere to let the world do its thing. after 500 turns, england still hadn't conquered the rebel scottish settlements, and I think only the venetians had been destroyed. there were settlements exchanged, but not nearly as much as you'd think for how long things had gone on. I think I recall even the mongols and timurids losing steam and becoming regular factions due to their income bonuses drying up and having to downsize their armies
Rome to no less than 4 different factions in a game centered around Rome
Honestly another good idea. Limitations of the game mechanics meant it would be very hard to implement an interesting civil war system without it. BI and Rome 2 are proof of this. They're civil wars are far less interesting than fighting it out with the other major Roman powers.
It also meant the Roman actually expanded and conquered. 1 AI running 1 faction is always going to struggle, but 3 with 3 factions that can expand in different directions is cracked.
god, yeah, rome 2's civil mechanics were dogshit. it boiled down to spending money every turn to give every internal faction something to do to placate them and then ignoring it the rest of the time. never a good sign when a mechanic is useless and numbing at best and obstructive and annoying at worst. but I can't be surprised given CA
Egypt being completely ahistorical only makes sense from a dev point of view to me because I can imagine them trying to include something that's not yet another Hellenic faction but not knowing enough about the period to do it properly.
Ironically, this is one of the things that makes me less interested in the remaster mods. They will put EVERYTHING they can think of in instead of making the best use of the limitations that are forced on them. Hell, it took me a whole year (down to the week) to complete my first campaign of EB1, and that mod only had 198 settlements to conquer but it was amazing.
>Hell, it took me a whole year (down to the week) to complete my first campaign of EB1, and that mod only had 198 settlements to conquer but it was amazing.
what'd you like about the mod? It felt like I was just playing "conquer rebel settlements: the game". It was just super tedious to me.
Have you played it for more than a dozen turns? I like it precisely because it doesn't devolve into only fighting rebels for the whole game. The AI factions will take decent chunks of the map for themselves even if you play at a very fast pace. It was incredible to fight huge Parthian and Egyptian empires by the end of the game.
Unless you played EB2 which has that exact problem and is why I don't like it.
Triarii!
>Egyptians being woefully and purposefully ahistorical
Play EB.
>AT THEM LADS
based and greekpilled, the greeks in rome1 are fun.
I prefer Macedon, myself
are macedon even playable in R1? I forget
No, but you can enable them by changing a few lines in one of the txt files.
why was Macedon not playable faction in base game?
Probably because they wanted to do a special intro for them but had no time. Same with factions like Armenia, Pontus, Thrace, etc. Their campaigns are still fully functional once unlocked.
Pretty much only the romans were playable, maybe carthage too I don't remember, but you can easily play as any faction in the game just by editing 1 line of code, the other factions were lackluster in their roster compared to romans but still fun to play.
>the other factions were lackluster in their roster compared to romans but still fun to play.
For the Greeks it didn't matter to me, because armoured hoplites could go up against anything with good odds for them
when I was like 12 I would take on the Romans by goading them into an attack then corner camp
the shogun 1 / medieval 1 map system was much better
>Install Shogun 2
>Start the tutorial rebel battle
>They sit in the trees on a hill for 10 minutes until I finally send a squad over and they get immediately swamped
>Any sort of planning or strategy vanishes and I need to just throw my troops into a giant frickblob melee
I really don't see what people see in this. Every TW game I've played plays like this. There's no strategy on the overworld map or in combat because the AI is always two steps ahead of the player. You can't even break off troops to flank without the AI deciding to randomly send three squads in the same direction while completely across the map.
It goes from "how can I strategically win this battle" to "how can I manipulate the AI". It's not even fun to lose because once you're behind you're pretty much boned, the problems snowball much faster for the player than for the AI.
>the AI is always two steps ahead of the player
I really don't know what you mean by that. the only advantage the AI has over the player is being able to immediately react to changing circumstance, which it often fails to do or does so poorly.
from what you described, you walked into an unfavorable situation and got punished for it. you could have tried baiting them off the hill using cavalry (if you had them) or perhaps through skirmishing. you could say that's manipulating the AI, but would the result be so much different if you were fighting another player?
I will agree that moshpits are an issue with total war games and that battles can often become 1 on 1 unit brawls rather than two cohesive entities clashing. I'd say older TW games did it better, but I recall that happening as far back as rome 1. Hard to say where that issue lies.
It's not like I lost, it was the first battle of the game. I just found it funny that the AI was totally willing to wait out the clock because it knew it had a massive advantage by spawning on the high ground in a forest. There was nothing I could do to eek out an advantage in that situation, whatever I did that unit would going to get attacked from three sides just to bait out the AI.
I played TWWH 2 the most and that's where the AI advantage was the most apparent, probably just from playtime. Whatever I did or tried to do the AI would have an instantaneous response, the AI always had the advantage. I never felt like I had an advantage going into a battle with a balanced army, only with doomstacks of missile units or whatever high tier unit I could train at the moment. Their weaknesses would get covered instantly and I would be forced on the offensive without fail, the only defensive battles I ever played were sieges. I would shift, they would find the one chink in the armor, then bam, instant combat blob when I shift my units. Backlines were worthless unless I babysat them, all the AI needs to do is save a single unit and rush them and now I need to focus on two fights at the same time.
