Printable View
Hi all,
Have not played since around patch 6 or 7. I just couldnt get immersed, I would start a campaign play 10-15 turns go do something else and never come back.
So how does the game play now? do I need to play Ceaser in Gaul or Hannibal at the gates or is the basic game much more improved now/have they fixed a lot of the major bugs?
Is the Pirates and Raiders DLC worth it?
let me know your thoughts
Cheers Knoddy
The short answer: you can't patch what's wrong with R2
I played my Barcid campaign to military victory last night [my first RTW 2 campaign I actually played to the end]. It was fun for the first 50-75 turns with things hanging in balance. After that: the usual steam-roll.
What kept me engaged was playing and experimenting with Carthaginian mercenary roster, LOL.
In general, despite that mid-game-on steamroll, I have to say, the grand campaign has improved a lot since the release.
Here's a peak at the end-of-campaign map. As you can see there are a few larger AI states (which was unusual around patches 5-7).
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
As to raiders' pack. I'd buy it only if you want to play with those factions (which can be achieved with mods anyway). All 3 have a challenging start.
My instincts on game quality are driven entirely by what I feel compelled to play, based on that, I can't recommend the GC for R2.
Because since its release I forced myself to slog through one GC under the original victory conditions, which btw were just completely stupid, it was just short of a requiring to conquer the entire map. Once that was done I've played and enjoyed both DLC's more than the GC, so thumbs up to HaTG and CIG.
But currently if you look at my steam play time you'd see I'd rather play R1 EB, MTW2 vanilla or under any mod or Shogun 2 over R2 GC.
That's how I rate games, do I play them. I've got limited amounts of time just like anyone working to allocate to gaming, given it's a limited resource, where I choose to use it says everything I have to say about how I feel about a recently released game. In this case it would sum up this way: I'd rather play games that released a decade ago.
The game to me is generally a throwback to Age of Empires II (which I also play). Survive the first few assaults and when those are over steam roll the competition.
After a certain point the AI seems to be content to puppy guard their forts and not form any kind of offensive.
The reason I still play is that I enjoy the real time battles. The tactician in me needs the high.......
thanks for the replies, I might see if I can get back into it. to the point about getting to a point where you steam roll, this is like nearly every strategy game out there, at some point your so big that it hardly matters what the AI does but I do take your point.
I'd say it's fun if you deliberately choose factions you are not familiar with. Get out of your comfort zone, and find out how to make them work. Are you a Roman/Greek kind of guy? Play Royal Scythia or the Massagetae. Are you an Iceni guy who likes camping the British Isles? Go Bactria or the Seleukids. Then, ti's a matter of finding the right opening moves (when to fight, what to conquer, whom to ally with). But once you've gotten that and have gotten a 4 settlement province that can recruit tier 3 units, then it's pretty much starting to get stale.
About the ally thing. Ive found it increasingly hard to get any kind of alliances. Even with overwhelming love from another faction they never want to do more than NAP me. Its rather annoying.
How far along are you with your campaign? It gets easier to get alliances as you grow stronger. Also, beat-up AI factions (victims of other AIs) tend to be very willing to ally with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamakazi
Unless your faction has diplomatic malus, it is not that hard to get allies even in the early games. I frequently need to offer the AI to join their wars, etc. though; sometimes a little cash.
The usual sequence is:
NAP, trade, military access, defensive alliance.
The second one is problematic with some factions which are hard-coded (or so it seems) to avoid trading.
I'd say the patch changes to R2's diplomacy have made the biggest difference - particularly to mid/late campaign. My most recent campaigns as Rome and Bactria have ended (or I parachuted out) with me a senior partner in a domminant grand alliance. I find this makes the mid/late game more measured than Shogun 2's, but also less contrived than the scripted Realm Divide solo romp.
Over the last few months I've found myself playing a fair bit of R2 as well as S2 and Napoleon (NTW3 mod). I think of all 3, I find R2's diplomacy the best (boy am i surprised to write that!), simply because it is consistent and (in my experience) devoid of the glitches in empire/NTW's (one turn trade agreemnts) and eschews the realm divide dog-pile which makes an utter mockery of alliances and vassals (even if you set them up after RD begins, they are bound to rebel).
