Total War Thread: Yallah, My Sultan Wishes You Dead!

[Maralais]

So, are there any playgrounders who play Total War series? I have been recently re-addicted to them, and is it awesome.

I finished a Rome campaign as Egypt last week and I'm currently playing Medieval II as France. Things haven't been nice lately, at war with Spain, England, Holy Romans, Venice AND Denmark, Mongols are invading the East, Danish Pope will probably excommunicate me very soon, and I don't have that much money.

Though I have quite an army and I'm using it properly:smallbiggrin:

(I have been playing each campaign on Normal btw)

[Cristo Meyers]

Heh, even though I stopped playing my second playthrough of Medieval 2 quite some time ago (close to a year and a half now), I still remember the situation. Testament to the game, I guess. :smallbiggrin:

I'd just finished conquering the English territories as Scotland, shattering the English king's army at Nottingham thanks to help from the French in mainland Europe. The new Scottish king ruled a united England until dying in bed, leaving two sons. Both are currently in mainland Europe now: one is currently fighting the Holy Roman Empire who, most unwisely, declared war on me over a city on the Northern coast of France/Germany that I can't remember the name of while the other is pissing and moaning about having to sit on a peaceful border with France (and losing loyalty at a rate that's quite astounding, actually...)

I was switching the two brothers so that the whiny one would either start feeling appreciated fighting the HRE or die in the attempt. Either way I win. The HRE don't quite have the military might to face me at the moment in any real fashion.

[XiaoTie]

I loved to play Rome, but then after the last time my PC was formatted, for some reason, the game only goes up to the first cutscene (when you select one of the three Romans) and then it crashes my PC.

I shall refrain from making the same old silly and untrue joke about France surrendering. :smallbiggrin:

[Maralais]

Curses to bad players!

[RPharazon]

I loved Rome, and finished the entire campaign as Macedonia. Easy since phalanxes are overpowered against anything but skirmish cavalry, but taking anything east of Turkey was painful.

Is there a mod or a patch or something that turns Rome and Medieval II into true widescreen games? I'm annoyed that even Medieval II's widescreen mode just stretches the screen anyways. Pixelated, JPEG-artifacty text is not my idea of a fun UI.

[Leecros]

I've been playing Medieval 2 constantly for about two years(twas a suggestion by my girlfriend). I lost some interest in the base game for that a year or so in, but now i play with the Stainless Steel (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=417435) mod which, in my opinion, managed to suck another year or so of gaming out of it for me. The additions they made to that game through the mod are brilliant.


Now i play Shogun 2 almost as much, but i haven't gotten into it yet quite as much as i did Medieval 2...

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Total War used to be amazing, for me. Now... meh. I've grown to like the hardcore historical strategy games more, though nothing beats the thrill of a well-fought battle.

[Octopus Jack]

I do love me a bit of Rome from time to time, havn't had the time to play it much in a while though. However my last great campaign was with the Europa Barbarorum mod playing as Saba, ah the hail of javalins and arrows as I watched hordes advance onto my elite lines of pretty light infantry. Throwing everything at the last defenders of a town square in order to get a desperate victory. I loved the many fights where the odds were against me.

[Eldan]

I loved Rome, and finished the entire campaign as Macedonia. Easy since phalanxes are overpowered against anything but skirmish cavalry, but taking anything east of Turkey was painful.


I can confirm that... I'm playing Europa Barbarorum as Rome. When I finally went to attack Epeiros, they, of course, immediately allied with Makedon and the Koinon Hellenon and utterly crushed my first assault.

The only way I've found to deal with elite phalanges was by throwing about three times their number of principes at their front and then throw a sizeable amount of heavy cavalry into their rear. Even then, it's not an easy thing. I'm lucky the computer never, ever thinks about covering their flanks.

Plus, I lost something like 80% of one army trying to take the Epeirote capital in a quick siege.

To make matters perfect: I allied with the Averni and beat the Aedui out of Italy. When I last checked the map, the Aedui were down to maybe two provinces in Gaul. Now, just as Macedon prepares to attack me in the Balkans, the Aedui are crossing the alps again, and the Averni are nowhere to be seen.

There is currently the fifth siege of Mediolanum going on and I'm trying to bribe the Sweboz and Carthago into attacking Gaul.

[Klose_the_Sith]

I loved Rome, and finished the entire campaign as Macedonia. Easy since phalanxes are overpowered against anything but skirmish cavalry, but taking anything east of Turkey was painful.

Early game gets dominated by phalanxes, but once I've got legionaries y'all collapse. COLLAPSE FOR THE GLORY OF ROME, I SAY :smalltongue:

I haven't played Rome much recently anyway. I'm busy running an Austrian campaign in Empire - my allies hate me, but cling to friendship because I'm the only faction powerful enough to challenge the Spanish/Swedish dominance that somehow built up across the European and American maps (also, Russia conquered the Barbary states. Wut?).


Is there a mod or a patch or something that turns Rome and Medieval II into true widescreen games? I'm annoyed that even Medieval II's widescreen mode just stretches the screen anyways. Pixelated, JPEG-artifacty text is not my idea of a fun UI.

I dunno what I'm doing, but Rome runs widescreen for me >.>

[RPharazon]

I dunno what I'm doing, but Rome runs widescreen for me >.>

The problem isn't that it won't run in widescreen mode. It does that quite well.
The problem is that the UI won't run in widescreen mode. You've got a nice, regular "active" view that isn't all ovally, but the UI below is all stretched and terrible. I cannot abide by UI stretching artifacts, since the oval circles just feel wrong. Like, eldritch abomination wrong.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Even then, it's not an easy thing. I'm lucky the computer never, ever thinks about covering their flanks.

The Alexander AI does. It's painful. I had a sweet Epirote game that would be, each battle against Macedon, I send my giant cavalry wing to horribly crush (hopefully) the enemy giant cavalry wing (elephants helped. If not for my elephants, I would have lost SO many battles), my phalanxes pin (most of) their phalanxes, and then my elephant/cavalry mass just rolls up behind the enemy phalanx and DESTROYS them.

T'was a fun game. Alex EB is very hard. They make the starting position of every faction that much harder, because they take away most of your starting units, and buff up the rebels immediately surrounding you.

[Leecros]

nothing beats the thrill of a well-fought battle.

Total war games sometimes have Moments of Awesome.

Once during a play through as The Moors with the Stainless Steel Mod activated(Medieval 2) i conquered Iberia (http://fs.huntingdon.edu/jlewis/syl/ircomp/Maps/IberiaRailsHi.gif) and had a nice little set-up going. My faction was wealthy and powerful and preparing for a nice little war with France.Note that i have Unit scale set to Huge so full size armies range up to 3500- 4500. England decides that they don't like me, i'm not sure why. I'm guessing they just wanted to meddle in my affairs. They landed 3 full-sized armies near Pamplona (http://www.hillmanwonders.com/z_location_map/spain/map_pamplona.gif). the next turn they captured and defeated the army stationed there and landed another two armies, one of which was led by the King of England(Amusingly enough, his name was King Arthur). The turn after that two of the armies headed southeast to lay siege to Zaragoza (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Zaragoza_location.PNG). I manuevered most of my forces which were staged in Barcelona (http://www.teflcourse.net/newmaps/barcelona.jpg) preparing to invade France west-ish and defeated them. I had four, one of which i left in the city. The turn afterwards the King Arthur and his two other armies headed south to confront my army. This led to the biggest Total War battle i have ever had the privilege to fight. I don't recall exactly what the maximum number of troops in a battle for Medieval 2, but i had to have been close. The game was lagging like crazy, but the battle was intense with both my top general and King Arthur both dying in the battle. Fire and stone flying through the air. It was...magnificent. Casualties on both sides ranged up in the 6-8 thousands totals. Ultimately i defeated them and recaptured Pamplona.
After that invasion i spent the next few turns shipping my army north to England and after butchering the garrisons at Exeter (http://www.stbc.org.uk/images/exeter_map.jpg), Winchester (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/multimedia/btp/images/maps/winchester_map.gif), and London (http://cuabroad.cua.edu/res/images/london-map.gif); Exterminating the populace...England, surprisingly agreed to become my vassal for exchange of London back.

Thus ended the war between The Moorish Caliphate and The Kingdom of England. Ultimately the war lasted about 10-15 years(Stainless Steel reduces the number of years that pass/turn down to 1 year) from the time the first English troops stepped on shore to the capture of London and the surrendering of The English.

Reading over it, it may sound like i had the upper hand, and i did. I had more regions and a better economy than England did, but i probably had about the same amount of troops in the same area as they did. Had they beaten me in that last battle, they could have taken 4 or 5 territories before i would have been able to rebuild a large enough of an army to retake the territories and/or moved my Eastern Army(the army stationed in north-central Africa to stave off the Fatimids(Egypt) and Sicily) up to initiate battle. By that time they would be rebuilding their troops in their captured territories and the war would have gone much, much longer.

*Note: Links to map locations of the regions are obligatory nor am i insinuating that someone does or does not know where these locations are.

[Flickerdart]

Early game gets dominated by phalanxes, but once I've got legionaries y'all collapse. COLLAPSE FOR THE GLORY OF ROME, I SAY :smalltongue:

I haven't played Rome much recently anyway. I'm busy running an Austrian campaign in Empire - my allies hate me, but cling to friendship because I'm the only faction powerful enough to challenge the Spanish/Swedish dominance that somehow built up across the European and American maps (also, Russia conquered the Barbary states. Wut?).



I dunno what I'm doing, but Rome runs widescreen for me >.>
That sounds surprisingly exciting. In Napoleon, and moreso Empire, enemy states tend to very slow in conquering, aside from a few inevitable regions (Moldovia, Silesia, Ingria in Empire, for instance). The craziest I've had games go is an Ottoman strike in Napoleon that captured Hungary. This, mind you, when the Ottomans can't even build anything but Peasant Levy when the game starts, and only get line infantry of any sort with Drill Schools (that they have to research without any Gentlemen). I tried an Ottoman game once, where I sold Moldovia and the Balkans to Austria and Russia so they wouldn't kill me, and launched an ill-fated campaign into Italy where they turned out to have two full stacks, and broke through my wall of artillery with two hundred men to spare.

Oh, then there was the time I had an army of only artillery (because all my infantry was dead from heavy fighting) facing down a rebel force. Why rebels get soldiers with 3 and 4 chevrons of experience I have no idea, but a full artillery stack absolutely decimated them.

[Octopus Jack]

Can someone tell my why in Europa Barbarorum a town rebels to my faction and I go on to mistreat them, by demolishing buildings and taking all the troops they gave me, because I don't want them and they are a massive money sink. That town then gets conquered by the faction they rebelled from and next turn they immediatly rebel again.

[Maralais]

That is it. My campaign has become another testimony to the French's tendency to surrender. I can't play it anymore, it's no fun.

First of all, Scotland and Sicily joined the attackers. Danish have started to conquer my cities with their huge armies, and I still can't properly create an army to stop them, due to my castles either being too far from the threat, or already being under Holy Roman threat. Furthermore, I lost Marseille, Venice keeps attacking and I have lost a FULL ARMY due to the silly request of Pope demanding that my king join the crusade to Mongols(yeah right), me being stubborn by keeping the crusading army in my lands, yet being unable to use the army in defense ever again(because I was dumb enough to let ALL THE ARMY to join the crusade instead of just the king to please the pope) and then deserters turning the army into dust, after I have lost Marseille I started losing money. Did I mention Spain coming from south and keeping my only castle in the area, Toulousse, busy with production against them, or the fact that the only force against the Mongols are AI nations, which will probably soon fail, and that Pope STILL doesn't love me?

I just can't enjoy the game anymore. Why would I continue playing?

[Klose_the_Sith]

The problem isn't that it won't run in widescreen mode. It does that quite well.
The problem is that the UI won't run in widescreen mode. You've got a nice, regular "active" view that isn't all ovally, but the UI below is all stretched and terrible. I cannot abide by UI stretching artifacts, since the oval circles just feel wrong. Like, eldritch abomination wrong.

Hmmm, I don't seem to get that. But like I said, I don't know exactly what I'm doing (it's running on a kind of a weird patch >.>).


That sounds surprisingly exciting. In Napoleon, and moreso Empire, enemy states tend to very slow in conquering, aside from a few inevitable regions (Moldovia, Silesia, Ingria in Empire, for instance). The craziest I've had games go is an Ottoman strike in Napoleon that captured Hungary.

Spain annihilated the United Provinces (as well as Portugal on turn 3, Morroco on turn 4), Poland and Russia teamed up to take down Prussia but then collapsed into infighting at which point us Austrians swooped down, being allies of Poland but enemies of Russia which resulted in Prussia, Muscovy and the Ukraine in Austrian hands. I've sued Russia for peace, but the only offers they'll accept involve them getting their cities back ... yeah right :smallamused:

The only boring part of my game is Franco-British relations. They're at peace! And starting to like each other! France has ~4 full stacks parked around France, which they were going to invade me with until I last ditch sued for Peace until I could finish mopping up Spain in Italy and around the North of Spain (United Provinces, Belgium, etc.)

I've actually got ton of alliances at -1 with Britain, Poland and a couple minor nations and it is EPIC. I'm not sure if all the tiny states that attempted war with us knew how much they were helping, but eh.


That sounds surprisingly exciting. In Napoleon, and moreso Empire, enemy states tend to very slow in conquering, aside from a few inevitable regions (Moldovia, Silesia, Ingria in Empire, for instance). The craziest I've had games go is an Ottoman strike in Napoleon that captured Hungary. This, mind you, when the Ottomans can't even build anything but Peasant Levy when the game starts, and only get line infantry of any sort with Drill Schools (that they have to research without any Gentlemen). I tried an Ottoman game once, where I sold Moldovia and the Balkans to Austria and Russia so they wouldn't kill me, and launched an ill-fated campaign into Italy where they turned out to have two full stacks, and broke through my wall of artillery with two hundred men to spare.

Youch :smalleek:

And there I was thinking that Austria had it bad because their line infantry are incredibly weak (oh Britain, how I envy you) which is only exacerbated by all your early wars against Prussia, who get to show off ranks of uber disciplined 17th century stormtrooper equivalents - and all of this before you can get the light infantry/riflemen that make Austria a competitive faction in the late game :smallbiggrin:

I like the 'selling states off' approach, though. I did the same thing in my campaign, but in reverse - selling things to the Ottomans so I didn't need to wage war in the south, too.


Oh, then there was the time I had an army of only artillery (because all my infantry was dead from heavy fighting) facing down a rebel force. Why rebels get soldiers with 3 and 4 chevrons of experience I have no idea, but a full artillery stack absolutely decimated them.

Ah, le Grande Batterie :smalltongue:

I've tried that a few times in custom battles on the various titles, but always get overrun.

[Flickerdart]

Ok, I've figured out a hilarious trick for jump-starting your army in Napoleon. Did it as Ottomans, but I'm sure any other nation works too.

The strength of a rebel army depends on, I believe, the population and the discontent of a region. As a major nation, your capital region will be heavily populated. Now, jack up taxes to maximum, fire your Justice minister and waltz your troops to a neighbouring province to have a picnic. Constructing a second University if you can also helps. At the same time, exempt all but your main region from taxes.
The people will only tolerate about three turns of this before springing up in glorious revolt. Side with the rebels and walk your army into the undefended city. But, what is this? You get to keep it, as well as the old regime's troops! The only problem is that you have -100 to relations with everyone except Batavia, because you are a Republic, so make sure you've made the alliances you wanted.

Of course, after I sailed my glorious revolutionary army into Rome, the game crashed. What do you have against my crusade, game?

[Leecros]

That is it. My campaign has become another testimony to the French's tendency to surrender. I can't play it anymore, it's no fun.

First of all, Scotland and Sicily joined the attackers. Danish have started to conquer my cities with their huge armies, and I still can't properly create an army to stop them, due to my castles either being too far from the threat, or already being under Holy Roman threat. Furthermore, I lost Marseille, Venice keeps attacking and I have lost a FULL ARMY due to the silly request of Pope demanding that my king join the crusade to Mongols(yeah right), me being stubborn by keeping the crusading army in my lands, yet being unable to use the army in defense ever again(because I was dumb enough to let ALL THE ARMY to join the crusade instead of just the king to please the pope) and then deserters turning the army into dust, after I have lost Marseille I started losing money. Did I mention Spain coming from south and keeping my only castle in the area, Toulousse, busy with production against them, or the fact that the only force against the Mongols are AI nations, which will probably soon fail, and that Pope STILL doesn't love me?

I just can't enjoy the game anymore. Why would I continue playing?

It sounds you just pissed off everyone...It happens from time to time. I recall one time i was France, I had declared war on England early on and captured them rather quickly, then i allied with Scotland so that i didn't have to worry about them bugging me(In hindsight i should have just crushed them while i was there). Anyways, now i have a few choices. I could break my alliance with the Holy Roman Empire and take their remaining holdings(they were getting butchered by Venice), I could do a more southern route and push into Italy by declaring war on Genoa(Milan)*, or i could head into Iberia via attacking and defeating the small kingdom of Aragon**. I figured that attacking Aragon and taking out Iberia would reduce the number of factions bordering me and still keeping the status-quo more or less the same on the other 'fronts'. AKA i wouldn't have to worry about Sicily attacking north, or the Danes attacking south. Anyways, I Invade Aragon, they're a small nation so i didn't have any huge issues taking them over. Note that i had good relations with the Holy Romans, Scotland, Kingdom of Leon(Spain)* and Genoa at this point. I defeat Aragon with relative ease. Well, turns out Everyone around me was allied with Aragon and they start breaking alliances with me left and right. Before i know it i had a huge Spanish army invading me from the south. A small, but effective Scottish army invading me from the north, a Holy Roman army invading me from the east, and a Genoese army invading me from the southeast. Needless to say i just got butchered...

