View Full Version : So ...
frogbeastegg
09-30-2005, 19:34
... BI is out. I could have brought it twice already today, but I didn't even wander into the shop. A first time occurrence; I had all other TW games on UK release day.
The frog is wondering, is it worth it? Is BI good for the frog who dropped RTW in disgust shortly after 1.2, and didn't play the game outside of the rare bit of MP for the months before 1.2? It pains me to sit here and ask in a very weary tone if BI is worth it, but there we go, that's what I'm doing.
The main reasons for that disgust with RTW ... well, they are numerous. To go into the kind of depth I feel would be fair in explaining how precisely I feel about RTW (and there was plenty I liked! And loved! But mostly overshadowed or crushed underfoot by the bits I didn't) I would end up writing a several page long analysis. So I won't :tongueg: I'll sum up very broadly, and try not to feel absolutely rotten. Which I will, no matter how hard I try. Gah!
RTW was ... too easy (on battle map and campaign), too boring (mostly because it was too easy), felt like it needed another few months before 1.0 and another couple of patches after 1.2, missing too many features and doodads from the older games in the series, had too many silly little errors in files like the traits one. Then there's the famous save/load thingie. I'm a busy frog; a turn or two at a time is all I can manage. It's either that or I don't play. This only made my games even more mind numbingly easy. We won't mention the nice PR bomb that issue received, though it did a good job of hardening dislike into disgust and getting the game finally uninstalled, hope having died a rather messy death.
After reading threads like Kraxis' my attention is now pricked a very little. Actually, threads like that are the only reason I'm asking; before I wasn't interested enough to care.
It’s not ‘simple’ things like challenge I’m wanting from BI. Although I do want that too. I want … that feeling again. The magic returned. And all that other guff that is hard to word. I want something in the lineage of STW or VI. I want … I don’t want to be left feeling mine is the only faction on the campaign map, or that I am wasting my time, or that I should have waited for a discounted version or not bothered at all, or that the game could have been great if only, and all those other things I felt with RTW.
I want to like BI. No, I want to love it. But I wanted to love RTW too, and there are so many books out there a frog wants to buy, and only so much money and time ...
And someone tell me why I have this feeling I should wait a couple of weeks, then ask, so there is more time for bugs and issues to be spotted and for the initial gloss to wear off …. I’m getting very cynical in my old age. I feel very rotten now.
Doug-Thompson
09-30-2005, 19:50
It's not easy. It may become easy after I figure out how to properly manage a horde, but it's not easy now.
There's less map but many factions. There's more interaction, more conflict, less predictability. Your enemies and your friends are less clear-cut.
Battles are still easy, however, to anyone who knows what to do. I think we've all lost some battles we should have won, but only because we're not used to the changes yet.
Frankly, I'd like to know what you think but still would say: I'd wait if I was having doubts like yours. No, I did not have an overpowering feeling of a return to M:TW, only better. Some mechanics, the interface and even the look of the game have received substantial improvement, but it's still R:TW.
Kekvit Irae
09-30-2005, 20:00
To be quite honest, the reason why I havent bought BI is because I dont think it will live up to my expectations. I've been burnt out on RTW for a long time.
It's kinda sad, I have more interest in buying UO's new expansion than RTW: BI.
The Stranger
09-30-2005, 20:04
the sad thing is i cant play RTW cuz its not what i expected...and i cant play MTW anymore after seeing RTW :confused:
Doug-Thompson
09-30-2005, 20:25
Let me put it this way: My usual Total War "Blitz" strategy of wiping out a rival faction in the first few moves is definitely not working. If you do that now, they turn into a horde and kick your behind if they are a barbarian faction. If they are a civilized faction, they're too big to blitz — unless they're the Sassinids, perhaps. I'm tempted to take a unhistorical approach and blitz the Sassinids with the Huns.
Frog, my advise to you, and I know your 'issues' well enough, is to find a friend that has BI and ask to borrow it. You have to try it, then you can form your own oppinion of the game as it is now. It is very much better now, but it still a far cry from perfect.
It is more surprising and challenging now, but there are times when it is the same old.
I'm about to write a new topic about the AI in tactical mode. But that is only against the Huns. Take a look when I'm done, you might like it.
At the risk of being repetitive (I seem to say what I am about to say every other post), but have you tried Rome Total Realism, froggie? My BI has not been delivered yet, but I am having a blast with RTR 6.1. I also stopped playing RTW after 1.2 - I am not sure it was disgust, more like "yawn, this is too easy". I didn't even bother to try the BI demo. However, RTR definitely brought back that MTW feeling for me. The combat "feels" like MTW in terms of speed and balance of arms, the history feels more right and if you play it on VH campaign, it is no walk over. As Rome, I took 50 provinces and ended up fighting virtually every faction on the map - none of which I could deliver a knock out blow to. It was a blast.
BI sounds like fun, but it is with mods like RTR and EB that I think I will spend most of my TW time. I would say download RTR 6.1 (you can't argue with the price) and then decide if you have enough enthusiasm for BI.
rebelscum
09-30-2005, 20:42
BI is pushing RTW towards MTW, another 600 years of BI then were in the middle ages. I've been playing as ERE, and frankly I'm not too impressed, there are a few minor differences, battles seem a little more realistic playing VH/VH/Huge. The archery simulation of the horse archers is fun with arrows flying this way and that. The addition of religion does add another element to the game. But I can't wait for RTR to get hold of it.
Garvanko
09-30-2005, 21:29
Changes?
1. More micro-management.
2. The battles are more fluid and spectacular.
Its become a more strategic game, IMO.
Bob the Insane
09-30-2005, 21:53
BI is more like MTW than RTW was...
But you have to remember it is just an expansion and if you really disliked RTW I don't know if enough has changed to make you like it...
It is basically better than vanilla RTW on just about every level from the fixes to the new features to the way the AI acts. But is it better enough for you?? No idea...
Steppe Merc
09-30-2005, 22:01
Frog, I feel the same way. Well, I am mainly playing with EB, but I just can't imagine BI being worth it. Of course I'll buy it if we convert to it, but I can't imagine it being worth it on its own.
PseRamesses
09-30-2005, 22:37
Greetings Frogbeastegg,
My first game with BI was very confusing and a big... oh, no! Been playing daily, 5-6hrs, for well over a week now and I must admit it grows on me constantly. I think the battle AI has improved since unit deployments are better, generals not so suicidal and formations are held (to some extent) and it´s more STW or MTW than RTW ever was. I´ve faced fained retreats, flanking, tactical withdraws and an army that simply wouldn´t give up a hill! Haven´t seen that in ages.
I like the new feats like swiming units since it makes holding a river not that easy anymore and formations like shieldwall etc, it´s impossible to get through, he he, and I drool with exitement to assault a huge city - it´s simply massive - take my advice: skip time limits. Walls and towers are reaching the skies in some places and the cameras height is just enough topass over the top.
I hate the map. I hate the fact that Italy only has 4 provinces, and same with Spain and Turkey. I do hope RTR or EB is getting something out fast or I´ll go back to RTR 6.1 until they do. Conquering is slower due to rebellions and unrests so I guess that the devs didn´t think we would need so many regions to play with. I faced a huge dilemma as the Sassanids since my cities couldn´t accept 10-20.000 slaves from Antioch and the same from Jerusalem so I had only one choice "occupy" - jees! Took me ages to get loyalty up. Now I have a full stack of peasants as garrison-material in newly conquered provinces since I don´t want to get my precious soldiers killed. Mine, Katank (and others) blitzing days are over atleast when it comes to capturing a city with a different faith. It´s back to MTW but ten times worse.
Haven´t played the Huns or done any "hording" so I don´t know about that part but what I do like is that the migration and hording that is taking place really gets you into the feel of this particular era. IMHO BI is better than RTW and with a merge between RTR and BI this game will be better than MTW!
Like Kraxis said, borrow the game - it´s differen´t. I do feel that it´s more money worth than RTR but can get a whole lot better in the hands of our beloved modders.
frogbeastegg
09-30-2005, 22:52
:makes funny whimpering noise: Gah! There shouldn't even be any question over whether I get BI! But there is, and I'm no closer to deciding.
I either buy BI or don't play it at all; I know no one else who plays any of the series. If I buy it I can't return it even if it is the World's Worst Game Ever (which I know it isn't.).
:cough: My expectations for BI are non-existent. Oh, now I feel evil, really mean and evil. I mean more I couldn't scrub up the interest or hope to expect something good, but somehow can't quite bring myself to believe it will be rubbish. I hardly followed the previews and speculation. My demo experiences were, er, well I downloaded it and it sat on my desktop waiting to be installed for a few days. Then I finally decided to extract the zip file and found my primary hard drive was another casualty of the thunderstorm which fried my PC. When that was fixed I ignored it for a few more days, before actually installing it. I played for not even 10 minutes and quit, thinking it was more of the same and a very slow and jerky same at that, which reassured me not the slightest. Now over on .com I see people complaining of performance issues which aren’t there with RTW …
I didn't reach actual disgust until the reaction to the save/load issue first hit. Granted, it wasn't too pleasant on either side, but I didn't much appreciate The Shogun's response on the matter over at .com. Diplomatic it wasn't. Insulting, oh yes.
I did try RTR back around the old 4.0 days, but I didn't like it too much. Regardless of any mod's contents I will be playing a turn or two at once, and so still the AI factions will sit about doing next to nothing all the time. Until 1.3 appears and fixes that issue. But BI fixes it now. And so here we go again; back in the same circle of get or don’t get.
More of RTW I don't mind, even welcome, if it is RTW as it should have been, not RTW as it was. I.e. RTW without the bugs, issues and problems, and with challenge, properly supported, and backed up by a company which doesn't call its customers whiners.
Yes, BI is only an add-on. So was VI, and that really saved MTW for me with its shorter, more focused campaign.
One very small part of me wants to grab hold of the reports of harder campaigns and so on and go buy a copy in my lunch break tomorrow. But I simply can't do it. I can't go it on faith again.
It's really rather amusing, in a way. I've now got far more money than I did when the other TW games came out, yet this is the first time I've been reluctant to part with cash on the series.
Doug-Thompson
09-30-2005, 23:46
More of RTW I don't mind, even welcome, if it is RTW as it should have been, not RTW as it was. I.e. RTW without the bugs, issues and problems, and with challenge, properly supported, and backed up by a company which doesn't call its customers whiners.
Yes, this is R:TW as it should have been. That's something I can say without equivocating.
Bugs? Note the lack of "OhNOOOO Horrible (whatever) bug" threads.
Issues? Some. History fans aren't pleased by "Graal Knights" and so forth, but nothing nearly so ludicrous as Egyptian chariots in the 3rd Century B.C.
To me, the biggest change for the better is that infantry, particularly spear-armed infantry, are no longer helpless before the rush of cavalry. It's a major concession to realism.
Challenge? Anybody who thinks this game lacks challege needs to play the Western Roman Empire.
Backed up by a company that doesn't call its customers whiners? I don't care what they call us as long as they concede our points and act upon them.
This expansion game fixes, improves, or at least takes a stab at every complaint about R:TW that can be addressed without fully rewriting the game: Unit speed, jumping horses, broken HA, diplomacy (although the changes are minor and might not be an improvement), balance, predictability, suicidal generals, AI that seemed to lack an instinct for self-preservation, etc., etc.
Craterus
09-30-2005, 23:55
Yes, this is R:TW as it should have been. That's something I can say without equivocating.
Bugs? Note the lack of "OhNOOOO Horrible (whatever) bug" threads.
Issues? Some. History fans are pleased by "Graal Knights" and so forth, but nothing nearly so ludicrous as Egyptian chariots in the 3rd Century B.C.
To me, the biggest change for the better is that infantry, particularly spear-armed infantry, are no longer helpless before the rush of cavalry. It's a major concession to realism.
Challenge? Anybody who thinks this game lacks challege needs to play the Western Roman Empire.
Backed up by a company that doesn't call its customers whiners? I don't care what they call us as long as they concede our points and act upon them.
This expansion game fixes, improves, or at least takes a stab at every complaint about R:TW that can be addressed without fully rewriting game: Unit speed, jumping horses, broken HA, diplomacy (although the changes are minor and might not be an improvement), balance, predictability, suicidal generals, AI that seemed to lack an instinct for self-preservation, etc., etc.
Along with what I saw earlier, that has persuaded me. ~:cheers:
BRING ON THE FRANKS!!! :duel:
Aesculapius
10-01-2005, 00:27
Oh, Froggy. I have no opinion at all on BI - it hasn't been released here yet and I haven't tried the demo. But from what you're saying, for goodness' sake buy it and try or you'll spend the rest of your life wondering what it might have been like.
“Make the choice adventurous stranger,
strike the bell and bide the danger
or wonder ‘til it drives you mad
what would have happened if you had.”
The_Emperor
10-01-2005, 01:27
If your after more of a challenge this will present it to you.
Compared to RTW this campaign is Hard and slower going. You never know when the next Horde will show its ugly face on your doorstep.
Unrest is a big issue, religious or otherwise.
The Western Roman Empire is itself so weak it practically falls apart like soggy toilet paper before the first Barbarian Horde is spotted over the horizon!
The fact that barbarian factions go Horde on you when you take their last town also adds a whole new dimension to the game... You cannot wipeout a faction with meagre forces anymore when they get 5-6 full army stacks appearing from nowhere.
RTW had its flaws but this has addressed them as best as can be done in an expansion.
For a simple expansion set, I think its done quite well.
Mongoose
10-01-2005, 01:43
I wonder how the new AI compares to the one in MTW. are they about the same now?
Issues? Some. History fans aren't pleased by "Graal Knights" and so forth, but nothing nearly so ludicrous as Egyptian chariots in the 3rd Century B.C.
How can you say it's RTW as it should have been? Egyptian chariots in the 3rd Century B.C. shouldn't have been. Some of us are still waiting to play a decent RTW campaign, and it shouldn't require mods to do it.
Frogbeastegg,
There is always waiting for the v1.3 patch to see if the game achieves a high enought level of gameplay for you to enjoy it. Major problems such as load/save, suicide generals, cav/spear balance, AI holding a battleline when advancing and concentration of forces on the strategic map do seem to be fixed, but whether or not the long term campaign is a challenge remains to be seen. The reports by players that they can still win battles by huge margins doesn't sound promising because this has a big effect on the ability of the AI factions to present a decent challenge at the strategic level.
As far as MP goes, with all these different units and factions, this game is going to have individual units and factions which are more cost effective than the majority of units, and the only way around it will be to play using rules for purchasing armies.
As far as the BI campaign goes, I haven't seen anyone say it wasn't hard so far. The expansion does look like a solid effort, and I would expect CA to move ahead now with all resources devoted to the next project. I wouldn't expect any dramatic change in the way CA interacts with the community, but it is good to see that major community concerns about RTW were addessed. It just took a whole year to get to this point.
If your after more of a challenge this will present it to you.
Compared to RTW this campaign is Hard and slower going. You never know when the next Horde will show its ugly face on your doorstep.
Heh... As the ERE my entire northwest is basically black with devastation. When I still held control over Campus Iagyzes the devastation was half the lost money for that province. Then the repeated assaults and sieges drained the garrison so much it revolted (and created the Eastern Rebels). Now the Huns have settled there after starving the Rebels out. I moved my garrison to Dacia (and gave the local rebels a good kicking) to have a more secure border.
That was the second time I was thrown out of a borderprovince with no chance of getting it back soon after.
They are sneaky in that the Rebels get a fair army right away, but your own garrison is spared.
Kekvit Irae
10-01-2005, 04:44
I finally broke down and bought BI.
I'm so far impressed with what I see.
In one game with the Huns, my Hordes just completely overran Constantinople. However, I do see the problem of Hordes being way too powerful. If you take Britain from the WRE, that will trigger the spawning of the Romano British faction Horde, which will march on London. Unless you are prepared with a huge army, you will be quickly overrun.
Night battles are cute, but I have yet to see one where it's useful.
OMG! Shadows! No longer does marching through a forest look like you are marching through a bunch of 2D sticks in the ground. The shadows of the units and the forests REALLY make it a visual enjoyment.
The difficulty of playing the WRE can only be summed up in one quote:
I almost cried after turn 1. ~:)
If you are looking for a good challenge, or at least something refreshing, I suggest picking up BI.
Night battles are cute, but I have yet to see one where it's useful.
Two reasons, one more important than the other (you will have to guess which is what).
Firstly your enemy's troops suffer a small moralepenalty if you attack at night.
Secondly if you attack an enemy concentration of armies at night, only those that have the Trait can help the attacked army. Meaning you can single out enemy stacks and thus defeat the enemy in detail.
