• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rome 2: Total war is coming!

Page 18 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
StinkyPinky said:
Genghis Khan? China?
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a Ghengis but people would probably say they did a Shogun so not needed.

A fantasy world on Earth where Atlantis exists might be good. Or go back even farther and have a cave/cromagnon/Neanderthal man type of world. Everyone using wooden spears with stone arrowheads and rocks. LOL
 
Last edited:
datalink7 said:
Why not warhammer? They bought the license and there have already been screenshots which suggest that they are working on it. The Total War style of game would be perfect for Warhammer Fantasy.
Click to expand...

This does change things as my main reason for discounting a warhammer franchise was because of the licensing.
 
Apparently the patch coming tomorrow should have 100+ fixes in it, and the patch next Friday should have just as many as well.

If they continue to provide patches to the game I believe it can turn into a good title. But boy did they really blow the release.
 
thm1223 said:
Apparently the patch coming tomorrow should have 100+ fixes in it, and the patch next Friday should have just as many as well.

If they continue to provide patches to the game I believe it can turn into a good title. But boy did they really blow the release.
Click to expand...

Well, it sort of begs the question, why did they release it like this when they could have waited a mere 2 weeks and released a game with hundreds fewer bugs?
 
Has anyone has a successful siege defense battle?

It seems for me, that every siege defense battle is a complete failure of the AI. This doesn't matter walls or no walls.

For example. I was recently attacked by Sparta in one of my walled cities. They had about 2x the forces I had, so it could have been a decent fight. They attacked with a fleet though, so it was either force a beachhead in my docks, or land and burn down the gate, or both.

They send ONE unit to my docks, which gets slaughtered. Everyone else lands on the beach, disembarks, and sits there until the time runs out.

There's another city (unwalled) that I have where the AI does the SAME THING EVERY TIME. They try to run around to the south and (I guess?) come in at the city from the rear.

Problem is, they run along a very particular path and don't engage anything unless they run into it. So I can literally line the path that they run on both sides with missile units to pepper the whole army as they run, and put melee units at the end of this path. Even though there is nothing in between the missile units and the enemy, they never engage. They just run headlong into the melee units at the end of the tunnel that I've created. This happens every time.
 
They have blamed Sega in the past but the way I see it is that CA made the game the fault lies on CA even if Sega forced them to. CA needs to stand up for their product or not bother making a product at all. These game devs need to stay away from publishers who dictate stuff. Yeah, more money but if your product suffers because of it then you just need to get out of the business. Stop selling your soul to the demons.
 
Genx87 said:
I know it is cliche. But I would love to see them apply this to a WWII style game.
Click to expand...

They cant get ship battles to work so how could they do WW2 when you have armies(tanks), navies, and air forces to work? I would say something like the Civil War is about as far as their game engine can go. Get past musket and cannon and it wouldn't work well I'm thinking.
 
datalink7 said:
Has anyone has a successful siege defense battle?

It seems for me, that every siege defense battle is a complete failure of the AI. This doesn't matter walls or no walls.

For example. I was recently attacked by Sparta in one of my walled cities. They had about 2x the forces I had, so it could have been a decent fight. They attacked with a fleet though, so it was either force a beachhead in my docks, or land and burn down the gate, or both.

They send ONE unit to my docks, which gets slaughtered. Everyone else lands on the beach, disembarks, and sits there until the time runs out.

There's another city (unwalled) that I have where the AI does the SAME THING EVERY TIME. They try to run around to the south and (I guess?) come in at the city from the rear.

Problem is, they run along a very particular path and don't engage anything unless they run into it. So I can literally line the path that they run on both sides with missile units to pepper the whole army as they run, and put melee units at the end of this path. Even though there is nothing in between the missile units and the enemy, they never engage. They just run headlong into the melee units at the end of the tunnel that I've created. This happens every time.
Click to expand...

Like lots of things in this game, the AI are broken when it comes to sieges. I can hold off an army probably 3x the size with ease, simply by exploiting the broken AI.

The same goes with attacking a walled city. THey're useless at defending it. No men on the walls to meet the force, they don't use their missle units properly, and then they just happily let your units get up on the walls and then come down again and let them reform without even bothering to engage the units.

I'm staggered about the reviews this game has got. Under all the broken AI and features it would be great, but as it stands this game is a mess.
 
Skott said:
They cant get ship battles to work so how could they do WW2 when you have armies(tanks), navies, and air forces to work? I would say something like the Civil War is about as far as their game engine can go. Get past musket and cannon and it wouldn't work well I'm thinking.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't their engine would be the best format for it. It lags like hell with just simple units, I can't imagine air planes, tanks, and other highly detailed effects.
 
And yeah, navel landings for AI and dis-barking in general is broke. My garrison of 500 can overtake columns of 2000k besieging enemies.
 
Regs said:
And yeah, navel landings for AI and dis-barking in general is broke. My garrison of 500 can overtake columns of 2000k besieging enemies.
Click to expand...

Well that's the problem right there, the only thing you will get from navel landings is lint. No wonder the AI is always losing 😛
 
ramj70 said:
Well that's the problem right there, the only thing you will get from navel landings is lint. No wonder the AI is always losing 😛
Click to expand...
Hey stop getting me excited. Its naval.
My AI landing besieged me from three different directions. I got slaughtered.
 
Mr. Pedantic said:
Do you think it's possible for a crowd-funded game to have the same production value as a Total War game?
Click to expand...

If they can get the money and the talent, yes. CA isn't the only company that can make a game. In fact, IMHO, CA isn't as good as some game companies I have seen. So it could be done.
 
Skott said:
They cant get ship battles to work so how could they do WW2 when you have armies(tanks), navies, and air forces to work? I would say something like the Civil War is about as far as their game engine can go. Get past musket and cannon and it wouldn't work well I'm thinking.
Click to expand...

I have no idea. I was thinking the battle maps could be like Airland battle and the units much like that game. /shrug
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top