Which total war?

[kwanzabot]

You act like i care about game reviews when the majority of review websites are bribed lol

i wouldn't expect a person in the metal state you're in to understand anything im saying though :s

 

[Silva]

Shogun 2 and Medieval 1 are the best entries in the series.

Shogun 1 is lacking on various features at this point.
Rome 1 and Medieval 2 are tech demos with null AI.
Empire is a turd
Napoleon is good but linear
Rome 2 is a turd
Attila is an improved Rome 2 (so its an improved turd, but a turd nonetheles)

 

[Tigranes]

Oh, don't play Total War if you want AI. Geez. Total war is mainly about fapping yourself up into exciting heroic scenarios while doing your best to forget that your opponents are retards and you need to act very particularly for them to not break and do idiotic things (e.g. attacking the enemy WHEN they have a full stack, so that they don't break it up the next turn and wander round looking lost)

 

[Steve]

shame nearly the whole TW fan base agrees with me you only like attila best because it was the first TW you've ever played....jog on boy before you trip

..i.. ..i..

Sorry your majesty, I wasn't aware that you represent the whole TW community. Btw I still have the original shogun game Cd and manual so try again kiddo.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

You act like i care about game reviews when the majority of review websites are bribed lol

Well, I hoped it's kinda obvious that I meant user reviews from easy to verify sources like steam or metacritic, since I'm not just gonna accept you as a final voice of truth from the hivemind of TW fanbase

 

[kwanzabot]

You act like i care about game reviews when the majority of review websites are bribed lol

Well, I hoped it's kinda obvious that I meant user reviews from easy to verify sources like steam or metacritic, since I'm not just gonna accept you as a final voice of truth from the hivemind of TW fanbase

i still dont know why you quoted me over shogun 2

i guess ill do this to clarify

med 2>rome1>med1>>napoleon>empire>shogun2>shogun1>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>rome2/attila

i dont think there's much difference between shogun 2 and empire or napoleon i put them all in the same tier and i still like the game even though there are problems with it(scope/unit variety)


only ones i actually think are shit are rome 2 and attila

 

[kwanzabot]

shame nearly the whole TW fan base agrees with me you only like attila best because it was the first TW you've ever played....jog on boy before you trip

..i.. ..i..

Sorry your majesty, I wasn't aware that you represent the whole TW community. Btw I still have the original shogun game Cd and manual so try again kiddo.

buying the game off ebay doesnt count lmao

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

You guys bored of Total War yet? I've played Shogun 1 through Medieval 2, and that was pretty much it for me. The graphics get better, but that's about it, it's the same fundamental gameplay as Shogun 1 back in 2000-2001. The world map keeps getting fancier and fancier, but that whole layer is so simplistic and devoid of real strategy/point that it might as well be the simple board-map of the earlier games. And while it's more fun to watch the soldiers hack away at each other in glorious 3D, the base tactical battlefield gameplay is still the same: spears vs cavalry, use high ground, try to surround the enemy, etc. I am surprised this series is still selling so well.

 

[Executr]

Regarding AI, both campaign and battle, of the games I've played from the series (Shogun 1, Rome 1 and Shogun 2) I found that the only one really challenging is the Shogun 1. This can probably be explained by less systems involved, but it can properly counter in battles and make good use of those pestering monks (the easy mode, godly unit) and on the campaign if you let Shimazu or Uesugi grow to much then it's certain game over.
Rome 1 AI is fucking stupid in battles and you'll be wrestling more with city unrest than itself. Shogun 2 AI is given bonuses and extra unit stacks to make up for its retardedness. They also had to implement castle garrisons because it usually takes all their units when attacking, without leaving them protected.

 

[kwanzabot]

use high ground,

on launch high ground didn't work in rome 2 :s

 

[BlackAdderBG]

Line of sight was fucked up in Shogun 2 for like one year before some bigger names in the community made noise so CA had to do something before selling the expansion.

 

[Raghar]

Regarding AI, both campaign and battle, of the games I've played from the series (Shogun 1, Rome 1 and Shogun 2) I found that the only one really challenging is the Shogun 1. This can probably be explained by less systems involved, but it can properly counter in battles and make good use of those pestering monks (the easy mode, godly unit) and on the campaign if you let Shimazu or Uesugi grow to much then it's certain game over.

It has also a lot of systems, just different.

Castle defenses that remains in castles are quite realistic. In Shogun 2 when you want to have properly defended castle, you need to allocate additional troops, at least one or two units of archers for level I castle, or two units of arkebusiers and one unit of archers for level II castle.

 

[kris]

They also had to implement castle garrisons because it usually takes all their units when attacking, without leaving them protected.

I dont think that is the reason because the garrisons in shogun2 are not big enough to be able to defend on their own. Its not really before Attila that garrison+towers that a city really can defend on their own. Of course here it is instead a given to have a garrison due to army limitations.

 

[Executr]

Well, any player with half-brain knows it's bad to leave a castle unprotected. As for the AI, what do you think it looks better: a castle with a garrison of a few units, even if it's just symbolic, or no units at all that is clear for taking without any effort?
Obviously, we wouldn't be discussing this retarded possibility if CA would know how to code competent AI...

 

[kris]

Well, any player with half-brain knows it's bad to leave a castle unprotected. As for the AI, what do you think it looks better: a castle with a garrison of a few units, even if it's just symbolic, or no units at all that is clear for taking without any effort?
Obviously, we wouldn't be discussing this retarded possibility if CA would know how to code competent AI...

But "Looks better" is a vast distance from "having them there for defense". If anything it is the player exploiting the 1-5 free units by putting halfstacks in the castles. The AI will not gain anything from having 1-5 units defending as you kill these with autoresolution suffering no losses. In Attila the difference is that there are more units for defense and defensive towers that can actually give substansial losses if tied down near them or passing several of them.

 

[praetor]

RTW1 + MTW2 for mods (vanilla they're both kinda garbage), STW2 + MTW1 for vanilla (and expansions, of course), with STW1 close behind. the rest should be avoided