Swordsman
10-01-2005, 05:37
I have no complaints so far in my ERE campaign as to how the game is performing, but it just seems so "slow". I'm about 70 years in and really haven't had much happen. First campaign so I'm being conservative (forts at bridges/chokepoints, building up my cities, etc.), but the hordes are milling around aimlessly and I have yet to be attacked by anyone but the Sassanids-- and those are mostly probes.
Of course, you could argue that I should be taking the fight to 'em, but I figured to weather the first onslaught before counterattacking-- it just hasn't happened yet. Plus it seems very much a two-front war-- there's nothing going on in about 3/4 of my empire and no potential enemies except for the odd rebel army or two. Guess I had envisioned this massive empire beset from all sides. Sounds like the WRE is a whole different proposition, and it's only one campaign, but for me so far it's been quiet-- TOO quiet. ~:)
Doug-Thompson
10-01-2005, 06:08
How can you say it's RTW as it should have been? Egyptian chariots in the 3rd Century B.C. shouldn't have been. Some of us are still waiting to play a decent RTW campaign, and it shouldn't require mods to do it.
No, the expansion does not fix the Egyptian chariots and shrieking women, etc., in R:TW. If I understood Froggie correctly, though, she was asking if the Barbarians campaign was as good and challenging as R:TW should have been. At least that's how I understood her question.
Clearly I agree with you about the silliness of Egyptian chariots in the 3rd Century, and can find quotes on other threads where I've said so many times, Puzz3D. Let me put it this way: If Barbarian Invasion had been the original game and R:TW the expansion, it seems there would have been no Egyptian chariots.
To be perfectly explicit:
Is the Barbarian Invasion campaign better, more challenging and plausible than the R:TW campaign?
Yes, much.
Are there considerable improvements to the tactical game that will help make the original R:TW game much better?
Yes. There have already been numerous examples, and I'm about to post another one. See my upcoming post about armor and archery.
Does the expansion solve the "hard-wired" in-the-design problems, such as Egyptian chariots, that spoil the fun of the original campaign for many who have some sense of history?
No.
Is Barbarian Invasion a seperate game -- more of an improved full-blown sequel than an expansion with a bonus game, ala Viking Invasion?
Yes.
Can you play the Barbarian Invasion campaign with a knowledege of history without feeling irritated by some of the liberties taken?
No.
Can you play the Barbarian Invasion campaign with a knowledge of history without feeling like you just landed in Oz?
Yes.
Divinus Arma
10-01-2005, 06:25
Although I have not bought it (because I am broke), I most certainly will. Sooner or later. Its TW! I can't let a TW title pass and not at least give it a shot.
I'll wait. Probably a few months. Get the wife to buy it for the holidays and such...
I care far more about EB then BI.
Hey Frog, nice work with the Princess Eleanor story, haven't read it all yet, but I love what I have seen thus far. Best fan fiction by far, hope you will publish one day!
Anyways, about BI... I'm not sure what the people above me are thinking, my assumption is that they don't think.
On the strategic map, BI is decent, the niffty new features are nice, but one'll probably get used to them in a matter of hours.
It's when the battle start that... oh the disappointment. Perhaps it is simply because I have been playing RTR (great mod, will satisfy you until Europa B. comes out), but just looking at the models and skins that CA has the nerve to publish is painful!
Not only are the new models and skins badly made, but most of them are clearly recycled (badly) from RTW. The very (I think there are all of 10-15) few new models are also badly made. Also the same model and a VERY similar skin is use for the same type of unit all across the world! Somehow, the WRE's horse archers look suspiciously similar to those employed by the Sassanids... This is not even mentioning the generic spearmen model which is spammed EVERYWHERE.
Oh and the gameplay... or rather the lack thereof, the AI is a little better, but that's like saying a mentally handicapped person is now reading at a first grade level... oh rapture...
The units move so fast and the heavy cavalry is so stupidly powerful that "tactics" seems to have fallen out of use along with the old Roman legions.
Compared to the level of gameplay that we had in the original Shogun (oh where have gone those days when CA made good games and Christ walked the Earth?), BI is a joke and a farce and a humiliating bastard child.
Don't get the game Frog, oh please, for Eleanor and baby Jesus's sake!
....that feeling.....of praying quite early in the game when one horde descends upon your eager little kingdom...praying as they ride thru and not AT you.....and then cursing as you discover why they were riding so fast. the other bigger horde chasing after them....to this point i`ve found the campaign to be tougher and more interesting than RTW...which I also quit.
battles....Of the several have played it seems the AI is better, tho not by alot. But I reserve judgement until I can play more.
I had deep reservations on this one and almost ignored it to go back to VI. But at this point i`m glad I got it.
D
Anyways, about BI... I'm not sure what the people above me are thinking, my assumption is that they don't think.
Do you have to insult someone because they have a diffarent opinion then you?
Garvanko
10-01-2005, 10:34
OMG! Shadows! No longer does marching through a forest look like you are marching through a bunch of 2D sticks in the ground. The shadows of the units and the forests REALLY make it a visual enjoyment.
.
The shadows and visuals in BI has also been improved upon in RTW with the 1.3 patch.
Anyways, about BI... I'm not sure what the people above me are thinking, my assumption is that they don't think.
Nice!~:rolleyes:
And my retort is simply that you don't think... Wow right?
Aetius the Last Roman
10-01-2005, 17:18
Well I don't know about BI because I haven't played it yet but I have played RTR. I hate to be repetitive but after 6.1, Darthmod formations and morale mods, the game is actually challenging.
On the assumption that RTR and EB are going to upgrade to BI I would say buying the expansion is worth it.
Steppe Merc
10-01-2005, 17:19
On the assumption that RTR and EB are going to upgrade to BI I would say buying the expansion is worth it.
Do not assume EB will upgrade to BI. We have yet to decide.
Do not assume EB will upgrade to BI. We have yet to decide.
I wonder if there is going to be an independent downloadable 1.3 patch, as I believe CA said there would be? If so, EB will have to upgrade to that or get left to one side by many players (given a choice, who wants to play with a load/save bug?). But if there is such a patch, people would not need to buy BI to play an upgraded EB or RTR.
Sorry for having been so blunt... Everyone is entitled to their opinions certainly. If you all think that BI can even count as an expansion, sure, go ahead.
But I can bet you in less than a week you all will be complaining about the poor graphics, poor unit diversity, poor everything.
It's just that I've played so many RTS games that the little simple bells and whistles of BI have long since ceased to impress me.
Kekvit Irae
10-01-2005, 18:37
Opinions are one thing. Outright insults are another. If we continue on that path, I WILL lock down this thread. Keep this discussion civil, please.
... BI is out. I could have brought it twice already today, but I didn't even wander into the shop. A first time occurrence; I had all other TW games on UK release day.
The frog is wondering, is it worth it? Is BI good for the frog who dropped RTW in disgust shortly after 1.2, and didn't play the game outside of the rare bit of MP for the months before 1.2? It pains me to sit here and ask in a very weary tone if BI is worth it, but there we go, that's what I'm doing.
The main reasons for that disgust with RTW ... well, they are numerous. To go into the kind of depth I feel would be fair in explaining how precisely I feel about RTW (and there was plenty I liked! And loved! But mostly overshadowed or crushed underfoot by the bits I didn't) I would end up writing a several page long analysis. So I won't :tongueg: I'll sum up very broadly, and try not to feel absolutely rotten. Which I will, no matter how hard I try. Gah!
RTW was ... too easy (on battle map and campaign), too boring (mostly because it was too easy), felt like it needed another few months before 1.0 and another couple of patches after 1.2, missing too many features and doodads from the older games in the series, had too many silly little errors in files like the traits one. Then there's the famous save/load thingie. I'm a busy frog; a turn or two at a time is all I can manage. It's either that or I don't play. This only made my games even more mind numbingly easy. We won't mention the nice PR bomb that issue received, though it did a good job of hardening dislike into disgust and getting the game finally uninstalled, hope having died a rather messy death.
After reading threads like Kraxis' my attention is now pricked a very little. Actually, threads like that are the only reason I'm asking; before I wasn't interested enough to care.
It’s not ‘simple’ things like challenge I’m wanting from BI. Although I do want that too. I want … that feeling again. The magic returned. And all that other guff that is hard to word. I want something in the lineage of STW or VI. I want … I don’t want to be left feeling mine is the only faction on the campaign map, or that I am wasting my time, or that I should have waited for a discounted version or not bothered at all, or that the game could have been great if only, and all those other things I felt with RTW.
I want to like BI. No, I want to love it. But I wanted to love RTW too, and there are so many books out there a frog wants to buy, and only so much money and time ...
And someone tell me why I have this feeling I should wait a couple of weeks, then ask, so there is more time for bugs and issues to be spotted and for the initial gloss to wear off …. I’m getting very cynical in my old age. I feel very rotten now.
I had STW when it was out, pre-ordered MTW and VI and got them within a day or two of release. I was one of the first to order RTW. But BI honestly I did'nt even know it was coming out but I guessed it would be about mid September. I have'nt even bothered to look it up for the same reasons you stated. All that eye candy but it's just so hollow. No challenge, no feel and most importantly, no atmosphere. I want to enjoy this game and I do for the various other reasons such as "cinematic battles" (no pun intended). I doubt if I'll buy BI just yet, maybe next month if I wander into a store and feel like picking it up. Meanwhile I'll keep reading about it right here.
Steppe Merc
10-01-2005, 19:00
I wonder if there is going to be an independent downloadable 1.3 patch, as I believe CA said there would be? If so, EB will have to upgrade to that or get left to one side by many players (given a choice, who wants to play with a load/save bug?). But if there is such a patch, people would not need to buy BI to play an upgraded EB or RTR.
Well, we'd like to wait until we discover all the new bugs inherit in 1.3 ~;)
But I don't suppose 1.3 would allow hordes and all that? Just fix the load save bug (whatever that is... never experienced it (I think) myself).
frogbeastegg
10-01-2005, 19:01
:sighs: Oh ... very well. I suppose this does sound about as reasonable as could be expected, although I do wonder if the lack of "Devastating bug! Gah!" threads is due to the short time the game has been out. I don't like wondering that at all, but there we go. I don't expect terribly much, but that does make it hard to be disappointed at least.
But I do hope Sega has started a new era; as publishers go they are in my better books because they seem to support niche titles, give developers time to finish their games, and support those games when they are done. The standalone 1.3 patch for RTW is perhaps a signal of what to expect. I certainly hope so.
It's £14.99 on Amazon.uk, so I chucked a book in with it for free delivery. I still couldn't muster the enthusiasm to go shopping in my lunchbreak and pay more to have BI now. £14.99; that's two or three fiction books or one big fat history book at Amazon prices.
The Shogun called people whiners while busily denying the existence of the save/load issue. Anyone who thought there might be a problem was a whiner, regardless of whether they were whining or not, or even posting anything at all.
Mods aren’t an option for me, regardless of the mod and the contents, until the 1.3 patch is available for download. No matter what the mod changes it can’t fix the save/load thingy, so I’m still left playing against an AI which admires the view and does very little else. However, once that issue is fixed the frog can try a load of mods without trouble
Turin: Eleanor isn't fanfic, it's original fiction. It's entirely my own creation. Glad you like it ~:) Hehe, BI will pose precisely no threat to the story; nothing manages to be more appealing to me than writing it. Rather, the story threatens to steal my BI playing time, even if it’s the game I was hoping for with RTW 1.0!
Orda Khan
10-01-2005, 19:19
So far its been great. The AI is far better
.......Orda
Doug-Thompson
10-01-2005, 21:42
Snap out of it and play the game.
If it's terrible, take it to a used game store and trade it in. Then be glad for all those years of Shogun and Medieval Total War. It's not hard to imagine a world in which those games never existed.
Even if you don't like BI, I believe that it is enough of an improvement over R:TW to give you hope for the next game in the series.
=========
As for Turin's remarks, his delivery may have been unkind but there are a bits that merit a response.
Unfortunately, someone else will have to respond to the comments about the skins and the models. I respect the amount of art and work that goes into those skins. However, I don't appreciate them as much as I ought. Gameplay matters so much more in my personal value judgements, that appearance doesn't weigh much.
However, I do think it is fabulously unfair to skin (pardon the pun) a company for not producing a whole new line of better qualilty skins for an expansion kit. I know just enough about skinning to know that it is a very labor-intensive and expensive part of producing a game. BI is a new game in it's strategic situation and improvements to tactical gameplay, but it's not a complete rewrite.
=======
I cannot agree that cavalry is ridiculously overpowered, or that tactics don't matter. I don't believe that any unjaundiced comparison of BI and R:TW could avoid the conclusion that BI is better in those regards. In R:TW, you didn't so much guide your armies as aim them and fire. There is improvement in that area. Somebody point to any forum post similar to Kraxis "Impressive Hun" account in all of R:TW.
Even though it is just mediocre, the expansion is still worth getting. You should really get this game. (note on GET and not BUY: I suggest finding a friend that buys BI and ask to have it after he's bored)
Kekvit Irae
10-01-2005, 23:21
As far as the save/load bug goes, I saved my WRE game, loaded it back up, and the AI *still* pounded me back into the dark ages (forgive the pun). Dont know if that was just me, or if the bug was fixed. Certainly saves me the trouble of trying to play an "Ironman" campaign.
The Save Load bug has been fixed. This I am almost 90% sure of.
Mumm... well looking back on things I guess I was outright rude. Really it was more of a joke than anything else, especially with Kraxis (love the interactive history thing that you do). I suppose a smilie to denote the insincere nature of my remark would have been appropriate, but then again I was never one for smilies.
Well what I'm really trying to get at is this: remember when you first started playing RTW back almost a year ago? Remember that "OMG there's this this and this to do and... OH! wow!" and so on and so on. It's not till a week or two in that the defect start to get to you. It's the same thing for BI. The "Oh wow I'm playing BI" feeling wears off REAL fast. For me it didn't even last into the first battle.
I mean, have you all seen the Sassanids? Their units are basically a set of barbarian units (the same set that comprises 90-100% of Western barbarian faction retinues) reskinned with a terriblly bright blue!
Even more blasphemous, the "Virgin" units for the Sarmatians... has CA really degraded itself to selling its game with SEX APPEAL???!!!
In summary, BI is a poorly made expansion that goes against the very spirit of the Total War series. Shame on CA and Sega.
Oh and Frog, sorry, I thought that the connection with MTW (in a very remote way) qualified it as a fanfic. I was mistaken on second thought, my apologies, keep up the excellent work.
Azi Tohak
10-02-2005, 01:28
All I can say is that I am pleased. I rather like the AI's take on formations. Definitely different (inverse cresent? what?), but I do like the battles now. I am playing H/H with the ERE (don't want to tax myself too much) and I think it is fun. I would like more provinces, but that can be fixed without any problems (just not by me... not very skilled with modding you see).
I was not going to buy it either, until I started to read some reviews on here. I think its worth it!
Azi
Doug-Thompson
10-02-2005, 02:20
Well, even I'll acknowledge that the bright baby blue for the Sassanids is a fashion blunder.
Well, even I'll acknowledge that the bright baby blue for the Sassanids is a fashion blunder.
Can't argue with that, but basically all other colours are taken. There will always be a faction that has a very ugly colour.
I'm not going to complain about the skins, if that was so, then why did I like either MTW or STW? Talk about blurry images.
And perhaps we are indeed a bit BI-happy now, but remember that most of us were in fact rather negative about RTW before. Aside from a short dabble with RTR 6.0 I hadn't played RTW since March out of pure boredom and lack of challenge.
Now tonight I won a massive battle against the Sassanids, but that was mainly due to me hiding behind a collection of big rocks and the Sass army was made up by Peasants for a great extent (though the Sughdans made a spectacular appearance). When I broke their initial attacks and felt it was time for a general infantry charge (my favourite tactic), it was due to the success but also because the AI had sent an escorted unit of Elephants behind the rocks. The escort tied up my cavalry (sacrificed themselves to let the eles past), then the eles deftly avoided combat before charging towards my infantry. I had my hands tied, it was do or die. One unit of infantry was sent to deal with the elephants while the other three attacked.
Is was a near disaster because the Sassanids let their Peasants break, then hit my infantry while they were chasing (enter the Sughdans). One unit of Comitatenses even got wiped out because the Sassanids surrounded it when it was alone. I only won becasue I had sent my general out to chase some spearmen off. He could then take the Sughdans in the rear (but they fought on).
Was I impressed? Yes! Was it a challenge? Yes! Did I ever feel outclassed or lucky to win? No. But I doubt that day will come soon. The AI used the correct tactics, but I was simply better and had the better army.
Alexander the Pretty Good
10-02-2005, 04:01
Playing medium-medium I've had some fun as the Saxons.
