CA's Total War: The Celtic-Han-Lizardmen alliance that never was

[Corvinus85]

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

Total War: Rome Remastered's installation size is 45GB, which seems like quite a lot already, but if you want the full, mega-enhanced textures (which is half the reason we're here), it jumps up to 70GB, which seems absurd.

And all the graphics and RAM requirements are way beyond Rome II's. 

[Werthead]

9 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

And all the graphics and RAM requirements are way beyond Rome II's. 

I suddenly realise why they decided not to have tens of thousands of distinct battle maps for the later games in the series like they did in Rome and Medieval II.

[Corvinus85]

Well, for all their flaws, Rome II, Attila and more recent titles (except Thrones) have spoiled me. I forgot how tiny the map in Rome is, and the degree of historical inaccuracy in the factions is hilarious.  Rome II feels more of a lived world, with half the map not belonging to "rebels", and I do like naval battles, despite the graphical turds they sometimes drop. I wish CA continued to work on naval battles, and not be so quick to apparently give them up.

I went into Remastered briefly, just to check it out, and the battles are a bit clunky. I had a group of Velites that somehow forgot they're suppose to run away when they're in skirmish mode, and despite repeated commands, they allowed the enemy to attack them and get mauled.

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, Corvinus85 said:

Well, for all their flaws, Rome II, Attila and more recent titles (except Thrones) have spoiled me. I forgot how tiny the map in Rome is, and the degree of historical inaccuracy in the factions is hilarious.  Rome II feels more of a lived world, with half the map not belonging to "rebels", and I do like naval battles, despite the graphical turds they sometimes drop. I wish CA continued to work on naval battles, and not be so quick to apparently give them up.

I went into Remastered briefly, just to check it out, and the battles are a bit clunky. I had a group of Velites that somehow forgot they're suppose to run away when they're in skirmish mode, and despite repeated commands, they allowed the enemy to attack them and get mauled.

Rome's historical inaccuracy was quite wild, particularly the Fantasy Egypt faction. No idea what was going on with those guys (especially as they were arguably the single most powerful non-Roman faction).

The map I never had a problem with though. It's certainly big enough (especially playing Egypt and having to send massive armies marching along the coast of Africa for ages), especially considering you have to deal with manual unit replenishment and resupply.

I hated Rome II's map. It was so big it was actually absurd, and taking turn after turn after turn to just march up the coast of Italy was an utterly joyless slog.

[Corvinus85]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Rome's historical inaccuracy was quite wild, particularly the Fantasy Egypt faction. No idea what was going on with those guys (especially as they were arguably the single most powerful non-Roman faction).

The map I never had a problem with though. It's certainly big enough (especially playing Egypt and having to send massive armies marching along the coast of Africa for ages), especially considering you have to deal with manual unit replenishment and resupply.

I hated Rome II's map. It was so big it was actually absurd, and taking turn after turn after turn to just march up the coast of Italy was an utterly joyless slog.

Besides Egypt, the rosters for the Gauls, Dacians, Britons and Thracians are a joke, with way too many naked guys and those ridiculous chariots for the Britons. Parthia is gifted lands north of the Caspian Sea just to fill in the void.

Anyway, modders have been going crazy and breaking speed records in implementing mods. There is even a naval battles mod, currently in very early stages, with only custom battles on a handful of maps available, and they look silly but it's a work in progress.

[Heartofice]

It’s amazing how much of my early historical ‘knowledge’ came from Rome 1. At the time saw nothing unrealistic about Egypt’s roster of walking hieroglyphs or British chariots.

Luckily it’s encouraged me to find out more since 

[Werthead]

The Brits did have chariots in that time period, but not the tank-like ones that smashed open holes in enemy lines (their horses, presumably, being made of teflon) with comedy long blades coming out the sides. Caesar noted during his invasion that the Romans had moved away from using chariots themselves so the British use of them (albeit in a skirmisher role rather than direct combat) caused severe consternation in the ranks until they developed training to counter them.

[Slurktan]

I haven't looked at the mods yet but is Europa Barbarorum up yet?  I'm still hesitant because the graphics are still awful (in terms of campaign map and UI) and would rather still play Med 2's mods.

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, Slurktan said:

I haven't looked at the mods yet but is Europa Barbarorum up yet?  I'm still hesitant because the graphics are still awful (in terms of campaign map and UI) and would rather still play Med 2's mods.

The team have already said they will not be doing this. They weren't given much warning about the game coming out, and they still haven't got EB2 (for Medieval II) where they want it, plus creating the 4K-quality units for the remaster is going to be a shitload more work than the original mod.

[Werthead]

Nice. The City Viewer is back in (I believe Rome was and still is the only game in the whole series to have this) and the old dodge from Barbarian Invasion (do a night battle and the campaign map also goes into "night mode", so you can now view your cities at night) seems to still work.