In R2 (at present) you can avoid a fair ammount of grinding that was otherwise unavoidable, because the victory conditions include allied territory in your province count. I find alliances fairly easy to form, as they start taking shape in the early/mid game, around common enemies and trade agreemetns. The AI diplomacy indicators work very predictably in that a series of mutual freinds and enemies, as well as long running agreements, will usually snowball into political blocs across the map. The tricky points with this feature are: 1) getting into such alliances to start with, 2) preserving enough space (enemies/neutrals) for you to expand without torpedoing your grand alliance (or at least doing so tiddily). R2's approach to diplomacy mechanics makes so much rational sense but does of course lend itself to ruthless exploitation by the player - I'm sadly yet to see an AI backstab me as they would do in Shogun 2. In a context without the realm divide hysterics, S2's campaign AI and diplomacy might be better, but as it is i think I prefer R2s and in that context, R2 is marginaly more satisfying for me.
I just got the Pirates and Raiders DLC so Ill post some reviews soon, see how the game changed.
I never had no trouble with realm divide. I knew how to mange it, I understood why it happened, I knew when it would happen, and I knew what to do about it.
I've had on numerous occasions allies who stayed that way post RD till I had won. I've had hundreds of vassals stay on my side that I created post RD.
All those who would declare themselves worthy of becoming Shogun should prove it in Total War. :bow:
R2 on the other hand, I've got dozens of people who can't be bothered to trade or talk to me for the entire campaign, to say that "it works" as well or better than S2 diplo baffles me
I played about an hour. Just started a Getae campaign (and AAR forthcoming) and it seems to be working smoother than the last time I seriously played, which was I think back in December. I felt that battles went a bit better. Less of the "accordion effect" when two units collide. Cant comment on campaign strategy yet or diplomacy. I also have a slew of mods, ranging from Radious's mods to camera mods. But the one which stands out for me is the Rome 1 music mod. Holy hell its amazing, really makes battles so much better, I highly recommend it. Will post more comments as I continue to re-experience the game.
OK, so I really will have to track this music mod down. I've never run a mod on R2, is there much to it?
No its very easy! Just go to the Rome 2 workshop page on Steam, search for music, find the Rome 1 music mod, it will be at the top because its very popular, and simply press subscribe. Steam does the rest. And just to be sure when you fire up the launcher, go to the mod manager and make sure that the mod is enabled. Then press launch, and you are good to go!
Ah, much better now...~;)
Really? I can honestly say I've never managed to do that - hence my sense that at RD everyone simply goes mad (with some reason and empirical evidence). It would make total war a little less total if I could setup vassal buffer states... Did you have to do anything other than be friendly/allied for a long time? i.e. bribe them every turn? I must return to the Dojo and focus on my lessons. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by easytarget
I think in R2 the system struggles when there aren't many indicators racking up on either side (be it like/dislike), as the AI can be quite complacent. In some cases you might be able to sweaten a deal (the initial one most importantly perhaps - to get the "likes" ratcheting up) with a bribe but it's fair to say that unless you follow the progression of agreements that Slaists mentions, the AI won't be interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by easytarget
Starting relationships off seems the hardest part in R2. I'd say it's also rare that erstwhile enemies become friends/allies. Often the easiest way to be start building a friendly relationship with a faction is to have mutual enemies, declaring war (as a diplomatic measure alone!) is always possible: no one can say "no".
I'd say you'll always have factions miles away who are disinterested in you and maybe minor factions with not much to trade too. Generaly, a large AI faction (with trade resources) will be happy to trade once you are friendly enough.
Well, the vassal part is really pretty straightforward, you just turn them after RD. I do it because once RD starts I lose all my trade partners and need a revenue stream. But I also vassalize because I don't have to leave an army behind to stabilize it and I don't have to waste money fixing the place back up. It's almost comical they give me a unit for free to boot.Quote:
Originally Posted by al Roumi
That said, these guys will not stay with you forever, so you better be primed with your army for a medium speed blitzkrieg and have a plan of attack where you are going. This is not a casual walk in the park, it's Sherman heading to the sea. Since I often start this push in the immediate vicinity of Kyoto because I hold off taking that till after RD kicks in, I do also create a decent size standing army there that can "persuade" vassals that change their mind to come back into the fold.
As for allies that stayed with me post RD, that one is also pretty straightforward, but it does require a bit of planning and some luck. Early on in the campaign you have to pick who you are going to trade with and stick with for the long term, if you choose wisely and select one of the clans that tends to survive to the end having been with them in an alliance for the entire campaign they will hold out for awhile post RD. Like the vassal strategy above, time is not on your side, you do need to get on it once RD kicks in.