Diplomacy feels a little more solid than RTW, but that's just my limited experiances.
I've had just two good battles, and both we interesting, facing the diverse (and gimmicky) Celts. The first was a battle of about 1000 per side, I won taking about 50% casualties (they lost maybe 90%). They retreated to their town, where some more soldiers waited. So the siege assault was about 500 me vs. 450 them. Most of them were heavy cavalry, and I won using my spearmen's shield wall. Though I lost another 40%.
Now I have to face the Western Romans, and some powerful rebels.
Take the plunge, Froggy! The water's nice!
Red Harvest
10-02-2005, 04:01
Froggie pretty much stated my feelings on BI. I've been pleased to hear Kraxis and others are finding it refreshing. I'll hold off until the newness is gone and the game is less expensive. Since there are fewer folks testing this one thoroughly, I'm going to wait a bit longer before I draw a conclusion on it. I'll probably wait for the 1.3 RTW patch at least, and perhaps wait for the price to tumble.
frogbeastegg
10-02-2005, 09:27
Ah yes - seeing mention of the difficulties reminds me, are they now functioning correctly again? And is the hard battle setting still just a bunch of bonuses to the AI's troops combat power? Probably too early to tell, but worth asking ...
:crosses her fingers and really hopes that the harder battle settings are closer to MTW's with less stat boosting and more on the extra tactics front, but is not hopeful: I despise stat boosts in battle as a form of difficulty enhancer.
Ah yes - seeing mention of the difficulties reminds me, are they now functioning correctly again? And is the hard battle setting still just a bunch of bonuses to the AI's troops combat power? Probably too early to tell, but worth asking ...
:crosses her fingers and really hopes that the harder battle settings are closer to MTW's with less stat boosting and more on the extra tactics front, but is not hopeful: I despise stat boosts in battle as a form of difficulty enhancer.
Doubtful is indeed the way to go with that. The way the AI acts in my game a Medium I would simply be very hard pressed if it was better in two steps up. It acts mostly sensible now, I find it hard to believe it would be better further up, but that would be something...
Garvanko
10-02-2005, 12:03
Generals can now marry outside settlements. Was this ever possible in RTW? Don't think so.
Ah yes - seeing mention of the difficulties reminds me, are they now functioning correctly again? And is the hard battle setting still just a bunch of bonuses to the AI's troops combat power? Probably too early to tell, but worth asking ...
:crosses her fingers and really hopes that the harder battle settings are closer to MTW's with less stat boosting and more on the extra tactics front, but is not hopeful: I despise stat boosts in battle as a form of difficulty enhancer.
In a v1.3 medium Jullii campaign, I had a dead even matchup againt a Gaul army. Both generals were 4 star and both armies had 850 men. Julii had all hastati with two equite cav. Gaul had warband and a few skirmishers with two or three barbarinan cav.
Julii was in the standard single line formation that is more or less impossed on you by the AI with one equite on each end. I was attacking and moved out of a forest onto a gentle downslope where the Gaul army was waiting. I had the hastati in guard formation, but I didn't have fire-at-will turned on. Gaul had a more balanced army than mine, and their skirmishers inflicted a fair amount of casualties on my units on the left. I used my equite on the right to attack two barbarian cav on that side, but the equite lost and the enemy cav counterattacked. I moved my general to the right to hold that side, and the Gauls then attacked along the whole line. My attention stayed on the right side fighting for about a minute or maybe slightly longer. When I looked back to the left, Gaul was routing the entire left side of my line. My right side fought on for a while longer, but eventually lost. I killed 400 Gauls and lost 800, and my general was killed. It wasn't very good play on my part, and the AI took advantage of it winning decisively at medium difficulty with even odds.
Back on the strategic map, this Gaul army of 500 men stayed put at the entrance of a mountain pass. I was able to assemble a 1500 man army under a 2 star general in a few turns, and returned and eliminated the Gaul army. I lost 200 men doing that.
One very good thing now is that the AI puts its good generals into large armies, and he doesn't charge forward right away. This helps the AI to be a lot more competative in the battles.
But, but... frogbeastegg, if you don't get the expansion, whimper whimper, who will write the Strategy guide?
Terry
Yours are the cream of the cream.... I print them all out for my "huge" 3 ring binders....
Oh no! If Frog buys the game and starts writing strategy guides, what will happen to poor Eleanor?
LOL anyway, the AI is slightly better in that it no longer does totally pointless manuvers. However, the AI still cannot attack in a cohesive way. It's infantry line breaks apart before contact and the cavalry is rather haphazard.
Oh and the harder difficulties simply mean combat bonuses for the AI, they aren't actually smarter.
Well what I'm really trying to get at is this: remember when you first started playing RTW back almost a year ago? Remember that "OMG there's this this and this to do and... OH! wow!" and so on and so on. It's not till a week or two in that the defect start to get to you. It's the same thing for BI. The "Oh wow I'm playing BI" feeling wears off REAL fast. For me it didn't even last into the first battle.
I don't have the game, so I may completely wrong in my assumptions.
With RTW, we discovered a totally different map, graphics, management system, etc... Thus, yes I do agree with you when you say there was that "newness effect" and it took us two weeks to realise the game was full of bugs and not challenging at all. Yet, this time, people have had time to get used to playing with the new system. Moreover, it's an expansion, not a brand-new game as CA hammered it.
I knew there would be threads like "BI is a marvel" and "I want my money back". I'm not relying on them at all. What positively drew my attention were Kraxis, Doug or CBR's posts. They've been playing the TW series for so long that I know they see beyond the glossy graphics and features and are sensible enough to understand that any AI has its limits. Not many people had high expectations for BI, but these "veterans" are obviously favourably impressed with the game.
Perhaps RTW bored you so much so that you lost all desire to play the game even before you played this first battle?
Steppe Merc
10-02-2005, 18:52
Well, even I'll acknowledge that the bright baby blue for the Sassanids is a fashion blunder.
All faction colors are a mistake.
Garvanko
10-02-2005, 20:58
The Franks look very cool.
PseRamesses
10-03-2005, 12:22
...I also like the different building styles and new arhitecture.
Bob the Insane
10-03-2005, 14:09
I think the accusation of cinematics is a fair one... This really does play like the Hollywood school of historical film making. Not that this is a particularly bad thing in my opinion.
It is exciting, fast and full of action. With twists and turns of the unexpected...
Personally I have had, STW, MTW (and VI) and RTW and finally BI. I have played RTW with RTR from v5.2 to 6.1 and I have pretty much enjoyed it all.
Any one who argues that any one of those games is hugely historically correct needs to study more that the Greeks and the Romans... The fact is the game has always been this way.
Having said that, and stictly in my opinion only of course, RTW:BI is the best of the bunch so far. The improvements of plain RTW are many but one of the most obvious... On the battlefield, if you are defending and the enemy is moving to attack, they will attack in formation. As the AI is moving towards you it actualy manouvers. and constant checks its formation to keep units in place.
It does not do anything fancy, simply staying in formation for the attack and send cavalry to your flanks, but it does this consistantly. And it makes a big difference. This is not to say that if you know your stuff you can't break them, beat them and get a big kill ratio. But it actually takes some effort. And it makes the AI difficult to beat with a unrealistically small force (unless to do something very clever)...
Froggie
I too, have had all the Total War series games.
I too stopped playing RTW, and went back to MTW. Of which i still have a game going.
I like RTW, but like you said, it does not have the magic of MTW and earlier games. It's playablility seems less, or is less, i don't know, it just doesn't have the magic.
But after reading the reports, including Doug-Thompson, i think i will have a look at it.
I hope i like it, i really do, i have always found the battles to easy in all the TW series, but i have really enjoyed MTW.
When MTW came out, I myself said to Mr T Smith. That I would enjoy this game for years, I have, and I do still to this day.
But RTW + BI have to really step up a gear, if they are going to replace that magic in MTW.
A balanced game, based in history, and playable. Make it hard i don't care, but make it believible, but make it enjoyable.
Eye candy is great, but no where near as good as function and balance, and believible.
Anyway, I am now resigned to trying BI. And if I need more provinces ~D I always do. ~;)
Then I will mod it again. Or just punich bits and peices and include them in my own game modification. Just like my MTW.
Anyway enough rambling...
come on froggie, lets give it a go,
fenir
SpencerH
10-03-2005, 15:15
Froggie pretty much stated my feelings on BI. I've been pleased to hear Kraxis and others are finding it refreshing. I'll hold off until the newness is gone and the game is less expensive. Since there are fewer folks testing this one thoroughly, I'm going to wait a bit longer before I draw a conclusion on it. I'll probably wait for the 1.3 RTW patch at least, and perhaps wait for the price to tumble.
what he said
If it helps, I see that Best Buy has BI on sale for $24.99...........
Garvanko
10-03-2005, 16:06
Having said that, and stictly in my opinion only of course, RTW:BI is the best of the bunch so far. The improvements of plain RTW are many but one of the most obvious... On the battlefield, if you are defending and the enemy is moving to attack, they will attack in formation. As the AI is moving towards you it actualy manouvers. and constant checks its formation to keep units in place.
It does not do anything fancy, simply staying in formation for the attack and send cavalry to your flanks, but it does this consistantly. And it makes a big difference. This is not to say that if you know your stuff you can't break them, beat them and get a big kill ratio. But it actually takes some effort. And it makes the AI difficult to beat with a unrealistically small force (unless to do something very clever)...
The AI likes to target your archers before commiting units against your infantry. Clearly knows where the real danger lies.
I had a senate mission to take a Macedonian city with wooden walls, and had to assault since there wasn't enough time to siege. The difficulty level is medium, and the year was around 245 BC. I had about 1000 men, 7 hastati, 1 principe, 4 velites and 2 equites under a 3 star general. The Macedonian garrison had about 700 men and something like 4 light cav, 2 skirmishers, 1 hoplite and 3 levi spearmen (they have long pikes) under a 2 star general. I broke through the wall with 2 rams and defeated the Macedonian light cav which made several aggressive attacks on the units I sent in. The hoplite and levi spearmen proved to be very difficult to defeat in the city streets. My velites damaged the hoplite enough that my infantry was able to finish it off. On a wide street, two hastati were eventually able to defeat one levi spearmen by getting at its flanks. On a narrow street, the principe, in engage-at-will, lost to a second levi spearman, but the spearmen lost to a hastati and velite when it advanced out of the narrow street into a wide street. That hastati advanced up the narrow street along with a second hastati, and they were able to kill the Macedonian general in some very hard fighting in the narrow street. That Macedonia general was killing an hastati on almost every swing of his sword. The surviving hastati from that fight was destroyed when it tried to rush the plaza, and was flanked by some light cav and attacked by the 3rd levi spearman. This triggered the 3 minute timer. I sent an equite charging at the back of the levi speamen as they withdrew back to the plaza, but the spearmen turned at the last second, and the equite ran right into the spears and was destroyed. I remember it had 16 men left out of 54, and I don't think a single spearman was killed. The time expired and I failed to take the city, and the time also ran out to complete the mission.
I attacked the city again, but had to build more rams before I was allowed to attack eventhough there was a hole in the wall. This time the AI stayed at the plaza with 1 levi spearman and 2 cav. I was just able to win at the plaza with heavy losses using 3 hastati and 2 velites. So, it seems to me that taking cities defended by pikemen is going to be very difficult since you won't be able to dislodge these units with cav charges. Incidentally, the levi spearmen pushed the principes back quite a bit.
frogbeastegg
10-03-2005, 17:24
Well. I've got it. I've played about 2 hours in one go, a rarity for me. And ...
Oh, blimey, I hate to say this but I see no difference between this and the old RTW except a shedload of graphical glitches! Oh, and the obvious things, like different units and map.
I'm playing Saxons very hard/medium. I started out with the plainly crazy sum of 15,000 denarii, and from there's it's been a gentle ramble along, building up 2 small but decent armies, stomping the odd crappy rebel army, and capturing a couple of extra settlements. All effortlessly. The AI is still passive as a wet sponge - no one has attacked me at all. No one! It's summer 372AD, and the only battles I've fought are those I've chosen. I’ve hardly seen any diplomats coming my way. Or anything, of any sort, besides rebel armies popping up when my public order is nice and high. So I don’t have the income to build larger armies or buildings in my cities, but so what? I simply don’t need any of the benefits, better units, larger armies, more armies, or anything.
Maybe in battles the AI is a tiny bit better ... but I can't really decide on that yet. I guess maybe somewhat better, if I'm forced to decide, and that is good.
Let me dedicate a paragraph to the entirely too much money I started with; it’s probably the second big problem here, the other being the passiveness of the AI. I built up 1 new army and expanded the one I started with. I constructed a whole lot of buildings in my starting city and the first I conquered. I peppered my lands with watchtowers. I didn’t need to work for any of it. I didn’t need to worry about money until about 370AD, and even then the worry was a very mild one, created mostly by my extravagant spending and lazy expansion – in other words the cash problem was entirely my own fault. Even in RTW I needed to work for my money and what it gave me in the beginning. It was the one slightly difficult part. BI removes even that.
So where is this very different game everyone was speaking about!? Really, because I’d love to know. I played Saxon because I didn’t want to ‘waste’ the hardest faction by using WRE for my first game, and be left playing the easier factions afterwards. If I have to play WRE to get any semblance of a reaction out of the AI and game then I can’t even see the point.
The graphics ... let's see. The first time the new camp map loaded half of it was black. As in pitch black, night time, can't see a dratted thing black. Moving my view so that bit was hidden and then going back fixed that. After roughly half my battles I get dropped back to a map which makes me feel I took drugs, because it's that classic 'graphical glitch multicoloured madness' type mess. Again, moving the view away and back fixes this. I just quit because I came back from another battle and found everywhere had turned into ocean ...
I'm blaming my drivers at this point, though they are the latest ATI catalyst ones and supposedly very good. I shall try rolling them back and see.
I'm also more than a tad fed up to find that once again my LCD's monitor’s very common native resolution is not included, so I have to edit files to get it. 1280X1024. The game's presets cut off at 1280X980 which seems to me a far more freakish and uncommon res. The edit is the second possible source for the graphics issues, but it’s the same edit I ran RTW with since day 1, and without a single issue except the infuriating tendency for it to drop back to 800X600 if I ever needed to alter any of the graphics settings in-game, requiring another bout of preferences.txt editing.
Oh, and while I think of it, a big frown and a rap on the knuckles to CA for not fixing the pause/game speed toggle problem/bug/issue/whatever which quite a few people, myself included, kept on reporting with all past versions of the game. Yay. I love not being able to pause most of the time; it's great when the phone rings and I have to leave my battle running. And watching my army being massacred on the highest speed setting while I frantically punch ctrl+t over and over trying to get it to slow back down is great too! Serves me right for trying to speed past the opening phase where my army marches in a mostly straight line, doing not much, in a bid to actually play more of the interesting parts of the game.
:cough: Perhaps that was rather abrasive, but I'm Not A Happy Frog after watching half my army get annihilated on top speed while I hammered buttons trying to get it to slow back down. Nor A Happy Frog after finding that all the aggressive AI and so on appears to have been put in other people’s copies of the game. I feel like I am playing on ‘super easy’ level, not very hard.
Now, if I’d been started with much less than the crazy 15,000 denarii, and had been attacked – or reacted to even a bit while attacking! – then it would have been tougher. But I did have way too much cash, and I was totally ignored except when I forced the game to notice me. Yawn.
So to sum up: after 2 hours the frog’s opinion is basically “Gggrrrrr!!” and perhaps “GAH!!!”
EDIT: Oh, and for the sake of reference, I'm hardly what you could call a strong faction. Any medium sized army of half decent units would cause me real trouble. If I lose an army I've got nothing to replace it.
I also forgot to expand fully my rant on those confounded rebel armies. I hate them, always did and still do - pointless little messes of peasants even 2 decent units can run over easily, which do nothing more than force me to divert an army and then fight another boring battle. Half the time I just smack them to death with my general's bodyguard and nothing else. Which turns him into a super general. Making other battles easier.
But while we're on the point, I suppose I should be glad I saw a rebel army of 2 peasants, 1 hunter and 1 spear warband! Wow! That's probably the best one I've ever seen.
Froggie pretty much stated my feelings on BI. I've been pleased to hear Kraxis and others are finding it refreshing. I'll hold off until the newness is gone and the game is less expensive. Since there are fewer folks testing this one thoroughly, I'm going to wait a bit longer before I draw a conclusion on it. I'll probably wait for the 1.3 RTW patch at least, and perhaps wait for the price to tumble.
Likewise...
So where is this very different game everyone was speaking about!? Really, because I’d love to know. I played Saxon because I didn’t want to ‘waste’ the hardest faction by using WRE for my first game, and be left playing the easier factions afterwards. If I have to play WRE to get any semblance of a reaction out of the AI and game then I can’t even see the point.