So i'm not sure if it's relevant in your situation, but sometimes, sometimes blargled alliances can just utterly ruin your day (http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/3507/ruinyourday.jpg).

*Indicates a faction renamed by Stainless Steel
** Indicates a faction added by Stainless Steel

[Eldan]

Just got defeated in Rome (well, more or less. I gave up).

While I managed to take down Epeiros, Makedon and the Koinon are pushing me back through the Balkans now. I just about only manage to ship over enough units to hold them off. The Aedui have killed off the Averni, and they are sending thousands of warriors over the alps every turn.

And now Carthago declared war on me too, despite being my best buddies for the last forty years.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Can someone tell my why in Europa Barbarorum a town rebels to my faction and I go on to mistreat them, by demolishing buildings and taking all the troops they gave me, because I don't want them and they are a massive money sink. That town then gets conquered by the faction they rebelled from and next turn they immediatly rebel again.

Aye, this happens. Each province has a certain person they'll rebel too. Every time they rebel, it'll go to that faction.

I remember some of my earliest games being the most epic. Like Prince Michel the Horseman, in one of my first games as France. With a half-stack of Mailed Knights, ended up taking out Milan, and about 3 other settlements with just him, and a couple of mercenaries to storm the towns. He ended up dying of old age in Switzerland.

Another great moment was the time I eventually started beating the Mongol's as Egypt. They had more troops, but I had the ability to pump out an army every two turns, or something. They never quite got to Jerusalem, most of the fighting was around Antioch.

Ooooh, did you know that one of the best forces for going on crusade is Hungary? You get to fight the enemy horse archers with your own horse archers. Also, your horse archers look cooler. Hungary has always been one of my favourite factions.

[Leecros]

Ooooh, did you know that one of the best forces for going on crusade is Hungary? You get to fight the enemy horse archers with your own horse archers. Also, your horse archers look cooler. Hungary has always been one of my favourite factions.

I couple months ago i may have disagreed with you, but just recently i decided to play a serious game with them and i was actually quite surprised at how good they were...

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I couple months ago i may have disagreed with you, but just recently i decided to play a serious game with them and i was actually quite surprised at how good they were...

I once beat off the entire Mongol army sieging Jerusalem with my full stack of super Hungarian Crusaders. They had at least 10,000 men, on Huge unit size.

The game crashed, of course. Not supposed to have 10,000 men vs 2000 defenders attacking a Huge city...

[Slipperychicken]

I recall in the Americas expansion, I was playing Apache. Wasn't really aware of the whole "kill spanish units and unlock guns/horses deal" at the time, but I was metagaming a bit (realized how much Spain could crush everyone) and allied with almost every other Native American nation against them and got a surprisingly insane income from some mines.


Full stacks of Mounted Thunder Braves + Focus fire = Win:smallbiggrin:. Also spammed spies b/c Apache don't get artillery. Also the only campaign I got my faction leader the "Lord of Terror" trait. It kind of sucked when he died :smallfrown:

[Flickerdart]

Dammit, the Ottomans vs Rome battle is no longer going like it did before, by which I mean they charge a troop of Dragoons through stakes, musket-fire and canister shot from three units without breaking and wreak havoc with my artillery. And also I could've sworn they have more units than before.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Dammit, the Ottomans vs Rome battle is no longer going like it did before, by which I mean they charge a troop of Dragoons through stakes, musket-fire and canister shot from three units without breaking and wreak havoc with my artillery. And also I could've sworn they have more units than before.

That unit deserves to win, if they do that without flinching.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I've played and loved the original Medieval, though it seems to be getting weird bugs when running in my 1920 x 1200 resolution. The real-time battles seem to be displacing the cursor most grievously.

I'm looking at buying Medieval II from Steam, at $10 for the gold pack. Seems pretty darn worth it to me. And the demo works great.

[super dark33]

CarpeGuitarrem, i agree with you. i love the new ones, but... i dont know, ther were something speicel in the old medievel and theramore shogun. it was fun to play, and... i cant point the thing that made it.

but rome total war is better, for my opinion, from medieavel. in rome you have a kind of story, every nation {exept the roman nation} have a uniqe religion, the senate make the missions more realistic, not just "noble counsle".

another thing- i have a question for you all- which music you prepher- the old mediveal music or the new one?

[Flickerdart]

That unit deserves to win, if they do that without flinching.
They break immediately after they engage my artillery, but half of the men on the guns die regardless.

[Drascin]

I used to play a lot of Medieval: Total War, the first one. I was pretty decent at it, even. Then I left it aside, stopped for a while (big part of the reason is I can't find my damn CD, granted).

And recently, I tried Medieval 2. Have you ever seen a headless chicken? That's a pretty accurate picture of my reaction. "Oh god they've changed where everything is and where are my map tiles what is this how do you make more things oh god oh god waaahhhhhh :smalleek:" I need to try again once the shock has died a bit... :smallsigh:

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I used to play a lot of Medieval: Total War, the first one. I was pretty decent at it, even. Then I left it aside, stopped for a while (big part of the reason is I can't find my damn CD, granted).

And recently, I tried Medieval 2. Have you ever seen a headless chicken? That's a pretty accurate picture of my reaction. "Oh god they've changed where everything is and where are my map tiles what is this how do you make more things oh god oh god waaahhhhhh :smalleek:" I need to try again once the shock has died a bit... :smallsigh:

Medieval 2, once you get some mods on, isn't actually half bad. You need the expansion to get the good mods, though. The only mods not with the expansion I play are Broken Crescent, the Middle East mod, and For King or Country, the English Civil War mod.

[Flickerdart]

I am starting a Napoleon (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194766) LP where I play as a minor nations and probably get screwed over. Go and vote on my suffering!

[Leecros]

I was considering running a Medieval 2(with Stainless Steel 6.4) Lets play. I would have been using The Crusader States which are in the worst position of any other faction in the game. Their king has no child and a dead wife so no more marriage for him and he's old. The heir i believe is young and i don't think he starts with a wife and obviously no child. The faction itself starts out with three regions, none of them are connected. Jerusalem, Antioch, and another city which i can't recall. So no castle either. On top of that fact, they start out with The Fatimid Caliphate(Egypt) and The Seljuk Sultanate(Turks) start with abysmal relations with your faction, which basically means that it's an almost for sure thing that they'll declare war on you. An early-game Jihad on any of your settlements will at the very least ruin you and the very worst destroy your faction. Your starting troops are....average(no castle) and the nearest castle is Gaza which is owned at the start by The Fatimids and all the rest are under the control of massive rebel armies.

It's basically the only faction in that game who's first priority is to marry off a family member and make certain he has children just to survive the first 20-25 turns. After which it's a struggle for survival until you manage to get some of your good units. After that though you should be good until gunpowder is discovered, Crusader States lack viable gunpowder units.


But then i realized that i probably don't have the time to do a proper Lets Play, on top of the fact that i was afraid that i would lose interest in it.

[Eldan]

I've tried out two other random factions yesterday after I got a bit bored of the Romans in Europa Barbarorum. Apparently, the Getai start with a huge army, but their capitol city (which is also their only city) loses about 3500 gold per turn. Glorious. Baktria, meanwhile, starts with neither money nor troops.

I can see why the Romans conquered the known world, really.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

The Romans have the best situation in the game, to be sure. However, Carthage and Epirus are equally feasible conquerors of one sort or another.

[Gaius Marius]

In the short time I got to play Total War, I was packing a group of noblemen together and use them as my main heavy cavalry. I was wondering if the stats of your noblemen increase related to how much action they see on the battlefield...

When you don't count captured peasant girls, obviously.

[Eldan]

Tried the Sauromatae: all-horse-archer armies are fun. You so utterly rape hopelite armies. Then totally lose against phalanges. I run out of arrows before even a quarter of them are dead.

My arrows actually do blot out the sun, though. I need to go attack Sparta.

[Arcanoi]

Tried the Sauromatae: all-horse-archer armies are fun. You so utterly rape hopelite armies. Then totally lose against phalanges. I run out of arrows before even a quarter of them are dead.

My arrows actually do blot out the sun, though. I need to go attack Sparta.

Your economy starts out so painfully, though. And your basic horse archer is like 2000 monies!

[Flickerdart]

How did this happen I am not good with computer.

It seems that making a major nation enemy means they'll all be breathing down your neck in Napoleon. As Sweden, I was in the red for most of a year as Denmark declared war on me, then Mecklenburg, then the Ottomans, then Russia, then Austria, then Prussia, then Britain. For no reason at all - Austria and Prussia had a Very Friendly attitude. Placating them with regions and technology gave me only about one turn of breathing room before they were back at it. Having the sabre icon next to nearly every nation in the game is a frightening thing to behold as a minor nation.

[Eldan]

Your economy starts out so painfully, though. And your basic horse archer is like 2000 monies!

Oh, true. By the time I had all my units gathered and the first city attacked, I was at something like -15000. But it seems everyone I tried, with the exception of Rome, goes like that.

[Delusion]

Bought Shogun 2 few weeks ago and I am on my 4th campaign attempt at the moment.

I got tired of first campaignafter half of my provinces kept rebelling when I had turned to Christianity.

Second was with the "clanwhosnameIcan'trememberwhostartsasavassaltoanot herclan". I had two clans as neighbours, one I was supposed to attack first and my master-clan. Those two immediatly allied, making it impossible to attack the other one without declaring war on my masters first. So I declared war on my masters and besieged their city. Lost and after my army was forced to retreat they immediatly attacked my only city and conquered it. Que awesome game-lost animation.

Third campaign was with Date. I get a mission: recruit No-dachi samurai, so I immediatly rush down the military tech tree and built a bit too big castle without good enough farms to sustain it. Lots of rebellions ensue. I manage to quel those and go on to conquer Fukushima.

This granted me to line "Sorry I was late, I was too busy looking at Fukushima's situation."

Anyway I went onto ally with Oda and together we conguered the whole eastern japan. I go on to siege kyoto and declare myself shogun. Everything is going well. Then every single clan par four (Oda and another ally and my vassal clan) declare war on my. Which does wonders to my trading income ofc. Something like 4 full stacks attack Kyoto but I manage to crush them and go onto attack neighbouring provinces.

Then everything Murphys law happens.

1 clan manages to sneak an army behind my defenses and starts conquering my mostly undefended cities. I grit my teeth and send and army after them, thinking that it should reach them before anything permanent damage is caused.

I and my vassal are besieging another clans capitol when Oda declares war on my vassal and I have to choose between them. I choose Oda. My ex-vassal retreats from the siege, the defenders sally worth and decimate my now outnumber force. I have to pull the army that had been going to my backlines to defend kyoto.

At this points my infrastucture is a mess, since I have lost more than third of provinces to that one upstart stack. I will soon be facing food riots since my remaining provinces can't support likes of Kyoto.

Then Oda declares war on me. At this point I quit. In next four turns I know that I will lose my remaining holdings in north japan. After which my still strong and mostly undefeated armie in kyoto will be facing rest of japan in a city that support itself. So from being on brink of winning I go to total defeat in less than 10 turns, Nice.

Now playing as Uesugi. Which is going rather well so far. even if I lost all of my generals and my daimyo in disastorous campaign afainst date. I am now recovering from that and facing moderately succesful war against both date and another clan who kept revoking military acces few times 1 turn after granting, forcing my armies to backpedal constantly.

[Kudaku]

Making the final push for Shogun (and triggering "The Great Divide) leads to some rather wonky programming coming into effect. Among other things it gives you a (quickly) scaling penalty to Diplomacy with all other clans and vassals which pretty much ensures that your allies will turn on you quickly unless you are utterly lavish with your gifts/bribes, which you will have to continue providing for eternity unless you want them to turn on you.

There are already some mods out that change this mechanic to a one-off significant diplomacy hit, or solve it in various other ways. I'd suggest looking into them if you find it frustrating :smallsmile:.

Personally I find that having a game rip a key mechanic out of its own gameplay midway through the campaign is somewhat counter-intuitive.

[Leecros]

Making the final push for Shogun (and triggering "The Great Divide) leads to some rather wonky programming coming into effect. Among other things it gives you a (quickly) scaling penalty to Diplomacy with all other clans and vassals which pretty much ensures that your allies will turn on you quickly unless you are utterly lavish with your gifts/bribes, which you will have to continue providing for eternity unless you want them to turn on you.

There are already some mods out that change this mechanic to a one-off significant diplomacy hit, or solve it in various other ways. I'd suggest looking into them if you find it frustrating :smallsmile:.

Personally I find that having a game rip a key mechanic out of its own gameplay midway through the campaign is somewhat counter-intuitive.

I kinda have to agree, but it does sort of make sense... I mean the Shogun declares you Public Enemy #1 and the clans would declare war on you to either keep the status quo or stop you from becoming Shogun so that they can. What doesn't make sense is that i don't think it should affect your allies. I mean they already allied with you and know that you're getting more powerful. That would not be grounds to turn on you just because the Shogun said so...




on a completely different note, am i the only one who rarely has Oda last the first five turns?:smallconfused:

[Thorcrest]

Ah, Total War! I love Total War!

Started Playing Rome Total War years ago, I've beaten the main game as all three Roman Factions, and the Greek City States on Very Hard. I find all the lower difficulties to be far to Easy now... oh! I also like playing as the Gauls and then getting to Rome, but I always get bored after Rome falls... I'm just like that it seems. Had a good game as Carthage once, but quit when I had taken out Rome and Egypt... well Egypt was mostly beaten anyways, and the Julli had two cities in the Alps. Yeah, I've played it a lot... if you count games on Easy or Normal, I've probably beaten the Imperial Campaign a good dozen times or so... and had another couple dozen games get through the short campaign.

Didn't play nearly as much Barbarian Invasions, only ever beat it as the Saxons... meant to Start a game as the Sassanids, but never got around to it. I don't know why, I enjoyed the game, but the original just seemed... better.

As for Medieval II, I've never actually beaten the full campaign. The closest I got was with Denmark, I had a full 60 territories or so, but hadn't taken Jerusalem. I had about fifty turns to go and was fighting the whatever the barbarians after Mongols are called, up in Russia... thank god for Citadels and Fortresses, I don't think I would have beat them off otherwise. Anyways, I had about fifty turns to go and then got a new computer, so I never finished and won. Have a game as Venice where I have about 40 cities, but I have not finished it. Played once as Scotland and took the British Isles, Northern France, Belgium and Scandanavia, then just decided to see how much money I could collect by the time the game ended... oh and I launch an attack on the Aztecs because no one else was doing it. :smalltongue: This game also features the only time I have ever quit a game before victory is assured, and that was with Portugal. I just could never get a hang of so many skirmishers and no infantry with poor cavalry support; all that topped with bad luck made me quit that game when I was down to just Palermo... it would have held for a while though, had a Fortress with numerous archers and infantry, but with no income and only one family member, I called it quits.

As to the expansions, I never really got into most of them. Dinked around with Britania and Teutonic a bit, but didn't ver play through more than the first ten turns or so of a campaign. Once played Wales for about Twenty, took two English cities and was switched to all defense all the time mode but that was it. I also played a short game of Crusades as the Jerusalem Prinipality, kicked the crap out of Egypt for thirty turns or so then called that quits because I left for vacation and then didn't play it again when I got back. Only expansion I ever played much was Americas, beat it as the Apachee and that was pretty much ot for that.

Empire had some good play, played a game as the Dutch and took EVERYTHING! Litterally every spot on the map was Orange. Also had a game as the Marath Confederacy where I took all of India, then built the largest army ever assembled in that game and launched a massive strike into America and the Ottoman Empire, but then got bored of being a bunch of Indians. Also played a bunch of shorter games in that, but mostly not worth noting.

Napoleon I love, mostly because of the Title Man! Beat the Italian and Egyptian Campaigns on Very Hard, then beat the Game as France. Also Beat it as Russia and had a play as Austria go to take all of France and most of Prussia and Russia, but then there was no more real opposition (The English died defending France. Spain, ha! Ottomans... seriously? :smalltongue:).

