Am I The Only One ?

[BADDERS]

Oh, and for my 2 cents on the speed of S2, I agree, the unit speed and kill rate are too fast.

Robs the user of strategic and tactical options that make battles more engaging, and instead leaves me with a mad scrum at the center of any engagement, I get fewer meaningful opportunities to flank (short of mounted units who are the only ones fastest enough to get somewhere to do something before the rugby match at the middle is over), fewer opportunities to use the unique capabilities of units, again, because everyone is busy mugging each other at the middle in force, and generally forces me to pause the whole affair about a hundred times in huge engagements to avoid being mugged by an AI that has no such problem.

It's not that it's hard to stay ahead of the AI, it has the usual flaws, it's more than this speed just wasn't necessary, it feels like it wasn't for lack of a better way to describe it, user tested sufficiently to check to see if the feel was right.

All this being said, I like this TW better than my love of all the others combined. The gestalt of the entire package to me is frankly, sublime. It's GOTY for me this year, doesn't matter what else releases or how good it is. This, for me, is simply, one of those games that just don't come along every day.

Players always mention the speed of engagements but the thing you have to keep in mind is how completely jacked up powerful you can boost your armies. The irony is if you ignore a lot of the micro-management most units will insta-shatter from moral shocks (Matchlocks, Cav charges on flanks, etc..) but a veteran unit with their moral boosts and a decently experienced general with abilities like warcry or stand-and-fight makes even the cheapest units absurdly powerful.

Case in point for a long time now in multiplayer, and really any campaign, the dirt cheap ashigaru units have been absurdly powerful. Yes under normal circumstances they'll route but with the morale boosts, and abilities (not even factoring in retainer bonuses) Ashigaru will almost always win against their Samurai counterparts. Why? Because you can field two or three times as many troops and between abilities like Stand-and-fight, Inspire, etc. they'll last long enough for your other dirt cheap infrantry/cav to either flank, surround, or hammer-and-anvil.

That's the weird area CA finds themselves in. If players don't choose to micro or specialize their units, yep fights end quickly, but if they buffed that base limit suddenly they're incredibly broken overpowered if you do happen to maximize your abilities and retainer skills. As is, you still routinely get ludicrous scenarios like a Yari Ashigaru unit not routing until they're well under 50% men remaining.

[easytarget]

Tis true the buffs present a problem, as is often the case in any game. I don't envy CA or any game mfg the task of working out that balance. I still can't help feeling in the SP battles I participate most in, for at least the front half of the game before the buffs really kick in, that tactics and strategy in the battle segments is hard to implement. Minor quibble, and as you said, hard to address.

[JagRoss]

I normally fight my battles unless I'm sure that I'm going to win, or if it's a siege battle (I hate siege battles).
I remember winning my first long RTW campaign, I'd just finished crushing the Brutii and had besieged a Scipii settlement, and instead of fighting an epic battle,
I autoresolved.

[Nowake]

Hey JagRoss, welcome amongst the Orgahs!
Also, I share your hate for siege battles. It's too difficult of an endeavour for it to reach an appropriate standard of realism. I have not played NTW, yet I remember watching a youtube clip of a city assault, and it consisted solely of four huge walls and a cube-like building in the middle. As a placeholder for an XVIIIth century besieged position, it must've felt horrible to play through. In Shogun 2 the rudimentary display is at least closer to reality a bit. But then again, the portrayal of Sengoku Jidai always fit the Total War series like a glove, unlike many of the eras they tried to apply the game-concept to since.

[UglyandHasty]

, In Shogun 2 the rudimentary display is at least closer to reality a bit. But then again, the portrayal of Sengoku Jidai always fit the Total War series like a glove, unlike many of the eras they tried to apply the game-concept to since.

True. One thing lacking to STW2 Sengoku Jidai wise. The ability to make fort. Read report of the era, its almost an endless battle for fortified position ....

[Nowake]

Yeah, we're in agreement there.
Even if you leave aside modern analysis and refer only to novels which popularised the era like Eiji’s Taiko, the writers simply cannot skip the logistical and tactical entrenchment maneuvers in favor of the tempestuous Okehazamas and river Anne encounters of the day, they’re simply more important than the battles themselves on quite a few occasions.

Then again, if we are to list missing features from S2 which would accurately portray a military campaign, we’d fill a few pages. Still, the game remains compelling and the pinnacle of the series up to now, in my opinion.

[Conkercorner]

I prefer the campaign map parts, since I enjoy thinking of what my next move will be, and because I'm awful at the battles. Although I always play siege battles myself, since autoresolve seems to favour the attackers a lot of the time.

[Furunculus]

Back in MTW days too, I used to prefer campaign-map play over a hybrid style in SP. Yeah, the TW merchandise has been the pioneer in proving out that mass battles in realistic proportions was possible in PC gaming and actually were quite revolutionary in strategy genre. However, blame the board game nerd living inside of me who used to prepare his own board games as a child or my battle-inexperienced and impatient-in-game nature, I have played and am playing all TW games with as less battlefield experience as possible, if not none at all.

How about you ? Am I the only one ?

i rarely, if ever, play the battles.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Whats important for me is that the battle must remain realistic, otherwise no point in playing it.

[A Nerd]

I play all the battles, even the easy ones. Nine times out of ten I will even conduct the siege on a castle that has only a unit of samurai retainers in it. I might take more casualties than in autoresolve, but I just find the battles quite fun. I don't fight the naval battles though. Those are always autoresolve. I faired poorly in one I was predicted to win and I find maneuvering the ships around just firing arrows to be a tad bit tedious. To play without battles would be like playing only half a game in my opinion.

[GoldenToad]

I enjoy the campaign map more, however I do play nearly all of the earlier battles so that I can 'level up' my generals, I find that having 'battle scarred' and 'bloody' in Roman generals helps make them stronger in the later game.

I also find the battles in the end game more interesting than managing the 'economy' and recruitment because things start to get too large and become boring.

[Eliian]

I really enjoy the campaign map in this game. Most of the time I do enjoy doing the battles, however the campaign gives them meaning. What I hate is doing sieges, or when near the end of a campaign and you know you are going to win.

This is my first Total War/Strategy game experience. I have never enjoyed RTS, but enjoy campaign (Civ games, Might and Magic,ECT).