Have you turfed the WRE out of Britain yet? Most posts I've read seem to say the real fun as the Saxons start when the Romano-british appear.
I bought BI and have yet to play it, spending all my time with RTW 1.3. I flattened the tech trees to make good units available earlier and set training times to zero, adding a pop growth bonus to small towns to help make up for the larger armies that allows. My observations:
-Load-save has been addressed. I'm not sure if it was truly fixed or if probability of AI lifting a siege was just set to zero, but the net effect is that 10 turns in, there are only a handful of rebel territories left.
-Tactical AI (unmodded, haven't tried the DarthFormations yet) is improved to the level of minimally competent. Doesn't sit still under archer fire, tough to bait out of defensive positions, passable at picking spots to defend, devotes a a fair effort to flanking when it has the chance, etc. It has satisifed my expectations of an AI opponent. I don't think it's as challenging as STW's, but I suspect that it's just that I'm not as green as I was when I played STW.
-Cavalry need to fear spearmen (as they should). I've lost my faction leader to green Gaul warband (green warband!) three times already. I'm unlearning my bad habits of generals bulling through most anything.
Summary: RTW 1.3 is what I thought I was buying a year ago when I got RTW 1.0. I'm not pleased with having to wait another year for it, but I am quite pleased with it now that it's here. I expect I'll enjoy the new features of BI as well, so I would recommend that it occupy some space on the froggy hard drive.
Edit: Frog, you posted while I was at lunch, and I left this post in mid creation. Oops.
Yay. I love not being able to pause most of the time; it's great when the phone rings and I have to leave my battle running. And watching my army being massacred on the highest speed setting while I frantically punch ctrl+t over and over trying to get it to slow back down is great too! Serves me right for trying to speed past the opening phase where my army marches in a mostly straight line, doing not much, in a bid to actually play more of the interesting parts of the game.
Maybe it's because I'm more focused on the battles, but this isn't an issue for me. Why? Because I never speed up the battle except at the end if I have selected "continue the battle" and then decide I don't want to spend the time playing it out afterall. Why wouldn't I speed up the battle during the boring marching phase? Because it's not boring to me. I turn off banners, radar map, free camera and keep the camera as low to the ground as possible. When the battle starts I have to find the enemy unless he is the attacker and is going to come to me. I may send out scouting cavalry if I have it. For me it builds the suspense, and sometime the AI army shows up on my flank. Since I never pause the battle to issue orders, I can get caught out of position.
Nor A Happy Frog after finding that all the aggressive AI and so on appears to have been put in other people’s copies of the game. I feel like I am playing on ‘super easy’ level, not very hard.
Now, if I’d been started with much less than the crazy 15,000 denarii, and had been attacked – or reacted to even a bit while attacking! – then it would have been tougher. But I did have way too much cash, and I was totally ignored except when I forced the game to notice me.
The strategic AI is a bit passive, but overly aggressive wouldn't be good either. In my Julii campaign, I can see Germainia, with whom I am not at war, scanning one of my cities every turn. So they are planning an attack, but they don't attack because they are too weak. The problem might be that the player manages his money better than the AI which allows him to maintain bigger armies. Whenever AI factions fight each other that helps the human player as well. I remember that MTW had the problem where the AI tended to beat itself back into the stoneage. Reducing the player's money might help. You can do that in Rome Shell.
I also forgot to expand fully my rant on those confounded rebel armies. I hate them, always did and still do - pointless little messes of peasants even 2 decent units can run over easily, which do nothing more than force me to divert an army and then fight another boring battle. Half the time I just smack them to death with my general's bodyguard and nothing else. Which turns him into a super general. Making other battles easier.
Why not use auto-resolve to deal with rebels? Don't send your good general to fight them. It's beneath him and left to captains to deal with. The AI gets an advantage in auto-resolve, but, if the game is too easy, that would help make it a bit harder. I have 3 rebel armies in my provinces and they have been there quite a while, but I have been ignoring them. I don't feel that I have to smack down rebel armies as soon as they show up, and they make my income management less efficient which helps the AI compete economically.
Another thing I do which might make the game slightly harder is no retaining of units.
Bob the Insane
10-03-2005, 19:56
After reading frogbeastegg's last post I have to say you don't seem happy. Like I said before, it is better than RTW in all areas (it even has better graphical glitches... ~:eek: ), but in a lot of those areas it is only marginally better...
I will have to try a game as the Saxons to examine what you report, the starting funds seem excessive, more than the WRE if I recall rcorrectly...
As for the AI aggresssiveness on the strategic level. One thing I have icked up on is that the game is balanced to pretty much maintain the status quo and to let the hordes be ther driving force in the game which means that if you stablize your land quickly it will have a significant period of piece...
RabidGibbon
10-03-2005, 20:07
Originally posted by Frogbeastegg
I'm playing Saxons very hard/medium. I started out with the plainly crazy sum of 15,000 denarii, and from there's it's been a gentle ramble along, building up 2 small but decent armies, stomping the odd crappy rebel army, and capturing a couple of extra settlements. All effortlessly. The AI is still passive as a wet sponge - no one has attacked me at all. No one!
I'm surprised to hear that because my first campaign was a Saxon VH/M and I lost... badly. I started off like you describe expanding into rebel lands, but then noticed my next target was under siege already by the Romans and went for it anyway.
This started a series of on-off wars with the Romans, which finally ended with a WRE, Lombardi, Burgundi, Frankish alliance putting paid to my little empire.
Re: The battle AI - the problem (IMO) has been treated but not cured. During one siege (me attacking) some Roman units I expected to enter the city by a side gate and join the defence instead held back and attacked my reserves and archers after many of my units had entered in the city, resulting in a confused battle outside and inside.
On the other side of the coin two Hun armies were besieging a vandal city, they got a single siege tower against the walls when the attacking stack, with the equipment, ran out of infantry for the grinder. The reserve stck, round the other side of the city, sent a single infantry unit running round the side of the city, making for the tower. It never made it - being in range of my towers. So, it sent another infantry unit. And another. And another.
Re: The pause / Ctrl-T button glitches I haven't experienced again yet, but then I haven't put the Minimal-UI on either, and I seem to recall hearing the two are linked?
Mongoose
10-03-2005, 20:16
Frogbeasteggs post sounded just like regular RTW...I don't think i'll be buying BI unless the price drops.
Though i think i should add that VH/M is not the hardest setting, the difficulty bug was fixed in the Xpac AFAIK.
Shambles
10-03-2005, 20:18
Well. I've got it. I've played about 2 hours in one go, a rarity for me. And ...
Oh, blimey, I hate to say this but I see no difference between this and the old RTW except a shedload of graphical glitches! Oh, and the obvious things, like different units and map.
Maybe in battles the AI is a tiny bit better ... but I can't really decide on that yet. I guess maybe somewhat better, if I'm forced to decide, and that is good.
Let me dedicate a paragraph to the entirely too much money I started with; it’s probably the second big problem here, the other being the passiveness of the AI. I built up 1 new army and expanded the one I started with. I constructed a whole lot of buildings in my starting city and the first I conquered. I peppered my lands with watchtowers. I didn’t need to work for any of it. I didn’t need to worry about money until about 370AD, and even then the worry was a very mild one, created mostly by my extravagant spending and lazy expansion – in other words the cash problem was entirely my own fault. Even in RTW I needed to work for my money and what it gave me in the beginning. It was the one slightly difficult part. BI removes even that.
So where is this very different game everyone was speaking about!? Really, because I’d love to know. I played Saxon because I didn’t want to ‘waste’ the hardest faction by using WRE for my first game, and be left playing the easier factions afterwards. If I have to play WRE to get any semblance of a reaction out of the AI and game then I can’t even see the point.
Oh, and while I think of it, a big frown and a rap on the knuckles to CA for not fixing the pause/game speed toggle problem/bug/issue/whatever which quite a few people, myself included, kept on reporting with all past versions of the game. Yay. I love not being able to pause most of the time; it's great when the phone rings and I have to leave my battle running. And watching my army being massacred on the highest speed setting while I frantically punch ctrl+t over and over trying to get it to slow back down is great too! Serves me right for trying to speed past the opening phase where my army marches in a mostly straight line, doing not much, in a bid to actually play more of the interesting parts of the game.
:cough: Perhaps that was rather abrasive, but I'm Not A Happy Frog after watching half my army get annihilated on top speed while I hammered buttons trying to get it to slow back down. Nor A Happy Frog after finding that all the aggressive AI and so on appears to have been put in other people’s copies of the game. I feel like I am playing on ‘super easy’ level, not very hard.
Now, if I’d been started with much less than the crazy 15,000 denarii, and had been attacked – or reacted to even a bit while attacking! – then it would have been tougher. But I did have way too much cash, and I was totally ignored except when I forced the game to notice me. Yawn.
So to sum up: after 2 hours the frog’s opinion is basically “Gggrrrrr!!” and perhaps “GAH!!!”
EDIT: Oh, and for the sake of reference, I'm hardly what you could call a strong faction. Any medium sized army of half decent units would cause me real trouble. If I lose an army I've got nothing to replace it.
I also forgot to expand fully my rant on those confounded rebel armies. I hate them, always did and still do - pointless little messes of peasants even 2 decent units can run over easily, which do nothing more than force me to divert an army and then fight another boring battle. Half the time I just smack them to death with my general's bodyguard and nothing else. Which turns him into a super general. Making other battles easier.
But while we're on the point, I suppose I should be glad I saw a rebel army of 2 peasants, 1 hunter and 1 spear warband! Wow! That's probably the best one I've ever seen.
Seems I wont be Geting This Either, :)
Think il Wait till the next game This time.
But how Is the load save bug now?
And do AI still march 1/2 way up a hill then change their mind.
Also.
Do the Ai still Fail to relize they have A height advantage and then moove away from it?
Doug-Thompson
10-03-2005, 20:24
Well, I have to apologize for helping lead you down a frustrating path, Froggie.
All I can say is that I have not had anything like the frustrations you've expressed, but I never played the Saxons.
I certainly haven't had anyting even remotely resembling the the "dark screen" problems, and never had a problem with pause/fast forward/normal time even in R:TW.
Edited P.S.: Now I'm really confused. First RabidGibbon reports differenty, now Obike Fixx (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=54975)posted a thread in which the Saxons won an epic battle outside London, although now there's a crash to desktop when trying to go to the next turn.
Though i think i should add that VH/M is not the hardest setting, the difficulty bug was fixed in the Xpac AFAIK.
If that`s the case, battles can actually be difficult. I remember once playing a Carthaginian campaign on VH/VH. There was two battles against the Scipii were we both had fullstack armies and around 1000 men. I lost both horribly. I replayed the first one more than 10 times, but it was simply impossible to win those battles because of the morale bonuses the AI got.
Kekvit Irae
10-03-2005, 21:12
Oh, and while I think of it, a big frown and a rap on the knuckles to CA for not fixing the pause/game speed toggle problem/bug/issue/whatever which quite a few people, myself included, kept on reporting with all past versions of the game. Yay. I love not being able to pause most of the time; it's great when the phone rings and I have to leave my battle running. And watching my army being massacred on the highest speed setting while I frantically punch ctrl+t over and over trying to get it to slow back down is great too! Serves me right for trying to speed past the opening phase where my army marches in a mostly straight line, doing not much, in a bid to actually play more of the interesting parts of the game.
That's a not a bug, but rather a lack of video memory. You try cramming 2000 individually-rendered troops into a battle and then see how well your video card works when the game speed is at maximum and the game is trying to catch up on rendering each frame by frame.
Upgrade your memory and/or video card, or play with lower unit-size settings.
frogbeastegg
10-03-2005, 21:58
Hmm, quick dash through things here. Apologies, but if I'm not speedy I won't be able to say anything until tomorrow.
1. Remember, I've only played for two hours. I am going to go back for more in the hopes it will improve. Also, I'm only one frog - statistically speaking more people are finding BI to be a lot better. They've also played for longer. I'll be playing several factions to completion or near completion before I decide whether to drop this game, or (I hope!) not.
2. I'm playing on a very high end system here - P4 3Gig, a smidgen over 2Gig RAM, ATI radeon 9800 Pro, latest drivers, and all that. I don't have much up to upgrade to, barring marginally better video cards which cost a fortune I'm not going to spend.
2B I've always had this pause/speed altering issue, right from 1.0 before the minimal UI was even considered. The minimal UI makes it worse because there are no clickable speed altering buttons at all, only the hot keys. Which don't work reliably.
2C. This happens even on tiny, crappy little 500 men total battles. Even once on a 200 man total battle. Even on low graphics settings. I ran through the whole collection of fixes I could think of back in RTW ... 1.1, IIRC.
3. I won't comment further on the graphics issues until I've tried a slightly older set of drivers. Won't be the first time I've had this kind of trouble because of drivers.
4. I'd love to sit about and admire the eye candy during the marching phase, but often I have so little time every single minute counts. The minutes spent watching the marching could be used better and more interestingly for me, for example, in taking more time to consider my moves on the camp map, or in not rushing the actual fighting phase of the battle. Given unlimited time, yes I could enjoy the eyecandy. But now I'm rather forced to stare at the eyecandy knowing all the while I'm not going to have time to fight the battle with anything approaching more subtly than a warhammer to the face.
5. Very hard campaign, medium battle, simply because I hate cheaty battle bonuses handed out to either side.
6. I don't autoresolve any battles. It's a frog thing, and one I've held to since the first days of STW. I also don't reload if my game goes pear shaped (I wish, oh how I wish!), and several other iron man type rules. Autoresolving battles is eyewatering for a control freak like me. The battles are also about 65% of the game's draw for me. If the rebels came out stronger, and with better units, or less often, then I'd be happy. Either give me a real fight, or don't bother me
7. I'd by far prefer too aggressive to what appears to be a card holding member of a pacifist association. It is a wargame, after all. Total war. Well, to be very wishful I'd prefer a medium between the two, which others seem to be getting.
8. I was going to smush up the WRE in France before going to Britannia, and I've already sort of committed myself to that direction. But as soon as is feasible I'll try and head that way.
9. Rome shell?
10. I don't pause battles either, unless I have to answer the phone or something. Which happens distressingly often; people bother me at the worst of times. It amuses me - in STW and MTW I was a frequent pauser because I couldn't keep up with the (slow!) pace of battle. But RTW is faster in battle, and I can keep up fine. :dizzy2:
11. I haven't loaded any games, so I've no idea about the load/save thing. All reports indicate it's fixed.
12. I wouldn't blame anyone for my buying the game. I chose to, even if I did still have doubts.
9. Rome shell?
Hit the ` key to bring up the "cheat" window, which says "Welcome to Rome Shell" and allows you to input various commands, like toggle_fow.
Mongoose
10-03-2005, 22:38
4. I'd love to sit about and admire the eye candy during the marching phase, but often I have so little time every single minute counts. The minutes spent watching the marching could be used better and more interestingly for me, for example, in taking more time to consider my moves on the camp map, or in not rushing the actual fighting phase of the battle. Given unlimited time, yes I could enjoy the eyecandy. But now I'm rather forced to stare at the eyecandy knowing all the while I'm not going to have time to fight the battle with anything approaching more subtly than a warhammer to the face.
5. Very hard campaign, medium battle...
9. Rome shell?
4:Not having fully working speed controls is VERY annoying. having to watch a bunch of horse archers shoot at each other for 20 minutes is a pain. Though i've never lost a battle just because the speed controls were too slow, just large numbers of
5:I agree, but a minor morale bonus isn't that bad as long as you don't get crazy results like a unit of "town watch" Can't instantly route your best infantry. Something like a +1-2 moral bonus is the best IMO.
9: "Rome shell" is a text box that can be opended by hitting ~. you use it to enter Cheats.
Oh, blimey, I hate to say this but I see no difference between this and the old RTW except a shedload of graphical glitches! Oh, and the obvious things, like different units and map.
I've played 3 games as the Goths on Hard/Hard, and although the game says it's supposed to be easy it's bloody hard.
The first turn the vandals become a Horde. They will be in your one city in 10 turns or so. Meanwhile the Huns are marching toward you, driving out the Samations, often into your territory (though they usually go for the ERE) then the Huns come after you. Even though the Vandals and the Hun are at war, they both come after you via the same route without knocking heads first.
I've tried defending the city (1000 men to up to 4000) and get creamed.
So the third time I tried pulling up the stakes then moving West myself, and the Vandals bloodywell chased me to the WRE region next over. It was Rebel at the time, so I was going to hole up there, but I got wiped out in 2 bridge battles that were both in my favour, first was 1:2 and I got a clear win with over 50% losses to me, and 80% to him (So I lost 1000 he lost 800 or so) the second was more like 2:3 and I got creamed. The Troops were equal - same units, no XP no armor/weapon upgrades and I got creamed in a bridge battle.