Lately, I've installed Europa Barbarorum and started a game as Rome, decided to play on Normal since it is supposed to be much harder than the vanilla game. Took a while to get used to the upped unit cost, but now I have all of Italy, France, Greece, Macedon, Turkey, Africa, Egypt, the Crimea, and Spain under my control. Didn't even plan on going East, but Pontus, my allies decided to declare war on me so I dealt with them, then when I turned back to deal with Gaul, the Selucids attacked, so I delayed my Attack of Gaul, and took all they had in the Middle East all the way down to Arabia and out to Babylonia. I began the Punic War, note there is only one :smalltongue:, in 207 BC when I assaulted the Koinon Hellenon capital of Messana. At the time I had my armies prepared on the borded, so within two years Kart-Hadast and Northern Iberia has fallen. Now, their only city is Tuat, and it is under siege. Egypt decided to mess with me (by blockading Arretium) so I have taken the entirety of Northern Egypt, but my two progned attack had a deserter in Publius Cornelius Scipio (:smalltongue:) in the West, so my attack into more Southern Egypt failed. I also decided to launch an attack into the Crimea to deal with the last of the Greek Peoples. I recently also began my assualt against the Casse and hold the South of Britain. The As'Jas... whatever Arabians are called have declared war on me as I am their only neighbour... their assault was crushed, but they shall have to wait for the Brtish Isles and the Last of Egypt to fall. I have old Alliances with the Getai and Sweboz to secure my Northern border, and Hayasadan to the East will not stand a chance if they choose to enter my realm. The Seleucids send the occasional army, but as I have crushed over 200000 (I play with Huge unit sizes) of their men over the years (archers can be wonderful on the sally) in these assaults alone they seem to have stopped these futile attacks. My plan now is to get more troops to England as my forces are horribly out numbered and half of them are under siege in what was Londinium in the Vanilla game. The Ptolemaios are about to collapse, something like four more cities in the south and no real armies (but I must find Publius Cornelius Scipio and end him!), but I shall need to recruit some more before I attack. Once they are defeated I shall clear out the Arabians, taking the southern four territories (Stupid desert in the middle!) and then move on to the Selucids! Who would have thought they'd be the longest survivng Greek Faction? :smalltongue: Would you believe that it's only 190 BC?

Oh! That reminded me that once I decided to just see how quickly I could get through the Vanilla game on Easy as the Julii and had it beat by 232 BC, before the Marian Reforms! :smallbiggrin:

Wow... that was long...

[GungHo]

Then Oda declares war on me. At this point I quit. In next four turns I know that I will lose my remaining holdings in north japan. After which my still strong and mostly undefeated armie in kyoto will be facing rest of japan in a city that support itself. So from being on brink of winning I go to total defeat in less than 10 turns, Nice.
Knowing Oda, the rat bastard planned it all along.

[Delusion]

on a completely different note, am i the only one who rarely has Oda last the first five turns?:smallconfused:

Nah, on my current playthrough Oda was destroyed immediatly too. Much to my delight.

Stupid turncoats.

[Arang]

Yeah, I've played some Total War (http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/210/motherlaaaaand.jpg)

[Gaius Marius]

Hum.. so, I haven't had anybody replying to my inquiry. It's mostly a technical question: is there any direct, stat-wise advantage, to make your family members personnaly rack up kills?

[Eldan]

Usually, the entire unit gets better. I think, in some games at least, having a strong general also improves morale.

[Gaius Marius]

Usually, the entire unit gets better. I think, in some games at least, having a strong general also improves morale.

So, it mostly improves the combat stats solely, with maybe some General-related bonuses?

[Eldan]

Which game are you playing again? I remember Medieval 1 had the "Dread" stat, which made the enemy afraid of you. Pretty cool. I once had a general with 8 dread once. He was described as "probably the antichrist".

[Gaius Marius]

Which game are you playing again? I remember Medieval 1 had the "Dread" stat, which made the enemy afraid of you. Pretty cool. I once had a general with 8 dread once. He was described as "probably the antichrist".

Medieval II, Rome (Europa Barbarum) and Empire..

I wish they'd allow for some use of your other family members than the one in command. Like, maybe, the capacity to rally fleeing troops (less effectively, obviously)

[Eldan]

Well, they come with a free bodyguard unit. They are usually quite good. Especially in some armies which have no other cavalry (I'm looking at you, picts!)

[Gaius Marius]

Well, they come with a free bodyguard unit. They are usually quite good. Especially in some armies which have no other cavalry (I'm looking at you, picts!)

So, it's kinda counter-intuitive to use them mainly in my France armies, since I am supposed to field power-Cavalry anyway? :smallbiggrin:

[Eldan]

Probably. I mainly use them as city governors anyway. The money bonus is needed.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I remember having a 10-Dread, 10-Command king as Sicily in M2:TW. I used him as an instant-route button. My army would stay back, as soon as he touched a unit they would route. It was glorious.

[Gaius Marius]

I remember having a 10-Dread, 10-Command king as Sicily in M2:TW. I used him as an instant-route button. My army would stay back, as soon as he touched a unit they would route. It was glorious.

If I ever face this general, the solution is simple: send my own generals to duel him to the death :smallbiggrin:

[Flickerdart]

Or, more simply - artillery from the bushes.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Or, more simply - artillery from the bushes.

Artillery in Medieval were... well, they weren't sniper-howitzer's, that's for certain.

[Flickerdart]

Quantity has a quality all of its own.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Quantity has a quality all of its own.

Ok, so if I was going up against a full stack of trebuchets I might give pause. It was too early for cannon in the game though.

Besides, full stacks of trebuchets or other ranged units are what full stacks of cavalry are for.

Well, actually any armies are what full stacks of cavalry for, unless you're facing Switzerland or Flanders.

I usually don't have gamey armies like that, I aim for balanced armies, historical armies, but hell, in Vanilla? I could care less.

[Gaius Marius]

To be honest, I always felt that ballistas were more efficient at mowing down ennemy trooPs than Cats or Trebuchets. Better rate of fire, line-damage, less reliant on timing your hit with the target's speed.. No?

[The_JJ]

I remember having a 10-Dread, 10-Command king as Sicily in M2:TW. I used him as an instant-route button. My army would stay back, as soon as he touched a unit they would route. It was glorious.

Rout. I hate the English language.


Hum.. so, I haven't had anybody replying to my inquiry. It's mostly a technical question: is there any direct, stat-wise advantage, to make your family members personnaly rack up kills?

Well, experienced will always make the unit involved better. At least in Rome and MII, you general could pick up some bonuses for being in combat. IIRC some of the "Bloody" etc. will up dread and command, but sometimes lower morale, "Brave" would up morale, "Scarred" would improve his HP and... I think morale, but cut his influence and fertility. Feel free totell me how wrong I am.

[Coidzor]

So, it mostly improves the combat stats solely, with maybe some General-related bonuses?

You get traits and retinue members for having your general-commander fight personally, I believe.

There's a couple in, say, Rome, which you need to lose a certain percentage of your general's bodyguard and still win the fight and then you'll get a retinue member that increases HP and command and I believe makes the bodyguard bigger once you, y'know, retrain it.

Not sure if just having them fight will lead directly to them getting bigger and better bodyguards but it wouldn't surprise me.

[thorgrim29]

sooooo I seek advice, Shogun II or download that Stainless Steel mod everyone keeps talking about and get Dragon Age II with the money (once I beat/get tired of Overlord II that is)?

[Driderman]

sooooo I seek advice, Shogun II or download that Stainless Steel mod everyone keeps talking about and get Dragon Age II with the money (once I beat/get tired of Overlord II that is)?

How about you start by downloading the mod and see if you like it?

[Klose_the_Sith]

Well, experienced will always make the unit involved better. At least in Rome and MII, you general could pick up some bonuses for being in combat. IIRC some of the "Bloody" etc. will up dread and command, but sometimes lower morale, "Brave" would up morale, "Scarred" would improve his HP and... I think morale, but cut his influence and fertility. Feel free totell me how wrong I am.

In Rome my general would occasionally rack up ~1,000 kills in battle, carrying the day practically all on his own ... so there is that advantage to having your general and retinue fight personally*.

(*Note: Only do it with the late game Armoured Roman General. Not recommended in Med 2, because that game is meh, or in Empire/Nap/Shogun 2, because your Generals are weaksauce compared to Roman studs.)

[Flickerdart]

Actually, Generals are pretty powerful units in Napoleon. I wouldn't drive one into the middle of enemy infantry, but they can be used to intercept light cavalry, finish off weakened units or wreak havoc with militia quite reliably.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Difference is before, they were often your most powerful unit. Especially early in the Medieval campaign, when they ARE your most powerful unit, because cavalry > everything, and they're the heaviest armed and armoured cavalry.

[ScottishDragon]

Ok,just had an EPIC battle,I need to post this!!!
I'm in the middle of a rome:total war-barbarian invasion,i'm the,don't remeber what part of the romans(i'm purple,that's all I remeber).Anyway the Goths became a horde and send EVERY single unit they had to fight me.
Me:490:1 general,1 heavy calvary,3 light calvary,2 heavy infanty and 1 thing of archers
Them:2600:Calvary,missile calvary,LOADS of spearmen,and 6 sets of heavy calvary.
They attacked from two sides of the city. I had some calvary on one side and my infanty and general on the other. They were using seige towers,(and battering rams that failed misearbly)Anyway I waited with my units at the base of the stairs planning on picking them off one by one,but when they started pouring out I realized that my calvary was hopelessly outnumbered. Luckily I manadged to pull them over to my main force.
With me picking them off as they came down the ladder I didn't notice that the goths on the other side(with the bigger force) had made it to my flag. I told everything I had to charge over there so they didn't auto-conquer me. In the middle of this my archers died,and my calvary took the long way
:smallconfused:so then it was my heavy infanty against 1300. Luckily it was peasants so they route,and the missile calvary charged me right away:smallconfused:Well that gave my calvary enough time. I then held there as they charged me and routed untill they finally routed.
End Result
Heroic Victory:
Me: 129 men
Them:400
:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[Coidzor]

Difference is before, they were often your most powerful unit. Especially early in the Medieval campaign, when they ARE your most powerful unit, because cavalry > everything, and they're the heaviest armed and armoured cavalry.

So do they just ignore horse archer arrows or run them down quickly enough to not take significant losses?

Or just that actually getting horse archers takes too long for the groups that actually produce them to be a factor?

[Arcanoi]

So do they just ignore horse archer arrows or run them down quickly enough to not take significant losses?

Or just that actually getting horse archers takes too long for the groups that actually produce them to be a factor?

Horse Archers do very little damage to Generals in Rome Total War, since the Generals are toting armors in the high teens with two wounds while Horse Archers never see 10 ranged attack. Horse Archers also have very small quivers, so a unit of Horse Archers might unload their entire ammo supply and only inflict five wounds on the General's unit.

[Maralais]

Aye, this happens. Each province has a certain person they'll rebel too. Every time they rebel, it'll go to that faction.

I remember some of my earliest games being the most epic. Like Prince Michel the Horseman, in one of my first games as France. With a half-stack of Mailed Knights, ended up taking out Milan, and about 3 other settlements with just him, and a couple of mercenaries to storm the towns. He ended up dying of old age in Switzerland.

Another great moment was the time I eventually started beating the Mongol's as Egypt. They had more troops, but I had the ability to pump out an army every two turns, or something. They never quite got to Jerusalem, most of the fighting was around Antioch.

Ooooh, did you know that one of the best forces for going on crusade is Hungary? You get to fight the enemy horse archers with your own horse archers. Also, your horse archers look cooler. Hungary has always been one of my favourite factions.

Hungarians are Turks, that's why they have horse archers:smalltongue:

Oh well, gonna try and save la France today. All Europe hates me, Mongols are approaching and I wasn't attacking properly due to Pope but ever since I have been in bad condition with him for years, I stopped caring.

Allez, vite!

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Hungarians are Turks, that's why they have horse archers:smalltongue:


Magyar's are not Turkish. They're either Uralic or Lechitic, if that means anything to you. However, they WERE a nomadic steppe people who settled in the Plains of Carpathia, like the Huns and Avars before them. Soyeah. :smallwink:

And horse archers in Medieval can still mess up generals. I forgot about them, when used properly, they can usually hurt generals really badly, but usually run out of arrows before the general runs out of men.

[Copper8642]

I've played Medieval II, Empire, and Shogun II. I think of all of them, my favorite is a tie between Empire and a mod for Medieval that turned it into Warhammer Fantasy.

The Fantasy one was something I only played for a few days because the translation from Russian wasn't really complete and it was rather difficult, but I still thought it was awesome.

In Empire, my favorite factions are France (I like to play them in historical games, no idea why) and the Ottomans (a mixture of their real life history and gameplay).

My best Moment of Awesome was playing the Ottomans and being attacked in the field by a Polish army. The numbers were barely in their favor, but they had to come to be. I stretched out my infantry in a line, sent out camel gunners to harass, and began the artillery bombardment.

Now, Ottoman Organ Guns come in unit of four, and shoot about 7 round shot per cannon. They're terribly inaccurate but rain cannon balls in a wide area. This culminated in me telling my cannons to fire on a unit of advancing line infantry, watching cannon balls hit everything between my cannons and that unit, crush a number of men in that unit, and watch a single ball fall on top of a cavalry unit a distance behind my target. Then I found out I had killed the enemy general.

[Flickerdart]

Haha, that's fantastic. I usually aim for the general first, but the buggers get savvy and keep out of artillery range. Didn't really bother with artillery in Empire, but in Napoleon just under half of my army reliably consists of 6lb cannon. Having charging cavalry go from full to fleeing in a single volley is very cathartic.

[Leecros]

Shogun II:

Does anyone know what happens if you make a mad rush at the Shogunate before they declare you an enemy of the state and all hell breaks loose? Does it still happen? or do you avert it?


Medieval II:
My latest game has England rising to power in the west. Today i noticed something odd,they were no longer #1 in everything. I checked the relations screen and found this:
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/3221/englandisintrouble.jpg

Every faction in the game with the exception of just a handful are at war with them and they are getting butchered. I'm curious as to what they did to make everyone mad. Unfortunately i may never know...



Oh well, gonna try and save la France today. All Europe hates me, Mongols are approaching and I wasn't attacking properly due to Pope but ever since I have been in bad condition with him for years, I stopped caring.

Allez, vite!

That's what assassins are for.:smallamused:

[Coidzor]

Haha, that's fantastic. I usually aim for the general first, but the buggers get savvy and keep out of artillery range. Didn't really bother with artillery in Empire, but in Napoleon just under half of my army reliably consists of 6lb cannon. Having charging cavalry go from full to fleeing in a single volley is very cathartic.

That's some Charge of the Light Brigade stuff right there. :smallamused:

[RPharazon]

Hey, don't knock the intense value of cannons in Empire.
My strategy is always to go Napoleonic on everyone, make armies consisting of mostly Howitzers, and rain down Carcass Shot on everyone that isn't the same colour as me.
The AI never catches wise that grouping their soldiers together in tight formations just means I can wipe them out in a single volley. After a while, when I can siege no more, I just send in the token cavalry-and-line infantry force to capture the rest of the fort.

[Klose_the_Sith]

I get better value out of my foot batteries, which I always have ~4 of :smallbiggrin:

(Most people seem to doubt them, but they're the only way my incompetent troops win firefights)

[Maralais]

Just downloaded Stainless Steel.

OH MY GOD THIS IS A COMPLETELY NEW AND BETTER GAME!

I'll let all know the might of the Seljuks this time, I hope things will turn out to be better.

[Leecros]

OH MY GOD THIS IS A COMPLETELY NEW AND BETTER GAME!


If there was a like button i'd like this.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Stainless Steel is nice, but I personally prefer Chivalry 2. It's much more of a change from vanilla than SS, gameplay-wise as well as being much prettier units, imho.

[Coidzor]

I get better value out of my foot batteries, which I always have ~4 of :smallbiggrin:

Foot batteries?

[Leecros]

Stainless Steel is nice, but I personally prefer Chivalry 2. It's much more of a change from vanilla than SS, gameplay-wise as well as being much prettier units, imho.

Well, i got an extra year out of Medieval 2 thanks to Stainless Steel. Maybe sometime I'll download Chivalry 2 and get another extra year out of that.

Should hopefully hold me over until someone makes some good mods for Shogun 2...

[Valley]

Shogun was fun. Played that again and again. Tried playing Rome and, just not sure, did not click. I love Roman history but felt it was missing a lot of the feel of the old Republic. I think I want more Role Play now....oh, still love the cloud of arrows humming into the crowds and the burning buildings and mowing the enemy down with mounted spearmen....but I want some Senate action, some spies, and some money crossing the palm too.

[Maxymiuk]

I still play R:TW with the Total Realism mod. I have five or so campaigns going and switch between them depending on my mood that day.

Currently focusing on conquering the known world with the Romans. Marian Reforms triggered exceptionally early (~190 BC) and left me with two armies worth of 5-6 chevron Principes, Velites, and Italian Spearmen that I'm really loathe to lose.

Now it's 186 BC and Byzantium has fallen to the army of mercenaries led by the son of the man who rules Rome. The Balkan Peninsula is Roman - Macedonia has fallen and Greece is but a single city on the shores of the Black Sea. The Seulecid Dynasty declared war on the Republic, perhaps seeking funds for the war its losing against the combined might of Bactria and Parthia in the Far East. Meanwhile in the west the Gaul warbands have been ground down under sandaled feet and now cling to their last two provinces, surviving only due to the protracted war for the Iberian Peninsula. And in Africa the Numidian tribes saw excellent opportunity in the losses Carthage took in its attempt to reclaim Sicily, and grew into a mighty nation that even now lays siege to their neighboor's cities, while the Legions siege Carthago itself, undeterred by the assassination of their commander.

(seriously, if I wasn't playing as Rome, I'd have called this campaign "Rise of the Underdogs". And did I mention that the Thracians somehow seized control of everything directly north of the Alps?)


EDIT: Gah, completely forgot to ask. Does anyone know any mods that let you disable the AI getting constantly getting free money and units in Medieval 2? Cause it bothers me, to the point where I don't really want to play the game anymore. Not because of the (cheaply) inflated difficulty, but because of the utter irrelevance of non-combat actions, such as sabotage, or port blockades. And the irrelevance of battles as well, for that matter. Winning a costly victory in the field against a side with one city left, then, just as I'm about to take that city, seeing them rebuild their army to the point where it's larger than what my upkeep would allow with six is really... draining.

