Search:

A fool and his money...

Are there any other tactics in these games?

It's called "siege escalation". Though to be fair, CA explains it as being damage caused by digging tunnels to undermine the walls.

CA seems to be trying to remove all traces of gameplay from the series.

General died? Have a new one.

Army died? Auto replenish.

Want to go sailing? Magic boats.

Royal line not...

Funny, this idea of "beating" games. As if games were a difficult challenge.

Then why are there no dragons?

Units have force fields now? That's ridiculous. What happened to simply tracking each arrow to the target and having a chance for it to kill the guy?

Isn't the main point of legendary campaign difficulty that it gives the AI huuuuuuuuge sums of free gold, plus boosts to agents etc?

A big reason why the game becomes too easy is the "steam roller effect", where the game becomes easier the bigger your empire is, because you get more money and can field more armies, so you can get...

It's not a new thing - TW games have always sucked on difficulties higher than normal, because of the ridiculous stat bonuses given to the enemy. Well, I guess they had something to make the game...

Many of the same problems seem to pop up in every game. Backstabbing AI is one of them.

For me, the biggest reason is the "bait and switch" marketing that makes me shy away from their games. And the less mature gameplay and content design they have chosen. I would like to see CA design...

Not this again.

I hear you, but seems you're still a fan. At least you have a massive commercial for Rome II as your signature..

The survey should not ask me questions about Attila after I answer that I haven't played it.. It should just ask why not.

You must be new here.

Well, they say truth is the first casualty of war...

Well, to be fair, the game is about ancient warefare.

Quite interesting that you conclude that Rome 2 is a "good game", yet you won't play it any more, and won't look back on it fondly.



This is completely baffling to me. I think you should read...

No.



Because the team working on this game has incompetent people in important positions.

Eh, yes, that's actually the whole point of pikemen.

More boring than endless, repetitive, buggy siege battles?

Ha ha, the usual :)

"The game is not that bad as you say - oh by the way a little detail: I changed everything with mods"

I have lambasted CA a couple of times, but I'm happy to also say I like that they are still patching the game, and it sounds like some good changes about the navies.

Scratch that, I just read...

Reminds me of the old "viking expansion" for the original MTW. I love vikings, but I don't like winning without a challenge. It was just ridiculously easy because the vikings were overpowered, or...

All that sounds really good to me I must admit..

Not worth it, sorry. Better spend your money elsewhere.

No, it's not worth it.

How to name a computer game:

Wrath of...
Rise of...
Fall of...

(insert character or faction)

:)

Options like these would be great for well-disciplined troops. It could improve tactical gameplay.

A lot of tactics in real life battles come from the fact that most peple are right handed. This...

That would be amazing. I know there's a similar project going called OpenXcom, where some guys rewrote the old Xcom game from the ground up, so they could fix all the bugs in the original game. It...

Wow, that's quite amazing... in a negative way.

I wish CA would play their own game from time to time. Then a lot of these bugs would be obvious to them and they would fix them.

Much has already been said..

I guess to sum it up, they failed to keep most of the good stuff, and too much of the new stuff they put in basically sucks.

It should have been the other way...

Who cares, they can just script the demo so that everything seems to work...

Heck, we're still not totally unified :) I'm a Jute, from Jutland. We're still around. Can't believe we're finally in a game.

Not going to pre-order though..

What the frog said. I think a big difference is that back then, developers played their own game. I don't think that's necessarily true today.

+5% corruption, but also +5% wealth, don't those more or less cancel each other out?

Fewer, longer and more meaningful battles would be the way to go, I think. Not fighting 5 small petty ones every turn that don't mean anything anyway.

The solution seems so simple: let armies turn into navies, but only from harbours. Then if the AI wants to cross the ocean, it has to first find a path to the (developed) harbour of a friendly...

Depending on your eyesight and the game you're playing, 1080p can be too high resolution on a small screen.