I'm finding it a definate challenge when compared with RTW....
I'm also using an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro with 128 MB video memory. I haven't had any problems using driver version 6.14.10.6525 dated March 22, 2005. I have the secondary display disabled. I run the game with large units, 1024x768x16, anti-aliasing: none, unit scale: large, terrain detail: high, unit detail: medium, building detail: medium, effects detail: high, grass detail: none, vegetation detail: high, with smoke/dust and unit shaders. I don't have an LCD display. I have an AMD xp2400+ cpu (2.0 GHz) and 512 MB RAM.
Rome Shell is a command console for the game. You can enter it by pressing the key to the left of the 1 key. That's the tilde key on my keyboard.
This is a complete set of shell commands as posted by Finn last Oct 25, 2004. Many of these are restricted commands which are not enabled. The ? to get help within the shell doesn't work, and there is no official documentation on how to use these commands.
toggle_tow : shows/hides the tabbed output window
add_money : adds an amount of money to a faction's coffers, can be negative, default is player faction
add_population : adds an amount of population to a settlement, can be negative
move_character , : moves named character to position on campaign map
auto_win : the attacker or defender wins the next autoresolved battle
create_unit : creates one or more units of the specified type
toggle_fow : toggles the fog of war on or off
toggle_restrictcam : toggles camera restrictions on or off
give_ancillary : gives the character an ancillary
give_trait : gives the character a trait at level (default = level 1)
process_cq : Completes all (possible) construction pending in queue
character_reset : resets the character back to it's start of turn settings
show_cursorstat : shows the cursor position and region id
bestbuy : sells units cheaper
oliphaunt : big elephants
jericho : and the walls came a-tumblin' down
write_ui_cache: writes out the ui texture cache to disk
toggle_terrain : toggles the terrain to display various data sets, no param resets to normal
give_trait_points : gives the character points for trait
list_traits : lists all the available traits
list_ancillaries : lists all the available ancillaries
mp : gives the character movement points
list_characters : lists all the characters in the world or those belonging to a faction
show_landings : shows the landing positions available to the ai from a given region, default hides them
filter_coastlines : applies filter to world map coastlines
toggle_coastlines : toggles strategy map coastline display
set_building_health : sets health of a building of the specified type (eg core_building) in a settlement, so that the final health percentage is as specified; for building chains see export_descr_building.txt
ai_turn_speed : sets the maximum speed of turn processing during the ai round
amdb_min : sets aerial map overlay depth bias for min zoom
amdb_max : sets aerial map overlay depth bias for max zoom
amdb_offset : sets aerial map overlay offset towards camera
zoom : zooms to specified aerial map zoom
set_ranking_interval : sets the denominator of the faction ranking graph interval which is calculated as (number_of_turns / denominator). If set to 0, then the denominator will be set to number_of_turns, giving an interval of 1
regenerate_radar: Does what it says on the tin
adjust_sea_bed : adjusts whole sea bed to specified height
reload_shaders : reloads all vertex shaders
reload_textures : reloads all textures
toggle_perfect_spy : toggles everyone's spying ability to perfect and infinite range, and off again
building_debug: toggles building debug mode. TAB to toggle view modes, RIGHT SHIFT-TAB to reset mode, LEFT SHIFT-TAB to go back modes. G damages mouse-over building. P displays plaza.
reset_display: Forces a display_close(); display_open() display reset cycle
toggle_underlay:
toggle_overlay:
process_rq : Completes all (possible) recruitment pending in queue
force_diplomacy : Forces the negotiator to accept or decline a proposition
diplomatic_stance : Set the diplomatic stance between the two factions
shadow
ie
invulnerable_general : makes that named general invulnerable in battle
test_ancillary_localisation: adds all ancillary to the character info display. Ancillaries aren't actually added to the character
perf_times: Toggle display of simple performance times of game update vs display
burn_piggies_burn : ignite all the piggy winks
test_message: Test the event message specified in descr_event_enums.txt
show_terrain_lines : display defensive terrain features
message_collation_set: Set the message collation on or off (sets all factions)',0
show_all_messages: Show all messages to all factions (on/off)
clear_messages: Clear all the current stacked messages
puppify_my_love
reapply_rigid_model_influence
toggle_flowing_water: toggles display of campaign map flowing water
nw_stats: toggles display of network stats.
toggle_pr: toggles pr mode.
list_units : lists all of the units in an army, with details.
victory : show victory message for faction for short or long campaign.
trigger_advice: triggers an advice thread
damage_wall : Damage wall of settlement. Forces 40% damage to a random gatehouse and a nearby straight section. Destroys gatehouse if 'gate' parameter present; breaches wall if 'breach' present'
test_victory_scroll : 'Opens up the victory scroll declaring that the given faction is the victor
date : changes the campaign date to the given year
season : changes the campaign season to the given season
upgrade_effect : triggers unit upgrade effect
force_battle_victory : forces the local player's alliance to win the battle, completely destroying the enemy alliance
force_battle_defeat : forces the local player's alliance to win the battle, completely destroying the enemy alliance
output_unit_positions : output the positions of all units in the battle to the specified file
show_battle_paths : show all valid processed paths in the pathfinder
show_battle_paths_for_unit : show all valid processed paths in the pathfinder for a specific unit given a unit id
show_battle_street_plan : show the street plan for the settlement
show_battle_marker : display a marker at (x, y) for t seconds
show_battle_circle : display a circle at (x, y) of r radius for t seconds
diplomacy_mission : creates a diplomacy mission
event : creates an event at position
kill_character : kills a character with the given name
control : switches player control to specified faction; old faction may not act correctly as ai faction
create_building : creates a building of the specified type in a settlement; for building level id's see export_descr_building.txt
capture_settlement : evicts any resident characters and armies and gives the settlement to the local player
disable_ai : disables the ai, so that it does nothing
halt_ai : halts the turn sequence just before the start of the specified faction's turn, or the current faction if no faction given
run_ai : re-starts an ai turn sequence after disableai or haltai has been triggered
Garvanko
10-03-2005, 23:19
I never use Rome Shell. Total War is not that difficult.
Ok, now I'm certain.
The Saxons are more than just easy a whol lot of the time.
First, I used them for a 10 year testrun to check for the siege-bug. I never did anything and nobody did anything to me either. I had actually chosen them for this very thing to happen (aw those Saxons are not worth it, they are poor and out of the way, lets go plunder Constantinople).
Then I hear a friend say that he had never played an easier game in RTW, he simply rolled over the WRE.
Now this and several others.
I think it is partly because the Saxons are like the English of MTW, secure and out of the way. And then there is the fact that the hordes do not go north, rather southwest, well away from Saexland. That means that the Saxons have the enemies working overtime to deal with that while they are free to do what they want.
So you want a challenge? Don't pick the Saxons.
Though I'm happy to hear RabbidGibbon has experienced something better, so it can be challenging, though I think it is stacked against that.
Doug-Thompson
10-03-2005, 23:34
Kraxis, I'm inclined to agree with you, but having a boring faction is still a flaw.
Like you, though, I don't think any faction is going to be boring throughout a whole game.
Whether you have a boring game for any span of time, and when, relates to an exchange Tincow and I had on another thread.
Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson
Hordes are wild. Crusades in M:TW were usually focused on the Levant provinces. If not, they had a specific region as a goal.
Hordes are just looking for a home. They might attack your province. They might not.
Exactly. I can tell you for a FACT that if the second horde (Goth) hadn't just walked peacfully through my territory I would have lost that game right there and that was only about 20 turns in. At the same time, if neither of my two horde fights had occurred, I would be sitting pretty with half my abandoned territory reclaimed already. I must say though, hordes seem far more threatening when they're wandering. After taking one homeland, they don't move anywhere near as much even if they have several full stacks left.
It is possible, at least in theory, to go through a whole game and never have to contend with a horde. It's far less likely, I'd guess, to escape a horde's attention if you're a poorer, barbarian faction, but even the poorer factions have to conquer something civilized before winning the game.
Kraxis, I'm inclined to agree with you, but having a boring faction is still a flaw.
It relates to an exchange Tincow and I had on another thread.
Yes, that is true. I think some of the chances for a challenging game is for the Vandals to go after the Burgundians. That will force them northwest. But as noted the hordes are wild and we don't know what makes them tick.
I think CA knows this. They have made the game quite like reality that way, the Saxons did have an easy time compared to the peoples of the balkans and eastern Europe.
But what could CA have done? Vandals scripted to go north could be an answer as the Burgundians would not need to find a new home. But that would leave the south too strong for the Huns to make a true impact in too many cases.
Burgundians another horde? That one I like, but then cahnces are they would fall in with the Vandals, ripping the strength from each other. Result could be even worse than the first.
Stronger WRE would weaken the hordes too much.
Weaker Saxons could be a nice answer I think, but that would only set them back rather than making them harder to play. And it could even make them easier to play since you wouldn't be going into war with the others for a while, making them shift moer focus to the hordes, that would weaken them. So instead of getting into war when the enemies are strong you would got into war when they are weakened.
I simply don't know what could be done with the game as it is. And I think CA didn't know this would happen until the work was done. Backstepping for the sake of one faction simply isn't a solution. And I think that happened.
Doug-Thompson
10-04-2005, 00:11
To clarify, I'm not complaining about inpredictability per se.
The game would have a lot of replay value if you never know when a horde will hit. The trick is to have hordes hit often enough that no faction can safely ignore them.
Mouzafphaerre
10-04-2005, 02:17
.
Lurking this thread since the very beginning, I think I'll wait longer before getting RTW (yes, RTW!) and hope for EB to decide moving on to BI after the current mod is done.
.
Well. I've got it. I've played about 2 hours in one go, a rarity for me. And ...
Oh, blimey, I hate to say this but I see no difference between this and the old RTW except a shedload of graphical glitches! Oh, and the obvious things, like different units and map.
I'm playing Saxons very hard/medium. I started out with the plainly crazy sum of 15,000 denarii, and from there's it's been a gentle ramble along, building up 2 small but decent armies, stomping the odd crappy rebel army, and capturing a couple of extra settlements. All effortlessly. The AI is still passive as a wet sponge - no one has attacked me at all. No one! It's summer 372AD, and the only battles I've fought are those I've chosen.
Duh, the game only begins in what, 363 or 364 AD? You've only played 18 - 20 turns and you crying that you're not being attacked? Don't you think you ought to give the game more time? You'd be screaming bloody murder if a horde invaded you in the first few turns.
The AI is building up just like you are, give it time. In addition, you're not near the scene of action. The Huns are pushing from the East and the events they set in motion are going to take time to be felt in your area, as one tribe displaces another towards the empire.
If you want immediate action, take a tribe along the Danube - you'll get your action all right . . .
Azi Tohak
10-04-2005, 06:08
Right now, on my H/H campaign with the ERE, I am at an equilibrium. The Persians attack one of my forts I have guarding the entrances into the main part of the realm (Euphrates crossing outside Antioch [my new capital] and mountain passes to the north), I smack them (still too small of armies, but at least they are not incompetant) and then I get tribute from the Persians. The west is more interesting, as I just had Sirmium, under Hun rule for a long time, defect to me. Now I have to defend it. I am mainly working on infrastructure, but I know I need to move out soon. The problem is, I know when I move, I am going to have to spread myself out, which will leave me open to attacks from the Persians (not such a big deal with my forts) or one of the Hordes might try to go East again (right now I think they are squabbling in Germany).
I think it is fun, but WRE should be more interesting.
Azi
Doug-Thompson
10-04-2005, 07:12
Re: 18 to 20 turns without getting attacked, "whining", etc.
While it's true that Denmark and North Germany aren't the hot spot, it does make me wonder why the game designers made the Saxons a playable faction and not, say, the Burgundians.
Also, there's more to the complaint. The Saxons are spending all their time fighting bandits when there's at least three different factions they could be fighting: The aforementioned Burgundians, the Western Empire and the Franks. All are close by.
I tried my hand as the Saxons tonight, and must say they are in a boringly peaceful place. However, there's another way to look at that. They would have to spend some money on spies and such, but they are also in a position to take advantage of other people's misfortunes.
I kept having this sense of deja vu with them, and finally realized why. They are very much like the Danes in M:TW. The Danes weren't considered the most fun to play, either. After all, they couldn't even launch a Crusade.
Like the Saxons, though, the M:TW Danes had good infantry (the Vikings) and spent most of their early game grabbing a couple of "barbarian" provinces (Sweden and Norway, and a little of the Holy Roman Empire, if they were bold and lucky) then building up trade and their sea power.
As other factions had failed Crusades and civil wars, the Danes would steadily -- sometimes, explosively -- expand. Possibly, that's exactly what's supposed to happen here. Substitute "Western Roman Empire" for "Holy Roman Empire," and the situation is quite similar.
frogbeastegg
10-04-2005, 09:17
Ok, fast again; this is my last day off for a bit, and I want to make the most of it.
1. Thanks for the tip about drivers which work with BI for certain; I'll try them today.
2. I played the Saxons because I'd seen quite a few posts here and on .com from players who had had a very hard game as them, right from the start. Including one person who was totally wiped out by the WRE.
3. I played another hour last night. I took two more WRE settlements easily. Now I have several thousand in the bank and a good income. Nothing else has changed at all. Things just got even easier.
4. Yes, I'm "whining" that I haven't seen any action at all in 25 or so turns! That's several hours of play (at my normal rate, more like a week of play), several boring hours, and I'm losing interest in continuing. I'm on the attack, and I've never even seen an enemy army. Maybe WRE is totally overstretched and busy on another front ... but my spies are now all over the place in there, around Rome, near Spain, off along Greece, as well as in France. I'm not finding any armies belonging to anyone, or any evidence of their other borders being crushed. I can't even claim to be garrisoning my cities well, or supporting my provinces with armies - I've 1 unit of peasants in each city, and a governor in two of them. I have two armies, one stuffed in the far end of Denmark rebel smiting, and the other off conquering the WRE. My eastern border and my south eastern border are entirely undefended, my western border only lightly guarded by the same army doing all the WRE conquering. It's been that way for a long time.
Doug has a good point - why are they playable, if this is all you can expect from them?
And my own question: why do other people have such different experiences with the faction? Why do they get a very aggressive WRE which crushes them swiftly? Or multiple barbarian tribes attacking them at once? I've seen more posts like that than ones saying they are easy and peaceful, though I have seen some of the latter type too.
Or perhaps another question: How many turns of boredom do I have to survive before I am 'due' something more interesting? Games are supposed to be fun …
5. Rome shell: thanks. I shall use the no-fog cheat, I think, and see what is going on in the world in my Saxon game. See if I can find out why everything is so quiet.
5a. So there's no longer an easy text file to edit, with the player's starting money on each difficulty? Why not? Or do factions each have different amounts of starting cash? If that's so, I'd presume any edits there would also affect the AI. Hmm, :notes down the Rome shell method of removing starting cash:
6. Recommend me a faction, then. I want one with good infantry and passable cavalry. I don't want to play cavalry heavy just yet. I also don't want the hardest faction just yet, because that leaves me nothing to go on to. So no WRE.
Things I do actually like so far
Lest I forget.
1. I love the way multiple units in the shield wall formation will form a solid block when told to use the group formation 'single line'. Love it! I strongly hope this has carried over to phalanx units in the classical era game (has it?)
2. The battle AI does seem improved, even if my experience with the campaign AI says it's the same old comatose non-opponent. It's not a huge or spectacular change, but it's more ... solid now.
3. So far I'm liking the changes to archery. Though I am wondering if javelins have armour piercing of some kind now? Or are all missiles rather weak against very heavily armoured units? Be nice if that had gone back to the old TW way, and it's provide some way other than melee to take out those tricky heavily armoured units.
4. I do like the shield wall formation itself. Not sure how much use it is, but it looks nice :tongueg:
5. The unit names are better, for the most part.
EDIT: Checked the whole map for my Saxon game in Rome shell. WRE is remarkably intact and peaceful, with only a few rebels as obvious threats. They don't have many armies at all, and the ones they do have are puny. They can't really fight anywhere because they have nothing to fight with. Does it start as bad as that? Or has something drastic happened, which has not left more obvious signs for me to find on the map now? ERE is being beaten on by Gothic, Roxulani (SP?) and Vandal hordes, and once they stomp their way through a few provinces they will most likely all decend on the WRE. The Huns are being Hunnic at the Sarmatians. The [can't remember name, but the livid purple people near the Saons at the start] are fighting the Bergundii; it looks like something of a stalemate. Otherwise, it's quite quiet.