[Flickerdart]

Does anyone else find the AI in Napoleon very...historically inaccurate? The AI always makes peace with France somehow (what are they giving them? it isn't regions or tech) and then allies with them to dogpile on the player.

[Klose_the_Sith]

Foot batteries?

You know ... 12 Pd Foot Batteries (18/24 Pd'ers also exist) ... the most basic kind of cannon?

You guard them with Line Infantry and then use canister shot to either win firefights or force the enemy to charge.

[Coidzor]

You know ... 12 Pd Foot Batteries (18/24 Pd'ers also exist) ... the most basic kind of cannon?

You guard them with Line Infantry and then use canister shot to either win firefights or force the enemy to charge.

So you also have horse-drawn artillery then or just heavy cannon?

[Martok]

Hum.. so, I haven't had anybody replying to my inquiry. It's mostly a technical question: is there any direct, stat-wise advantage, to make your family members personnaly rack up kills?
In the original Medieval Total War, having your general -- regardless of whether or not he's a member of your faction's royal family -- personally rack up kills can gain him traits that bestow extra hit points (making him hard to kill) and/or morale bonuses to his army. It's a risky tactic, but it can pay off big-time!

[Martok]

Which game are you playing again? I remember Medieval 1 had the "Dread" stat, which made the enemy afraid of you. Pretty cool.
Unfortunately, that's incorrect. (Don't feel bad, though; many folks -- including myself at one time -- have mistakenly believed this as well.) In Medieval 1, a general's Dread rating has no effect on an enemy's morale in battle. (I wish it did!)

Instead, Dread in Medieval 1 affects the loyalty of the province the general is governor of (if you've given the general a provincial title) and/or the loyalty of all your provinces (if you've given him a Title of State). So a general with a high Dread rating is often useful for keeping the populations of, ah, "rambunctious" and/or recently-conquered provinces in check. And if you're lucky enough to have a general who possesses both good Dread *and* Acumen ratings, then making him your "Prime Minister" (Royal Chamberlain, Qadi-al-Quda, etc.) is nearly always a smart move. :smallsmile:




I once had a general with 8 dread once. He was described as "probably the antichrist".
Heh. I love descriptions of anyone with an especially high (or low) trait rating, but Dread is my favorite. Always makes for an entertaining read!

[Martok]

Artillery in Medieval were... well, they weren't sniper-howitzer's, that's for certain.
For the most part, no they weren't.


However, artillery pieces in MTW1 do seem (at times to have an absolutely uncanny knack for finding and killing generals! I'm not saying it happens frequently, exactly, but the phenomenon does seem to occur more often than probability would dictate.

I can't tell you the number of times I've seen commanders -- both mine and (especially) the enemy's -- go down from a (supposedly) "freak" hit by a catapult or trebuchet. It's gotten to the point where I don't even employ artillery in field battles any more (unless I happen to have some in an army that gets attacked) because it feels like too much of an unfair advantage. :smalleek:

[Spartacus]

You may want to use the edit feature to make those into one post.

[Martok]

^ Actually, that's how I'd originally set it up.

However, folks in some of the other forums I frequent have been getting a little irritated with me -- although they're being nice and trying hard not to show it -- for putting up long, multi-quote posts (apparently they're nigh-unreadable for some people). So lately I've been getting in the habit of breaking them into smaller, more digestible chunks instead.

[Klose_the_Sith]

So you also have horse-drawn artillery then or just heavy cannon?

Uhh ... :smallconfused:

Say what? (http://empiretotalwar.wikia.com/wiki/12-iber_Foot_Artillery)

[Flickerdart]

So you also have horse-drawn artillery then or just heavy cannon?
The lightest grade of cannon (6lb) comes in both varieties, foot and horse. The guns are pulled by horses either way, the only difference is whether or not the crew gets to ride too. Horse artillery is good if you need to move your pieces quickly.
Heavier artillery only comes in the foot variety, and moves very slowly.

[Klose_the_Sith]

The lightest grade of cannon (6lb) comes in both varieties, foot and horse. The guns are pulled by horses either way, the only difference is whether or not the crew gets to ride too. Horse artillery is good if you need to move your pieces quickly.
Heavier artillery only comes in the foot variety, and moves very slowly.

6lb foot batteries? :smallconfused:

(Sounds a bit weak is all ...)

The poor horse artillery starts at 3 pounders. They get a fair bit more useful at 6 - especially if you have an aggressive army / use lots of wheeling about and reforming. Always having your batteries in place is all kinds of useful! :smallbiggrin:

[Leecros]

In the original Medieval Total War, having your general -- regardless of whether or not he's a member of your faction's royal family -- personally rack up kills can gain him traits that bestow extra hit points (making him hard to kill) and/or morale bonuses to his army. It's a risky tactic, but it can pay off big-time!

In Medieval 2 there's the Scarred Trait which bestows upon the bearer of the trait. Of course it's a very risky thing to do, statwise:

Marks of War (BattleScarred 1)- +1 Authority, +2 Hit Points, gained after 1
point of BattleScarred
Scarred (BattleScarred 2)- +1 Authority, +4 Hit Points, upgrade after 2
points of BattleScarred
Terribly Scarred (BattleScarred 3)- +2 Authority, +6 Hit Points, upgrade
after 3 points of BattleScarred
Brutally Scarred (BattleScarred 4)- +2 Authority, +8 Hit Points, epithet "the
Scarred", upgrade after 4 points of BattleScarred
A general offered for adoption, lesser adoption or marriage gains a point of
BattleScarred with 17% probability.
If a family member loses more than 30% of his hit points in a battle, he
gains a point of BattleScarred with 30% probability.

means your general has to pretty much come pretty close to death to get it...


However, artillery pieces in MTW1 do seem (at times to have an absolutely uncanny knack for finding and killing generals! I'm not saying it happens frequently, exactly, but the phenomenon does seem to occur more often than probability would dictate.

I can't tell you the number of times I've seen commanders -- both mine and (especially) the enemy's -- go down from a (supposedly) "freak" hit by a catapult or trebuchet. It's gotten to the point where I don't even employ artillery in field battles any more (unless I happen to have some in an army that gets attacked) because it feels like too much of an unfair advantage. :smalleek:
Artillery pieces in Shogun 2 are worse. Not only are they great at mowing down enemy troops on their own, but if you use a general's Inspire ability on them they pretty much become Siege Sniper Cannons. Granted the enemy generals do do a better job at trying to move out of the way, it doesn't always work...
With that said, the siege engines of that time were designed for anti-troop attacks since Japanese castles were built more for surviving earthquakes than keeping enemy troops out.

[Gaius Marius]

Anybody has an opinion about what is the most efficient troop-killing siege weaponry in Medieval 2? Ballistas, Catapults or Trebuchets?

[Leecros]

Anybody has an opinion about what is the most efficient troop-killing siege weaponry in Medieval 2? Ballistas, Catapults or Trebuchets?

Ballistae have less accuracy, but more range and the chance to do massive damage to multiple units if they're lucky enough.

Catapults are more accurate, have less range and more splash damage, but take longer to load

I don't have much experience with Trebuchets, but following the pattern i'd imagine that they have more range, are less accurate, take longer(or as long as a catapult?) to fire and have more(?) splash, but they're only really good vs walls. Their Plague cow can be useful for weakening enemy troops though.

[Flickerdart]

6lb foot batteries? :smallconfused:

(Sounds a bit weak is all ...)

The poor horse artillery starts at 3 pounders. They get a fair bit more useful at 6 - especially if you have an aggressive army / use lots of wheeling about and reforming. Always having your batteries in place is all kinds of useful! :smallbiggrin:
It's what you're stuck with in Napoleon until you build the Great Arsenal, at which point howitzers and 12 pounders become available. British get 9 pounders at first, I think, and Ottomans get 18 pounders (plus there's Russia's Unicorn guns which are all kinds of weird). I don't think Napoleon has 24 pound cannon.

[Coidzor]

I don't have much experience with Trebuchets, but following the pattern i'd imagine that they have more range, are less accurate, take longer(or as long as a catapult?) to fire and have more(?) splash, but they're only really good vs walls. Their Plague cow can be useful for weakening enemy troops though.

Well, if you can set up a kill-zone on a bridge, apparently they're quite potent at that kind of combat as well, if the guys who did the Scotsman in Egypt LP could be trusted to deliver any kind of reasonable basis to judge gameplay with.

[DaedalusMkV]

Yeah, any sort of siege engine is absolutely horrifying when you're defending a bridge. Three catapult units (six catapults) and five Spearmen units to hold the enemy in place and you can savage basically any enemy, regardless of how badly outnumbered you are. Switch to flaming ammo and aim for the middle of their formation from a couple of formation-widths behind your line and you'll kill on average 15-20 enemies per shot, which adds up disturbingly quickly, while wrecking their morale. I've killed full stack armies with that 8-unit setup. Use Culverins (or worse, Basilisks :smalleek:) with exploding shells instead and all of a sudden you're killing 40 enemies per shot, and their morale breaks in seconds...

Still not as broken as Pike Phalanxes defending a bridge in Rome, though. What's that, enemy general? I can't hear you over the sound of your entire army dying pointlessly on the ends of my spears...

[thorgrim29]

Installing stainless steel now, here's hoping steam doesn't hate it too much

[Leecros]

Well, if you can set up a kill-zone on a bridge, apparently they're quite potent at that kind of combat as well, if the guys who did the Scotsman in Egypt LP could be trusted to deliver any kind of reasonable basis to judge gameplay with.

I suppose that's true, but to be honest i feel you could probably utilize Catapults for the exact same strategy.

[Klose_the_Sith]

means your general has to pretty much come pretty close to death to get it...

My general and his bodyguard got down to four men, but didn't get it. What a gip!

Incidentally, I've started a Medieval 2 game that I'm actually having fun with (which is a surprise, 'cause it bored me non-stop in the past). I don't know why it is, but something about playing as Spain King-Captain Alfonso and the Good Time Bunch is more enjoyable to me :smallconfused:

(The fact that I didn't like playing as Britain or the Holy Roman Empire - my two favourite medieval countries in historical terms, is just weird.)


It's what you're stuck with in Napoleon until you build the Great Arsenal, at which point howitzers and 12 pounders become available. British get 9 pounders at first, I think, and Ottomans get 18 pounders (plus there's Russia's Unicorn guns which are all kinds of weird). I don't think Napoleon has 24 pound cannon.

:smallconfused:

Where did they leave all the nice cannons from Empire, then? :smalltongue:

Oh well, I was talking about Empire, not Napoleon (which I suspect may have been the source from which confusion arose?).

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

(The fact that I didn't like playing as Britain or the Holy Roman Empire - my two favourite medieval countries in historical terms, is just weird.)



Maybe it's because you don't mind about the horrible historically-impossibilities of how they show Iberia as much as they show Britain or the HRE?

[Leecros]

My general and his bodyguard got down to four men, but didn't get it. What a gip!

and that's why it's such a painful trait to get. Your general himself literally has to have his personal hp cut down to 30% of his total and since hp is a precious commodity and it can go away very quickly depending on the situation. Still if you can manage to perpetuate that trait it can make your general a beasty man-god.:smallcool:

[Flickerdart]

Where did they leave all the nice cannons from Empire, then? :smalltongue:

Oh well, I was talking about Empire, not Napoleon (which I suspect may have been the source from which confusion arose?).
I dunno, maybe they put them all in Asia? :smalltongue:

[The_JJ]

Ballistae have less accuracy, but more range and the chance to do massive damage to multiple units if they're lucky enough.

I find ballista more accurate. Actually, detrimentally so. Keep them firing on a sitting target and watch them carve out the same single file notch out of the enemy formation. Formation reforms, arty reloads, repeat.

Now the real killer here is the naffatun. Rather pointless in most field battles (unless you like micro and the enemy forgot his cav). They will tear enemies up off the wall, casually down those Timurid elephants, and turn bridge battles into messy, flaming mass barbecues.

[Craftworld]

I don't have much experience with Trebuchets, but following the pattern i'd imagine that they have more range, are less accurate, take longer(or as long as a catapult?) to fire and have more(?) splash, but they're only really good vs walls. Their Plague cow can be useful for weakening enemy troops though.

I am not sure if they transfered this into the game but Trebuchets were one of the most accurate artillery pieces of their time, and had one of the longest ranges. They may not have incorporated this to the game though.

[Leecros]

I find ballista more accurate. Actually, detrimentally so. Keep them firing on a sitting target and watch them carve out the same single file notch out of the enemy formation. Formation reforms, arty reloads, repeat.
I've had opportunities to test out the accuracy of Ballistae vs Catapults. Not quite as great as trying each one separately out vs units of troops(dang men don't seem to like it when i rain fiery death on them). So in a straight-up fight between 1 unit of Ballistae and 1 unit of Catapults, the cats disabled all of the Ballista batteries, usually before even one of the cats were disabled. Further tests showed similar findings. When encountering two units of ballistae, the cats managed to take out 1 unit fully before being disabled. So i have to disagree, on a (relatively)flat battlefield, Catapults definitely come out on top in terms of accuracy.

With that said though, a ballista is more versatile than a catapult is. They're good in knife-fight situations, positions where a catapult is effectively useless. Siege defense a volley of ballista bolts shot out of the destroyed gate as the enemy forces charge in has the potential for massive damage and the same goes for bridge battles, for the same reason. Any time you can get moving troops to form a rank&file, the ballista will come out on top in collateral damage compared to the catapult, but on a flat battlefield with neither side moving, a catapult will come out on top.



I am not sure if they transfered this into the game but Trebuchets were one of the most accurate artillery pieces of their time, and had one of the longest ranges. They may not have incorporated this to the game though.

I'm not too sure, of all of the siege engines in Medieval 2, Trebuchets are the ones i have the least experience with. Which is odd seeing as they're one of my favorite engines over all medieval setting games.

[The_JJ]

I dunno if that's the best test of accuracy. Hit points, maybe, range, maybe, but against the squishies the first is rather irrelevant and the second not in dispute. Nest would be to pick a target (tower e.g.) point and shoot. Tally % of shots that hit, # of shots/time until first hit, and spread (e.g. how close were the misses).

Then repeat in order to get good data.

[Klose_the_Sith]

Maybe it's because you don't mind about the horrible historically-impossibilities of how they show Iberia as much as they show Britain or the HRE?

I suppose my ability to refer to my faction as 'Captain-King Alfonso and the Good Time Gang' does make swallowing the Medieval 2 bullet a fair bit easier :smallbiggrin:


I dunno, maybe they put them all in Asia? :smalltongue:

Well then where did Asia put all their 64 pounders?

I thought as much.

(:smallwink:)

[Gaius Marius]

I've had opportunities to test out the accuracy of Ballistae vs Catapults. Not quite as great as trying each one separately out vs units of troops(dang men don't seem to like it when i rain fiery death on them). So in a straight-up fight between 1 unit of Ballistae and 1 unit of Catapults, the cats disabled all of the Ballista batteries, usually before even one of the cats were disabled. Further tests showed similar findings. When encountering two units of ballistae, the cats managed to take out 1 unit fully before being disabled. So i have to disagree, on a (relatively)flat battlefield, Catapults definitely come out on top in terms of accuracy.

With that said though, a ballista is more versatile than a catapult is. They're good in knife-fight situations, positions where a catapult is effectively useless. Siege defense a volley of ballista bolts shot out of the destroyed gate as the enemy forces charge in has the potential for massive damage and the same goes for bridge battles, for the same reason. Any time you can get moving troops to form a rank&file, the ballista will come out on top in collateral damage compared to the catapult, but on a flat battlefield with neither side moving, a catapult will come out on top.

I'm not too sure, of all of the siege engines in Medieval 2, Trebuchets are the ones i have the least experience with. Which is odd seeing as they're one of my favorite engines over all medieval setting games.

How about other strategic elements? What is the Ballista's moving speed compared to Catapults and Trebuchet? what is their re-aiming speed? How many losses can they suffer before stopping to fire?

I'll try to have fun with a 5x Ballista battery + 4x Cavalry in my next Medieval 2 total war game. Curious to see how efficient these will be.

[Leecros]

I dunno if that's the best test of accuracy. Hit points, maybe, range, maybe, but against the squishies the first is rather irrelevant and the second not in dispute.

How is the catapult's better-than-a-ballista's ability to hit a single point irrelevant? I mean if you replace the ballista with a unit of troops the result wouldn't change. It would still hit more reliably than a ballista.


Nest would be to pick a target (tower e.g.) point and shoot. Tally % of shots that hit, # of shots/time until first hit, and spread (e.g. how close were the misses).

I can run the test, but i have a feeling that the catapult will still win. It doesn't really change the test enough to have that much of a change in results.


How about other strategic elements? What is the Ballista's moving speed compared to Catapults and Trebuchet? what is their re-aiming speed? How many losses can they suffer before stopping to fire?

I think that all the siege engines pretty much move at a close enough speed for it to be a non-issue. If not the same speed. Ballistae have a much lower fire rate than catapults. Although i'm not sure about re-aiming speed, never really tested it out. Also i don't recall how many people the two different units have, but they both require 3 people to fire so it's down to who has the largest unit.

[Flickerdart]

I suppose my ability to refer to my faction as 'Captain-King Alfonso and the Good Time Gang' does make swallowing the Medieval 2 bullet a fair bit easier :smallbiggrin:



Well then where did Asia put all their 64 pounders?

I thought as much.