>inb4 "git gud"
>I just found it funny that the AI was totally willing to wait out the clock because it knew it had a massive advantage by spawning on the high ground in a forest.
well, duh? if you had the high ground and were defending why would you abandon your advantage? in R1/M2 being on higher ground actually confers advantages because the battle engine was more in depth as well
yes, though understandable, it is frustrating when the AI plays it smart like that. and it's hard to say given I don't know the army compositions and I don't believe I ever did tutorial battles for shogun 2. the AI will just have the better/bigger army where your tactical options are limited and you might be screwed. I guess it'd just be weird for that to be the case for a tutorial battle where you'd think it'd be about showing the player different ways to balance an unbalanced situation using various units.
warhammer is also a tricky one given you can absolutely get stomped due to the almost rock, paper, scissor army compositions. if you're fighting an army that just nullifies your own, you can't do much about that painlessly. but once again, it's hard to know what's going wrong when you're not seeing the battle for yourself. but generally, if you don't have an advantage in mobility, ranged, or general killing power, you're going to have a bad time unless you find a terrain advantage to nullify the enemy's.
Playing with a clock is for sissies. Go no time limit or bust.
Sounds like Very Easy combat/campaign difficulty is more your speed.
>flanks you
What now spear boy?
I love old total war games, why were they so good? Med 2 and rome 1 were the best. I loved playing as the Teutonic order and the Byzantium empire. Shogun 2 was alright but lacked replay value.
Best engine. Best battles. Best campaign.
>Timurids spawn in
>immediately gift them a city in Ireland
>they cut a path of death and destruction across the world to their new home and ignore my armies
Good times
for me, it's still Shogun 2, to this day.
comfiest map, largely best music or ambience (especially the victory music) and the best blend of simplicity and usefulness.
the part of shogun 2 where everyone wars you is shit
my most kino campaign was one where I basically split the country 60/40 with another clan which I declared my bro from the very start (I think it was Takeda, my based horse nikkas) and I was stressing the inevitable breaking of our brotherhood once realm divide happened, but the fricker stuck with me throughout it until I won the game.
i'm surprised how poorly received the remastered was. maybe it's because I just don't give a shit about how the UI looks within a reasonable degree, but the fact that I can play the game at good framerates is all I ever wanted and has me content. the fact that a lot of the mods for it have been ported over is the cherry on top. shame that the randomizer mod for base rome 1 wasn't ported tho
All you ever needed to do was get a d3d8.dll wrapper to make the original Rome to run at 60fps.
oh
Didn't they use the modern dogshit engine? Rome1 was superior combat wise to all the newer games.
no no no, remastered still uses the old engine, just with higher res textures and environments. I actually really like it.
(I play on my shitty laptop so ignore the mediocre graphics in this screenshot)
How do I trigger Marian reform in Rome 1?
i've heard the best way to do it is to enslave settlements to increase population increase in core regions as well as recruiting peasants from places you can spare the population to dump into a single settlement and get it to a huge city. once you build the imperial palace, it should trigger
there is nothing the AI can do about this
nah bows are nerfed now. They dog shit.
can anyone give me advice on how to win on Very Hard in Shogun 2. I do well but when realm divide hits I lose all my trading partners and I can't fund a army.
also I hate how shit Cav is in shogun 2. Historically, Taekea would legit just charge entire lines and destroy them. But in shogun 2 good luck charging head on.
I played as takes a on hard and you basically just have to bait people to attack the keep and use gun troops on the walls and samurai sacrificial lambs below. Then it’s a nightmare when they all start attacking you
For me, it's the Gauls
>think about doing a peasant only challenge
>play as britain so I can safely build up my peasant hordes because AI to dumb too boat
>finally have my peasant doomstack (upgraded armor and weapons
>do my first rebel settlement battle
>peasants break at the first contact which leads to a mass rout every single time, even with general present
I swear peasants are more resilient when they're alone than together. is it even possible to play with only peasants if they're just going to rout instantly?
Hahahahaha, holy shit. I tried the same challenge last year. It was miserable. And yes, units are much more likely to rout if they see their friends running. I'm just going to do a no general challenge instead.
>And yes, units are much more likely to rout if they see their friends running.
I figured that's what was causing the avalanche of frick, but I have no idea why the first few units are routing when they're surrounded by friendlies and are only going against warband. no point arguing game mechanics given that's just how they are, but it sucks it isn't viable at all
It is possible to do it, but you need to get shrines that give them experience. Send them in one by one and let them get spent before sending more which will also help by exhausting the enemy. Remeber their basic morale is poor and you have no general which are colossal disadvantages in R1.
yeah, I was thinking more experience could help as well as letting them grind on enemies individually. just feels like it gets in the way of the spirit of what I was trying to accomplish, of having thousands of shitters surrounding and swallowing up stronger enemies.
Good luck with your run. I might try it again some day.
I sort of did a version of this with the mughal empire in darthmod empire, I decided to go melee only with maximum unit sizes and 40 unit armies and it was way too funny. I would field something like 6000 men per stack and charge across the field at my technologically superior foe.
If you want something like that I'd recommend going melee only in a gunpowder game, it's too fun.
Hmm.. Julii is kinda boring, the Gauls offer no challenge at all.
What other faction should I play instead?
Seleucids
Parthia
Pajama boy only challenge
I really wish FotS had good campaign gameplay, since the battle gameplay is fantastic.
gunpowder gameplay stinks
Say that to my 5 Armstrong guns and not online, motherfricker.
ok
so hows the mod for remaster that adds a bunch of provinces?
I can't get upset at them for the ahistorical armies since they obviously did it for variety.