Of course, you could argue that I should be taking the fight to 'em, but I figured to weather the first onslaught before counterattacking-- it just hasn't happened yet. Plus it seems very much a two-front war-- there's nothing going on in about 3/4 of my empire and no potential enemies except for the odd rebel army or two. Guess I had envisioned this massive empire beset from all sides. Sounds like the WRE is a whole different proposition, and it's only one campaign, but for me so far it's been quiet-- TOO quiet. ~:)
Hi swordsman
Its interesting what you say. Im 50 years into a VH ERE campaign and I havent had a barbarian cross the frontier. The vandal and hun hordes declared war on each other: the sarmatians turned horde but have just walked backwards and forwards, the goths have just sat there and according to the faction scrolls the WRE is the biggest. All the barbarians are staying put.
The biggest challenge so far has been chasing swimming kurdish javilenmen :charge:
Is there a way to mod the barbarians to make them want to fight?
YEah, sometimes campaigns in BI seem to play very differently from each other.
My first as the Saxons (H,H), I made a few really bad mistakes - using an assassin on the Franks when they were allied making them go to war with me when I was already at war with the Burgundy, WRE and Celts. This number of foes proved unsustainable eventually.
Second as the Goths (H,H), I got trampled on by the Vandal and Hun hordes. Eventually my own horde ended up where the Saxons start - mainly as a result of running as far away from trouble as I could! Eventually this campaign had to be given up.
Third and my current campaign as the Alemanni (H,H). With the knowledge of the previous two campaigns and avoiding making the same mistakes, I've now got a fairly good foothold in central Europe and look well on my way to an easy victory. Without wars on multiple fronts I've been able to simply rip into the WRE and like people have reported before me, there seems a major lack of any worthwhile and sizeable stacks anywhere. I can only assume that many of the other factions are simply bankrupt?!
The support costs are high and barring the large starting treasury, money is incredibly hard to come by for building significant armies. It's possible the support costs are just a little too high in BI (and RTW?) as there really aren't any major stacks/battles anywhere on the campaign map other than those belonging to and relating to factions in horde mode.
Cheers
Doc
frogbeastegg
10-04-2005, 12:05
I swapped my drivers for older ones, and went to start a new game as ERE. I was immediately greeted with this:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/frogbeastegg/floodedmap2.jpg
Yes, the world was flooded again. This is ... I think the fourth time I've seen this now. The map doesn't scroll smoothly like this, and as I scroll mountrains and other unidentifiable artifacts appear and vanish all over the screen. Alt-tabbing out of the game and back fixes this, until it appears again after a battle or when I load the game back up after a break.
Here is the drugged up campaign map I get after battles roughly a third of the time:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/frogbeastegg/funkymap.jpg
Scrolling the view so the messed up part of the map is hidden, then returnnig to that area fixes this problem.
Also, anyone else using 1280X1024 as a strat map resolution? If so, is half your interface fuzzy, like this:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/frogbeastegg/fuzzyinterface.jpg
Not the best of pictures, I'm afriad. The fuzziness is bad enough that it's hard to tell which buildings are what. I know it's an unsupported resolution, but in RTW it worked without a hitch, and I'm wondering if the fuzziness here is related to the resolution or to the other problems I'm having. I tried the map in 1024X[whatever it is] and the interface was pin sharp, as it was in RTW. But the rest of the map was not.
I did a repair install of BI, and still the problem persists. BI was installed fresh onto a clean install of RTW which wasn't even a minute old. Nothing is modded, except the resolution, minimal interface, and no green arrows, and they are all mods I had working without issue under RTW's various versions.
Anyone got any ideas? Anyone else experiencing this?
The only thing I can think of is that my video card might have been damaged after all when my PC got fried, but if so it's very ... strange, give how the errors are not consiatant and fix themselves if the game is prodded a bit. Other games work properly, DX diag reports no problems, I'm not installing drivers over old ones, or anything obvious which might give me a helping hint here.
Oh - I keep forgetting to ask, but can anyone else disband assassins? I couldn't get rid of my unwanted Saxon one when I decided I didn't want to pay his upkeep. There was no disband button on him.
Garvanko
10-04-2005, 12:57
That is just plain weird.
Sometimes the sea turns black for me on the campaign map, but Im suspecting this is something to do with night battles, though im not sure. Whenever that happens, I am offered the option of a night battle.
You know I had that fuzziness in RTW but now it is gone. So it seems we are exactly opposite there.
Just for info, the WRE starts out with 1000 denarii and an empire in the red. No surprise they haven't got any armies to speak of you go about capturing their provinces.
In my ERE campaign they took a nice long time before they began to compete with me to the advanced spot, so time will help their economy it seems.
Nope, no assasin disband option. I just sent mine into missions with horrible odds hoping to get slain by bodyguards.
This showed me something I was impressed with - their attributes can reduce for poor performances! They used to just escape with their lives.
Also, in battles, what is this ctr+t you are using? Decrease speed? I just press 'p' when the phone rings. p = pause.
Those are definitely video related problems. Since you have no issues in other game or programs, I'm almost certain it's the drivers and not the card itself. If you can't get the official drivers to work properly, try using Omega Drivers (http://www.omegadrivers.net/). They can often fix what the official ones cannot.
frogbeastegg
10-04-2005, 14:15
Big, big, big froggy grin here! Weee!! Take a look at this, turn number 4 from my new Saxon campaign:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/frogbeastegg/WREattacks.jpg
Here's the WRE, attacking in force the settlement I captured just last turn with a small, dashed together army scraped out of my starting units. I'm outnumbered roughly 3:1, and half of that army is hunters, and so a bit crap in a stand up fight. By the way, the Roman general is far better than mine.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/frogbeastegg/beatentoit.jpg
And here are my lazy, good for nothing, never attacks or tries to expand neighbours, beating me to the siege of the other rebel town. No idea what troops they have, because my spy is now trapped inside that city. That second army of mine consists of 3 levy spearmen and my faction leader, i.e. every unit I've just built and my only other general.
I think I'm in trouble :gring: My medium and short term plans just went down the toilet :gring: Oh, goodie, goodie, goodie! :gring:
I didn't get a screenshot because I had no chance, but while I was besieging that rebel town I was attacked by a second rebel army I didn't even know was there. I survived that only because I managed to kill one and turn about to face the second army, fighting them individually. That's why there is a famous battle marker next to the town.
Now this is more like it! I've saved the game (sadly out of time to play it now) but I'm going to continue this one. My other Saxon game has gone in the bin, saved deleted so I can't confuse them. This is all I wanted :gring: I hope it continues this way.
So now I must abandon that second rebel province to the purple people, and go and try to stop WRE before they take my second town. If that fails, I'm going to be doing last ditch defences of my starting city. Erm, I find myself wondering if the Saxons can horde ...
Why a second Saxon game? Bored curiosity to see if it would be any different. What did I do differently in this game? Er ... nothing much. I've built levy spears instead of keels, which makes my armies marginally bigger in terms of men. I think I am going after Campus Chattii a turn earlier, maybe. The only big difference really is that I haven't had to attack the AI non-rebel factions, because they beat me to it.
Now if only I had got this on my first game, not my second.
Alt+t is the time acceleration hotkey.
Doug-Thompson
10-04-2005, 14:24
Big, big, big froggy grin here! Weee!! Take a look at this, turn number 4 from my new Saxon campaign: ...
I think I'm in trouble :gring: My medium and short term plans just went down the toilet :gring: Oh, goodie, goodie, goodie! :gring:
That sound you hear, even those of you across the seas, is me breathing a sigh of relief.
Edited P.S. I haven't checked the tech help forum, but the video issues brought up here deserve attention. Tech saavy folks, the fact that an LCD screen was in use here couldn't make any difference, could it?
Byzantine Prince
10-04-2005, 14:32
What can I know? What ought I to do? What can I hope?
:confused:
SpencerH
10-04-2005, 15:51
Does anyone know whether with BI we have to continue to order units to pursue routed/retreating enemy (you know the 'feature' in RTW where a pursuing unit would stop for inexplicable reasons forcing us to right-click again and again so that they would inflict casualties)?
There's still the problem where they they will run alongside the enemy unit rather then into them, but I have not seen my chasers stop on their own in BI unless the enemy was off the map or dead.
RabidGibbon
10-04-2005, 16:24
From First hand experience, Saxons can't hoard. I imagine its because there start province is one of their "Victory Condition" provinces.
Geoffrey S
10-04-2005, 16:26
I'm afraid I can't help with the biblical graphical glitches, but I can confirm the building icons and the like were fuzzy in RTW under 1024x768. Haven't the foggiest what causes it though.
Now this is more like it!I've saved the game (sadly out of time to play it now) but I'm going to continue this one.
Good job that load/save bug is outta there!
chilling
10-04-2005, 17:18
Frog, your graphical problems?
What size is your LCD monitor. They usually have a native resolution that they will run best in, generally 1024x768 for smaller panels (15"/17") and 1280x1024 for larger panels (19+"). As you're running at 1280x1024 I pressume you have a larger panel that has this as it's native resolution. If not that could be the cause of the blured images you get.
I have a similar setup to yours but have a 9700pro card. It runs without any graphical problems. Your video card could be overheating, try running the game for a while with the side of your case removed. Also you could try the Omega drivers that you can get from here. http://www.omegadrivers.net/ I've always used them and find them to be extremely stable.
Tsunami Total War, now there's an idea.
Rodion Romanovich
10-04-2005, 18:43
I just got BI. Started a campaign as the goths. All went fine, although laggier than R:TW, until I had fought a battle against the vandals for around 30+ minutes. The vandal horse archers were out of ammo and came swimming across the river. I ordered my heavy cavalry to attack. Result? The cavalry rode out into the stream and DROWNED! My two family members and key troops for success in the remaining phase of the battle, which I knew I could win, now ended in a terrible defeat...
Anyway, apart from this IMO terrible bug, BI has been a nice surprise in many aspects. Battle speed seems lower, morale of all units seem better, and battle mechanics overall seem more like M:TW. But I've only played two battles so far, so it might be too early to say so.
I ordered my heavy cavalry to attack. Result? The cavalry rode out into the stream and DROWNED! My two family members and key troops for success in the remaining phase of the battle, which I knew I could win, now ended in a terrible defeat...
Anyway, apart from this IMO terrible bug
That's not a bug. In the manual it says that tired or exhausted troops may drown if they try to swim. Only swim well-rested units.
Bob the Insane
10-04-2005, 19:37
I don't think Heavy Cavalry is supposed to be able to swim, so it probably wan not exhaustion...
I will have to give this a go... Wait until a unit is swimming and then send a non-swimming unit to attack them and see what occurs..
Scout: The enemy are swimming the river sir!!
Commander: ah-ha... Bob, take your cavalry down there and kill them all...
Bob: umm... errr... I don't think...
Commander: I don't pay you to think, get going...
Bob: But I don't think I can swim in all this armour!!
Commander: Are you refusing a direct order!?!? I will have your head!!!
Bob: Ah.. well... of course we will attack immediately!!
Bob: Right lads, our target is the men in the water, form line and CHARGE!!!
Splash... gurgle... bubble...
Swimming Barbarian: Well that was odd!!!
Rodion Romanovich
10-04-2005, 19:57
They were just about to get up from the water, so I reckoned a charge at that time would be devastating as they didn't have their formations ready, sort of. But instead, the unit just ran down in the water. It was a set of 3 fresh units. And they DIDN'T have the swim ability. I thought the logical thing would be to stop just above the water line and kill the incoming enemies, but no, they decided it was best to suicide charge down into the water...
I'm getting more and more into the 'thinking' of the WRE.
I have noticed in my own several campaigns (mostly tests and two serious ERE campaigns) that the WRE loves to attack Campus Frisii. In every single case they have attacked and taken it. I have also noted that several others have indicated that the WRE has taken that city in their games, and now froggy experiences an attack when she takes it early.
Campus Frisii = WRE attack!
Doug-Thompson
10-04-2005, 20:22
They were just about to get up from the water, so I reckoned a charge at that time would be devastating as they didn't have their formations ready, sort of. But instead, the unit just ran down in the water. It was a set of 3 fresh units. And they DIDN'T have the swim ability. I thought the logical thing would be to stop just above the water line and kill the incoming enemies, but no, they decided it was best to suicide charge down into the water...
This needs to be on a bug thread. It sounds like CA could have created an unforeseen loophole when they took away the prohibition of any land unit entering the water at all. Moving the heavy cavalry into the water wouldn't have worked, but attacking might have sent them down.
At the very least, it's a possibilty that others should look at. Put it on a bug thread and you may get "Yeah, that happened to me" responses. It also might explain the sudden disappearance of land units while the player wasn't paying close attention. After all, it's not like we can replay recordings of campaign battles and find out what happened any more. :wall:
This needs to be on a bug thread. It sounds like CA could have created an unforeseen loophole when they took away the prohibition of any land unit entering the water at all. Moving the heavy cavalry into the water wouldn't have worked, but attacking might have sent them down.
At the very least, it's a possibilty that others should look at. Put it on a bug thread and you may get "Yeah, that happened to me" responses. It also might explain the sudden disappearance of land units while the player wasn't paying close attention. After all, it's not like we can replay recordings of campaign battles and find out what happened any more. :wall:
I'll add it right away.
This needs to be on a bug thread. It sounds like CA could have created an unforeseen loophole when they took away the prohibition of any land unit entering the water at all. Moving the heavy cavalry into the water wouldn't have worked, but attacking might have sent them down.
At the very least, it's a possibilty that others should look at. Put it on a bug thread and you may get "Yeah, that happened to me" responses. It also might explain the sudden disappearance of land units while the player wasn't paying close attention. After all, it's not like we can replay recordings of campaign battles and find out what happened any more. :wall:
This bug was found in the demo already.
Doug-Thompson
10-04-2005, 20:44
This bug was found in the demo already.
:wall:
Azi Tohak
10-04-2005, 20:58
I rather like this thread. My only thought right now is the SW bent of the hordes, but that is no complaint as that is what actually happened. They left the purple alone and went after the red. Maybe I need to try a barbarous horde (after I actually WIN a campaign [I never took 50 provinces in RTW, just got boring]) Perhaps Goths.
Azi
frogbeastegg
10-04-2005, 21:02
Take a look at this:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/frogbeastegg/theRomanHorde.jpg
That would be the Roman horde. None of the units are junky ones either; the worst kind are the limes guard (whose name escapes me). There are quite a few comitansii (SP?) down there, and even scholae palatina. It's only about 374AD.
My army consists of 4 levy spears, 2 keels, 2 hunters, and a few green general. My other army is 3 levies and an even worse general.
I managed to beat off that siege I posted before with my two armies combined, but I lost something like half my men. Those comitanses(SP?) are nasty! The second and third armies in that first picture retreated a bit and joined forces with a general, then came after me.
Since then it has been near constant warfare. WRE attacks me; I just barely hold them back, we both take a bit to rebuild, then they come at me again with more and better units. Meanwhile, my currently pitiful income of 100 denarii per turn means I'm being ground down. Now I can't afford either new or extra troops, and the WRE is here in very great force. My original faction leader died in valiant, almost single-handed defence of a city against the WRE. By some miracle his small bodyguard beat the larger and better Roman one. I have only 3 generals now, one of whom came from a marriage, and all of them are pretty crappy.
I need to expand to get the resources to build more troops, but I need the troops before I can expand. :dizzy2: It's great fun :gring: I guess maybe if I survive this next WRE assault they might have lost so much my next replacement army can break out and pillage the nearby WRE city. I doubt I will survive, if all those WRE armies come at me soon. Simple weight of numbers, and on a one to one basis almost all of those Roman units are better than mine.
So all in all it's been great fun, and the only cloud on the horizon is my fear that if I lose this game and have to start another one I won't have such aggressive and fun factions to play with again. I don't want another game like that first one.
I did like the way two units of rebel peasants tried to swim a river while I defended the bridge. I shot them to death, and the bodies floated gently away ...
Has anyone seen a battle where the enemy general doesn't appear on the map? I attacked one WRE army (3 comit ... thingys, 1 archer, 1 general) and the archers acted as the general, with no proper general and bodyguard.
I took Campus Frisii in my first game too.
I think my monitor is 17 inch. Or maybe 19. Overheating isn't the problem; the cooling and so on is all fine. Omega drivers ... I might try them, but on my next day off. Which is days away.
CountMRVHS
10-04-2005, 21:14
I've been reading about a WRE general who starts the game with a "bodyguard" of Archers instead of cav..... this might be yer problem.
CountMRVHS
So all in all it's been great fun, and the only cloud on the horizon is my fear that if I lose this game and have to start another one I won't have such aggressive and fun factions to play with again. I don't want another game like that first one.