(:smallwink:)
The 64 pounders stayed in Asia. Then it all got wiped out by the game devs.

[Coidzor]

I suppose my ability to refer to my faction as 'Captain-King Alfonso and the Good Time Gang' does make swallowing the Medieval 2 bullet a fair bit easier :smallbiggrin:

...There's some kind of hilarious thing here that I'm just not getting. :smallfrown:

[Klose_the_Sith]

...There's some kind of hilarious thing here that I'm just not getting. :smallfrown:

Not really, it's just my own disrespect for my own Noble House (which is erroneously referred to by the game as 'Spain') leads me to instead brand my faction as a medieval scooby-doo type affair.

Except, y'know. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitle0t9r68ih) :smalltongue:

[Spartacus]

Rome: Total War. I've totally conquered Greece as the Brutii, and was working my way into the Carthaginians, when Britain backstabs me. Well, the Reforms just hit.

6 turns later, a full stack of half Early Legion Cohorts and half Praetorian Guard are marching on Britain. They are going to rue the day...

[Craftworld]

Rome: Total War. I've totally conquered Greece as the Brutii, and was working my way into the Carthaginians, when Britain backstabs me. Well, the Reforms just hit.

6 turns later, a full stack of half Early Legion Cohorts and half Praetorian Guard are marching on Britain. They are going to rue the day...

I love the simplicity of blunt force. In Medieval TW I loved playing as the Byzantines and creating massive hordes of Byzantine Infantry and as I conquered provinces upgrade them to create more infantry...rinse and repeat.:smallcool:

[Leecros]

I love the simplicity of blunt force. In Medieval TW I loved playing as the Byzantines and creating massive hordes of Byzantine Infantry and as I conquered provinces upgrade them to create more infantry...rinse and repeat.:smallcool:

Grawr! So you are the person i have to blame for the Byzantines using that exact strategy to conquer half of Europe in Medieval TW II!:smallyuk:
:smalltongue:


Regardless, i was playing Medieval II(Stainless Steel) and i was thinking. A really cool idea for them to have implemented in their games, it wouldn't work quite as well for the Shogun set, but i think it would be cool if after you completed your campaign objectives they gave you a procedurally generated history up to the current date. Just to show you how your faction prospered(or not) afterwards. I mean in just about every TW game you butcher history in some way/shape/form. It would be interesting to see the consequences of your actions up to the present day.

[Eldan]

Heh. Oh man, how history would have changed...

Let's see, a few of my favoured campaigns.

Sometime in the ninth century, the picts conquered the British isles and Norway.

In exchange, Denmark conquered the German Empire, Skandinavia, Italy, France and all of Eastern Europe down to Byzantium in the twelfth century.

So, the world's most important languages are Danish and Pictish (or whatever they spoke).

[Klose_the_Sith]

It was the year 1800 and the Swedish King had conquered all of Europe, the Americas, India, and ruled the Indies, South America and Africa with his supreme Maritime power. No provinces even wanted to change things, due to the mix of prosperity and oppression that came with his reign ...

Napoleon who? :smalltongue:

[Flickerdart]

Is conquering the world so much harder in the older games than it is in Empire and Napoleon?

[Coidzor]

Is conquering the world so much harder in the older games than it is in Empire and Napoleon?

I think battles you can't just auto-through take a bit longer when you don't have a large number of ranged units devoted to blowing bits out of one another quickly? Maybe?

[Klose_the_Sith]

Is conquering the world so much harder in the older games than it is in Empire and Napoleon?

Well yes, the maps just aren't big enough for you to conquer the world :smalltongue:

[DaedalusMkV]

Is conquering the world so much harder in the older games than it is in Empire and Napoleon?

In addition to the above, conquering the entire map in Rome was night impossible. Not because it was hard to actually conquer the whole thing, but because holding onto settlements at all four corners of the map is an exercise in frustration thanks to the fact that Squalor and distance to capitol penalties scale far, far faster than any bonuses you could hope to have with regards to public order (which really only help to cancel out the Culture penalty anyways...). It was doable, true, because people have done it, but I certainly wouldn't want to try... The last 100-odd turns would be filled with revolting settlements, putting down the rebellion and exterminating the populace and generally horrifying budgetary issues.

Not nearly as big an issue in Medieval 2, since public order is rarely an issue for any reason other than religious unrest which is something you can actually get rid of, unlike the penalties in Rome which were generally there to stay.

[Coidzor]

Are there any worthwhile mods other than Europa Barbarorum for Rome? Kinda getting bored with Barbarian Invasion and the whole time limit aspect of Alexander sorta turned me off before I really could get into it.

[The_JJ]

In addition to the above, conquering the entire map in Rome was night impossible. Not because it was hard to actually conquer the whole thing, but because holding onto settlements at all four corners of the map is an exercise in frustration thanks to the fact that Squalor and distance to capitol penalties scale far, far faster than any bonuses you could hope to have with regards to public order (which really only help to cancel out the Culture penalty anyways...). It was doable, true, because people have done it, but I certainly wouldn't want to try... The last 100-odd turns would be filled with revolting settlements, putting down the rebellion and exterminating the populace and generally horrifying budgetary issues.

Not nearly as big an issue in Medieval 2, since public order is rarely an issue for any reason other than religious unrest which is something you can actually get rid of, unlike the penalties in Rome which were generally there to stay.

Depends on the faction too. Some of them get better temples/sanitation/entertainment buildings. Rome and the Hellenic powers,in my experience, aren't terribly bad at it on the easier difficulties.

Turning all the captured cities outside of your cores into burnt out hulks of once great cities works well to. Once you're big enough that that kind of distance from capital is a huge issue big fat stacks of mercs should be able to compliment anything you have to laboriously ship from the home provinces well enough.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Are there any worthwhile mods other than Europa Barbarorum for Rome? Kinda getting bored with Barbarian Invasion and the whole time limit aspect of Alexander sorta turned me off before I really could get into it.

One's I've tried and liked:
Aristeia's pretty sweet, on the Alex engine. Sweet artistically designed visuals and lighting and stuff, Trojan War era. Includes 'hero' units with only one dude in them. Very innovative idea, and they were the first to be able to do that. However, there isn't that much difference in units.

The Greek Wars is fun enough. However, as said above, not much difference in units. But, if you want a hoplite-on-hoplite campaign, you can't get better, IMHO.

Rise of Persia is the only mod I know of that has Babylon and a pre-Greek Egypt. Not too well balanced, and best played as, well, Persia. Buuuut, it's lots of fun! One of my favourite mods. Except they have some CTD problems...

Europa Barbarorum has been mentioned.

Invasio Barbarorvm is actually a bunch of mods re-doing Barbarian Invasion, and that general era. Each mod has a slight different start-date and factions. Try each one to figure out which one you like. I personally like the original IB.

Roma Surrectum II is amazingly pretty. It's the prettiest I've ever seen Rome get. That pretty. Amazing gameplay too. Starts a bit later than Vanilla or EB, starts with the battle of Trasimene, Hannibal invading Italy.

Arthurian: Total War is pretty sweet. Makes it sound like it's based on legend, but it's not. It's a map of just the British Isles, with the Saxons, Picts, and British, and I think the Irish as well, all fighting it out.

Viking Invasion II: Total War is similar, only, well, it has Vikings as the invaders, not Anglo-Juto-Saxons.

[super dark33]

i hate thus horse archer!
they are almost invincible! heavy caverly cantcatch them, light caverly get shot down, infantry- bahhh, you make me laugh, archer- they help, as long the enemy caverly dont crash them. and other horse archer just chase them all over thebattle, and its a waste of units, and if i sent few, they get killed in the way. any one have an idea?

[toasty]

i hate thus horse archer!
they are almost invincible! heavy caverly cantcatch them, light caverly get shot down, infantry- bahhh, you make me laugh, archer- they help, as long the enemy caverly dont crash them. and other horse archer just chase them all over thebattle, and its a waste of units, and if i sent few, they get killed in the way. any one have an idea?

The worst in Rome Total War was when I played the Brutii. Conquering Greece was easy enough. But taking Turkey was nigh impossible because my Heavy Infantry were useless against Eastern Calvary. I finally solved this by stacking Praetorian Calvary, but it took FOREVER and was very tiresome.

[Leecros]

i hate thus horse archer!
they are almost invincible! heavy caverly cantcatch them, light caverly get shot down, infantry- bahhh, you make me laugh, archer- they help, as long the enemy caverly dont crash them. and other horse archer just chase them all over thebattle, and its a waste of units, and if i sent few, they get killed in the way. any one have an idea?

depends on what game you're playing... In medieval 2 i just shrug them off, yeah they'll cause casualties and they're annoying(especially if they're after your general), but outside of a handful of horse archers, most of them aren't that great....


I do hate horse archers though and try my best to avoid fighting large numbers of them, but i've noticed that if you shrug them off and just keep fighting and wait for them to run out of ammo and charge you, or last to chase them off then you'll lose less overall than running your army all around and making certain units easy pickings if you're not careful. Alternatively turn your siege engines on them. I can only think of a handful of times that horse archers were gamechangers. Excluding the millions of times that i've used Jinetes or Desert Cavalry to ambush generals.

[Eldan]

In Rome, use Phalanges. The heavier, the better. They laugh at arrows.

[The_JJ]

Foot archer's make a great counter to enemy horse archers. To light and they'll have no armor and get ripped to shreds. To heavy and you can catch them with your own light cavalry.

There is no good excuse for not loading up on Cretan Archers at every opportunity.

[Klose_the_Sith]

The worst in Rome Total War was when I played the Brutii. Conquering Greece was easy enough. But taking Turkey was nigh impossible because my Heavy Infantry were useless against Eastern Calvary. I finally solved this by stacking Praetorian Calvary, but it took FOREVER and was very tiresome.

Personally I just brought massive numbers to bear and let the computer auto-resolve a victory for me :smalltongue:

(Oh auto-resolve, sometimes so much worse than me but sometimes so much better ...)

[Leecros]

(Oh auto-resolve, sometimes so much worse than me but sometimes so much better ...)

It's really a coin toss. Usually i notice that me directing the battle personally ensures that i suffer fewer loss's, but sometimes the game surprises me and pulls off massive victories that wouldn't actually be possible in real-time conditions

[Gaius Marius]

How would mass ballistas or catapult fare against such horse archers?

[The_JJ]

Poorly, methinks, if we're going human controlled, since traverse times would be such a pain.

Against the AI... I dunno. If you focused fire each unit before the AI caught on, since it doesn't tend to react until it takes fire for the first time, you might be able to break them.

Again, I'd advocate archers or slingers (who can be pretty easily merced up) since horse archer's tend toward the fragile.

[Coidzor]

Poorly, methinks, if we're going human controlled, since traverse times would be such a pain.

Against the AI... I dunno. If you focused fire each unit before the AI caught on, since it doesn't tend to react until it takes fire for the first time, you might be able to break them.

Again, I'd advocate archers or slingers (who can be pretty easily merced up) since horse archer's tend toward the fragile.

Don't slingers and ground archers (well the decent ones) out-range horse-archers anyway?

[super dark33]

the problems wit hall the solutions are tat in most time, ther are not only horse archer in the battlefield. in rome ttw for say, i need this pertorian caverly! they horse archer make you use alot of resource on them, Instead on the central army of the enemy. and that the use of horse archer. you outflanking the enemy with it, shot down or even charge at artillary and foot archers, and then or you weakening the enemy or you try to shot down the enemy general and rout the entire enemy {i use it alot in barbarian invesion, with te sasanians against the eastern romans. I LOVE the sasanians}. ther got to be a easy way.


How would mass ballistas or catapult fare against such horse archers?

poorly... not even scratch them

[Coidzor]

Depending upon what faction you are, you can crudely reinvent the Tercio (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Tercio). Especially if you have Cretan archers.

Trying to force engagements at bridges as well also helps.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

The longer range the foot range dudes have, the better. Rhodian slingers, Balearic slingers, Cretan archers and Scythian Foot Archers do the job in EB.

[Coidzor]

So what kinds of formations do you guys like to create anyway? Since I brought up the subject of crude pike squares to defend archers with.

And soon I shall be trying out Europa Barbarorum. Any recommendations as to what faction to try out first?

Edit: And 1.1 and 1.2 installed.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

So what kinds of formations do you guys like to create anyway? Since I brought up the subject of crude pike squares to defend archers with.

And soon I shall be trying out Europa Barbarorum. Any recommendations as to what faction to try out first?

Edit: And 1.1 and 1.2 installed.

Rome or Carthage are easiest. EB is waaaaaay harder than normal. If you can, get that one big submod package. Fixes a lot of things.

[Eldan]

I'm having fun with Epeiros: more cavalry-focused Greeks that start with mainly mercenaries and a unit of elephants.

Which reminds me that I have about three full updates for my let's play waiting.

[Coidzor]

Rome or Carthage are easiest. EB is waaaaaay harder than normal. If you can, get that one big submod package. Fixes a lot of things.

Hmm? I did the 1.1 and 1.2 thing like their downloads page said, but what's this submod package?


I'm having fun with Epeiros: more cavalry-focused Greeks that start with mainly mercenaries and a unit of elephants.

Which reminds me that I have about three full updates for my let's play waiting.

Indeed.

I'm currently trying to figure out what kind of government to put on the first territory I took when I started it up as the Casse.

[Maxymiuk]

So what kinds of formations do you guys like to create anyway? Since I brought up the subject of crude pike squares to defend archers with.


As marching my legions east means inevitably dealing with what Alexander wrought upon the world (phalanges), my formation is usually built around a strong centre made to stand in place and endure pikes bouncing off their shields, while the spear and javelin auxilia circle around the flanks and fall upon the enemy's unprotected backs. In the meantime, the cavalry chase the ranged units around.

On the other hand, when playing as Sarmatians, my default formation was "glorious chaos". Horse archers everywhere, the enemy's own formation disintegrated in vain attempts to give chase, and hundreds of arrows filling the air. It required ridiculous amounts of micro, but I could usually annihilate a much larger army while taking almost no losses myself.

[Eldan]

Something I wondered about when playing as the Sarmatians: what's the Cantabrian (I think) circle actually good for? I mean, what does it do?

[Rustic Dude]

It's a continous stream of javelins/arrows. Also I think it helps a little against preyectiles, being your guys constantly on the move.

It would be better if there was an enemy unit inside the circle, though.

[Maxymiuk]

It would be better if there was an enemy unit inside the circle, though.

I'll second that. As it stands, the cantabrian circle is just a very good way to waste ammo, tire out your horses, and blunder around the battlefield while taking up double the ordinary amount of space. Anything vulnerable enough to arrows to be affected by it is just as vulnerable to a volley, or a standard charge, and anything better armored I'd rather circle around and hit from the back.

[Thorcrest]

So what kinds of formations do you guys like to create anyway? Since I brought up the subject of crude pike squares to defend archers with.


It really depends who I'm playing as and which game.

ROME: As Rome itself I like having a strong center of legionaries with some archers behind, maybe two cohorts on their flanks. From here, either add cavalry to the flanks or a second row of infanty with half being used to envelop and the other half as reserve to guard against line penetration.

As the Greeks I just mass the strongest hoplites I can and use them as my slow wall of death on attack with some light cavalry support to close gaps/prevent flank assaults and some archer support. Defending, I love to just make a box and sit on a hill with all no Phalanx units inside. Absolutely hilarious!

For Eastern armies I like to mass Horse Archers and Light Cavalry. Surround with Horse Archers and Eliminate... saves a lot of trouble.

Barbarians just mass whatever, warcry and charge... who needs finess when you can charge onto their spear points! :smalltongue: (Ok, maybe go around those!)

MEDIEVAL II: Generally lines of heavy infantry with crossbow support behind them. Fair amount of cavalry for "the ever so much fun" charge them approach and flanking. It has been far too long since I have played to give anything better, my apologies.

EMPIRE: Usually a large amount of line infantry forming a single line to keep them safe from artillery. Split the line in certain areas with artillery on the defensive to maximize canister shot, or place some on a hill for offensive ability. Light infantry I quite like for their extra range, but their role is far more situationally dependant. Some cavalry to kill router/break lines with flank charges.

NAPOLEON: See above but with appropriate names given by each country! :smalltongue:

[thorgrim29]

Stainless Steel is fun so far, but teh autoresolve hates me. Playing as genoa, I started by going after free cities, then bloodied the Holy Roman Empire and destroyed Aragon. As I was taking a break to consolidate my forces and figure out what to do with the truely ridiculous amounts of cash i have (seriously, I've never had so much cash in an uncheated Medieval II game before by a long shot), the pope excomunates France, who had been my ally but relations were strained since aragon surrendered to them one turn before I killed them. So i ask for and get a crusade against Dijon (one of the uses of that cash is bribing the pope), but for some reason most of my forces get slaughtered, probably because my generals are pathetic. but the second wave reaches a few towns, and since huge battles with the ai controlling some of my forces bore me, I decided to autoresolve a few times when I was favoured by something like 15% or more.... Big mistake, my armies were completely destroyed. So now I've got to salvage that disaster somehow and take Dijon before the other crusaders or it will have been for nothing... And one small town for 5 or 6 full stacks of fairly good troops and crusaders is not a good tradeoff.

