I think "troop" needs to pluralized as "troops".In the strategic map you'll make all the decisions of where to move your armies, what technologies to develop, hire new troop, and what buildings to construct in your settlements, among others.
Possibly "Come together to besiege major cities"?So while the hordes are really good at raiding and sacking outlying settlements, it's much harder to effectively come together major cities.
At this point I question how much of it is simply baked into the engine and are issues they can't ever resolve. Some of them are things that aught to be fixed by now, but they just keep lingering around.Thunderous Cacophony said:Does it say something about CA that a review can honestly include "Yeah, there's a fair number of crashes, but those tend to get fixed soon and fans are used to it"?
My main campaign has been with the Saxons, so I've made a bunch of hordes spawn since all those neighboring Northern factions can migrate. From my experience the horde usually tends to be about 1 full army. Though it's super annoying when you make peace with them and they come raid your area, stupid ungrateful bastards.I'm glad to hear that the hordes are working out. They were a neat idea in the Barbarian Invasion expansion for the first Rome, but they came out of the loss of their last settlement in such huge numbers (3 or 4 full armies, IIRC), regardless of anything you did to reduce the population, that they were impossible to get rid of. You'd capture the last city, their hordes would spring up and take it back, and you'd take the city again only to find that the exact same overwhelming armies were generated (and if they were left in the field, they'd keep making levies so that you couldn't wear them down in any meaningful way). Clouse mentions that you might have to hunt them down, but does anyone with firsthand knowledge know how difficult that is?
Thanks, I'll get those fixed.typos
This is why I edited that out of Rome 2 Total War, no food and no squalor because the systems made 0 sense to me.danielcofour said:My biggest problem with this game is the same as with Rome II. They kept that idiotic building system, where you can only build a couple of buildings./ settlement, and you constantly have to demolish and rebuild them because of the ridiculous food/happiness demands of the buildings. And it's screwing with the entire experience. I mean, seriously, CA, it takes godddamned genius to streamline a system and make it more complicated.
Just go back to Rome/Medieval II system and we'll be fine.
I think the best building system was the Empire/Napoleon system, I think it made provinces seem less empty, as there are lots of towns etc. rather than just one city.danielcofour said:My biggest problem with this game is the same as with Rome II. They kept that idiotic building system, where you can only build a couple of buildings./ settlement, and you constantly have to demolish and rebuild them because of the ridiculous food/happiness demands of the buildings. And it's screwing with the entire experience. I mean, seriously, CA, it takes godddamned genius to streamline a system and make it more complicated.
Just go back to Rome/Medieval II system and we'll be fine.
Getting a sequel to Barbarian Invasion seemed fine to me, considering it's been almost a decade since the original came out.Dryzdale said:I think the best building system was the Empire/Napoleon system, I think it made provinces seem less empty, as there are lots of towns etc. rather than just one city.danielcofour said:My biggest problem with this game is the same as with Rome II. They kept that idiotic building system, where you can only build a couple of buildings./ settlement, and you constantly have to demolish and rebuild them because of the ridiculous food/happiness demands of the buildings. And it's screwing with the entire experience. I mean, seriously, CA, it takes godddamned genius to streamline a system and make it more complicated.
Just go back to Rome/Medieval II system and we'll be fine.
OT: I'm hoping to pick this game up when it goes on a good sized sale; the Rome 2 fiasco combined with the fact the game just smells of Barbarian Invasion 2.0 too me turns me off from getting it any sooner.
Can I ask how you found the balance of real-time battles to campaign map? I've felt that an increasing problem with the Total War series is just how many battles you have to fight to actually achieve anything. Shogun 2 (or actually maybe Empire) started this trend by giving "Rebel" factions individual identities, rather than just being the generic "Rebels" of previous games, but in Rome 2, with the limits on numbers of separate armies (meaning that there was rarely a sound justification for not having the maximum - something the AI also realized), the small starting holdings, and all towns having garrisons, it suddenly seemed like the game should be renamed "Rome 2: Significant Skirmishes", rather than Total War. Getting a truly decisive battle seemed an increasingly remote possibility - and with 50+ factions, that made the game rather tedious.Slycne said:SNIP
From what I've found is a lot of the strategy revolves around having two, or more, max size field armies and balancing that against what you leave at home to defend. You generally want at least two armies on offense since it's useful for bringing enemy armies into a fight when they retreat and it lets you do things like encircle their city and then attack an army in the field so it can't be supported. This has to be weighed against what you're leaving back to defend yourself since the AI tends to be very aggressive about going after your holdings when they are not properly defended and armies can cover a lot of distance on the map in one turn.Susurrus said:Can I ask how you found the balance of real-time battles to campaign map? I've felt that an increasing problem with the Total War series is just how many battles you have to fight to actually achieve anything. Shogun 2 (or actually maybe Empire) started this trend by giving "Rebel" factions individual identities, rather than just being the generic "Rebels" of previous games, but in Rome 2, with the limits on numbers of separate armies (meaning that there was rarely a sound justification for not having the maximum - something the AI also realized), the small starting holdings, and all towns having garrisons, it suddenly seemed like the game should be renamed "Rome 2: Significant Skirmishes", rather than Total War. Getting a truly decisive battle seemed an increasingly remote possibility - and with 50+ factions, that made the game rather tedious.Slycne said:SNIP