Originally Posted by
♔Greek Strategos♔
That's because you're playing the vanilla game. If you have played DEI or other mods like the excellent work from Radious, you could see that the battle balance or experience is vastly different. I'm talking about an almost different game.
Ah that makes more sense. So basically the changes in the base game have essentially altered the foundations upon which the mods are built on, so modders are now having to make changes to their mods to account for it.
Originally Posted by
♔Greek Strategos♔
Well, the bug reports in the official Rome 2 thread (not DEI's thread) speak otherwise.
Depends. Not every bug reported is actually a bug, especially when it comes to AI diplomatic behaviour. ;-) (I quite like a diplomatic AI that can drive a hard bargain and on occasion be stubborn and irrational, just like a human.)
Originally Posted by
♔Greek Strategos♔
Except they did. Both Radious and DEI mods provided you with full fleshed Desert factions free ofc with Historical rosters, abilities even descriptions, but if you prefer to pay for them with half the content feel free.
And I cannot agree. Those mods are just that, mods. They aren't free content which has now been made paid content, the factions in the game itself are the same non-playable paid content we paid for in the first place, except updated with new units etc. Or if we choose to buy the DLC and benefit further from their inclusion, playable paid content. Either way
Modders essentially build their work on someone else's land (CA's,) land we have not paid for to have playable factions on. CA may allow people to borrow that "land" to build their mods on, but it's always been with the understanding that those base factions are ultimately CA's to develop in future if they wish.
Saying that “they locked previously free factions with a DLC” is to me an inaccurate representation of the facts of the matter, and portrays the people who made the game and DLC in an unfairly poor light, because it makes it sound like they took something away from the game and the players, when in fact they added to it at no extra cost (unless you choose to buy the DLC.)
I can appreciate there being some frustration if an update changes the requirements needed to use a mod, but given that the non-mod user is paying to play Kush, Saba, Numidia etc I don't have an issue with the mod user paying too.
As for "if you prefer to pay for them with half the content feel free" that's not the case at all. It's a matter of wanting content I actually want, that is designed for and actually works with the game I play and enjoy, which is Rome 2 either vanilla or very lightly modded. I respect what you and your colleagues have achieved with DEI, but I've looked into it many times and every time I've concluded that it makes a lot more changes I don't want, than it does that I do. So to me DEI and many other mods have a lot less content than the DLC, which do what I want and only what I want. Plus, given how much I get out of Total War games and especially Rome 2 (over 1500 hours, 1300+ vanilla, and counting,) I'm happy to contribute to the further development by buying the DLC I want, because I get a lot more back than I spend.
Originally Posted by
♔Greek Strategos♔
I was talking about colored desert women with medieval english style longbows. If you like fantasy units that's fine with me. Enjoy your camel tanks.
The only unit I can find which seems to match that description are Royal Kushite Archers, who use composite bows which were around at the time Rome 2 is set, not English (or Welsh) style longbows. We're also talking about a period of history when in most cultures men and women would have been involved in much greater physical activities than in more modern periods, Rome itself being a notable exception. Working the fields and gathering in the harvest being two such activities. As such, having men and women fielding a compound bow doesn't seem to me ahistorical. As another unit, the Kushite Archer, puts it
“When the bow provides both food and security, everyone learns its ways.”
And there are historical records of camel cataphracts, so I don't see some factions having armoured camels as a stretch. They may not have been common, but if games stuck to only what was common we'd miss out on a lot of interesting history and a lot of potential to craft our own history.
So I don't see why either is a fantasy unit. As with most units in the game, they are either based on historical records, or logical progressions of known units (much like I have read that DEI implemented later game units for certain factions based upon how they would likely have developed if not conquered by Rome.) Either way, I think they have a place in a historical setting such as this.
Originally Posted by
♔Greek Strategos♔
How something hypothetical could be historically realistic ? puzzled. Anyway I have studied the tables and I can assure you the spawn rate isn't anything close to low. You could check them with PFM anytime.
I would say something can be hypothetical and historically realistic at the same time if it could have realistically existed in that time and place, but didn't in the specific version of events that form our history. For example, the characters in any number of works of historical fiction are fictional (thus hypothetical,) but are still historically realistic. Much of what we do in the game, unless precisely following historical events, is also hypothetical but historically realistic. (Given that Octavian winning the Second Triumvirate War is literally the only time I have finished a Rome 2 campaign in even a remotely historical way, hypothetical but historically realistic is important to me... I love to play the underdog and make my own history.)
As for spawn rates, I haven't myself gone into the tables as I'm no modder, but I have friends who are and the figures they've quoted are 6% for Romans and Greeks (who cannot field them as Generals,) 15% for Barbarians and 50% for Kush. That to me is very low, which has been born out by the campaigns I've played where most of the generals I fight against are male, and the resulting effect is in my view a good balance between historical accuracy, gameplay, variety and realism.
Originally Posted by
♔Greek Strategos♔
You're aware that we first introduced features like supplies for example or historical family members and then CA started to use them in the latest patch, right ? If you check the features the latest dlc implemented in the bug reports (official forums) and our updates-changelogs you'll certainly see that we're actually fixing the base game. Don't believe me though, just check what I just wrote.
Historical family members have been part of the Total War series since Shogun 1, and part of Rome 2 for quite some time as well (depends exactly what you mean by “historical family members.” I mean some of the starting generals for various factions are related, and Cleopatra was Mark Anthony's wife in Imperator Augustus long before the Female Leaders update.)
Supplies to my knowledge still aren't a feature of Rome 2, but they are in Thrones. Given that this has been a much requested feature for Total War for years, it doesn't really surprise me that both your DEI team and CA have eventually implemented it. I doubt either can claim it as their own entirely.
As for bugs, to me there is a vast difference between “bugs present in released content,” and “hasty and untested.” As someone who has done beta testing both for computer and card games in the past, I can tell you that people generally don't just shove stuff out the door untested, and that testers do their best but they can't catch everything.
Oh and it seems I misunderstood part of what you said before, as it appeared to me you were in some way blaming CA for not fixing bugs DEI had caused. My apologies for the misunderstanding.
Originally Posted by
♔Greek Strategos♔
We are also human but we're working free for you. We get 0 profit from our work, so I'm sure paid designers should provide better work than us, or not ?
Depends. Modders and game developers work within a different set of freedoms and constraints, and so their work needs to be viewed with that in mind.
For example, developers and studios have to worry a lot more about budgets and deadlines, not just in terms of how much money they can afford to invest versus how much they expect to get back, but also in terms of time. They will literally have a budget of total man-hours, based on the expected price and sales of the end result, which will be the amount of time they can afford to work on this particular project and still see a reasonable return.
Modders have constraints for example in terms of what in the game they can mod, but also have a lot for freedom. For example your “budget” for man-hours is ultimately limited only by how much spare time you have and how much of your spare time you are willing or able to spend on your hobby, and if you miss a deadline you may have some annoyed fans, but don't have to face the sort of repercussions that people doing this for a job and working at a company do.
I've posed the question previously on various forums, but I think it's worth mentioning again because I think it cuts to the heart of the matter. How much would something like DEI cost (overall and also to the end user) if you were all working within the freedoms and constraints of a game studio? As you yourself have said in this very thread, you've spent thousands of hours making DEI. So what happens when those hours become billable hours? What about QA, testers, marketing, utilities, ongoing costs etc? How much does the end result cost when all those are factored in?
Would it even actually be possible to make something as ambitious as DEI, while still having a price tag that's reasonable enough that enough people are willing to pay and that can cover the costs of making it?
Is what makes DEI what it is, not just the undoubted talent and hard work you and others have put into it, but also the freedom you have had to do that work without worrying about whether you can sell it at the end?
While DEI is not for me, I recognise that you and your team do great work. But I also think CA and CA Sofia do great work too. As for which is “better,” I don't think it's possible to make a straight comparison because you aren't playing by the same rules or operating within the same freedoms and constraints. DEI is better for some, vanilla better for others, in my view it really falls to the individual to decide what is right for them.
Originally Posted by
♔Greek Strategos♔
Again the user bug reports are different from what you're descrbing.I'm glad you're a happy customer though. From the bug reports on TWC, steam,reddit and various pages you could see that thousands are not.
I'm familiar with there being bugs. I've reported some of them myself, and I'm quite active on the Steam forums helping people out with issues when I can. Yes “thousands” aren't happy, but “thousands” also are happy. Which is my point. The bug reports only tell one part of the story.
Originally Posted by
♔Greek Strategos♔
Warhammer 2 passive faction issues are DEI's fault too ? cause last time I checked we haven't modded it, yet.
I wasn't speaking of Warhammer 2 as I don't play it. But you'd said it was an issue in Rome 2 and I was just highlighting that I haven't seen the problem myself.
Originally Posted by
♔Greek Strategos♔
PS
Thanks for your civilized approach. You're clearly well mannered and I really appreciate that.
Cheers G.S
Thank you. And I too appreciate your civilized approach. I find everyone can gain a lot more from a conversation if we can keep cool heads and discuss our different opinions.
I also hope that you and the other members of DEI team know that even though as I've said DEI is not for me, and I can sometimes be critical of aspects of it, I still respect and appreciate the work you've put into it and what you have achieved.
I've unfortunately had some bad experiences with a handful of fans of DEI, and so have got pretty tired of being told I'm playing the game wrong just because I don't play DEI, or being told that only you guys (or modders in general) know how to make a good Total War and everything CA does is crap. (This is especially frustrating when I really enjoy a lot of what CA make.)
So I'm glad to see that if you are any indication, this attitude is not one that extends to the team itself.
And I hope that we can agree to disagree on our differences.
Re: New Campaign pack for R2! :)
Reply With Quote
There are a small number of female units, but they don't strike me as the mythical amazons, but just female units. And those are few and far between. 
)
when in an Empire or Kingdom , it will really fit and be useful to use the engine of Rome 2 to more advanced eras .