Which is why the last part of the strategy to handle RD involves moving right up to the line where it kicks in (watch fame) and stopping short to prepare, collect some money and build armies, so the final push can be one constant effort. And yes, bribing does help forestall losing vassals or allies, but ultimately only for awhile. Money though it always a handy thing to have, so it is good to have a pile handy, I love buying a stack from the enemy as a recruitment mechanism once the push is on.
Ok, well, I'll try and just be patient about this, but so far in the campaign this is the pattern I see. Whenever I encounter anyone new the starting position they assume is hostile. And I can't establish trade with them to demonstrate I'm OK, the small or even medium size bribes I offer (I'm not swimming in money here as it's the early part of the campaign) make no difference, they give me their same stupid speeches (which btw I find 100x more annoying than anything I've ever been exposed to a thousand times in a TW game).Quote:
Originally Posted by al Roumi
So, I've got a dozen or so people I could carry on diplomacy with and NONE of them will even talk to me. This game mechanic at the point I'm at initially in this campaign is as broken as the politics module I completely ignore with no consequence. At least in S2 the clans started with the assumption initially I should not be immediately hated and I traded with just about everyone I encountered at the outset, then as events advanced I and others showed their true colors and things would unravel with some and strengthen with others.
I don't get it. If I'm to participate in the game through these systems by making choices, hopefully meaningful ones, I have to be allowed to do something, I can't get these guys to even talk to me.
Is this a Rome campaign? I think i've experienced the same, at least especially to start with - particularly from the barbarians to the north, east, west and south, er, everyone bar Syracuse... Things are at their worst at the beginning because everyone is (mostly) neutral.Quote:
Originally Posted by easytarget
Start a war with someoneDo some Clausewitzian diplomacy and their enemies should be friendly to you.
Thanks - that's actually what I have seen and experienced. But for me, given the eventual/inevitable betrayal and the time it takes to meet the victory tally for provinces (I prefer long campaigns) I actually find it easier to do without bad allies.Quote:
Originally Posted by easytarget
I prep up to the line for RD, but then try to ensure post RD battles and the main effort takes place on Honshu, as an irressistable wave moving up/down the island - culminating around Kyoto. I try to have at least 1 army per road/route and guard the flanks at sea with navies to prevent landings in my rear, which avoids having reserve stacks and allows me to focus on the front. I find vacilating allies/vassals and their trade would only complicate the issue and the cost of defense against them would outweigh the revenue which they'd generate.
Yes, this is our dear friends the Romans, or to my neighbors, the guy everyone loves to hate. Ok, duly noted, start some wars, make some enemies, enemy of my enemy is my friend. I'm busy down south working to kick Carthage off the map, that will of course instantly put me at war w/ their two proxies. And for good measure the Greeks decided to throw down the gauntlet, first Sparta for no reason, then Athens just because Sparta did.Quote:
Originally Posted by al Roumi
So if the key to friends is making enemies I'm well on my way to collecting a raft load of Christmas cards come the holidays.
More than one way to skin a cat, which is why these games are fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by al Roumi
That said, I think at least one campaign you should try it my way. You only need 2 maybe 3 stacks. Remember, my way no one is left behind to guard anything, so no resources militarily are lost no matter how many provinces you take or how fast you take them. I can easily take half a dozen a year this way. And if I'm at all elegant about my planning and leave a vassal an opening, they take provinces too. There's no cost to defense here, this is all offense with trade partners created just as a freebie side benefit.
And there are no bad allies, because really there are no allies in TW in the traditional sense of the word, there are only allies of temporary convenience.
When your ultimate goal is the subjugation of the map, everyone is simply part of my plan
Early mid and late game I have the same problem. The only real option I get is client state offers after im almost done killing off a factionQuote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
I have no problem doing diplomacy with anyone after it all kind of takes off and goes into the mid game.. The downside is, if I overdo it, it kind of looks like this after 60-80 turns.
Defensive alliance XXX
Client State XXXXXX
Trade Partner XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
War XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
You end up getting into so many wars with factions you will probably never see because there is like a continent of client states/allies between you and them.
I look forward to the point in the campaign where everyone in the diplo screen is not staring back at me red.
