>want to get into total war
>buy rome 2
>its boring
i dont get the point of it, you just click on other groups and wait until your group kills them and do this like 15 times until you win
am i just moronic? am i missing something? does it get better later on?
People play this game for the battles, and they play the battles to enjoy the show. It's a screenshot simulator like graviteam is for WW2, but with less depth so it's more user friendly. Campaigns give context to the battles, so your general ammurabium XII, son of the suicided ammurabium XI (because he had a bad trait) attacks the city of Vienna held by the russians under the evil Golden Horde, led by Francois, and you hate him because he dowed your ally which you had to betray because it wasn't convenient to fight Francois a couple of turns ago and you feel sad about it.
There's a reason why they tried to spice the gameplay up with abilities, and that's because it's dull. It doesn't have the depth of a true simulator like a WW2 game has, or the C&C system of scourge of war to keep it interesting, so they went the action route, trying to fix something that for the main userbase wasn't broken and taking away time to enjoy the battle from the ground because you have to keep an eye on everything, and now there's even a bird's eye view, except you're not playing fricking wargame red dragon, you're playing this to see little peeps hacking at each other. Meanwhile, every time a game comes out several mods come out to make the gameplay slower so that you can enjoy the battles comfily again, to the point that then submods come out and try to make it quicker again because not everyone has time for a skirmish between half stacks taking away 45 minutes.
oh so if this isn't appealing to me, then its just not appealing? there's nothing to 'get'?
Usually setting is very important to get some sort of immersion into the games exactly because there is no deep gameplay to keep you hooked if you don't care about what your peeps are wearing. A case could be made that gunpowder titles have a little something else going on because you rely more on gunlines, and warhammer does spice things up with more different rosters and some other stuff, but at the end of the day the basic gameplay will always be deploy->give orders->watch, with the watch part's length depending on the situation and how good you are. So if that doesn't really catch your interest I'm not sure the games are for you.
Still, we can work around that if you want to get into the series. What made you interested in the first place? What were you expecting?
well i was most interested in the middle ages but saw that medieval 2 is really old and apparently has issues running on modern computers so i passed over that one as my introduction to the series
i just constantly saw threads on this board about total war and its overall a pretty popular series so i suppose i just wanted to see what the fuss was about
There are medieval mods for attila and thrones of britannia if you want to try those out, attila also has a charlemagne campaign DLC.
M2 has been one of the high points of the series during its time but it aged badly and has several issues that can't be fixed (admittedly, you start noticing them after a good while in most cases and several mods fix what they can), but it's the most moddable, there's something for every taste, so you could also try that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you played as Rome and saw how OP their infantry is. Heavy infantry are generally very strong in Rome II, so you can just point them at the enemy and auto-win. Games where archers or cavalry are the killers tend to be more interesting since you have to put more work into keeping them out of harms' way. So I'm guessing you're not moronic, you're not missing something, Rome II is just bad and it does get better if you play something else.
I find MII runs just fine. It has a lot of good mechanics, but loses a lot by being one of the easiest games in the series do to lackluster AI. It's an acquired taste nowadays, but at least it's very different from Rome II.
med 2 is buggy jank, anyone who claim otherwise didn't play it or didn't play vanilla in ages
its strict downgrade to rome 1 in term of gameplay
there are of course mods and soem are either good or interesting but plenty are autistic and on bloat side not mention crash prone
if you really want to scracth medieval itch - just grab warhammer and play as bretonia or grab atilla and grab charlemange dlc
holy shit what a fricking moronic Black person post
>t. homosexual who never played med 2
Med 2 has its jank but it's nowhere near as bad as Rome 1 is.
>Med 2 has its jank but it's nowhere near as bad as Rome 1 is.
yeah, it was worse, they somewhat fricked things that somewhat worked in r1
i am pretty much convinced that they did it on purpose and it was just big aussie shitpost
Nah, Med 2 was a rushed cash grab. It's actually ironic that it became so beloved, as while it is one of the crown israeliteels of the franchise it's also just an expansion of Rome 1.
tbh I don't really get it why
t. played most of TW games starting from Shogun 1
I started with three kingdom and I must say that it was a very good introduction. Beautiful game, art direction and everything, battles were fun but I didn't know how to play then.