[Leecros]

seriously, I've never had so much cash in an uncheated Medieval II game before by a long shot

You must have never used Timbuktu to it's full potential then.:smalltongue:


I decided to autoresolve a few times when I was favoured by something like 15% or more.... Big mistake, my armies were completely destroyed.

i stated this earlier, but Autoresolve really is just a big coin toss. I've seen Heroic Victories to Crushing Defeats(or whatever the message is when the enemy attains a Heroic Victory) and it's usually way out of porportion. I've seen armies of 800 attain victory over another army of 800 without losing more than 100 people, a feat that would be pretty much impossible for a human player in the same situation.

[thorgrim29]

I don't think I've ever owned Timbuktu actually.

[DaedalusMkV]

I don't think I've ever owned Timbuktu actually.

Oh, you don't own timbuktu. It doesn't give you enough income to really matter, since it's so far out into the middle of nowhere. You send your Merchants there, and since the AI will never send anything there for any reason it's about the only place in the game where the merchies can sit around and make oodles and oodles of cash from the extremely high quality trade goods there. Using enough merchants to sit on every trade good in the area (5 or 6, I think?) I was once making something like 3500 Florins from trade in that region alone. As Spain still fighting the Moors, that was enough to almost double my cash income, which resulted in extreme development of my cities and even more money. I hit 200000 Florins that game, one I got to the Americas and sat some more Merchants on the rediculously valuable Coffee and Tobbacco reserves there.

[Flickerdart]

EMPIRE: Usually a large amount of line infantry forming a single line to keep them safe from artillery. Split the line in certain areas with artillery on the defensive to maximize canister shot, or place some on a hill for offensive ability. Light infantry I quite like for their extra range, but their role is far more situationally dependant. Some cavalry to kill router/break lines with flank charges.

NAPOLEON: See above but with appropriate names given by each country! :smalltongue:
I find that Empire doesn't even need artillery - just throw unled Line Infantry at the enemy and they do fine.

In Napoleon, I use a similar formation, usually keeping cannons together in one to three batteries, flanked by one or two units of Line Infantry on each side and one stretched out behind the guns to take shots at cavalry sneaking in between canister shots. This makes breaking up the line of battle easier (to adapt to terrain or line up my forces in a V-shape to have more guns pointed at their guys). Cavalry is usually hanging around in the flanks, always in diamond or wedge formation, my general is directly behind one of the cannons (which the AI doesn't really attack if line infantry is available to shoot at) and as many guys as possible are hidden. When I'm stuck with skirmishers I have them deploy directly in front of the cannons, plant stakes and then take position behind them.

[Leecros]

Oh, you don't own timbuktu. It doesn't give you enough income to really matter, since it's so far out into the middle of nowhere.

Actually it can. Yeah, when you first get it the income will be negligible, but once you start to build it up, build mines, markets, etc... You can really exploit the area. Mines on gold deposits = lots of cash. And while a little hassle early on since it's all Pagan, you really don't have to station a large army there because normally the AI won't even bother with you. Especially since getting trade rights with the bordering faction(usually Moors) will also add to its income. If you're feeling particularly lucrative you can capture the bordering territory to the west(also Pagan). This will give you more trade, a port, and i think slaves or ivory deposits too. If for whatever reason you piss off the neighboring faction(again, usually Moors) It's a somewhat non-issue to build enough militia in the city for them to go after squishier targets or before they get there. I think in all of my Medieval 2 games Timbuktu was besieged only once or twice.

I've managed to have the city pumping out 3500 by turn 100 as England(thank you chivalrous leader) and since once you get it established you only need a minimal force there protecting it, that's almost all profit.

[Blue Bandit]

I'll second that. As it stands, the cantabrian circle is just a very good way to waste ammo, tire out your horses, and blunder around the battlefield while taking up double the ordinary amount of space. Anything vulnerable enough to arrows to be affected by it is just as vulnerable to a volley, or a standard charge, and anything better armored I'd rather circle around and hit from the back.

I agree that using the cantabrian circle in that way is pretty useless. However, if you activate the cantiabrian ability, then click on a spot of the map, your horse archers will fire at any in-range targets while moving there, without needlessly running around in a circle. So if you can convince the enemy to chase you, you can then simply run around the map all the while continually firing volleys of arrow at them. The enemy in turn can't do anything about it except continue to chase you. I found this tactic to be very useful against heavy infantry because they will tire out faster then your horse archers and a charge, even from behind, is impractical unless you have other soldiers to back them up.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I agree that using the cantabrian circle in that way is pretty useless. However, if you activate the cantiabrian ability, then click on a spot of the map, your horse archers will fire at any in-range targets while moving there, without needlessly running around in a circle. So if you can convince the enemy to chase you, you can then simply run around the map all the while continually firing volleys of arrow at them. The enemy in turn can't do anything about it except continue to chase you. I found this tactic to be very useful against heavy infantry because they will tire out faster then your horse archers and a charge, even from behind, is impractical unless you have other soldiers to back them up.

Horse archers always shoot at any in-range targets, you don't need to use the Circle for that to work.

[Leecros]

Horse archers always shoot at any in-range targets, you don't need to use the Circle for that to work.

Although in certain situations that can be impractical....such as when you're saving all of their ammo for a certain unit(like a general)

[Blue Bandit]

Horse archers always shoot at any in-range targets, you don't need to use the Circle for that to work.

True, While standing still. But if I recall correctly, you can't shoot while moving unless you activate the circle. Which again can help if your fighting a superior unit and need to fight on the run. Don't get me wrong, I still believe it was a poorly thought out ability. But I don't think it's completely useless.

[Maxymiuk]

But if I recall correctly, you can't shoot while moving unless you activate the circle.

If that were true, I wouldn't need to switch autoattack off on the unit currently being chased by a phalanax. Horse archers can fire just fine while moving, they just take a hit to accuracy while doing so.

On a semi-related note, did anyone ever find a good use for mounted skirmisher (javelin) units? Their accuracy is crap, they carry a pitiful amount of ammo, and they don't have the weapons or armor to last in melee. I suppose they can be used to chase down fleeing enemy units, but so can light cavalry that can actually take a hit.

[Leecros]

On a semi-related note, did anyone ever find a good use for mounted skirmisher (javelin) units? Their accuracy is crap, they carry a pitiful amount of ammo, and they don't have the weapons or armor to last in melee. I suppose they can be used to chase down fleeing enemy units, but so can light cavalry that can actually take a hit.

They absolutely Murder heavy cavalry.


Such as Generals :smallwink:

[Maxymiuk]

They absolutely Murder heavy cavalry.


Such as Generals :smallwink:

Huh.

I'll have to try that now. My usual method is to pin down the enemy General with my own and rush in a spear unit I keep in reserve for just such an occasion.

Though my favorite method is to make sure the enemy General doesn't make it to the battlefield in the first place.

[Leecros]

Huh.

I'll have to try that now. My usual method is to pin down the enemy General with my own and rush in a spear unit I keep in reserve for just such an occasion.

Though my favorite method is to make sure the enemy General doesn't make it to the battlefield in the first place.

It may just be medieval 2 though since i haven't actually played any of the previous games to test it out(i really need to invest in some of the older games). So depending on what TW game you have it may not work, but i don't imagine the different types of units would be extremely different in each game. Although i could be wrong.

[Spartacus]

I find units to be different in terms of workability from Shogun to Rome, though those are the only two I've played.

Also, Shogun loves Cav Archers. Like, an army made entirely of them can beat any computer controlled army.

[Maxymiuk]

It may just be medieval 2 though since i haven't actually played any of the previous games to test it out(i really need to invest in some of the older games). So depending on what TW game you have it may not work, but i don't imagine the different types of units would be extremely different in each game. Although i could be wrong.

I'm a Rome guy myself. I did play Medieval 2, but I gave up on it due to how obviously and egregiously the AI cheats against you.

[Rustic Dude]

If that were true, I wouldn't need to switch autoattack off on the unit currently being chased by a phalanax. Horse archers can fire just fine while moving, they just take a hit to accuracy while doing so.

On a semi-related note, did anyone ever find a good use for mounted skirmisher (javelin) units? Their accuracy is crap, they carry a pitiful amount of ammo, and they don't have the weapons or armor to last in melee. I suppose they can be used to chase down fleeing enemy units, but so can light cavalry that can actually take a hit.

In Rome, I use them only for two things:

-Killing Elephants safely

-Baiting Generals, leading them to an open place where my superior cavalry can beat them to death without the enemy infantry interrupting the party. Also, some skirmisher cavalries in Europa Barbarorum are pretty great in combat.

[Leecros]

I'm a Rome guy myself. I did play Medieval 2, but I gave up on it due to how obviously and egregiously the AI cheats against you.

I think i've only ran into one (http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/3507/ruinyourday.jpg) time where the enemy cheating has actually had a massive effect on me.

And yes, that is 10-13 relatively large armies.

[Craftworld]

I think i've only ran into one (http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/3507/ruinyourday.jpg) time where the enemy cheating has actually had a massive effect on me.

And yes, that is 10-13 relatively large armies.

Wow....now that is mean...but it does make me miss Byzantium.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

My only thought when I saw that picture: M-m-m-MUAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!

[MeatShield#236]

So I recently started a game of Medieval 2, as France. Things were going fine; I had captured most of the rebel territories around my starting position and had trade rights with a few nations. Then the Holy Roman Empire declaired war on me. In the midst of the war, the Pope sends a few inquisitors my way. A few turns later, Milan declairs war on me. A few turns after that, England does the same.

The thing is, I'm winning all of these separate wars, causing all the factions involved to hate me, along with the Pope. But that's not all of it: after severly thrashing England and taking London; Portugal, Denmark, and Scotland declair war on me; the Pope calls a crusade and wants my faction leader to go along, other wise he'll excommunicate me.

So now I'm at war with most of Europe. The Pope, along with what seems like the entire world, hates my guts. I have no allies and peace really isn't an option. And yet, I'm loving every second of it.:smallcool:

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

In Total War games, there is no such thing as 'diplomacy'. There is only world conquest. "Peace negotiations?" What is this of which you speak?

[Maralais]

So I recently started a game of Medieval 2, as France. Things were going fine; I had captured most of the rebel territories around my starting position and had trade rights with a few nations. Then the Holy Roman Empire declaired war on me. In the midst of the war, the Pope sends a few inquisitors my way. A few turns later, Milan declairs war on me. A few turns after that, England does the same.

The thing is, I'm winning all of these separate wars, causing all the factions involved to hate me, along with the Pope. But that's not all of it: after severly thrashing England and taking London; Portugal, Denmark, and Scotland declair war on me; the Pope calls a crusade and wants my faction leader to go along, other wise he'll excommunicate me.

So now I'm at war with most of Europe. The Pope, along with what seems like the entire world, hates my guts. I have no allies and peace really isn't an option. And yet, I'm loving every second of it.:smallcool:
I had the same problem in my old game and would probably be in a playable condition IF, I did not care about the Pope. Seriously. I stopped my conquests just because the pope would excommunicate me, which caused my enemies to gather their strength. The result was... Unpleasant.

Golden rule #1: Be ruthless!

[Leecros]

the Pope calls a crusade and wants my faction leader to go along, other wise he'll excommunicate me.

Crusades can definitely be worth it sometimes though. It's just a pain that even though crusades turn generals utterly badass, by the time you return him to help with troubles at home he's already well into his forties.

[The_JJ]

So I recently started a game of Medieval 2, as France. Things were going fine; I had captured most of the rebel territories around my starting position and had trade rights with a few nations. Then the Holy Roman Empire declaired war on me. In the midst of the war, the Pope sends a few inquisitors my way. A few turns later, Milan declairs war on me. A few turns after that, England does the same.

The thing is, I'm winning all of these separate wars, causing all the factions involved to hate me, along with the Pope. But that's not all of it: after severly thrashing England and taking London; Portugal, Denmark, and Scotland declair war on me; the Pope calls a crusade and wants my faction leader to go along, other wise he'll excommunicate me.

So now I'm at war with most of Europe. The Pope, along with what seems like the entire world, hates my guts. I have no allies and peace really isn't an option. And yet, I'm loving every second of it.:smallcool:

Step one: Join Crusade.
Step two: Take target city.
Step three: Build church.
Step four: Mass produce priests.
Step five: Use priest doom stack to wander the deserts and steppes. Priests get piety bonuses if the province they're in converts in large amounts. Mass priests, and not only in this more likely to happen, it will happen for all of them.
Step six: Cardinals chosen based on piety.
Step seven: Wait for pope to die.
Step eight: Laugh. Excommunicate rivals.
Step nine: Crusade.

[Coidzor]

^: Ok, that's just sweet.
Crusades can definitely be worth it sometimes though. It's just a pain that even though crusades turn generals utterly badass, by the time you return him to help with troubles at home he's already well into his forties.

Ah, you see, you just use him to carve out a huge territory around wherever you sent him until he kicks the bucket. At least I think that's what you're supposed to do. :smallconfused:

[Leecros]

Ah, you see, you just use him to carve out a huge territory around wherever you sent him until he kicks the bucket. At least I think that's what you're supposed to do. :smallconfused:

I tend to just pillage the city and leave. most crusade cities are a pain in the butt to hold over long periods of time unless you ship reinforcements there regularly.

Especially in Stainless Steel where Egypt tends to expand fast and hard(poor Crusader States. R.I.P.) and throw 3 full-stack armies at you when you capture one of their territories.

Technically Byzantium does the same thing...


Speaking of Pillaging, i recall the one time i played the Holy Roman Empire. I pissed off the pope, got excommunicated, blah blah blah. So i laid siege to Rome, captured the city(hit The Pope in the face with a giant rock), then sacked the city. I then waited for a new pope to get elected, which got me recommunicated(?) and he asked me for the city back. I would give it back, i would try to get some cash for it but that didn't always work. Then i laid siege to it again, captured it, killed the pope, sacked it etc...

You can get a lot of income from that for a while. Eventually the city gets to be dirt poor, but still...

Good thing all the Catholics already hated me.

[toasty]

I think the one time I did the crusades I was Scotland and I basically just went ahead and forgot about Europe and went after the Middle East. I think I gave up eventually because of all the Riots though. Too many Muslims, not enough Christians.

[Gaius Marius]

Crusade enemy cities, spawn massive crusading, maintenance-free doomstacks with multiple siege engines. Conquer, pillage, sell out. Start again.

[Rustic Dude]

I tend to just pillage the city and leave. most crusade cities are a pain in the butt to hold over long periods of time unless you ship reinforcements there regularly.



It's doable if you capture a good castle and keep a stack there. Use at least 6 units of cavalry and the rest, crossbows and swordmen. In my Castilla campaign, the Pope sent me to conquer Gaza and I've already been 100 turns defending it.

The bad thing is that it's costly to keep and one battle against a full stack every two turns(make sure that your general is a night fighter) is a pain in the butt.

The good thing is that you can send mediocre heirs there and make them uberguys with lots of Authority from their victories. Also, it's a good base to spam priests and wreck havoc in their cities with the religious disorders, getting eventually all promoted to Cardinals and being able to choose the Pope you wish to be there.

[Arcanoi]

The thing I always hated about the Crusades is that when you take the city you get Chivalry. :smallfrown:

[HerbieRAI]

Crusades can also be fundraisers. Besiege as many cities as you can, sack city, destroy any building you can, put very high taxes, leave city with army. Hire mercs to replace any loses, continue to next city.

If you can spend only 1 turn at each city, you should be able to keep moving and not lose men to desertion. Granted this is harder with France who have a long trip to get to any heathen city, but I was playing hungry and got over 50,000 from one crusade.

Also, if you want to make the pope happy, after taking the city give it to the pope as a gift. You no longer have to deal with it and it should improve his opinion on you.

[Leecros]

Granted this is harder with France who have a long trip to get to any heathen city

France isn't nearly as bad as England, Scotland, and Denmark.

[Spartacus]

Man, Praetorian cohorts totally destroy any other infantry I've run into. I typically kill more than ten times as many men as I lose, and that's if the armies are equally sized.

[Gaius Marius]

Isn't it silly to have whole cohorts of independant Praetorian soldiers?

Aren't those, by definition, Praetor bodyguards? So they should simply be included as the General Bodyguards?

[Misery Esquire]

Aren't those, by definition, Praetor bodyguards? So they should simply be included as the General Bodyguards?

Well, they're just aggressively defending. By killing anyone who gets close to his more immediate bodyguard.

[Spartacus]

Oh goodness, Praetorian cavalry. I stopped using cavalry for a time as I couldn't find any heavy cavalry to train. I found some.

[Gaius Marius]

Well, they're just aggressively defending. By killing anyone who gets close to his more immediate bodyguard.

That's the thing, the Praetorian Guard should be, exclusively, the immediate bodyguards!

There aren't more immediate than Praetorian Guards!

[cezyou]

There aren't more immediate than Praetorian Guards!

There's his own sword and armor. Those protect him too.

[HerbieRAI]

There's his own sword and armor. Those protect him too.

And a horse. Because it doesn't matter where a general is from or what kind of units they have in their army, they always ride a horse (or chariot).

[cezyou]

But yeah. That was incredibly stupid and didn't contribute at all. :smallfrown:

[Gaius Marius]

But yeah. That was incredibly stupid and didn't contribute at all. :smallfrown:

Hmmm... You know, you just gave me the desire to mod in Elephant-riding generals... :smallbiggrin:

[Maralais]

Started a new game as England on normal, it's been going quite well actually, been the friend of everybody, even the Leonese, whose two cities I have conquered:smallbiggrin:

[super dark33]

Was playing teutonic total war as the order, which proved to be the most fatel mistake,

first, army wages reaching 11000, heavy soliders that run slow-er, and no missle caverly (AKA invincble soliders)

you can win with them only with cheats.
and i did :smallbiggrin:

[Flickerdart]

Started a new game as England on normal, it's been going quite well actually, been the friend of everybody, even the Leonese, whose two cities I have conquered:smallbiggrin:
In my current LP of Napoleon, Austria has a +65 relation with the Netherlands despite being at war with them. It's very strange.