You should try playing a greek faction which likes greeks. That way you'll have loads of friends around the pelopolynese. I was about to recommend Bactria but they have the small (small) problem of having to fight through most of Asia to find their friends...Quote:
Originally Posted by easytarget
With Rome, I've found that if I can sign NA pacts with Sparta and Athens, I usually end up being friendly/allied with them. Especially as one ends up focussing on Carthage and North Africa to begin with. Obviously, if the Greek cities have already declared war on you then, er, that won't work... Look to Carthage's enemies (if they have any) for friendships. In a few of my campaigns, they have started wars with the Arrevacii (the gauls), so providing youc an stomach friendship with the long haired ones, they have at times been solid friends of mine in Rome campaigns.
You can achieve this with any faction. Just don't declare war on everyone the moment you see them and take diplomacy into account when you start conquering things. Attack people who are at war with people who are friendly to you. Offer to join wars (some factions pay a lot of money for this). That sort of stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by easytarget
Seriously, do you really think I declared war on everyone and that's the reason I'm pointing this out? :no:
You ARE in a Rome campaign, right? :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by easytarget
Edit: allthough IRL of course the Roman's only started, ahem, legal wars
Hmm, really, is it an RTW 2 campaign you're playing? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by easytarget
So a few more observations:
Campaign: diplomacy seems to be working a bit better. Within three turns I got three offers for trading and non-aggression pacts, which I think is rather impressive considering how Ive never seen that before. Playing as the Getae, by the way.
Battles: Here is where I was surprised. The AI actually did well. Usually when Im in these massive battles they bunch up and cant seem to form a proper battle line, but today I played a battle, 6k on my side, 5k on their side, and they formed proper battle lines and everything, and they actually inflicted some serious casualties on me. And I wouldnt really say we were evenly matched either, I had mostly medium spear/sword infantry while they had mostly spear levies and skirmishers with one unit of heavy infantry and two shock cavalry units, so I was surprised they managed 1.2k casualties on me. They managed their ranged units very well, I think thats what took most of my men, which really just means I need to get more cavalry next time. But either way, Im impressed. Ill post again since I have a siege battle coming up.
Did you have any artillery in your army? If you didn't that probably explains the AA forming up properly. Whenever the player has artillery (and the AI does not) the AI just rushes across the field all bunched up. Without artillery they do form up pretty nicely. It has been that way for quite a while.
Run of the mill Roman campaign. Normal no less, hahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
Not what I'm seeing, I'm playing the Roman faction everyone loves to hate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
No, I am just saying it easier to make AI friends than you make it out to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by easytarget
What mod is that? I never seen to get past the 2000 mark unless it involves multiple armies, in which case the AI is bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Just because it amuses me the attitude necessary to make a comment that indicates you know more about my campaign than I do, the one, you know, actually looking at it, I'll play along here.
What would you suggest I do to improve hostile relations with a dozen factions when usually the first step is trading with them and they won't, not even when I throw all the money I currently have at them.
Share your wisdom here, I'm all ears.
So, after my rant above I decided I'd sit one turn, save 5k and throw that amount at a faction to induce trade, and it worked. Trouble is, I still find that broken because the starting state of every faction I uncovered from year one started hostile except for one, which showed as neutral.
My point here was just an observation that in my opinion the game design should at least start neutral towards pretty much anyone. Sure this will change quickly based on your actions. But to start hostile and then expect me to throw 5k at you (btw, that is the amount it took to get them to agree, I tried amounts lower than that they laughed at) for a 187 a year trade deal (which they will no doubt abandon me on before I even recoup the initial investment) is stupid.
OK, I won't post a screen of my legendary Junia campaign (started in version 13.1, vanilla): there's plenty of green around me. Usually, I don't pay (much) for diplo agreements. Just pick opportune moments when the faction is more likely to be agreeable (beaten up by some other faction, you just killed captives of an enemy of theirs, etc.)Quote:
Originally Posted by easytarget
Anyway, Junia are meant to be a difficult faction play with diplomatically. Junia and the other one like them is Barcids for Carthage.
As to "grains of wisdom": starting with a NAP is usually the way I go. Also, watch out for friends of the faction you are interested in. Often it is easier to secure some agreements with remote "friends" which in due course improves relations with the target for "having agreements with x".
Another trick is to break an agreement with an enemy of the target (if it suits your situation). You'll get a bonus with the target "for breaking an agreement with x".
Agent actions on enemies of the target frequently work wonders too. So does raiding.
Being steadfast in diplomatic reliability is important too. Much harder to secure anything even one notch below that (on very hard, legendary difficulty at least).
Example form my Junia campaign: Volcae, and Massilia start red with Junia. By the time my armies got to Cisalpine Gaul, Arverni had crept in there already. Arverni were at war with Massilia. The latter allied with Volcae.
Joining Massilia in their war against Arverni secured me trade, nap and eventually a defensive alliance. Meanwhile, having all those arrangements with Massilia made Volcae like me (a lot). Carrying out further hostilities against Arverni raised Volcae opinion of Junia to an extent that they also agreed to trade, nap, military access and DA (in that order).
No money paid for any of that, just grabbed Mediolanum from Arverni and beat up their militia armies a few times while killing captives.
Fair enough, I'll soldier on and stop complaining about how I think it should be and simply deal with what is being handed to me.
Im only on turn 6-7 so no artillery. I might have to experiment with this though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
Just Radious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sp4
To be honest, I find the RTW 2 diplo AI way too agreeable even on legendary difficulty. Unless it is the very beginning of the campaign, I never get backstabbed nowadays (backstabbing was still happening around patch 3); AI's do not form alliance blocks against me, etc. The peacefulness becomes boring after a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by easytarget
Started a Royal Scythia game. Pretty entertaining. Cimmeria DoWed me. I laid siege, they had 5000 men to my fullsack of armoured HAs. I ran out of ammo, killed all slingers in melee, retreated, emptied more ammo on them. Then I sabotaged their barracks. With 5 units per seson recruitment and no hoplites available to them, i'm sure I will conquer them. However, i decided to attack a Basternae minor settlement for food. Got a repeating freeze crash at the start of the battle, as soon as I order my horses around. The Ai has town defenders + 3 ships. is this again the issue with combined defending armies?
Well, I'm still seeing everyone on the map around me not only hate my guts they are now all attacking me. Two stacks from Athens, one stack from Sparta, and the real fun began when a barbarian tribe showed up with a full stack that was allied with Athens that decided all they wanted to do was out run me all over the Italian peninsula pillaging.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
So, I'd say my experience differs radically from yours.
As for your alliance blocks comment, I've written about this repeatedly on the main forum. The gist of the idea being the code should keep keep an eye on the power (measured however you like, units, settlements held, whatever) of the human player and a ratio maintained just as naturally develops when four players play Risk (which is the whole reason you quickly learn this is a game not to play because balance of power combined with dice = never ending game). This would require a bit of play testing of course (not something it would appear in my opinion the current CA has any remote clue how to do) to set the balance, but at whatever tipping point you set, the other AIs still in the game that are neighbors are bumped on diplo or simply force allied to create power blocks that can counter the human.
I know this sounds silly but maybe its because you are Roman and thus everyone is supposed to hate you? I dont really know, Rome historically didnt get along too well with her neighbors, after all.
Unless you see the same thing with other factions as well, totally invalidating my point.
Yeah, I don't necessarily disagree with you. Playing Rome you are simply supposed to be hated by everyone on the map. I know that was certainly what happened in my CIG campaign, and by mid campaign everyone was sending stacks at me non stop.
I'm just going to stop with the diplo and focus on taking people out. Perhaps down the road opportunities will arise for diplo.
The only reason I've been talking about it for this long is because Slaisits and SP4 continue to post up remarks cracking me up, seemingly implying they've somehow magically figured diplo out. And the reason that's funny to me is because there's absolutely nothing about diplo or anything else in any TW game that is remotely complex enough to ever suggest it "requires figuring out". haha
Sure as hell doesn't seem like you guys are playing the same game~:confused:
I've never bothered much with diplomacy since the beginning and Shogun 1. I do have to admit that I'm a sucker for an ally that actually remains loyal, and I will do everything in my power to make sure they survive. The most extreme case I can remember is an alliance I had with Macedonia in RTW 1, playing as Armenia. It lasted for nearly 100yrs. even with a long common border. When the Romans started making an all out effort to eliminate them, I put my expansion on hold for several years in order to spank them back into place. The three provinces I 'rescued' from Roman rule, I gave to my long-standing ally fully expecting them to finally turn on me. To my astonishment, they proceeded to pick up where I left off and continue to run the Romans out of Greece.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I got a great deal of enjoyment out of that game simply because I had gotten an alliance that actually worked.