I am actually hoping that I will lose the game I'm playing. I want to play the best I can and still be completely eliminated. When that occurs, I will have found a TW game that I will never get bored of. Up until now I either win or quit due to boredom.
For an update (from my WRE campaign described in the "easy" thread), the Vandal horde remnants finally moved against me again, but they were nowhere near as coordinated. They laid siege to another city, but their two stacks remained seperated and I was able to attack the beseiging force without drawing in the other army. My garrison force was mostly poor troops but my two armies were outnumbered by themselves, so I decided to let the AI control the sallying garrison to shift numerical superiority in my favor. I rushed my force into the middle of the field and formed a box with a shieldwall in front and comitates (sp?) guarding the sides and rear with cavalry and those 'hide anywhere' troops in the middle. The Vandals enveloped me and tried to crumble the corners of my box. Shifting units around allowed me to hold. While this was going on, my AI army came up from my rear, engaged and drove back the flanking enemy horse archers and then attacked the Vandals flanks.
Not only did the AI army vastly aid my victory, but they also were solely responsible for eliminating the enemy horse archers with combined use of light cavalry and foot archers. The friendly AI general also vigorously engaged routing enemies and was responsible for some 400 casualties alone. This is the first time I have EVER been pleased with the tactics of a friendly AI army. I will be giving them more opportunities to aid me in the future.
Bob the Insane
10-04-2005, 21:38
There is some mention that this may be a type of bug, that if you look through the units file, after the general's bodyguard the next viable Roman unit is the Archers and something odd is happening there...
I have seen this myself playing as the WRE...
Interestingly I started a Saxon campaign myself last night to see the issues you had brought up. 15000 is alot of starting funds, but it goes quickly and if you had any less I don't think you would stand any real chance at all. I too took the two nearby rebel provinces and then got into a bit of an arguement with the Franks and then the WRE... I think the WRE (and the ERE for that matter) are having a lot of problems with rebels which has diverted their attention away. I noticed that Colonia Agrippina was manned by only one general. and I had some cavalry and an assassin in range... So I took a chance and sent the assassin. With only a 30% chance he suceeded and left he town undefended for my cavalry to ride in and loot the place...
That was just before I saved and finshed last night so next I have to decide whether the keep the province or not, and see what the WRE response will be... ~D
Doug-Thompson
10-04-2005, 21:42
Not only did the AI army vastly aid my victory, but they also were solely responsible for eliminating the enemy horse archers with combined use of light cavalry and foot archers. The friendly AI general also vigorously engaged routing enemies and was responsible for some 400 casualties alone. This is the first time I have EVER been pleased with the tactics of a friendly AI army. I will be giving them more opportunities to aid me in the future.
Here's hoping that's not a fluke. If not, it's the least subjective evidence yet that the tactical AI has improved.
========
Froggie: Good luck. Looks like you're going to need it. None of your generals are good enough to lead a night attack, it seems.
Garvanko
10-04-2005, 22:02
I can't seem to post in the RTW Guides forum. Anyone else having this trouble?
Also, how many battles does a green General need to win to get even 1 star? Ive had at least five who haven't got any yet, and theyve been campaigning more than ten years, won big battles, and generally earned their stars and stripes. Even Governers are finding it hard to gain good traits.
Craterus
10-04-2005, 22:14
Green Generals? What's that all about?
Bear with me, I haven't had the chance to play this game (properly) yet.
Bob the Insane
10-04-2005, 22:16
I think he means a new general with no stars or experience...
I don't know, but it certainly far more than it used to be. My best general currently has six stars (seven if he does a night attack) and that is after 15-20 battles, of which 8-10 or so were significant engagements, i.e. not cleaning up rebels or army remnants. He also started with two or three stars and at least one of his stars is from retainers. So he has essentially gotten 2-3 stars plus night fighter from his 15-20 battles.
Garvanko
10-04-2005, 22:28
What Bob said. And TinCow just confirmed my initial observations. The only traits some of my generals have is 'Pagan' and 'Lively' and such triats. No ancillaries, no stars, managment pins or influence. The only gains they seem to get are experience and armour like normal units.
Odd.
My Faction Leader (and best general) in my Frank campaign has 5 stars, my heir has three and another two have one each. Ive got about 15 family members and hold 9 settlements.
IIIRC, there were bugs in the 1.2 trait triggers that caused them to fire twice for every manually played battle, and then twice for Romans, so that we got used to Roman generals gaining stars at 4X the intended rate and everyone else at double. Seems those were fixed for BI.
-open descr_start.txt file for BI campaign
-find Gratianus Flavius
Then change this:
character Gratianus Flavius, named character, age 25, , x 84, y 102
traits LoyaltyStarter 1 , Christian 1, GoodCommander 4 , BlackBileHumour 3 , Disciplinarian 3 , Coward 3 , LaxPersonalSecurity 2 , FearsBarbarian 3
ancillaries office_magister_memoriae_west, evil_mother-in-law
army
unit western archer exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
unit limitanei exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
unit limitanei exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
unit limitanei exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
unit limitanei exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
To this:
character Gratianus Flavius, named character, age 25, , x 84, y 102
traits LoyaltyStarter 1 , Christian 1, GoodCommander 4 , BlackBileHumour 3 , Disciplinarian 3 , Coward 3 , LaxPersonalSecurity 2 , FearsBarbarian 3
ancillaries office_magister_memoriae_west, evil_mother-in-law
army
unit imperial german bodyguard exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
unit western archer exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
unit limitanei exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
unit limitanei exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
unit limitanei exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
unit limitanei exp 0 armour 0 weapon_lvl 0
Due to missing of bodyguard unit, game tries to find suitable replacement in unit of archers.
Adding actually bodyguard unit in the group fixes the problem.
I am actually hoping that I will lose the game I'm playing. I want to play the best I can and still be completely eliminated. When that occurs, I will have found a TW game that I will never get bored of. Up until now I either win or quit due to boredom.
.
Hi
Two little changes I think can be made to the game to make it more challenging.
1) The vandal and hun horde are too close to each other, they sometimes collide into each other and knock each other out. Move the vandal horde 20 co-ordinates west on descr_strat. Then it starts by knocking the lombardi and burgundi into horde and then moves into northern italy.
2) Increase the starting size of the hordes, copy and paste a couple of generals stacks in descr_strat and change the starting position
~;)
Rodion Romanovich
10-05-2005, 18:32
I think the game so far has been challenging. Even though the river bug made me load an earlier save a few turns back... I made the mistake of thinking killing the sarmatians would be easier than killing some eastern romans, and lost valuable time. Then while I was camping at the river crossing there to stop vandals and huns, I was attacked by the ERE and had to return home. An alliance with the vandals and diplomatic measures succeeded in turning the huns and vandals against each other, but they didn't eliminate that many of each others, but I got time to take Sirmium, which proved important for my economy. But when I took Sirmium, I chose to occupy instead of exterminate, nice as I am. The result was ostrogothic rebels three turns later, and I had to subdue them. My treasury was around 4000 after exterminating them, but repairs and retraining quickly put me at negative treasure again, so I was forced to quickly seek a new settlement to conquer. I chose Constantinople, and knew that failure to conquer the city would most likely result in my destruction or at least forcing me to become a horde. A large ERE army met me on the way to Constantinople, but I destroyed their cavalry and forced them into retreat. Unfortunately I couldn't destroy any of their withdrawing units, but managed to catch up with the army again before the end of the turn, then besieged the city, only to find out that my bucellari mercenaries who had helped me sap Sirmium's walls couldn't help me here - large walls can't be sapped (a nice addition IMO). The assault the next turn was somewhat of a disappointment, too easy. You can still exploit that the enemy don't change the deployment of troops they've put on the walls until you've broken through the walls (there or somewhere else) and are heading for the town center. So I won the battle with only 40 casualties, killing over 1100 romans.
But this disappointment over the AI was quickly removed when the hun hordes finally arrived at my starting settlement and still my capital. They passed the capital and decided to settle down in Campus Iazyges - a quite good decision as I had only peasants there, but a garrison capable of repelling an assault or two in Provincia Dacia. The huns assaulted the settlement and I got to fight a night battle. Just to see how it was, I chose to command personally even though my 4 peasants couldn't hope to stand up against 3 full hun armies. They did use rams and only one of the rams were destroyed by towers before reaching the walls. My peasants managed to kill some 20 of their spearmen carrying rams, but couldn't rout the unit before another hun spear unit appeared and charged their rear, thus routing them all and ending the battle. In the meantime the sack of Constantinople had given me denarii to hire mercenaries and increase the strength of the garrison in Dacia, so I moved up the army close outside the new hun capital. At the end of the turn, the huns attacked. They knew how to flank, how to put me in a locked position, how to use reserves to take advantage of their superiority in numbers, and so on. I won one battle, but it was close, then lost one. Luckily I can build up my army again so that it's strong enough for the huns when they send their victorious army after me, and it'll probably take two turns at least before they can get any more hunnic armies to the province, so I have the time I need.
In conclusion I can say that the huns have been impressive on the battlemap, and that the BI campaign overall has more of the M:TW feeling than R:TW had, and that battle AI in field battles has been improved. Battle AI in sieges is roughly the same IMO. The strengthening of infantry in most aspects also makes sieges easier, because the towers don't do as much damage. But even though sieges have become easier, I think the changes are all positive, but would be better if combined with better siege AI. The AI needs to redistribute the troops they have on top of their walls better.
SpencerH
10-05-2005, 19:15
The strengthening of infantry in most aspects also makes sieges easier, because the towers don't do as much damage. But even though sieges have become easier, I think the changes are all positive, but would be better if combined with better siege AI. The AI needs to redistribute the troops they have on top of their walls better.
Are you saying that 1) assulting a city is easier, and 2) that you like that?
Garvanko
10-05-2005, 20:38
Depends how you assault really. Personally I believe that, aside from onagers, saps are the best way to assault any city. Onagers are expensive and slow down your army, ladders and towers need lots of infantry to be successful.
Rodion Romanovich
10-06-2005, 08:48
Are you saying that 1) assulting a city is easier, and 2) that you like that?
No, I said I didn't like that assaulting was easier, but the set of changes made were improvements logic-wise. However, the total result of the set of changes was that assaulting was easier - and that I didn't like. :dizzy2: I know it sounds confusing...
I meant that now the only thing the sieges lack is good AI, previously it was buggy and unrealistic in many ways - when you ordered an infantry unit to enter a tower it just stood still for two minutes and got shot to death, and siege towers were bugged, and the towers were too powerful (I'd prefer if they were off or firing when defender-controlled and doing nothing when the attacker had taken control over them). Mechanics-wise, the new sieges are difficult where they're supposed to, and easy where they're supposed to. And the time limit is more sane - 44 minutes in most sieges rather than 20 in R:TW... The problem now is that the AI doesn't know how to put me in the situations where it's mechanics-wise difficult for me. Previously, sieges were bugged AND with bad AI - the bad AI was made up for by bugginess. Now the mechanics are fixed, but the AI still lacking, but I think a fixing of bugs in the mechanics is always an improvement. Now if only a patch could make the AI coordinate it's troops better then the sieges would be perfect.
My goth campaign continued:
The huns sent several more armies than I thought the had within range towards my poor little army... I got overconfident by my earlier successes, and now the remnants of it retreated to Provincia Dacia, only to be besieged by treacherous vandals, who broke their alliance seeing that we were temporarily weakened. There was no way the army in Constantinople could come to the aid of the poor besieged goths, and they were instead ordered to march to Thessalonica and deal with the ERE troops there - better to build for the future, than in panick trying to save what couldn't possibly be saved. After a few turns, the huns had abandoned Campus Iazyges but that was little comfort to the besieged goths. And the vandals decided to launch an attack. 4 full armies against a pitiful garrison of a mere 150 troops, most of them in severely damaged units and therefore unable to put up formations capable of doing much. The battle raged for several minutes, and a daring raid from the goth faction leader managed to disrupt two ramming parties, but had to retreat before managing to destroy the other two. Death would be inevitable... So the goth troops searched for weak spots in the vandal armies, and charged, succeeding in killing loads of cheap horde peasants. Two vandal generals were disgraced - one by death, the other by routing. By the time the vandals broke through the walls and crushed the peasants and severely damaged (1 fourth of normal unit size) goth spearmen that defended the first breach, the vandals had lost over 25 percent of their entire horde. The goth faction leader then died an honorable death in battle, and many of the gothic warriors prefered suicide charge over being put to the sword by the murderous vandals, who immediately sacked the city, and killed the innocent women and children. The new gothic faction leader swore an oath to find the vandals, no matter where they were hiding, and make sure they would be killed to the last man, even if it would mean moving through ten empires before finding them. First, however, more of Greece needs to be incorporated in the gothic empire, so that there's enough money available to train another army, that could hunt down the treacherous, murderous vandals.
Rodion Romanovich
10-06-2005, 09:07
Depends how you assault really. Personally I believe that, aside from onagers, saps are the best way to assault any city. Onagers are expensive and slow down your army, ladders and towers need lots of infantry to be successful.
New in Bi is that large walls can't be sapped, which finally can make large walls more difficult than stone walls. Previously, it really didn't matter what the AI had...
As for assaulting techniques, an easy way in BI is to simply deploy in one place, then as soon as the battle starts move all troops to assault elsewhere, using towers. The AI never redeploys troops it had put on walls, only troops on the ground... Another way that is more logical and feels like less AI exploiting, is to sap a wall section to the side of the deployed enemies, then assaulting with towers on the other side of it. Then it feels logical that the AI troops can't react as quickly to the tower attack. Putting some archers on the by towers captured walls then gets the enemy into trouble. I think the combo of saps and towers is best, because the saps can open breeches that are easy to enter cavalry (well anything) through, while the towers can capture wall sections and end the devastating fire from the towers so that the troops entering through the sap point won't have to worry as much about how long time it takes before they break the enemy defenses around the breech. I agree to what you said about onagers and ladders.
Depends how you assault really. Personally I believe that, aside from onagers, saps are the best way to assault any city. Onagers are expensive and slow down your army, ladders and towers need lots of infantry to be successful.
Saps are indeed good for siege assaults, but repairing the wall afterwards can be expensive.
Zatoichi
10-06-2005, 09:41
New in Bi is that large walls can't be sapped, which finally can make large walls more difficult than stone walls. Previously, it really didn't matter what the AI had...
I'm not sure that's entirely true - in my ERE campaign the WRE are constantly destroying chunks of my Epic stone walls with saps.
Maybe you are not seeing it because the ability to sap is less prevelant in BI 'barbarian' units. If I'm seeing this correctly, it's now not possible to build saps unless there is a unit in the siege stack that has the sapping ability. (I need to investigate this some more, it could be more random than this!)
I'm enjoying the fact that sapping is more prevelant by the AI - in all my campaigns in RTW, I was sapped precisely once in the countless sieges I experienced. In a week of BI, it's happened 4 times - a very good improvement.
Garvanko
10-06-2005, 10:15
I believe you can sap Epic Stone Walls, Legio.. BUT, I will check this out again.
I just go a hold of a copy. Much, much, much better game. I'm no whiz, the AI steamrolled my poor Sacsens in about four hours on hard/hard. In vanilla, I cannot think of a battle I lost (seriously), the enemy no longer marches staggered to their death as you rout them easily.
This is the game Rome should have been... I'd have a lot better taste about the company if it was, but at least the money I shelled out for it was no longer a waste, I can't wait to restart my campaign and get my revenge...
Mouzafphaerre
10-06-2005, 17:23
.
Encuraged by frog's wees (:gring:), I gotem. I tell you, this BI is by no means an easy game. I'm yet to figure out surviving after a few dzen turns, whatever the faction. Tried the Hunni twice and Sasanian once, all to abandonment. The economy isn't the least like we were used to in MTW, neither is the navy. The new provincial organization is better than MTW. The only things I don't like are the AOE-like shouting/reporting stuff in the campaign map, which just doesn't fit, and the damnable camera control in the battles.
I'm ashamed having not yet defeated this thing as a vateran MTW/VI freak. :end:
.
You can change camera control as there are 3 different styles to pick from.
CBR
Rodion Romanovich
10-06-2005, 18:29
I'm not sure that's entirely true - in my ERE campaign the WRE are constantly destroying chunks of my Epic stone walls with saps.
Maybe you are not seeing it because the ability to sap is less prevelant in BI 'barbarian' units. If I'm seeing this correctly, it's now not possible to build saps unless there is a unit in the siege stack that has the sapping ability. (I need to investigate this some more, it could be more random than this!)
I'm enjoying the fact that sapping is more prevelant by the AI - in all my campaigns in RTW, I was sapped precisely once in the countless sieges I experienced. In a week of BI, it's happened 4 times - a very good improvement.