[Leecros]

Was playing teutonic total war as the order, which proved to be the most fatel mistake,

first, army wages reaching 11000, heavy soliders that run slow-er, and no missle caverly (AKA invincble soliders)

you can win with them only with cheats.
and i did :smallbiggrin:

I may have to try playing them.

I've played with Teutonic briefly.

Now my only experiences with the Teutonic Order is when they show up in Stainless Steel just a little bit after The Mongols and butcher Lithuania.

[Maralais]

Playing on Normal as the English. 150th or so turn, conquered all of Britain, France is a vassal of mine and only has one city, I own most of the spanish peninsula, marching(not literally, I'm bringing the armies with ships) with two full stack armies to Jerusalem(where I have called a crusade). Pope is British, I think he's the third British pope, and I still have 4 cardinals in the college. Economy's so good that I can give 20000 florins and a 10000 tribute for 3 turns to the Pope to get reconciled, and then buy a city for 10000 florins within a few turns. East is controlled by Fatimids and Khwarezmians, Seljuks live no more and Byzantine... I don't even know where those lads are anymore.

Now tell me, what can I do in this game to keep myself excited? Because I feel as if I'm playing in easy mode.

Oh and, can somebody explain me the reason why a faction(the scots) would produce EIGHT ARMIES OF HUGE AMOUNTS while they only have three cities? I could destroy them only thanks to my night fighter general. They were like mini-Mongols.

[Maxymiuk]

Oh and, can somebody explain me the reason why a faction(the scots) would produce EIGHT ARMIES OF HUGE AMOUNTS while they only have three cities? I could destroy them only thanks to my night fighter general. They were like mini-Mongols.

Because the AI in Medieval 2 cheats like a shameless adulterer. It gets bonus money, it can generate free units that don't follow recruitment slot limits or prerequisite building requirements, and it knows where all your units are, always and forever. All this to compensate for the utter lack of competence it otherwise displays.

[Spartacus]

In Rome, as the Brutii I have so much money, whenever another team sends out a diplomat to ask me to ally or whatever, I say yes, then ask them to name their price for as many cities as they'll give me. I have something like 1.6 million denari. I've bought a few cities, which are now troop producing centers for a treacherous back-attack from the middle of their territory.

[Leecros]

Byzantine... I don't even know where those lads are anymore.

Don't you hate it when you lose a faction? You go to where they are and you don't see them. You think "Huh...did they get destroyed?" you check and it turns out that they aren't. So you start buying up map information just out of curiosity. Then you find out they have 1 settlement somewhere like Timbuktu that no one even knows existed. Then you just get boggled.... When did that happen? How did they get there? How haven't they died yet?

http://www.rialtotheatre.com/images/content/mystery.gif

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

There comes a point in every Total War game where your victory is a sure thing.

It's when that point is the 3rd turn that you end up turning to mods.

[Murska]

Because the AI in Medieval 2 cheats like a shameless adulterer. It gets bonus money, it can generate free units that don't follow recruitment slot limits or prerequisite building requirements, and it knows where all your units are, always and forever. All this to compensate for the utter lack of competence it otherwise displays.

Kinda like the AI in Rome - Attacking Julii from the north at some point mid-game and they just keep attacking with more and more full stacks that were, apparently, hiding in the Alps. They have like, one barbarian village left somewhere in southern France and the composition of the full stacks switched from elite stuff to a horde of hastatii, but they kept coming. :smalleek:

[Klose_the_Sith]

Kinda like the AI in Rome - Attacking Julii from the north at some point mid-game and they just keep attacking with more and more full stacks that were, apparently, hiding in the Alps. They have like, one barbarian village left somewhere in southern France and the composition of the full stacks switched from elite stuff to a horde of hastatii, but they kept coming. :smalleek:

Judging by how easily Rome replenished lost manpower during the Punic Wars, it seems likely that they hax'd irl too :smalltongue:

[Maralais]

Don't you hate it when you lose a faction? You go to where they are and you don't see them. You think "Huh...did they get destroyed?" you check and it turns out that they aren't. So you start buying up map information just out of curiosity. Then you find out they have 1 settlement somewhere like Timbuktu that no one even knows existed. Then you just get boggled.... When did that happen? How did they get there? How haven't they died yet?

http://www.rialtotheatre.com/images/content/mystery.gif
Well, I actually checked every corner of the world via cheat, but... They're nowhere.

Except for a generalless army they have on Cyprus, but they have no cities!


There comes a point in every Total War game where your victory is a sure thing.

It's when that point is the 3rd turn that you end up turning to mods.

The thing is, this kinda happened to me with Stainless Steel.

[Leecros]

Well, I actually checked every corner of the world via cheat, but... They're nowhere.

Except for a generalless army they have on Cyprus, but they have no cities!


I think that happened to me with the Teutonic Order once....


Of course i may have glitched them by not allowing them to capture a city when they first appeared...But i don't know why you would be having that problem with Byzantines...

[ScottishDragon]

:smallsigh:I HATE the auto-battles. The AI is completely incompetent in rome: total war. My typical battle
Me:1000
Them 1500
Me:1465 kills
Them:200 kills
But if I let the AI fight for me,I end up losing most of the time and when I do win I lose half my men!:smallfurious::smallfurious:So EVERY SINGLE minor battle I have to fight myself. I'm ok with taking seige to a major city,but I don't want to have to waste my time on running town a random group of rebels to get them off my highways to allow more trade. Ugh I need to mod this thing after I finish this campaign.

[RPharazon]

Judging by how easily Rome replenished lost manpower during the Punic Wars, it seems likely that they hax'd irl too :smalltongue:

Didn't they basically go into overdrive-emergency-mode, conscript a bunch of citizens, reformed their political system for a while, and relied on great generals (after weeding out their subpar ones at battles like Cannae)?

In any case, Carthage regained its manpower and wealth faster than Rome, considering that Carthage's amazing resurgence even with war sanctions/indemnities between the First and Second Punic Wars are what caused the Second Punic War in the first place. If the Romans really could regain their manpower faster than Carthage (in a general sense, not just looking at Hannibal's little, attrition-affected expedition), then why is there no city called Carthage anymore?

The Punic Wars, I think, were decided by the great Roman generals (yay for Scipio Africanus) and the Roman peoples' will to live. The fact that the Romans didn't surrender even after Cannae is a testament to their tenacity.

Oh, um, off topic.
So how about that Rome: Total War? I hope that Rome 2 is the next game. That would make me a giddy goat.

[Dark Faun]

I'd enjoy Total War: Rome 2, or whatever the title would be, but gadding around Babylon or Qin's wars of unification wouldn't displease me.

[Coidzor]

I'd enjoy Total War: Rome 2, or whatever the title would be, but gadding around Babylon or Qin's wars of unification wouldn't displease me.

Indeed, I'd be interested in even an existing mod that was reasonably well done and tried to tackle these.

[Leecros]

I'd be interested in seeing them do something global A La Europa Universalis.

[Dark Faun]

Oh, don't remind me of my utter inability to understand Europa Universalis: Rome. :smalltongue:

What I'm really interested about, assuming they didn't put it back in Shogun 2 which I don't own, is exactly those little "Europa-like" bits: being able to assasinate your own assets for being corrupt, frame the ambitious generals for treason, start a rebellion and being able to side with the rebels to get rid of a worthless bloodline, train inquisitors or simply enjoy (or curse) the random events... And the Glorious Achievements. Please please please bring them back. I don't want the only goals to be "conquer the world/# regions/cities X, Y and Z."

Being historically more accurate wouldn't hurt either. :smallwink: GEISHA I CHOOSE YOU!

[The_JJ]

Didn't they basically go into overdrive-emergency-mode, conscript a bunch of citizens, reformed their political system for a while, and relied on great generals (after weeding out their subpar ones at battles like Cannae)?

In any case, Carthage regained its manpower and wealth faster than Rome, considering that Carthage's amazing resurgence even with war sanctions/indemnities between the First and Second Punic Wars are what caused the Second Punic War in the first place. If the Romans really could regain their manpower faster than Carthage (in a general sense, not just looking at Hannibal's little, attrition-affected expedition), then why is there no city called Carthage anymore?

The Punic Wars, I think, were decided by the great Roman generals (yay for Scipio Africanus) and the Roman peoples' will to live. The fact that the Romans didn't surrender even after Cannae is a testament to their tenacity.

Oh, um, off topic.
So how about that Rome: Total War? I hope that Rome 2 is the next game. That would make me a giddy goat.

Sorta. It was the Second Punic War in which Hannibal totally destroyed the Roman military fighting power, and even after that Rome was able to recruit up enough power to a. pin him in Southern Italy, b. conquer Spain, and c. put boots on the ground in Carthage, forcing Hannibal back forcing a climactic confrontation that the Romans won decisively. After that, war indemnities etc. etc. Then, 50 years down the road Carthage has paid off it's debts and is feeling very post-Versailles Germany, and the Romans decide to lay the hammer down in a war that was essentially a prolonged siege.

In sum: Rome, lost it's whole army but was able to put together 2-3 more in the time it took Hannibal to stop waiting for a white flag that never came.

Carthage, took fifty years to finally be scary enough to get stepped on again.

[Leecros]

being able to assasinate your own assets for being corrupt, frame the ambitious generals for treason, start a rebellion and being able to side with the rebels to get rid of a worthless bloodline, train inquisitors or simply enjoy (or curse) the random events...
There is to a certain extent in Shogun 2.

A very small extent...

I've gotten events such as "Command a general to perform seppuku. I don't recall if it was because of low loyalty or over ambition, i think it was the latter.

I've also had events where a man acted bravely enough to be considered a general, be rejected by me and have him rebel because he felt he deserved it.

[Maxymiuk]

On the topic of autoresolve: I get some decent mileage out of it in Rome when assaulting cities with high-level walls but a low number of defenders. Playing the fight myself I'll always lose ~100 troops either capturing or bypassing the towers. With autoresolve, I'll usually lose something like 10 soldiers.

[Coidzor]

Sorta. It was the Second Punic War in which Hannibal totally destroyed the Roman military fighting power, and even after that Rome was able to recruit up enough power to a. pin him in Southern Italy, b. conquer Spain, and c. put boots on the ground in Carthage, forcing Hannibal back forcing a climactic confrontation that the Romans won decisively. After that, war indemnities etc. etc. Then, 50 years down the road Carthage has paid off it's debts and is feeling very post-Versailles Germany, and the Romans decide to lay the hammer down in a war that was essentially a prolonged siege.

In sum: Rome, lost it's whole army but was able to put together 2-3 more in the time it took Hannibal to stop waiting for a white flag that never came.

Carthage, took fifty years to finally be scary enough to get stepped on again.

You're talking about an entirely different period now though.

[Martok]

I'd be interested in seeing them do something global A La Europa Universalis.
Oh gods, please no. With the Total War series, the larger the scope, the worse the game is.

It was bad enough in my beloved Medieval, it was even worse in Rome and Medieval 2, and worse still in the crap-fest that was Empire. Shogun and Medieval's expansion Viking Invasion proved that the series generally works much better on a smaller scale.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

The thing is, this kinda happened to me with Stainless Steel.

Aye, well I don't personally hold Stainless Steel in that high regard. For that era, I prefer Chivalry II: The Sicilian Vespers.

[The_JJ]

You're talking about an entirely different period now though.

But we were talking about the Punic Wars.

[Leecros]

Oh gods, please no. With the Total War series, the larger the scope, the worse the game is.

It was bad enough in my beloved Medieval, it was even worse in Rome and Medieval 2, and worse still in the crap-fest that was Empire. Shogun and Medieval's expansion Viking Invasion proved that the series generally works much better on a smaller scale.

Just because the people who make Total War suck at making large-scale games with the engine provided doesn't mean that 'if' they did it right a game on that scale wouldn't be good with 'said engine.
(If that makes sense....it sounded way better in my head)

[Klose_the_Sith]

Oh gods, please no. With the Total War series, the larger the scope, the worse the game is.

It was bad enough in my beloved Medieval, it was even worse in Rome and Medieval 2, and worse still in the crap-fest that was Empire. Shogun and Medieval's expansion Viking Invasion proved that the series generally works much better on a smaller scale.

I agree that they work better on a smaller scale in terms of historical recreation, but I disagree that the games themselves become worse. Total War isn't a historical simulator, because that sort of an effort (full scale battles, realistic depictions of conquest/rebellions/colonial administration) is impossible to make good with current computers and or mere mortals.

I said it before and I'll say it again, the Total War series are just an approximation of wargaming a map campaign. Which is a key part of Empire / Napoleon being pretty much the best of the series, along with those eras being generally more interesting than the dung ages (Rome's a pretty cool guy too, though).

[Ethdred]

:smallsigh:I HATE the auto-battles. The AI is completely incompetent in rome: total war. My typical battle
Me:1000
Them 1500
Me:1465 kills
Them:200 kills
But if I let the AI fight for me,I end up losing most of the time and when I do win I lose half my men!:smallfurious::smallfurious:So EVERY SINGLE minor battle I have to fight myself. I'm ok with taking seige to a major city,but I don't want to have to waste my time on running town a random group of rebels to get them off my highways to allow more trade. Ugh I need to mod this thing after I finish this campaign.

I quite agree. This has been a major beef of mine, and not just with this series of games. It's deeply tedious to have to run every battle, and prevents you from concentrating on the important things. I can see that they don't want auto-resolve to be the easy option, but why can't they program it to realise that 30 peasants against a general unit is going to be no contest?

[The_JJ]

Eh. I find the autobattle cleaning up generally happens near cities, so I just roll a halfway descent stack through the brigands and pop them back to retrain.

[AgentPaper]

Personally, I'd love to see a fantasy-style version of Total War one of these days, preferably in their own original 'verse, as long as they can find a good enough one. I just love the idea of having an otherwise normal Total War army, but instead of normal "slightly stronger cavalry" generals, you'd get wizards and paladins and such, each with special abilities that can have a big effect on the battle. Wizards could make it rain, or shoot lightning all over, Necromancers could summon up huge armies of disposable troops, Clerics could bless certain troops to make them more powerful, and so on. And of course you'd have stuff like dragons flying around decimating armies, magical artifacts that you can fight over, and all that good stuff.

[cezyou]

...fantasy-style version of Total War ... wizards and paladins and such...

You just described King Arthur: The Role-playing Wargame. It is Total War in the King Arthur verse.

Of course, you have to follow a recognizable change to the archetypal Arthurian legend. Excalibur, the Grail, and such are present, but you fight the Sídhe and can pick to be pagan or Christian and just or despotic.

And the late game is "Who can cast more spells/Who has more mana to fuel Soul Mirror to prevent spells from being cast" and isn't all that interesting.

But that sort of game exists.

[AgentPaper]

Well, preferably magic-users would be extremely rare and limited mostly to improving your army rather than replacing them. So for example, in a normal game you might have 12 family members, 3 of which are magic-users. In an actual battle, you can have your wizard sit there and lob fire and lightning at the enemy all day, but he'll be hard pressed to match the output of even a single formation of well-trained and equipped squad of archers. (aka 80-120, whatever the squad cap is)

More likely, you'll want him to make it rain or not depending on which is advantageous to you, or you'll want him to go buff up your infantry squad that's about to get hammered by trolls, or raise/lower the land in a certain spot to protect your flank/funnel the enemy into a killzone, cast a slow spell on a cavalry unit so you can re-form your flank, and so on. Essentially he'd be like a typical batman wizard* in DnD 3.5; he can shape the battlefield and give your army a huge advantage, but he can't kill the whole enemy army on his own. You still need a ton of troops to actually go and kill the enemy off.


*Note that I say "typical" and not "optimized", since the latter probably COULD wipe out the entire enemy army on his own. :smalltongue:

[Craftworld]

Well, preferably magic-users would be extremely rare and limited mostly to improving your army rather than replacing them. So for example, in a normal game you might have 12 family members, 3 of which are magic-users. In an actual battle, you can have your wizard sit there and lob fire and lightning at the enemy all day, but he'll be hard pressed to match the output of even a single formation of well-trained and equipped squad of archers. (aka 80-120, whatever the squad cap is)

More likely, you'll want him to make it rain or not depending on which is advantageous to you, or you'll want him to go buff up your infantry squad that's about to get hammered by trolls, or raise/lower the land in a certain spot to protect your flank/funnel the enemy into a killzone, cast a slow spell on a cavalry unit so you can re-form your flank, and so on. Essentially he'd be like a typical batman wizard* in DnD 3.5; he can shape the battlefield and give your army a huge advantage, but he can't kill the whole enemy army on his own. You still need a ton of troops to actually go and kill the enemy off.


*Note that I say "typical" and not "optimized", since the latter probably COULD wipe out the entire enemy army on his own. :smalltongue:

This is starting to sound very similar to a DnD campaign that I am in...eerily like a recent battle...are you spying on us...nvm...does anyone know if a laptop with Windows 7 could run the Original Medieval Total War? (without crashes and still being able to run it even though Windows 7 was only a dream when Med. Tot. War came out)

[Flickerdart]

Probably not. Even if the system played friendly with the software, most graphics cards on laptops are integrated and you can expect very little from them.