One reason I still love playing GalCiv 2 is because there are 4 ways to win a campaign....the usual kill everyone and sort it out later; a tech victory by accumulating a certain amount of technology points; an influence victory by having your political influence dominate a given % of the galaxy; and a diplo victory by having your alliance be the last races left (and this can be with multiple allies). Very satisfying to pull off a win without having to vaporize everything not flying your banner. I once won a campaign without fighting a single fleet engagement. I just kept feeding advanced starships to my two allies (though not my best designs~;) just in case they turned on me) and let them do all the fighting. When ever a planet went rebel, I moved my transports in to take over. I still consider that game to be the most enjoyable of all the GalCiv games I've ever played.........Quote:
I don't get it. If I'm to participate in the game through these systems by making choices, hopefully meaningful ones, I have to be allowed to do something, I can't get these guys to even talk to me.
@easytarget with Rome one minor mistake in the first 5 turns can lead to chain DoWs or to smooth sailing into NAP land.
On turn 1 Athens and Sparta don't care much for you, but they don't hate you either. If you ever start a scrap with Epirus however, they will like you more. Trade with Athens is possible as soon as you upgrade 3 resource minor settlements to tier 2. Once you trade with Athens, you can NAP Sparta (you must have a full legion by now). Once you NAP Sparta, you can NAP Athens. It's a snowball effect.
If you disband any units on turn 1 before recruiting more, you might just get chain DoWed by both of them.
He is not only playing as Rome; he is playing as Junia. Junia get a global diplo malus with all factions. The other two Roman factions are much easier (at least diplomacy wise). Cornelia even get a boost to relationships with Greeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
They have an aversion to trading with you if you don't have fancy stuff. Go get fancy stuff (resources) from half the world away. Yes, I know it doesn't make sense. Until then, park 3 armies next to the border and start with a NAP. They'll even pay you for that and like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by easytarget
Yeah, I think you and Slaists have hit on the problem, part of it was right off what I tend to do is get the peninsula under control and get rid of the Etruscans. This was not some mad expansion, I took maybe 2 or 3 provinces, but between that and starting out as Junia everyone hates me. And to that I can only say, so be it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
This will cause my initial expansion to be slower because I'm being slowed down by a lack of funds. I've had to rethink taking Carthage out because I've had to keep an eye on the Greeks and the guys they are allied with, I barely survived a wave of them coming at me. I'm not much of a fan of the way combat works in this game I'm not going to lie, I like MTW2 a lot better and even Shogun 2 better. The whole feel of battle is all wrong for me. Again, whatever. I'm just in this to see what I make of the current state of Rome 2 after 13 patches, and I've got to say I like it better than when it initially launched that's for sure. But I'm also 100% confident I will never like it as much as MTW2 or S2, the unit mix and magic button business so annoys me there will never be a fix for that.
Yep, I've seen victory conditions and diplo done better, no surprise that. GalCiv was well done on that front. And funny, come to think of it, your example of winning by feeding allies units is something I've often done in Civ V with the introduction of those little client states they scattered all over the map. That was a very cool way to help keep another power in check w/o directly going to war with them, used to feed them units and money to wage a war by proxy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
Would be cool if in R2 diplo if I could give units to allies and certainly it would be nice to give them settlements.
Just forget that magic button exists. I never (almost) use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by easytarget
As to unit mix. Probably what bugs me most at this point with patches is how vulnerable to frontal missile attacks they have made pikes. I don't think we can find a historical reference to pike phalanxes being destroyed by ancient missile fire from the front. Come to think of it, Alexander was facing numerically superior Persian armies filled with missile types and we know who came up on the top. If you ask me, pikes should be vulnerable to attacks (missile and melee) from flanks and the rear, not the front.
In the current state, pikes are probably the most useless use of a slot in the whole roster of Hellenic factions...
Having said that, after since the latest missile nerf, pikes are probably the only kills AI missile units get... Pikes and cavalry, LOL...
Yeah I must have been remembering something wrong or playing with DeI for too long. I'm playing a mostly vanilla campaign at the moment and armies that are mostly infantry are about 3k while it's 2.2-2.5k for some cav or artillery mixed in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
While I'm not at any point claiming to have "figured out" anything magical about TW diplo [or anything TW related], here is my legendary Junia campaign, turn 11, vanilla game, legendary difficulty, patch 13.1.Quote:
Originally Posted by easytarget
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
and this is a few turns later:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
;)
Look what I have somehow done =S I don't think I figured anything out, I just broke it to the point where there are two factions with the same name.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Guys the name of this game is Total War. Not Total Hugs.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
It didn't last terribly long. Literally 2 turns after I took that screenshot, the Nori decided to declare war on Trapezos, because they'd sent an army all the way through my land there. I was then left with two choices... Throw Nori out of my napfest or support them and declare war on everything that has a name south of where I am currently sitting. I decided to throw the Nori out and sent two armies to take their two regions they owned only because I liberated them some century ago.