So if you want to give it the series another try I recommend TK. (Also because trebuchets are fun to watch)
What I'm looking for in TW games are memorable moments. In my Warhammer I playthrough after chaos invaded, my vasal and allies betrayed me so I had to fight on all fronts while trying to scramble new armies which was a very tense and hectic moment but also very fun.
But the games are also quite bad when you dig deeper the snowballing is extremely boring starting after early game there is not much progression after the early game. Diplomacy sucks ass in games before TK. Campaign AI is brain dead and unfair not affected by food or any debufs your nation is affected by which I found very dissapointing (you can't starve out your enemies) and a lot more I can't remember. These things make the games for me a biyearly event really.
this
guys take is fricking moronic. first of all, you picked one of the worst total war games. second of all, you play it to crush your enemies PERIOD. you play it to frick shit up and command badass legions, rain hellfire on your enemies with archers and siege engines. picrel is best total war game. units are meaty, battles are fast pace, campaign is intuitive yet challenging. get it
Why do you stupid people write a lot without ever having any deeper understanding of anything ever? Do you mask your stupidity this way? Make it sound complex so you can lie to yourself and others that there is something under that crater of emptiness you call a brain?
Total War games were meant to recreate how battles were fought in the past, as if battle maps were given life. It's like saying Chess is just figures pushing each other, without ever glancing into the tactical depth behind said "pushing".
If that's what you think, I don't envy you, what a lifeless person.
>Total War games were meant to recreate how battles were fought in the past
Not all. Total War was meant to be a cinematic strategy game where you can recreate battles from Hollywood movies like Kingdom of Heaven.
Autistic simulationgays latched onto franchise because it's still the closest they ever had to Real Time simulationist battles. Hence all those autistic, janky, bloated mods were being made, trying to twist every TW game into something that it was never meant to be.
Wrong. Dunno why you spent so long typing all this wrong shit.
Until you can win a battle outnumbered and outclassed 2-1, you haven't played the game. Delete your shit thread, moron.
you picked the worst one, TW is a spectacle of great soundtrack and good battles, that game has neither, should have picked rome1 or med2 (aged a lot better than RTW)
Rome 2 sucks ass. You should have ignored the apologists. Not even good with mods.
Rome II is a strategy game for people that can't into strategy.
Unit stats matter more than flanking or rear charging.
Click. Wait. Win.
At least it has more strategy than Paraslop. Low bar I know
>rome 2 total war has more stategy than pdx games
Lmao, the things you read online…
homie looks dissapointed in you for having the game installed kek
>buy rome 2
>its boring
rome 2 and every total war after it are garbage
>buy rome 2
>start another TW thread when several are already up
>am i just moronic?
pottery
>rome2 haters
>campaign shitters
>dont even use politics
why do scrubs rage over games that are too hard for them? why cant they be content with games made for their skills or lack thereof?
Honestly. I came into this thread hoping to see anons call OP out on being such a moron, and yet all that happened was more morons flocking to his tard banner, all while being as pretentious as possible lmao
i have never looked at the political screen once and my campaign was over before i even knew it existed
didnt realize those stupid events where you click one button for 5% or whatever was some lame attempt at aping paradox
the politics system is boring and in my experience, messing with the shit causes more problems than just leaving it alone and playing well.
install dei and mods similar homie
all vanilla tw are trash
>buy the most boring TW game
>complain that it's boring
Play Shogun 2, fampai
Every Total War since 2013 sucks ass, and every Total War before then suffers from 'old game syndrome' like controls you have to fight with. It would have been nice if CA stuck to the formula that worked, and improved it. They instead threw out baby and bathwater, starting with Rome 2. They refuse to admit to any mistakes, because selling these shit games is now entirely reliant on marketing.
>every Total War before then suffers from 'old game syndrome' like controls you have to fight with
Skill issue
>claims he saw Total War threads and wanted to try out the series
>gets the game that all the threads say is shit
>moreover ignores the criticism that every post-Empire game fricks up the combat
OP is either a liar or brain damaged.
>want to get into total war
>play one of the worst entries
lol?
So... is it good? Or should I get attila.
Attila is better. Only downside is it's the worst optimized game in the series. You can alleviate by importing files from Thrones of Britannia though.
Play field of glory 2
you bought literally the worst game in the franchise, try shogun 2 or med 2
medieval 2 betta
Did they change something recently regarding performance or something? My fans used to be mostly silent while running it, but lately it sounds like an airplane is taking or something. And I don't have this issue with newer titles.
In Rome 2 the developers decided to assign really low numbers to tactical decisions which means the base stats of the units are almost always the deciding factor.
Being surrounded, being attacked from behind, killing a general, charging etc are all things within the players hands and all have a very negligible effect compared to other games. This gives you very little reason to use tactics, and means the at the most braindead strategy of just clicking your guys and then clicking their guys is the most effective one.
Pretty much every other game in the series is better in this regard because they give the player the ability to make meaningful tactical decisions. Atilla is basically the same game but they made killing enemy generals etc have more of an effect, so you get the satisfaction of surviving against the odds that you can’t really get in Rome 2.
If you don’t want to buy another game, try playing as a horse archer faction or a faction with pike units. It’ll be a lot more engaging than playing Rome.
>Atilla is basically the same game but they made killing enemy generals etc have more of an effect
Not true. In Attila surrounds and rapid deaths by arrow volleys are key to victory. If you don't do this then you just get whittled down in a 1v1 melee. You can win 2v1's and 3v1's with the right tactics.
t. playing WRE run right now
rome 1 fights with low tier units could lead to really funny(or bloody) battles
pic related me with bunch of cavalry and low tier pikes vs thracian general cavalry and bunch of light units
I attacked on one flank they on another and we were both rolling over and routing each other levies/low tier troopers
>toehul wah is billshit
I've only played Rome 1 and Medieval 2 but the game is much more enjoyable on harder difficulties especially in the early game or in a blitz campaign where you actually have to use formations and flankings instead of just getting good units and clicking on the enemy.
I'd tell you to get Rome 1 but CA thought it was a good idea to add Roman Black folk because God forbid you play as a white faction.
>want to get into total war
>buy one of the worst TW games ever
There's your problem. Should've bought Shogun 2, or Medieval 2, or Rome 1, or Warhammer (if you're into fantasy) instead.
it was really good on release, combination of discovering the game, the music...its not an RTS and you need to actually think like if you are managing a faction in Rome...you wont play it perfectly on the first, second or third attempt, but then suddenly you taken Italy, Greece, Spain, north Africa etc, nobody can give you shit and you are murdering generals, making money, have happy towns and jump into managing wars that are worth your time.
> What is not to like?
What the absolute frick am I reading, Rome 2 was an extremely buggy pile of hot dogshit on release that was universally reviled. It's like claiming that the ET game wasn't a disaster.
Is this some kind of primitive bot from the release that somehow got set off my OPs phrasing?
This thread is about Rome 2 not Rome 1.
That's the problem - op is playing an inferior shitty sequel and then complaining about it being shit
Mods, make the game be what you want. DEI is famous for a reason.
>slow battles that bork the AI and bork pikes
>pop system that the AI isnt affected by
>lots of critical mod info that is hard to find because you cant mod the UI
yea its shit
You can't polish a turd.
>buy a wargame
>battles bore him
yeah you're missing something, a couple of braincells here and there
>Rome 2
>Wargame
>game
>about warfare
>war literally in the name
>not a war game
get fricked nerd
I suppose you think call of duty is a wargame too?
I suppose you get molested daily and this is your way of coping?
you know damn well what I meant, not wargame as in the genre
actually what am I even saying? total war battles ARE a wargame-esque minigame in itself
frick off
>total war battles are this
>total war battles are that
Not all total war games are the same, the original few were built to be simulators. Normalgays like you complained about sluggishness, a lack of responsiveness and units getting caught in combat, hence why every game from Shogun 2 onwards has RTS style movement and combat. They are not wargames anymore than Starcraft is.
>They are not wargames anymore than Starcraft is
when we're able to build shit, gather resources, and train troops in-battle, I'll agree with you, until then accept that your definition of a wargame is far more specific than mine you fricking autist
now stop screaming at the strawman you made up and give it a blowjob already
Friendly reminder for everyone that history total war lost, and fantasy is the future. Seethe over whether or not it was a wargame - just remember that it's over now.
Get your clicks per minute up, if you want to keep up :~)
>and fantasy is the future
Define: Fantasy. Because last time I proposed to have a Middle-Earth Total War, Elder Scrolls Total War or a Black Company Total War or even some original fantasy like Dominions I got into a screeching match with you morons and you gays saying that CA should make Total War Warhammer games for their rest of time. That's not "fantasy" that's just pure Warhammer that you want.