[AgentPaper]

I don't think there's any need to worry about it not having enough power to run the game, at least not just because it's a laptop. My laptop can run Shogun 2 just fine, after all. Windows 7 might cause problems, but there's no real way to know whether it'll work or not without just giving it a try.

[Martok]

Just because the people who make Total War suck at making large-scale games with the engine provided doesn't mean that 'if' they did it right a game on that scale wouldn't be good with 'said engine.
(If that makes sense....it sounded way better in my head)
....Except that, as you yourself pointed out, CA has a poor track record with TW games on a grand scale. (The original Medieval is the sole possible exception to this rule, and even that one was only good in spite of the main campaign's bigger scope, not because of it.) As long as CA is the company developing the Total War series -- and I think it's safe to say that this will be the case for a very long time to come -- given their track record thus far, there's no reason to believe that they'll ever be able to make a *good* TW game on a continental (or larger) scale.





I agree that they work better on a smaller scale in terms of historical recreation, but I disagree that the games themselves become worse. Total War isn't a historical simulator, because that sort of an effort (full scale battles, realistic depictions of conquest/rebellions/colonial administration) is impossible to make good with current computers and or mere mortals.

I said it before and I'll say it again, the Total War series are just an approximation of wargaming a map campaign. Which is a key part of Empire / Napoleon being pretty much the best of the series, along with those eras being generally more interesting than the dung ages (Rome's a pretty cool guy too, though).
Wow. There are so many things (I find) wrong with this post, that I honestly wouldn't even know where to begin.

Instead of writing a long-winded rebuttal to all that, I'm going to save time and just say that you and I will have to agree to disagree. Otherwise, I strongly suspect we'd just waste time butting heads. (At the very least, I freely admit I tend to be pretty stubborn in my opinions on the Total War series, and am *very* slow to change my mind -- if at all.) :smallamused:






You just described King Arthur: The Role-playing Wargame. It is Total War in the King Arthur verse.
Only to a very limited extent. King Arthur is less free-form & open-ended than the Total War games, and there are some fairly significant contrasts between the combat systems (to name but a couple differences).

[Klose_the_Sith]

Instead of writing a long-winded rebuttal to all that, I'm going to save time and just say that you and I will have to agree to disagree. Otherwise, I strongly suspect we'd just waste time butting heads. (At the very least, I freely admit I tend to be pretty stubborn in my opinions on the Total War series, and am *very* slow to change my mind -- if at all.)

Perhaps, but you've already made it pretty blatant that this is more about nostalgia and personal bias than any actual proof - and there is no evidence to believe in Total War being anything other than an abstract wargame. Until someone provides otherwise, I'm gonna sit on this here high horse :smallwink:

At any rate, I shall leave you to your own flawed ruminations.

EDIT: As in, mine are also flawed. Just to be clear >.>

[AgentPaper]

So, I got Shogun 2: Total War recently, but I've been having some trouble. So far I've done two campaigns, once as Oda and then as Uesugi. In both campaigns, I've been absolutely crushed by huge invading armies that simply came in and crushed my cities. First it was by a huge army that came out of the forests in the north right after I'd finished taking the two regions closest to me, and I'm not sure how I was supposed to have known it was coming, let alone prepared for it. The second time I'd managed to take 3 regions (the island nation and the two regions to the south/left of me), only to then have war be declared on me by Takeda and...Shi-something I think? Something with an S, the clan to my immediate east. Both of them promptly sent an almost full stack army at two of my cities, which promptly fell. I could probably have held off one of these attacks if I'd consolidated my forces a bit, but both of them just wiped me out instantly it seemed.

So, am I just picking the hardest clans to start out as? Note that I've got a fair bit of experience under my belt from playing previous versions of Total War, all the way back to the original Shogun. Still, I think most of my aptitude comes in with the battle map, as opposed to the campaign map. It's fairly common for me to be outnumbered in almost every battle, but to pull a win out through superior strategy. This has served me well enough in the past, but it doesn't seem to be enough in Shogun 2, so could I get a few tips on playing the campaign? I was thinking I'd try out the Shimazu next, so any tips specific to them would be helpful too.

[Maralais]

So, it's around 1207 in my English campaign, and let me tell you how my King would start a letter:

"I, King of Britain, France, Spanish Peninsula, Jerusalem and Sahara, also the protectrate of the Duke of Lyon and the Kingdom of Léon, salute you."

[Spartacus]

So I didn't know, in Medieval 2: Total War, that one could go across the sea to engage in non-catholic aggression, so I managed to get the Pope extremely angry at me within 10 turns as I attacked Spain. The Pope told me to back off, I did, and went to attack some random rebels followed by the British. Spain, however, continued to attack me back and got excommunicated, which let me turns right around and slaughter them.

By this point, though, I've outright conquered Portugal, Sicily, Scotland, Britain, the Holy Roman Empire and probably another I've forgotten, and I've effectively conquered the Papal States (the Pope spawns right next to a half-stack of spearmen to take him out). Denmark is about to fall, Venice has declared war on me, the Moors seem like they're about to (they already have once), and my only ally is the Polish. All in all, I think I'll win this one. Seems a bit easy, though. First time playing and I have over 100 years left to get Jerusalem, as I already have 47 provinces in Europe.

EDIT: Playing as les francais, by the way.

[Leecros]

....Except that, as you yourself pointed out, CA has a poor track record with TW games on a grand scale. (The original Medieval is the sole possible exception to this rule, and even that one was only good in spite of the main campaign's bigger scope, not because of it.) As long as CA is the company developing the Total War series -- and I think it's safe to say that this will be the case for a very long time to come -- given their track record thus far, there's no reason to believe that they'll ever be able to make a *good* TW game on a continental (or larger) scale.

That depends. I'm not entirely sure how long Total War will be able to survive in the direction that it's going. The new-era releases that they have done recently(Empire and Napoleon) have been mediocre at best for various reasons and while remakes of older games are nice, they aren't really necessary. I feel like, to survive, they're going to need to overhaul their system and upgrade their AI. REALLY upgrade their AI. Basic tactics can normally overcome them. Unfortunately i'm not too sure if CA are the ones for the job. They're not bad games, but they're not exceptional either and they could be.




So, I got Shogun 2: Total War recently, but I've been having some trouble. So far I've done two campaigns, once as Oda and then as Uesugi. In both campaigns, I've been absolutely crushed by huge invading armies that simply came in and crushed my cities. First it was by a huge army that came out of the forests in the north right after I'd finished taking the two regions closest to me, and I'm not sure how I was supposed to have known it was coming, let alone prepared for it. The second time I'd managed to take 3 regions (the island nation and the two regions to the south/left of me), only to then have war be declared on me by Takeda and...Shi-something I think? Something with an S, the clan to my immediate east. Both of them promptly sent an almost full stack army at two of my cities, which promptly fell. I could probably have held off one of these attacks if I'd consolidated my forces a bit, but both of them just wiped me out instantly it seemed.

So, am I just picking the hardest clans to start out as? Note that I've got a fair bit of experience under my belt from playing previous versions of Total War, all the way back to the original Shogun. Still, I think most of my aptitude comes in with the battle map, as opposed to the campaign map. It's fairly common for me to be outnumbered in almost every battle, but to pull a win out through superior strategy. This has served me well enough in the past, but it doesn't seem to be enough in Shogun 2, so could I get a few tips on playing the campaign? I was thinking I'd try out the Shimazu next, so any tips specific to them would be helpful too.
It would seem so. I haven't played Uesugi much, but just about every game Oda loses in the first few turns. I've yet to successfully complete a game with them either, but that's simply because i haven't played the game much. Shimazu would be a good faction to play. They have excellent samurai and you don't have to deal with any of The Great Factions until you run into Takeda or the ones on that island... Chosokota, Chopsticks, or something like that...the archer doodz.



So I didn't know, in Medieval 2: Total War, that one could go across the sea to engage in non-catholic aggression, so I managed to get the Pope extremely angry at me within 10 turns as I attacked Spain. The Pope told me to back off, I did, and went to attack some random rebels followed by the British. Spain, however, continued to attack me back and got excommunicated, which let me turns right around and slaughter them.

By this point, though, I've outright conquered Portugal, Sicily, Scotland, Britain, the Holy Roman Empire and probably another I've forgotten, and I've effectively conquered the Papal States (the Pope spawns right next to a half-stack of spearmen to take him out). Denmark is about to fall, Venice has declared war on me, the Moors seem like they're about to (they already have once), and my only ally is the Polish. All in all, I think I'll win this one. Seems a bit easy, though. First time playing and I have over 100 years left to get Jerusalem, as I already have 47 provinces in Europe.

EDIT: Playing as les francais, by the way.
Mods.

Mods are the answer to all your trouble(or lack thereof)

[Klose_the_Sith]

That depends. I'm not entirely sure how long Total War will be able to survive in the direction that it's going. The new-era releases that they have done recently(Empire and Napoleon) have been mediocre at best for various reasons and while remakes of older games are nice, they aren't really necessary. I feel like, to survive, they're going to need to overhaul their system and upgrade their AI. REALLY upgrade their AI. Basic tactics can normally overcome them. Unfortunately i'm not too sure if CA are the ones for the job. They're not bad games, but they're not exceptional either and they could be.

Had a response typed up, but then remembered that your opinion drives your judgement of Empire/Napoleon in the same way mine does for Shogun 2.

Anyway, disregarding differences of perspective, I'd say that the AI is improving steadily and the franchise as a whole is still going strong.

The only real challenge I can see is how willing they are to jump into different historical settings to make their game, because I agree with you on the limitation of the potential for more remakes. A Med 3 will be abysmal and pointless for at least the next 10 years, for instance.

[AgentPaper]

Which is why I'm personally hoping for them to break into some fantasy...

[Leecros]

I'd say that the AI is improving steadily and the franchise as a whole is still going strong.

The only real challenge I can see is how willing they are to jump into different historical settings to make their game, because I agree with you on the limitation of the potential for more remakes. A Med 3 will be abysmal and pointless for at least the next 10 years, for instance.

I just don't think it's progressing fast enough. In theory you should be able to program a Very Hard AI opponent in such a way that they can thwart you and make the game...well very hard without having to rely on giving the AI bonus's to provide a challenge.

The problem they have with changing the settings is that they know what people are interested in. They know there's interest in the European setting, they know people are interested in the Sengoku Jidai. So they play it safe and stick to what they know. I think it'll come back and bite them in the behind though if they start remaking older games. There are plenty of other Time Peroids/Locations which they could base games around. Although if they'll do it or not is another story.

[AgentPaper]

I just don't think it's progressing fast enough. In theory you should be able to program a Very Hard AI opponent in such a way that they can thwart you and make the game...well very hard without having to rely on giving the AI bonus's to provide a challenge.

In theory, sure. It's also possible in theory to create a robot that acts exactly like a human, but actually doing so is a bit...tricky. Battlefield tactics are very complicated, and just having it function at all is frankly amazing to me.


The problem they have with changing the settings is that they know what people are interested in. They know there's interest in the European setting, they know people are interested in the Sengoku Jidai. So they play it safe and stick to what they know. I think it'll come back and bite them in the behind though if they start remaking older games. There are plenty of other Time Peroids/Locations which they could base games around. Although if they'll do it or not is another story.

Er, with Shogun 2, they've now re-made their oldest game. The two are essentially identical in their basic design, actually. (though I think they're technically different time periods? Not sure)

I don't think we need to worry about them just throwing out more re-hashes of old stuff, though. I mean, they haven't even done a single game that takes place in China, for chrissake. I mean honestly, they've only done, what, 2 re-makes of older games? Medieval 2 and Shogun 2, unless I'm missing some.

[Leecros]

Er, with Shogun 2, they've now re-made their oldest game. The two are essentially identical in their basic design, actually. (though I think they're technically different time periods? Not sure)

I don't think we need to worry about them just throwing out more re-hashes of old stuff, though. I mean, they haven't even done a single game that takes place in China, for chrissake. I mean honestly, they've only done, what, 2 re-makes of older games? Medieval 2 and Shogun 2, unless I'm missing some.

nah, they're both during the Sengoku Jidai.

With all the periods of history and different locations, the fact that they're doing any remakes at this point is frankly, disappointing.

[AgentPaper]

nah, they're both during the Sengoku Jidai.

With all the periods of history and different locations, the fact that they're doing any remakes at this point is frankly, disappointing.

Well, they ARE two of the most popular periods of history ever, so it's not all that surprising. Shogun 1 was so old that I doubt most people who're playing it ever played the original, anyways.

[Leecros]

Shogun 1 was so old that I doubt most people who're playing it ever played the original, anyways.

That's not really the best justification for a remake though...

[Murska]

Hilarious battle recently in Shogun 2.

My small ashigaru army was trying to retake a city the enemy had taken from me. The enemy had a ton of melee units but was lacking in archers, while I was pretty much the opposite. So I had my general run around in front of the enemy walls for a while dodging arrows until the enemy ran out and then walked my own archers up to begin lowering the amount of enemy samurai.

Quite a bit later, my archers were also empty, the enemy were greatly reduced in number and my army was arrayed ready to attack. I had also burnt the gate so I could march in instead of climbing the walls.

Probably the best tactical decision at this point would have been to retreat and restart the battle next turn to be able to renew my arrows and take the city with no losses. The second-best tactical decision would've been to split my army and cross the walls in a couple spots so I could get around the enemy. But when the enemy sent an unit of katana samurai through the gate at me, I figured they were weakened enough to smash through the gate with everything I had. Which I promptly attempted.

So, the battle turned into two giant mobs facing off in the middle of the burning gate. I was winning, sure, but it was taking quite long. I considered for a moment and thought that I'd taken quite a bit of losses for no real reason here, and should probably reload or something, but that it wasn't really worth it since this was an useless army only meant to take this city and be disbanded once the discontent died down.

I looked at my general standing behind my army with his four remaining bodyguards and decided to go climb the wall and attack the enemy general standing behind his army alone with no bodyguards. I dismounted, climbed up and, as expected, the enemy general who was the only unit who could get away from the gate fight attacked me. Unexpectedly, however, he ran over all four of my bodyguards and then retreated to the gate where he got killed soon by my troops.

Meanwhile my lone general stares after the enemy, cursing, and then notices that the fort is undefended so he can go capture it and annoy the enemy more. He does so, and the enemy detaches eight spearmen to take him out. Lord Togukawa stares at the enemy troops, raises his katana and screaming bloody murder rampages through them in a 8v1 duel that left no spear standing. Then he conquers the castle, and walks whistling to his troops who have just managed to clear the gate: "Why so late to the party?"


This man was to become Shogun one day, by sneaking an elite squadron of samurai over the walls of Kyoto in the middle of a pitched battle between elite samurai and sacrificial suicide troops in a frontal assault, capturing the gates of the highest level of the castle, killing a couple groups of bow samurai and some fort towers and then conquering the citadel. :smallbiggrin:

I imagine a following discussion among the enemy troops:

Samurai 1: These peasants are worthless. We're kicking their arses!
Samurai 2: Yeah. What is that Togukawa fool thinking?
Samurai 1: Wait... is that the Togukawa flag on the citadel?
Samurai 2: Whoa. It looks like he won after all.
Samurai 1: We've lost this city. And we can't retreat, because the three thousand men we have here are under siege and surrounded by the twenty-or-so guys in that large building in the middle of us all. I suppose that's it for us.
Samurai 2: Damn. I didn't want to surrender. They'll have to execute us all.
Samurai 1: Well, what're you going to do? We had a good run.
Samurai 2: *sigh*

---

Those twenty men had very, very tired arms after that day.

[Spartacus]

That's not really the best justification for a remake though...

Isn't that the entire justification for much of Hollywood? Also, the Pokemon remakes? Lastly, the Final Fantasy GBA remakes?

I think it's a fairly good reason. If the game was good before, update it with prettier graphics, a more powerful engine and better balance. How can that not be a good thing?

[AgentPaper]

Well, if done too often, then it can lead to stagnation, but like I said before they've only done it twice so far. If their next game is Rome 2 or Empire 2, then I might start getting worried, but that seems unlikely.

[Leecros]

Isn't that the entire justification for much of Hollywood? Also, the Pokemon remakes? Lastly, the Final Fantasy GBA remakes?

I think it's a fairly good reason. If the game was good before, update it with prettier graphics, a more powerful engine and better balance. How can that not be a good thing?

but that's a completely different reasoning. Remaking the game to improve it is one thing(unless you do it too much as mentioned by AgentPaper in the previous post). Remaking the game just because it's old is another story.

Regardless of reasoning though, remakes rarely end well, improving the game is one thing, but more often than not it ultimately ends with too much tweaking to the point where it doesn't even feel like the same game anymore. I know of plenty of older games that i love and have terrible graphics and i probably wouldn't like a remake(maybe a sequel....sequels are nice, although also rarely as good as the original).

Also, IMO, of your examples the only one that i would agree with as being a good example of remakes is probably the pokemon ones. Hollywood doesn't have a clue what they're doing these days :smallsigh: and the FF GBA remakes weren't the best things in the world either.


lIf their next game is Rome 2 or Empire 2, then I might start getting worried, but that seems unlikely.

I wouldn't say that until the next game is announced...:smalleek:


Note: I might just be one to always look on the bad side of things...

[Klose_the_Sith]

Note: I might just be one to always look on the bad side of things...

Must be why you like the Middle Ages so much :smalltongue: