I thought this was a stand alone expansion not completely new title?

[nce_wht_guy]

I have exaggerated nothing, if anything i have downplayed how ridiculous BI2 is going to be. Yes HORDES sacked cities.

Hordes? You mean the 10,000 foot tall warriors? See? I can do it too.

That actually happened and that is what they showed in the game. They didn’t use the metaphor of a nuke to represent the hordes destroying.

There is no metaphor. The campaign map in Total War is not and has never been a realistic representation. It's job is to provide a strategic overview of the game world and give you as much information as possible. Is Fog of War too much as well?

The hordes might have been unbalanced in vanilla, i know they were in some mods, but that is a different issue entirely. There is LITERALLY a nuke on my screen so that is what i call it.

The effects it has on game play are also similar to a nuke. Blackened earth, no crops will grow, and all building destroyed.

A nuke, or you know, someone burning all their houses and crops.

That is not a metaphor. And if it was a metaphor you would just CALL something else a nuke you wouldn’t visually represent it as a nuke in the actual game.

Not sure you know what that word means either.

They may say the reason for including nukes is for defense, but they can and will be used for offense as well.

Why would you capture a province and then destroy it's capacity for production?

If they think it is entertaining, i think they are wrong.

That's pretty subjective though, isn't it?

No matter if you like it or not, seeing a nuke on your screen then referring to it as a nuke is not hyperbole, it is the exact opposite.

Except when it's not a nuclear weapon, then it kind of is hyperbole. I'd love to see your response to someone lighting a grill.

What would they have do to for you to decide the nuke you are seeing in the game is actually there and not just a metaphor? Its effects are more drastic than actual nukes in other games.

Not that it matters but, what games?

You are directly contradicting what the developers said on twitch and what we have seen in gameplay. Fires DO always start with seige.Even if it did take a few term, it would still happen with every siege. Every siege would still be the same. Yes the level increased the longer you go but it starts immediately. And however they work, when they start with no apparent reason and you just watch flames start automatically that is spontaneous combustion.

In reference to the part of your post in bold, nowhere have they said this. We've already discussed the reason for the fire starting. And you've already contradicted yourself. Not every siege will be the same. That's actually the whole point of the siege escalation mechanic.

It is an unheard phenomenon for it to occur that fast, and you don’t want to discuss if it occurred at this point of time because you know it did not.

Really, because I know where I live right know we had snow from November to May a few years ago. And You know as well as I that whether or not it happened doesn't matter at all.

The gameplay effects are going to be drastic, not just slightly worse winters like we have a times in R2. 9 months of winter alone justify calling it an ice age. You weren’t arguing how accurate it is, you were saying it is hyperbolic to call it an ice age, and its not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

I don't think either of you know what a metaphor is. What are the nukes and ice age metaphors for? There is 9 months of winter and you see ice cover Northern Europe. THAT IS AN ICE AGE. Not only do i see a mushroom cloud on my screen, the effect of it are as extreme as an actual nuke is. How is that a metaphor?

I don't think you know much about metaphors, nuclear weaponry, or ice ages.

I don't need to try to make anything look stupid, calling gameplay elements metaphors accomplished that on its own. What ever you want to pretend these things represent in your mine, they are all horrible for gameplay in addition to being historically inaccurate.

Has anyone here ever played a historically accurate Total War game? Show of hands.

[texoman81]

Hordes? You mean the 10,000 foot tall warriors? See? I can do it too.


There is no metaphor. The campaign map in Total War is not and has never been a realistic representation. It's job is to provide a strategic overview of the game world and give you as much information as possible. Is Fog of War too much as well?


[/FONT]


A nuke, or you know, someone burning all their houses and crops.


Not sure you know what that word means either.


Why would you capture a province and then destroy it's capacity for production?


That's pretty subjective though, isn't it?


Except when it's not a nuclear weapon, then it kind of is hyperbole. I'd love to see your response to someone lighting a grill.


Not that it matters but, what games?


In reference to the part of your post in bold, nowhere have they said this. We've already discussed the reason for the fire starting. And you've already contradicted yourself. Not every siege will be the same. That's actually the whole point of the siege escalation mechanic.

[/FONT]
Really, because I know where I live right know we had snow from November to May a few years ago. And You know as well as I that whether or not it happened doesn't matter at all.

[FONT=Verdana]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age


I don't think you know much about metaphors, nuclear weaponry, or ice ages.


Has anyone here ever played a historically accurate Total War game? Show of hands.

this is actually getting annoying to me as well. Ok you finally admitted it "There is no metaphor". That has been one of the most ridiculous arguments i have ever seen on this forum. Why would you use a mushroom cloud to be a metaphor for the idea of burnt earth and abandoning settlements? It makes no sense at all. And if they did that, they would be the ones being hyperbolic not me. A mushroom cloud like i saw on my screen is only created by a nuke. Yes it is literally on my screen, i saw the image on my screen. As i keep saying over and over and over and you keep ignoring, i'm not just talking about how it is portrayed on the campaign map, i'm talking about the effects on gameplay as well. The games i was thinking of that used nukes that were less lethal than these would be Empire Earth and similar games. Having a mushroom cloud in a game set in 395 is what is ridiculous, not me referring to a mushroom cloud as a nuke. That is the normal association. Lighting a grill? Are you serious? DO you see a mushroom cloud when you light a grill? If in the game i saw a person starting a fire instead of a mushroom cloud, my only complaint might be that it happens to much. Fire was not the most common weapon in any period of time.

