Impressions of the demo?

[geala]

The TW:S2 demo leaves me a bit helpless. Firstly I'm really astonished that my four to two year old system (Intel Core 2 D 2,4 GHz, 3 MB RAM, NVidia GF 8800 GTX) can manage the game on high settings without problems.

I cannot judge the two most important factors, CAI and BAI, from the demo. Let's wait and see. But I don't like the graphics. That does not mean that the technique is bad. I'm not a graphics fan, I can't even judge about it. It means that the overall impression of the battle scenes for me is a little bit "gaudy". Shiny little maniacs with swords running all over the field with speed of light. I don't have the feeling to be on a battlefield that I have in E:TW. Combined with the fact that hooks and ropes for instant castle occupation are in the game (most hated feature in E:TW for me) and that I'm unfortunately not that much interested in Sengoku period history (would have preferred an all Asia setting from 1100 to 1600 perhaps), I will probably skip the title like N:TW which I also didn't buy. Or at least wait till the high speed soldiers will be changed by modders.


Edit: on the campaign map I am a little bit annoyed about the unit info cards, especially the childish pictures of the soldiers. Shall reflect Japanese style probably, but should have been done better with more exact drawings and view of the whole body.

[Drunk Clown]

Firstly I'm really astonished that my four to two year old system (Intel Core 2 D 2,4 GHz, 3 MB RAM, NVidia GF 8800 GTX)

Are you sure you can run this game with only 3 MB RAM? :P

[Monk]

Firstly I'm really astonished that my four to two year old system (Intel Core 2 D 2,4 GHz, 3 MB RAM, NVidia GF 8800 GTX) can manage the game on high settings without problems.

I know what you mean. My comp has only seen a few maitenence upgrades in the last few years, and it runs S2 way better than it ever ran ETW/NTW. There must have been some serious optimization concerns addressed in the engine since that time. Huge points to CA for the work done there, no doubt.

[edyzmedieval]

I know what you mean. My comp has only seen a few maitenence upgrades in the last few years, and it runs S2 way better than it ever ran ETW/NTW. There must have been some serious optimization concerns addressed in the engine since that time. Huge points to CA for the work done there, no doubt.

Very true. At least from this part they get a big thumbs up from me.

[Prussian to the Iron]

I know what you mean. My comp has only seen a few maitenence upgrades in the last few years, and it runs S2 way better than it ever ran ETW/NTW. There must have been some serious optimization concerns addressed in the engine since that time. Huge points to CA for the work done there, no doubt.

Something must be different for you guys then, because my computer is only about 1 1/2 years old and I cannot run this game lag-free. Runs ETW on fairly high settings no problem, but this game it can't. *shrug*

[Crazed Rabbit]

I, too, have been impressed by how well it runs. Though the shine off some of the units is too much. Also, the 3d portraits of units/agents on the campaign map seem really low resolution and have no AA. The diplomacy screen 3d characters are also weirdly poor graphics.

In the first historical battle, the 1600 betrayal one, the battle seemed to move very fast. No time for deliberation or much strategy a la MTW.

The tutorial is a bit of a joke - it's so scripted and tightly controlled that you can't get a feel for the campaign. And only being able to fight 3 battles? What good reason could they have for that?

Couldn't really get a feel for the AI.

CR

[Monk]

The tutorial is a bit of a joke - it's so scripted and tightly controlled that you can't get a feel for the campaign. And only being able to fight 3 battles? What good reason could they have for that?

It being a demo and a beginner's tutorial of all things? Sounds like a pretty good reason to me.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It being a demo and a beginner's tutorial of all things? Sounds like a pretty good reason to me.

A good reason for the tight scripting and guiding for the tutorial, yes. For the demo I don't see the point of limiting battles.

CR

[Gregoshi]

I played just the campaign part earlier this week, but skipped the battles. Today I tried the battles. In short, it was a disaster. I had little to no control over the army and formations were non-existent. Part of the problem was just trying to follow the steps from the advisor. It wasn't bad until the last half of the second battle when things started to unravel. I was having problems with camera control selecting units and clicking properly to get my units to do what I wanted them to do. I felt like a drunken taisho commanding a Chinese fire drill (yet the scripted battle still let me win). All attempts to form a battle line resulted in more chaos - kind of funny looking back on it but very frustrating at the time. I'm going to have to make some control adjustments or just practice getting used to the command and control that are the default.