>Ganker is one person
>you weren't just being trolled by one moron
Dumbfrick
Nah, that guy was 100% sincere and went on a long in-depth unhinged tirade about it, unlike most morons on this site I can actually tell the difference between bait and sincere moronation. And besides it was multiple anons that have displayed that dogshit opinion, I only cited the more recent time I experienced this. Try talking about any possibility of any fantasy Total War other than Warhammer and watch as Warhammergays (who mind you, also shit on the original Tabletop Warhammer game, something I've seen personally on /tg/) start getting assmad and insist that it'll only distract CA from making more Warhammer.
sounds like 2 morons had a pointless conversation and now you're taking it out on us. Dumbfrick
Oh and keep in mind, I know the OP I responded to was bait. But I had to make this declaration to any single-brain-cell moron that holds that same unironic opinion because I know for a fact they exist.
"I'm not falling for the bait, I'm just pretending to fall for the bait"
Pretending to fall for bait in service of telling actual morons that believe in similar shit as the bait ITT is nowhere near as moronic as someone who falls for the bait blindly. I came here to make a statement.
Make that at least 10. If only it had happened only once then I wouldn't really care and I'd just attribute it to one moron and move on. That is unless it IS one moron that has been samegayging all this time on both Ganker, /tg/, /vg/ and /vst/. But if it is and he has that much dedication to being an annoying homosexual, I still feel the need to call that callous homosexual out.
As for taking it out on you, I don't care for Warhammergays who enjoy the game. I care for the ones that are being annoying homosexuals about it and going out of their way to shit on people that have nothing to do with the history vs fantasy shitflinging. Especially other people who genuinely want other Fantasy IPs in Total War instead of just Warhammer spam. They've already had three games. Give some other fantasy IPs a bit of leg room or even some other historical epochs.
Since you're the only one that saw it, maybe it's just your imagination? I never saw anyone in my life say something so moronic and even if they did, I would've ignored it.
>Since you're the only one that saw it, maybe it's just your imagination?
Archives on Ganker and /tg/ don't lie (I could be misremembering if one incident occurred in /vst/ so that's the only one that could be my imagination, the arguments occurring on Ganker and /tg/ definitely happened though). But sure, I'll look through them and post it tomorrow. It's far too late right now, and worth noting this happened in Euro hours so it could just be some autist in the Euro hours. I will say my experience on Ganker has taught me there are people with such a low IQ that would believe this though.
> I never saw anyone in my life say something so moronic and even if they did, I would've ignored it.
I ignored it at first, but saw it happen more frequently and eventually grew tired of the moronation, which is why I had that outburst or statement (whichever you prefer, I lean towards a mix of both) a few posts earlier.
Are you on the spectrum
Maybe I am. Never bothered to test, thought it was a waste of time since I functioned normally.
I will admit my original post was written at 2:00 AM and I was sleep deprived and slightly tipsy. So I'll concede to having been hyperbolic there.
I looked through the archives and also realized I was mixing two separate threads together. So I'll admit I don't have the definitive proof I thought I did. I do have the Ganker shouting match. But don't know if it's worth posting at this point since I will admit that I think I wasted everyone's time here by acting like a sleep deprived flailing moron on here.
>you just click on other groups and wait until your group kills them and do this like 15 times until you win
>does it get better later on?
No, that's all historical Total Wars. It doesn't matter how new or old TW title you play, it's this same shit, just in different setting and with better or worse graphics. When you see grogs complaining about nuTW, they are complaining that battles don't look exactly as pretty as they used to be and that's it. Functionally it's this same hammer and anvil shit you do every time in games set in Medieval times and earlier and none of those lost features changed it.
Warhammer is the only outliner, because it's significantly more gamey and so there are a lot of abilities and gimmicky units. So you can spawn units on enemy ranged units/artillery, cast aoe spells, cast healing spells or buffs and debuffs, flying units can fly over formations and big units like Giants won't give a frick about enemy formations either.
It's also why it's the only one with proper multiplayer community. But it's very "gamey" which triggers "simulationists" part of a fanbase.
Well, Empire/Napoleon playstyle is different as well
Hello!
Do you want to talk about Empire Divided and Cohors?