Some more research... Of 4 stone wall assaults with mercenary bucellari, who have the sapping ability, I've only been able to build saps twice. Twice disabled, twice it worked. Strange - might be a bug...
Anyway, after some more hours of BI I can say that playing as any of the factions that risk confrontation with the hordes is a lot harder than a vanilla R:TW campaign, plus then removing of the reload feature/bug now finally makes games difficult even if you have limited time for prolonged sessions. The fact that the AI now uses more cavalry - at least the hordes do - makes it a lot tougher - my most useful tactics from R:TW are now impossible, making the game more fair for the AI. Plus the AI in FIELD battles is more clever, in river crossings and sieges I'm not sure what to say about it yet. The fewer cities also means more field battles and less 1000 vs 20 man sieges, plus losing cities is important. I'll actually experiment more with this thing for the AOVAF mod, it might not be such a bad idea after all (but the current plans for the AOVAF mod still takes out many of the benefits that the fewer cities system have, so the AOVAF system might be better when implemented).
I had some nice battles when destroying most of the ostrogoth hordes, who returned after fighting the WRE. The huns at first seemed stupid to move around without settling, but they've managed to siege and assault so that a huge number of WRE cities have gone rebels, and eliminated many of their armies. The vandals have also played an interesting game, but I eventually managed to, by using field forts, destroy enough of their larger armies to make them a threat not necessary to worry about anymore.
The religion feature makes maintaining of public order tougher, which is good. But I realize I made a big mistake when I didn't change the faction heir to a Christian one. Now I have a pagan faction leader but all settlements are Christian, which means I get a -10 public order in all settlements because the faction leader has the wrong religion. A mistake I won't repeat... From now on I'll use the set faction heir feature.
But what I'm curious to see is if the game remains challenging after I've held off the worst storm of hordes. I'm not sure about what happens if a horde settles in a huge city, then goes horde again - would that give them a huge horde again even if they had lost much before settling? Or will they get a very small horde that can be destroyed easily? I certainly hope it remains challenging even after I've taken around 10 settlements. 16 is the victory condition for the goths.
Doug-Thompson
10-06-2005, 20:35
... playing as any of the factions that risk confrontation with the hordes is a lot harder than a vanilla R:TW campaign.... The fact that the AI now uses more cavalry - at least the hordes do - makes it a lot tougher.... Plus the AI in FIELD battles is more clever ... fewer cities also means more field battles and less 1000 vs 20 man sieges, plus losing cities is important.
Yes, yes, yep, right and yes.
I'm in horde Hell right now. I whipped the Goths only to have the Huns show up. Infantry was very useful for the first series of battles against the Goths, but now the only only Goth survivors are HA. I'm suffering more losses than I'm inflicting, trying to stamp them out. Meanwhile, here come the Huns.
Mouzafphaerre
10-07-2005, 02:37
You can change camera control as there are 3 different styles to pick from.
CBR
.
Will try them, thanks. :bow:
.
frogbeastegg
10-08-2005, 19:08
A very quick update:
I did a whole one turn before work yesterday morning, totalling about 40 minutes. I spent about 35 of those minutes fighting the best battle I've ever encountered in RTW. By the skin of my teeth I defeated that massive 20 unit WRE army. I plunged my remaining cash into a single extra spear levy built at the nearest town to the army, and rushed it and the governor (heh, the only governor I had full stop) to the army about to fight in a desperate effort to bolster numbers.
It was a bridge battle, and basically that is what saved me, even if the AI did sent light cavalry swimming over to flank when it started its main assault. This battle ... convinced me more than anything that battlefield AI is improved, also that battles are slower now. The first part of the melee lasted some 10 minutes in real time before the first unit broke, the second melee lasted about 7 minutes.
Basically the AI stood off and tried to shoot me, but I was able to kill its 4 units of archers as they deployed because it kept on moving them about instead of letting them shoot. While I won missile superiority I only had about 1/3 ammo left for my 2 hunter units, and used that on the AI's light cavalry to good effect. When the AI 'saw' it had lost the chance to shoot me a bit first it immediately began to cross, heavily armoured comitanses (need to learn to spell that!) coming first, followed by the other types of infantry in logical order. At the same time the cavalry swam over and attacked on both flanks, forcing me to send a full half of my reserves off to kill them, which they managed to do speedily enough thanks to my archer's earlier work.
Then it was really just toe to toe melee, barring the very brief time it took for my 4 units of levy spears to empty their javelins into the seething mob of Romans. Watching closely ... it was damned good. As my units got tired they became less effective and their morale lowered, just like in the old days. I actually had to cycle units so tired men could rest and fresh ones enter the fray. I haven't needed to consider fatigue like that since VI, so I'm very pleased.
The AI used its units as I would have done, excepting it's rather suicidal use of its archers. It also did much the same as I would have done in terms of tactics, again excepting the waste of its archers.
When the AI routed the first time I was so sorely beaten I couldn't follow and chase to end the battle. I had to reform, and before I even finished the AI was back and pressing me harder than before. To be honest, I don't know how or why I managed to break them the second time. The first time they routed I had killed some 42% of its total army, according to the bar under the map.
My two units of keel are gone, after fighting until only 10 exhausted men remained, then routing with no space to run. My 4 units of spear levy were so mauled I now effectively have 2 1/2. Both of my generals' units are beaten to half strength from breaking the last few stubborn units as they followed the general second rout. But I'm closer to equal in numbers with the second WRE army approaching, and I have the better position, even if they have far better units. If I defeat them then the nearby WRE provinces will be open to plunder for a few turns ... if I have enough men left to take on stone walls and better. Which is doubtful; even now that army is about the minimum I would want to tackle such defences in an assault. Starving the city out would take long enough that another army might come and kill me. I have to plunder and conquer to get the money to rebuild my army, and from there expand.
So I might actually be able to scrape on through. Or I might not - I'm really unsure. I love it! :gring: A challenge. Uncertainty. A need to think, plan and work, then react and plan again, work harder, and fight with all I have. It's all I ever really wanted.
Weee! :gring:
Craterus
10-08-2005, 20:32
Good to see you're happy with the purchase :grin:
The Stranger
10-08-2005, 20:45
not nice craterus
Craterus
10-08-2005, 20:47
not nice craterus
Why "not nice"? I'm glad somone is, because my experiences with BI (or lack of) have done nothing but annoy me so far.
I play more round a friends house than my own.
My campaign is finally nearing the end. I have captured Rome and Mediolanum (I stayed clear of Ravenna as all the hordes were decending on it), and have a province count of 30. The Sassanids are broken, Arsakia is taken and Phraaspa is under siege.
But to my great surprise the Burgundians laid siege to my furthest outpost (taken from the WRE) Campus Quadi. I guess that is the price of letting them expand like vermin. They have a pretty stable and strong little empire up north. Even the Slavs stayed clear of them on their trek. Those Slavs were eventually my revenge on the Burgundians. They made war on me after taking Campus Iazyges (that is one popular settlement). I beat them relatively easily, though they nearly captured one of my cities. So I thought if I took Iazyges I could send them packing to the north, towards the Burgundians. So I did... Six stacks are now wrecking havoc in Burgundia. :evil:
A fleet full of troops from Antioch and Tarsus is on its way to Carthage. There I will fullfill my destiny.
Zatoichi
10-09-2005, 01:32
What I'm enjoying most about this game is the unpredictability of the late stages. Like Kraxis, I'm nearing the end of my ERE campaign, but not in a stable uber-empire fashion, but in a 'please don't let any more of my cities rebel/more hordes turn up before I take my last 5 provinces' kind of way!
I've thought I was about to win 3 times already, only to have domino horde migration rain on my parade. So I'm not counting my chickens just yet.
However, I have just killed off the Huns in an epic series of flowing battles throughout northern Italy, so that's one less worry.
I'm glad Froggie has been enjoying the improvements - her post reminded me of yet another thing - how great is it to play one turn again, eh? Without all that siege breaking/AI befuddling worry. Now I can have a crafty turn or two before setting off to work in the mornings as well.
Right - off to bring some Eastern Roman culture to the unwashed masses - 5 provinces left... what can possibly go wrong?
Orda Khan
10-09-2005, 01:39
Try as I might I just cannot seem to get an allied army to assist in battle or indeed, for me to assist them. I allied with WRE who are having a bit of a bashing on all fronts. Moved a mighty Hun army to one of their cities currently under seige by the Vandals ( my enemies ). WRE army nearby does not engage the Vandals but retreats to safety, leaving me to deal with their problem. That done, I march on to another WRE army that is being hounded by Franks. Same thing. This time I decided against attack and marched back to inflict more suffering on the Vandals who are left. This is a feature I dearly wanted to see more of, as I only had an allied army turn up a couple of times in MTW. Likewise, arranging a joint attack through diplomacy would be nice. Maybe I should encourage my boys to visit the Roman baths once in a while, perhaps then there would be more cooperation?
.....Orda
Garvanko
10-09-2005, 02:21
Yeah, I hear ya. Its pointless asking for assistance from Allies.
Rodion Romanovich
10-09-2005, 09:17
I've been trying the last 10 turns or so to get to fight a battle with allies, just for fun, but I've failed miserably. Then my allies the Alemanni decided to try and assassinate and sabotage in my newly conquered city of Ravenna, so I sent assassins to kill their assassins, and succeeded after a few turns. But then one of my assassins missed and died, and the alliance was broken because the Alemanni had found out I was the guilty one... This will make for an interesting war because the Alemanni seems to be the largest faction after me (I have 11 provinces or so by now). However, so far I've been avoiding direct confrontation by keeping garrisons in my cities and moving south through the Italian peninsula to conquer their relatively unguarded cities there... I was a little nervous for a while when I read that the Alemanni victory conditions were 10 provinces including Rome, something else and Aquincum, when they had perhaps 9 provinces already. I was relieved for a while when I saw Aquincum was rebel controlled, and I had a chance to grab it. But when I conquered Aquincum and built a church the population went mad - big mistake on my part - and threw me out. A large WRE garrison appeared and I had to retreat and use the severely damaged army to conquer another city - Provincia Dacia that I had earlier lost to the vandals and hadn't yet retaken. I also finally managed to wipe out my very first faction - the vandals. It's really hard to wipe out any faction at all in BI, due to the horde feature. I mean, if they've fled, they get so many stacks that it's not at all easy to touch them until they've weakened themselves a little, as the stacks stick together.
Anyway, BI has forced me to think more strategically and been fairly challenging so far, I've sometimes even had to avoid encounters with enemy armies that looked too strong - in R:TW I would almost always go to battle. Now, for example, the ERE had an army with their heavy infantry, some good archers, and very much heavy cavalry and camels, when I had goth spearmen, raiders and a small detachment of light cavalry. I had to wait until my horse archers arrived, before I could form an army that I dared to send close to that army.
However the game still seems to get easier towards the end, but it's probably nearly impossible to make a stragegy game that doesn't.
Orda Khan
10-09-2005, 12:13
Yes, it is very difficult to destroy a faction now. The Alemanni committed suicide early in the game when they attacked my hordes with their depleted amies. I finished off the Vandals last night, after the WRE chose treachery. I made a mistake by hanging around to teach them a lesson, a huge WRE army, twice the size of mine attacked. Balamber was successful in defeating them but his army suffered quite a few losses in the process. Still, it was fun
.......Orda
Dutch_guy
10-09-2005, 12:50
I had really nice battles yesterday, I was defending Vicus Macorbori ( sp ? ) settlement just under the Allemani capital.
I was playin the Franks (vh/h)(large units ), I had my best army in that city which I just conquered from the WRE, anyhow I qued up stone walls and decided to linger in the city to keep the populace happy, that was a mistake , but then again it wan't :
When I took the city I saw a Gothic horde ( well 5 stacks ) a turn away from my nearly conquered settlement.
Anyhow they decided to attack my city ( wooden walls ...) so they did , they sieged my city and biult 8 rams for the walls.
After 2 ( 3 ) turns they attacked, and got aided by another of their 5 stacks.
It was ~1100 Franks against ~2400 Goths.
I decided to not defend my walls and just wait and fight the battle at my town square where my units wouldn't rout.
So I did , the one army sent in the rams while the other Goth army on the other side of my settlement ran to the other goth army - the one with the 8 rams.
Due to the wooden walls the fast Horse archers didn't take a lot of tower fire casualties, and the horde swordsmen and other infantry were wise enough not to come near my towers.
So the armies were united when the gate and the walls fell.
I prepared my army at the town square ith the infantry in front ( sword and axe men ) and some 5 raider cav. behind them, allong with 2 archers and a general.
The Goth army walked to the square and my swordsdmen sufferd badly ( even in loose formation ) to the numerable Horde horsemen (HA's ) however the slave spearmen couldn't beat my army head on an routed. I then sent my Raider cav (RC) to charge the HA's which were all bogged down in the street leding toward my town square, the RC and my warlord routed all the hord horsemen and left lot's and lot's of dead bodies.in the streets to the square.
now only a couple of HA and swordsmen were left , I retreated to the the town square once more , awaiting the onslaught of at least a full stack of swords and slaves ( with a couple of depleted HA, who rallied ), however since the Ai let it's 3 star general wait outside the gates the Goths didn't stand a change against my swords and francisca hebeernans'
I sent my RC and warlord to pursue to routers and eventually to engage the 34 soldier enemy general which they killed. I wanted to kill the other enemy gen. ( who resided on the other side of the map, where the ram-less stack began ) but the time ran out. I killed 2400 men and lost about 400.
Next turn they attack again , and queed up 4 rams.
The run after that the yattack again, one army with rams the other supporting army without rams ,~2500 Goths against my poor `~750 Franks, again I deployed my army at the square, the Goth armies waited till they were united ( meaning they waited till the other Goth army had ran to the other side of the map , towards the hole sin the walls ) and then assualted again , their army was build more or less similar to the other 2 stacks of the previous battle, about 1 stack of HA and one stack of swords and slaves.
Again due to my RC who charged the HA ,who got bogged down ( again ) in the city streets , and killed them all ( well most of them ).
Now the slaves and sword hordmen were now match against my better quality sword and axemen.
I won again , killing about ~2500 men and losing another ~300 ( maybe more )
So in the end now only one Goth horde stack is left, and it also immediatly laid siege to my poor town and depleted garrisson, could I defeat them again ?
Well no I coulnd't my units gave one hell of a fight but couldn;t defeat the last full stack. however we killed about ~750 men, of the ~1500
I am currenly ruthlessly chasing the last and depleted horde stack who plundered my city , and didn't even settle in it , despite losing over 5000 men to just plunder it....
Anyhow I'm really going to enjoy destroying their last horde stack.
And I'm really enjoying my first campaign, as the Franks.
:balloon2:
Yes it seems the Hordes are a bit plunderhappy. Not that I mind too much, but the Lombards plundered Ravenna... Shouldn't they have settled there? I mean it is so close to their objective lands.
shootfast
10-09-2005, 16:15
BI is definitly better, AI tactics and strategy are actually smart and nasty!
Playing WRE VH/VH and managed to survive and hold all my provinces while making a profit. Problem is that it's not the hoards of Barbarians I expected to attack but the ERE:furious3: Those ERE backstabbers took full advantage of my eastern weakness and are pushing towards ROME! Now with bulk of my army in Gaul,Hispania and Cathage this really is going to be tough with my ill equiped 1stack eastern legion facing a 5 stack highly equiped ERE legion as the only thing blocking it from taking ROME! as I have nothing in Italy after round 1 mass firing.:help:
Garvanko
10-09-2005, 16:18
Plunering is a moneymaker. The more you do it, the more money you make. Going on a rampage throughout Europe before you settle makes you rich, and gets makes your enemies poor.
First major thing I did in my frank campaign (after spending all my cash on recruitment) was Horde.
shootfast
10-09-2005, 16:47
The battles are much better and the ai is smarter. In my WRE vs ERE battle I had even numbers with full stack legions facing each other and equiped along the same lines and barely won with 70%of my men dead majority of my inf and calv, only the archers survived mostly intact which won the game in the end.
That battle was the first epic battle I had, lasted almost a hour as it took 10minutes of skirmishing between both armys before the main melee started which had two stages with his attack with his weaker first line and my counter attack on his much stronger second line which he almost won with his general breaking my centre with a well timed calv charge. Only by killing his general with my General did I stop a full rout of my army. But by then 2/3 of my army was dead or had routed and he outnumbered me. It was frantic melee between the survivors in the end and my archers ultimately turned the battle with help from my heavy inf which were the only inf to not rout.
After that I relised that RTW BI had something to offer instead of eye candy. It was more like MTW battles I had then RTW ones.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.