What went wrong?

What went wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/UtW6VoiZ1W8
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

was nearly unplayable on launch.

A lot of things. CA is not good with launches

Poor QA pre-release

Changes in game mechanics (campaign mostly) that pissed people off.

The game is pretty solid now after updates, especially with the right mods. The ONLY legitimate complaint to level against it now is the changes they made to army recruitment.

What about only being able to build a maximum of 2 buildings in towns and 4 in cities excluding ports?

its 4 per town and 6 per city, and that mechanic was already implemented with Empire.

>playing Shogun 2
>that absolute bonker AI pathfinding across bridge

Is there anyway to fix?

It's been an issue since their early games I'm surprised it's still in Shogun 2.

Play it with the Divide et Impera mod, it makes the game $1000% better

>food causes public unrest
What did they mean by this?

>The game is pretty solid now after updates, especially with the right mods.
Yeah, but the real problem is, why should anyone play it if there are games similar and better?

idiots got confused with the possibility to build everything everywhere, tried to do so, and had too little money to not get stomped, so they streamlined it.

Warscape is a terrible engine for anything but guns.

>fuck siege weaponry and planning, just throw torches at the gate

Warscape is a terrible engine for guns.
Gun mechanics in total war are anemic.

>GTA5-GTA-Игpы-PC-898498.jpg

>dumb AI
>dumb combat
>"so cinematic" fight animations that are really just shit and make it even more bland

Setting mostly. Attila may have some things going for it over R2 but late antiquity is a pisspoor setting.
Once AE comes out however...

Warscape is just a terrible engine, frankly. If there's only one thing Total Warhammer got right, it's that they made a decent attempt at getting battles to feel chaotic and impactful again instead of this weird duelling bullshit everyone does.

True but Empire had town buildings outside the regional capital itself which made actual regional defense and raiding important instead of just holing all your men inside the region capital. Of course Empire's campaign and battle AI was retarded but the map design itself was good.

Can I get a quick rundown on everything wrong with this game?

After all the major updates they did to it I actually find it fun. Just wish they'd make Empire 2 and focus more on the AI. I feel like the AI in the old engine was better than the one we get in warscape

There were a shitload of technical issues at launch and it took them nearly a year to get it sorted out. Mechanics-wise the biggest things are the removal of the family tree and simplification of intra-faction politics, the limit placed on the number of armies you could have that were dependent on your imperium level, that you were required to have a general to raise troops (no more recruiting single units and marching them to your army at the front), and the province system for various reasons (removal of tax slider, province-wide effects, etc.). There's also things that have been present since Empire that people are still mad about, such as the limited number of build slots in cities, and the increasingly annoying as fuck agents.

>that you were required to have a general to raise troops (no more recruiting single units and marching them to your army at the front)
I first saw this mechanic in Total War: Warhams and thought "oh cool, they implemented the tabletop requirement to have a lord leading the army."
Then I saw it in Rome 2 and hated it.

unplayable on launch and it still has godawful performance on the campaign map. One of the most important part of the game

>Solid
Is a 6/10 at best.

It's just launch that was bad.
Overall it's pretty fun and a good sequel.
Attila was worse gameplay wise. You get a lot of public order penalties for doing anything war-related. So you just sit there turtling the whole game.

Rome 1 > Shogun 2 > Warhammer > Medieval 2 > Attila = Rome 2 (Emperor Edition) > Medieval 1 > Shogun 1 > Rome 2 (Vanilla) > Empire

i think that medieval 2 is objectively better than rome 1.
World events such as crusades, mongol invasion, gunpowder and discovery of america make it really great.
Also knights, everyone loves knights.

Empire had the towns spread across the regions to flesh out the system, rome ii doesnt even have that.

Medieval ii has the better campaign mechanics but rome had battlefield mechanics. Pikes didnt work properly in med ii, cavalry charges were buggy, units were much less responsive

What does DEI change in Rome 2? One thing I really hated about vanilla was that armies could flee using that marching ability and I wouldn't be able to pursue unless I went into the marching ability too and made myself vulnerable on the next turn.

I fucking loved Empire's world map
Upgrading all those smaller towns and being able to increase them as you researched better techniques (that actually reference scientific breakthroughs of the 18th century) was great.
It also helped with some geography of important cities that I knew existed but was unsure of their relative placement
youtu.be/UtW6VoiZ1W8

Everything.

People bitching and moaning about optional DLC. Anyone who says otherwise is mistaken.