The castle siege was more of the same, except I was intimidated by the huge castle - very intimidated. In addition to horrible control issues, I had not a clue how to approach the assault or use the new units. The cannons ran out of ammo before the front gate was destroyed and with that, the only real plan I had for the battle. Chokosabe bodies littered the ground in front of the castle gate. At least my ninjas bled all over the ground inside the castle - cleaning up that mess oughta teach the enemy a lesson.

Anyway, it was not a very pleasant experience on the battlefield. At this point I hesitate to even attempt the historical battle until I can exercise some manner of control over an army. Back to the class room for me.

Aside from the above, I was very pleased with the pace of movement and combat. Movement felt natural, not rushed, giving me plenty of time to panic as I attempted to futilely introduce some organization to the mob, er, army. Likewise with combat, it was drawn out long enough for me to not only panic at the flanking moves the AI made, but also allow me time to wish really, really hard that my units would just move where I want them on their own without me having to attempt giving an order. All in all, I'm pleased with the mechanics.

[Drunk Clown]

I find it strange that I had (apparently one of the few) no problems with the gamespeed, then again I started with Rome.

That people have no time to react is only the first couple of times you play it. You'll learn to react faster. I mean my brother plays CoH and he can react fast as ****! If I try that game I fail miserably, but hey, I haven't put the time in it to learn it. Same goes for S2:TW, just play it a little longer, before saying OMG IT'S TOO FAST I CAN'T USE TACTICS. I know this because I hated M2:TW when I first played it; later loved it. Same goes for E:TW.

Btw, can't you turn off the shinyness? (Bloom) So, if you can, how's that a problem? :S

And how come you can't make formations? I can (at least in the second and third battle)

Now the castle siege; I also didn't see an opening, but atleast my cannon broke the damn gate. But first I had my Shinobi and thought, after hearing the advisor, that they could infiltrate the castle very easily and thus I sent them to the castle centre. First I noticed that they could hide themselves about everywhere, then I started moving them around and thought (seeing how the ran/walked) they hide too when they move (or stay low). So I sent them and they got stomped by archers. Now I'm asking myself how are shinobi effective if they can't walk in silence? It was really a worthless unit, they also died very quick in hand-to-hand combat. So what's the point letting them climb up and capture the centre if they can't even hold out against Ashigaru.

After the painful defeat of my shinobi, I wanted to make a mass attack; attacking them from all sides. Ashigaru trough the gate, samurai swordsmen plus the bow hero and the general to the left side of the castle, horsies to the right side (dismounted) and archers supporting the ashigaru (I left the monks behind, stupid).

Result: Samurai swordsmen died, horsies died, ashigaru fared pretty well although sustaining heavy casualties, archers stayed a bit more alive, and didn't want to risk my general. So after the samurai failed I sent my monks in and they beat the living **** out of those archers (don't understand why they had matchlock). Luckily I had a lucky shot with my cannons which killed a cavalry unit for 1/3, which probably helped. And soon after my monks had beaten the archers I won, although I should have died. Strange thing too was that the balance of the power in the upper right corner was in favor of me even though I sustained heavy casualties in comparison with the enemy.

Also those points on the map are lame (archery dojo, farmhouse, Buddhist temple).

My only concern so far is the originality of the troops between different clans. I know the Takeda (I believe) have better Cavalry, but only the word Takeda has been put in front of the standard names, which is utterly lame.

[Zarky]

My only concern so far is the originality of the troops between different clans. I know the Takeda (I believe) have better Cavalry, but only the word Takeda has been put in front of the standard names, which is utterly lame.

Then suggest a better option... This is Japan were talking about, not Europe. Different clans had different preferences over army composition, but any diversity or originality that the developers might implement, would mostly be made up. Unless we go to the Empire/Napoleon solution of having unique units you can only have one/couple of.

[Drunk Clown]

Then suggest a better option... This is Japan were talking about, not Europe. Different clans had different preferences over army composition, but any diversity or originality that the developers might implement, would mostly be made up. Unless we go to the Empire/Napoleon solution of having unique units you can only have one/couple of.

I have no knowledge of Japan whatsoever. Still without the noticeable difference I find it very hard to make the choice of choosing a clan. In previous Total War games my choice was based on recruitment of different units between different factions (e.g. I played Russia a lot in M2TW due to the Cossack units and the Boyar sons). But now, I have no idea which clan to pick because to me there's no big difference between the clans other than the location.