How does this stuff happen. I'm friends, or at least used to be friends with a lot of celtic and gaul tribes (I think they're the same in the game actually, not sure at the moment, you can tell, I hardly ever play them). That was because at some point, after I had taken all of Macedon, Thrace and Hellas (I did most of this through the use of agents and inciting revolts rather than direct declaration of war, which meant that the rest of the Greek world didn't mind that I was taking over Athens and Macedon. Macedon was worn down in a war with the Tylis and the Odrysian Kingdom, so by the time I turned to Thrace, Macedon just lost Pella. Athens sailed over to make war with Bythnia and the Galatians, so I sat there with an army in Sparta and 2 Spies and 4 turns later, Athens fell to a revolt, which I then destroyed and took over the city)
...the Suebi declared war on me and they had mopped up most of the little tribes and were sitting in Cisalpina being all grrrrr civilisation. Since I had no interest in actually going that way and conquering Germanic and Celtic Europe, I just marched some armies there, defeated some Germans and liberated every tribe I came across before heading back and letting them have at it again. (This war against the Suebi also gave me pretty good relations with the Averni because they were at war with them too and we sort of attacked them from two directions and met up in Hercynia, where I decided to turn around and go on doing what I actually wanted to do.
During my whole campaign, I have tried hard to single out enemies, get them to a point where I don't have to declare war on them or when I do, I don't end up being drawn into a war with 7 different allies. The Seleucids are annoying in this regard because they like pretty much everyone I've been at war with since starting to head east. A war with them, I was trying really hard to avoid though I probably should not have because they overran Egypt and are probably sitting there now. I was able to take apart a few of their satrapies without declaring war on the Seleucids directly by dragging them into defensive wars which the overlord for some diplomatically logical and somewhat broken reason doesn't join automatically.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I am not playing Rome Total Hugs, I am playing Rome Total Break The AI Where Possible.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
More from Rome Total Hugs (Ardiaei, legendary, game version 13.1, vanilla, 260 BC):
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Ardiaei, legendary Total Hugs continue (251 BC):
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Yes, most definitely, very unreasonable diplomatic AI... khm... the same, legendary Ardiaei Total Hugs (237 BC):
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Sarcasm off.
Not sure you've noticed yet, but you're carrying on a conversation with yourself at this point.
if it makes him happy let him be ;)
So that means he's right? Diplomatic AI is not entirely unreasonable and impossible to be friendly with?Quote:
Originally Posted by easytarget
impossible for me...
Rome, Junia, legendary, vanilla game, started version 13.1, around 210 BC
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Then you're not trying :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Kamakazi
My guess, it does in his mind, a place much more black and white than where I live and play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sp4
Raaa, this is the internet, I am always right by my own definition! ^^
This is a campaign by wealthmonger, not mine. Athens diplomacy on legendary, vanilla game, year - 272 BC (turn 1):
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
State of the game - playable, enjoyable, waiting for further patches to round up some of the unfinished ideas. :yes:
More diplomatic goodness:
The end, I have conquered everything that is somehow even remotely Greek... next it's 300 Persians against 1,000,000,000 Spartans.
Attachment 13620
Then there is this:
Attachment 13619
RAWR! Civil war!
On second thought though....
Attachment 13618
I am now an invasion of Italy away from military victory.
-E- Wheeee, I finished my second ever campaign in Rome 2. Next up, some Barbarian faction...
And I realise again and every single time I play this game that any mods that aim to make it last longer are a little silly. If anything, mods that make the game last longer, in the current state of the (otherwise vanilla) game probably just make it easier.
@OP
HatG is a great DLC and also they keep patching the main game. Pirates and Raiders adds fantastic factions -especially Odrysian Kingdom and her beast-like warriors-
So, game is quite enjoyable, IMHO.
I am actually quite pleased with the state of the game (some issues still remaining as always). Look at this Junia legendary campaign. Don't pay attention to Junia (taking my time), look at the AI's. Pontus, Egypt, Arverni
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
This is no mods either. At least, no mods modifying AI behavior, just 4 TPY mod.
By now, after 14 patches or so, the game is actually quite enjoyable. It's fun, and it can keep you awake until early morning pretty easily. :yes:
Even after reading all the "love" some folks have for the game, I'd still rather play RTW 1 mods. How many of you AR a majority of your battles, especially the naval ones? And agent spam...this isn't supposed to be Spy vs Spy. It's Total War for cryin' out loud. Let's win or lose on the battlefield please...:juggle:
Personally I auto-resolve just as many battles as I did in previous TW games, but then again I do AARs so thats a factor I think. I have yet to have a real naval battle. The agent spam is pretty bad I think, havent had a real chance to check out the agent spam so far with the newer patches.
Do you use agents yourself? They are pretty powerful. I can't even make some sort of invasion without a spy and a hero around. Their abilities to kill commanders before battles or prevent entire armies from taking part in a battle are pretty great and useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
I do get what you are saying though, I guess. In terms of playability, it is great, mostly. There are some things that plague the game now and by now I am pretty certain that they cannot be fixed without doing a few things all over again, which CA already said they wont do. One of those things is the internal politics minigame. It is 'playable' and you can do with it what you are meant to be able to do with it but it just feels incomplete or half arsed. Another thing is the AI, or siege AI in particular.
I made a thread about this pretty early on: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...%29&highlight=
What I saw there wasn't that the siege AI was bad or made bad decisions or stupid stuff like that but I realised that the game was released with an unfinished AI. There was no scripting for the siege AI, no programming. It arrived on the battlefield and that was it. End of line. Program over. I would have to imagine what they've been doing over the last year or so but I guess an awful lot of CA's patching was not actually patching. Instead, they just completed the game to the point it would have been completed to anyways, had they released it 4 or 5 months later. I'm a little tired of them making it look like they were patching and working on the game and wheee, we're so awesome, look at us, we're even giving you free stuff!
No, they were merely finishing the game... doing stuff they would have done anyways, no matter the state the game was in at the time.
At this point, Rome 2 is an alright game as long as you don't try to compare it to other TW titles. In fact, just assume Rome 2 is not a TW game. Just assume that Rome 2 is an experiment. That's what I feel like anyways. Rome 2 is or was an experiment by CA or Sega or whoever is in charge of it, to see what they could get away with and clearly, the marketing and promotion department did an absolutely perfect job and gave us what we wanted to see and promised us what we wanted promised and then they gave us the game we'd been waiting for since I don't know when... medieval 2 probably for some people. Personally, I do not understand how anyone can defend that sort of thing anymore.
If this happened in any other industry, whoever is responsible would have been slapped on the hands a couple of times for various things. Imagine a car manufacturer pulls this kind of stunt, or a movie is hyped up to be the best movie ever for half a year and is then released without digital editing and scenes missing... but worry not, you can always buy the missing scenes and wait 40 years for the digitally remastered version of the film.
I very rarely AR any battles in RTW 2. Mostly because AR is broken: you lose most of any reduced size units (elephants, cavalry, dogs, artillery) even when the AR calculator promises 99% survival rate. AR works alright only if one has 100% one unit type armies (100% cavalry or 100% infantry).Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
Agent spam? I have not seen it for quite a few patches now (playing on legendary difficulty). Probably the reason is that I do not play total-war style and always try to limit myself to one-front war through diplomatic means.
I've used agents since STW 1 (never got tired of the ninja cut-scenes:laugh4:), but they were always a very minor part of the game, for me. To need agents in order to carry out an invasion other than opening the gates prior to a siege is absurd, IMHO. And disabling an entire army is even more absurd...:inquisitive:Quote:
Do you use agents yourself? They are pretty powerful. I can't even make some sort of invasion without a spy and a hero around. Their abilities to kill commanders before battles or prevent entire armies from taking part in a battle are pretty great and useful.
And this is, despite the big improvements made by CA, the crux of the matter for me. I simply can't see myself playing the game several months later, after the novelty of it wears off. For 15 or 20 dollars US, I suppose that might still be worth it. One can blow much more than that at a movie theatre for a single evenings entertainment:shrug:Quote:
There are some things that plague the game now and by now I am pretty certain that they cannot be fixed without doing a few things all over again, which CA already said they wont do.