I don't know why you linked me to the wikipedia for Ice age, you are the one who need to read it. What is being portrayed in the game is an Ice Age, its really that simple. It isn't a metaphor for anything, they are taking the term Dark Age literally and think the sun wasn't as bright or up as much. I have played many TW games that were very historically accurate. Most of the most popular mods for TW2 games are. There is always a degree of uncertainty and educated guesses but that doesn't excuse what CA is doing.

Yes every siege plays out the same, the only different is how far you let it go before you attack. Fires begin to start soon as you end a turn with the settlement under siege. Different would be if you didn't start fires and the wall never collapses and you merely starve them out. That is now impossible to do. You can't take a city without damaging it no matter what you do. Its just a matter of degree of damage. If cities have enough food they can no longer wait out the besiegers until they have to leave. That is actually what usually happened in sieges. Before the foot ran out the army would have to go because they were needed elsewhere or winter set in.

Ok i'm done with this topic, i've made myself clear and nothing is going to be achieved here.

[Butan]

I don't think either of you know what a metaphor is. What are the nukes and ice age metaphors for? There is 9 months of winter and you see ice cover Northern Europe. THAT IS AN ICE AGE. Not only do i see a mushroom cloud on my screen, the effect of it are as extreme as an actual nuke is. How is that a metaphor? I don't need to try to make anything look stupid, calling gameplay elements metaphors accomplished that on its own. What ever you want to pretend these things represent in your mine, they are all horrible for gameplay in addition to being historically inaccurate. They are once again dumbing and the game to allow their AI to play it, instead of improving their AI. This is torching gates in R2 taking to the most ridiculous extreme you could imagine.

Thats what I said (except on the metaphor or not discussion ), I meant to explain your pov for those who dont understand where nuke and ice age comes from, dont get mad at me

[texoman81]

Thats what I said (except on the metaphor or not discussion ), I meant to explain your pov for those who dont understand where nuke and ice age comes from, dont get mad at me

my apologies, i misread what you wrote. I removed the portion of my previous post that dealt with what i mistakenly thought you said instead of what you actually said.

[nce_wht_guy]

this is actually getting annoying to me as well. Ok you finally admitted it "There is no metaphor". That has been one of the most ridiculous arguments i have ever seen on this forum.

You're the only person who seems to think it's a metaphor. I've never once said that, probably because the would be utter gibberish.

Why would you use a mushroom cloud to be a metaphor for the idea of burnt earth and abandoning settlements?

Why not?

It makes no sense at all. And if they did that, they would be the ones being hyperbolic not me. A mushroom cloud like i saw on my screen is only created by a nuke. Yes it is literally on my screen, i saw the image on my screen.

We've all seen it. And we all know (except for You I guess) that it's not a nuclear weapon.

As i keep saying over and over and over and you keep ignoring, i'm not just talking about how it is portrayed on the campaign map, i'm talking about the effects on gameplay as well.

Really, you think destroying a provinces infrastructure is the same thing as a nuclear detonation and fallout?

The games i was thinking of that used nukes that were less lethal than these would be Empire Earth and similar games. Having a mushroom cloud in a game set in 395 is what is ridiculous, not me referring to a mushroom cloud as a nuke.

Again, it's purely aesthetic. It's not something that is literally happening. Actually, since you insist on flipping out about this so much, where did you see a mushroom cloud? Because the game-play video everyone else saw just had a lot of fire.

That is the normal association. Lighting a grill? Are you serious? DO you see a mushroom cloud when you light a grill?

No. But I also don't see a mushroom cloud in any of the game-play footage.

If in the game i saw a person starting a fire instead of a mushroom cloud, my only complaint might be that it happens to much. Fire was not the most common weapon in any period of time.

Nobody said it was.

I don't know why you linked me to the wikipedia for Ice age, you are the one who need to read it. What is being portrayed in the game is an Ice Age, its really that simple.

But it by definition is not. Hence the link.

It isn't a metaphor for anything,

There you go using that word again....

they are taking the term Dark Age literally and think the sun wasn't as bright or up as much.

No they aren't.

I have played many TW games that were very historically accurate.

The mummy returns 'Egyptians' and 'mailed knights' would beg to differ.

Most of the most popular mods for TW2 games are.

Key word: Mods.

Yes every siege plays out the same, the only different is how far you let it go before you attack.

So even by your ridiculous estimation of the game, they are not 'all the same'.

Fires begin to start soon as you end a turn with the settlement under siege.

And you would know this how?

Different would be if you didn't start fires and the wall never collapses and you merely starve them out. That is now impossible to do.

Where did they ever say you can't starve out the defenders anymore?

You can't take a city without damaging it no matter what you do. Its just a matter of degree of damage.

You never could take a city by assault without damaging it a little bit.

If cities have enough food they can no longer wait out the besiegers until they have to leave. That is actually what usually happened in sieges. Before the foot ran out the army would have to go because they were needed elsewhere or winter set in.

Attacking armies in a siege running out of supplies has NEVER been a feature in any total war game.

Ok i'm done with this topic, i've made myself clear and nothing is going to be achieved here.

Well, You certainly haven't achieved much.

[NostalgiaFan]

Uh...I think you're reading my post wrong. I was talking about how the "expansion" adds anything substantial

Wrong you said that the "expansions" never added anything substantial, not just expansion.

No one is denying that there have been substantial changes since then. I mean Empire was the first to introduce naval combat and that was a big one. RTW2 introduced amphibious invasions. The core games are usually the ones that take the next level with their standalone expansions doing something extra.

All you said was that the expansions, again plural, never added anything and I showed that was wrong, they have. Don't know why you bothered to post about how there have been changes when I never said their wasn't.