There's also a mod which adds all your military units stationed in the city to the map, so you can see them manning the walls and marching around etc whilst the civilians go about their daily business.

[Corvinus85]

New trailer for WH3. The trailer had leaked earlier, so I suppose CA had no choice but to release it, since tomorrow is suppose to be the day for revealing gameplay.

 

[Heartofice]

So from what I can tell the new gameplay reveal from Warhammer 3 hasn’t gone down very well. This new battle mode, Survival battles, was the main thing they were showing off and I have say I was incredibly underwhelmed by it. 
 

Initially I thought it was an improved siege, but it’s not, and the more I saw the less I liked.

The idea of deployables in battles has been around for a while but the way it’s been implemented makes it seem very arcadey and gamey. And as much as Warhammer is a fantasy game, it’s still not some silly mobile game. 
 

Bit of an issue that this was pretty much all they showed. I’m hoping the rest of the game is a lot better. Few of my friends were really disappointed from what they saw as well

[Jon AS]

It's the equivalent of a quest battle, you'll probably not do more than a handful of these per campaign (if that many).

It looked fine to me, some good ideas to break up the repetitive battles throughout the campaign, but beyond the basic concept (i.e. the structure of the battle and demon units basically handling leadership like undead) the gameplay I've seen doesn't tell us anything about the new factions, since it seems to have been recorded at the lowest possible difficulty setting. Which isn't unexpected as the game is not due to be released anytime soon.

[Corvinus85]

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

So from what I can tell the new gameplay reveal from Warhammer 3 hasn’t gone down very well. This new battle mode, Survival battles, was the main thing they were showing off and I have say I was incredibly underwhelmed by it. 
 

Initially I thought it was an improved siege, but it’s not, and the more I saw the less I liked.

The idea of deployables in battles has been around for a while but the way it’s been implemented makes it seem very arcadey and gamey. And as much as Warhammer is a fantasy game, it’s still not some silly mobile game. 
 

Bit of an issue that this was pretty much all they showed. I’m hoping the rest of the game is a lot better. Few of my friends were really disappointed from what they saw as well

I think most people were underwhelmed, but CA has done this before. The battle they showcased for WH2 also had a mixed reception and then the game turned out good.

This battle type will only be seen in the endgame for a campaign when you march into the Realms of Chaos to take on the Chaos Gods. Btw, the battle is supposed to clock in at about 45 minutes. Though the devs couldn't answer a question in a Q&A session about how it will be when you play as one of the Daemon factions.

I think quite a few people were disappointed that they didn't show an actual siege battle, since they did confirm they were reworking the sieges.

I'll reserve judgement until I see some campaign mechanics and more about the factions. The unit models do look pretty good.

[Heartofice]

4 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

I think most people were underwhelmed, but CA has done this before. The battle they showcased for WH2 also had a mixed reception and then the game turned out good.

This battle type will only be seen in the endgame for a campaign when you march into the Realms of Chaos to take on the Chaos Gods. Btw, the battle is supposed to clock in at about 45 minutes. Though the devs couldn't answer a question in a Q&A session about how it will be when you play as one of the Daemon factions.

I think quite a few people were disappointed that they didn't show an actual siege battle, since they did confirm they were reworking the sieges.

I'll reserve judgement until I see some campaign mechanics and more about the factions. The unit models do look pretty good.

Hopefully those battles will be pretty rare and only a sort of endgame kind of thing, can’t see me getting to excited about grinding through them. I understand the reasoning of wanting to create this epic feeling of pushing back wave after wave of enemies but surely there were some less ‘tower defence’ ways to do that.

But yeah unit models look nice, some animation issues there I’m sure will get ironed out. 
 

Im interested in how they approach campaigns, you can see how they are trying to create a style of play which isn’t just paint the map and is more directed. 

[Werthead]

I do enjoy "telling you the bloody obvious" tooltips in video games.

Also, Admiral Spurius might be the greatest name Rome has thrown up so far.

[Corvinus85]

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

I do enjoy "telling you the bloody obvious" tooltips in video games.

Also, Admiral Spurius might be the greatest name Rome has thrown up so far.

If only they were Vikings who could carry their ships. 

[Galactus]

3 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

If only they were Vikings who could carry their ships. 

Funnily enough there was a bug in Rome 2 during port assault battles that sometimes elt your boats go on land (or rather clipping through it like some kind of weird moles) 

[Corvinus85]

1 hour ago, Galactus said:

Funnily enough there was a bug in Rome 2 during port assault battles that sometimes elt your boats go on land (or rather clipping through it like some kind of weird moles) 

And the supermen crews who could vault off and onto ships like grasshoppers.

[Werthead]

Something the modders remembered to do was making it that the ships could sail along rivers, which was always a weird omission in the base games. Being able to sail up the Rhine, Rhone, Seine or Thames to land your troops well inland would have been pretty handy (both in Rome and Medieval II).