Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 34 of 34

Thread: Thrones of Britannia: Praise Thread

  1. #21

    Default Re: Thrones of Britannia: Praise Thread

    Since the recent allegiance update I don't think I've ever enjoyed a TW campaign so much in many years. It's brilliant.

  2. #22
    ♔Greek Strategos♔'s Avatar BEARDED MODERATION
    Artifex Content Staff Modding Staff

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Athens
    Posts
    11,106

    Default Re: Thrones of Britannia: Praise Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by large jack View Post
    Since the recent allegiance update I don't think I've ever enjoyed a TW campaign so much in many years. It's brilliant.
    What are your favorite latest fixes,tweaks or features ?

  3. #23
    Yerevan's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,503

    Default Re: Thrones of Britannia: Praise Thread

    Great news Large Jack. Personally, I didn't play since the allegiance update. But two pages of praise only is so unfair, that even if I really don't feel like writing a long post, I feel like I need to just inte name of justicee lol
    This title may have some weakness, there are a few brillant changes to the formula. Quikly, then :

    First, the return to the same settlement and ressources system as in S2TW. Since R2TW it wasn't making sense, and that to paralyze a region's agriculture or industry you need to take a city. First it was absurd and unrealistic, second it made the number of siege and settlement battles multiply; Campaigns were almost only about siege battles, which also happened to be the weakest part of TW battles.

    Second : the food and supply system. It's not perfect yet but it definitely goes in the right direction.

    Same with the famlily tree and the introduction of mechanisms that are influenced by CK2. Especially with titles that focus on the part of history when men, and yttheir personality were mor(e decisive in making history than organisations. It brings context, and make TW more than just a game of numbers.

    And about numbers, some that have been stupidly revoked since R2TW : the recruitment pool. You can't recruit infinitely anymore. God, this was so bad; and combined with the recruitment and replenishment mechanism was making campaigns a senseless grind.
    " Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! "

  4. #24

    Default Re: Thrones of Britannia: Praise Thread

    I recently upgraded my computer and started playing the game again after the latest update. The game simply looks beautiful.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    Cities: Skylines
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ities-Skylines

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  5. #25
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    2,295

    Default Re: Thrones of Britannia: Praise Thread

    Hi Guys,
    following my reviews of a few mods for the Medieval 2 (see my sig), I'd like to share with you my thoughts about Thrones.

    The most important (imho) insights:
    * it seems to me that the 2 major problems of the former Warscape TWs somehow reduced or even dealt with: the sniping groups of armies and the snow-ball effect.
    * the game it what it promises to be: a total war. You're supposed to fight all the time, the armies are either on the offensive, or recovering (manpower and supply), or in transfer to another front. There's no other dimension of the game like building up your kingdom or role-playing the characters. Everything is dictated by this constant war. All in all, the game is indeed shallower than various Medieval 2 mods and also than R2TW-DEI (to be sure: the R2TW is also richer because it deals with very diverse cultures what is not possible in the Thrones).
    * the battles are indeed less diverse than in the other TW games, exactly because of the similarity of the cultures and of the short time-span that doesn't allow for the technology to evolve. Also the factions have access to all types of units - so you are not forced to change your tactical fighting style. The operational movement on the battlefield is pretty much non-existent - no sign of a move in the direction of Ultimate General tactical gameplay.
    * the AI seems to be as crappy as it was in the previous TW games.

    On the positive:
    (1) !!! the effectiveness of the sniping group of armies tactics has been limited in an ingenious way. No hard limit of the armies (as in R2TW and ATW): you can create as many armies as you want. Watch out though: food is scarce and crapy units eat the same as the good ones. Then loyalty of your generals matters: you're limited with their number by the number of estates. Yes, you can hire more, but then you may just slip over the cliff and the civil war erupts, and this is a serious matter. But this is your choice! Additionally, the combined costs of the units (1. money, 2. food, 3. availability) provide for another a real constraint. I've learned it painfully when my farm was raided - I simply had to disband a number of units as it was not possible to get it back swiftly! Again, this is your choice how to deal with it, and you're sometimes rewarded if you don't put 20 units in each army (the spare food can be used elsewhere).
    (2) the snow-ball effect is sometimes limited by the risks of your kingdom falling apart. You may have a big kingdom and rich lands but if you don't deal carefully with your nobles the usurper will appear somewhere in the middle of your realm and he may inflict much damage if he takes eg. a region with farms or with estates or with much income. The very rebellion takes away your influence what may be crucial for the loyalty of the other nobles, it lowers the allegiance resulting with lower PO in the provinces etc. etc. Very dangerous - it may turn your thriving kingdom into one on the brink of collapse. (Furthermore, the corruption penalty is there, so it additionally limits the snow-balling).
    (3) the balance of some parameters seems to be surprisingly struck. At the Hard difficulty, public order in my settlements is usually slightly above 0, but it can easily slide under if you suffer a loss, a rebellion, an adverse event, but I've experienced that a serious blunder can make real problems. (I think Very Hard with a Hard starting position faction may give me quite a challenge).
    (4) the supply system indeed prevents you from going for too long foreign expeditions. Yes, there's one in the DeI, but now it's embedded in the game mechanisms. I hope it can be balanced by the modders.
    (5) the fact that new units start only with 1/3 strength makes the problem of the new AI armies appearing endlessly just out of thin air (and the meaninglessness of the battles due to this fact) less of a problem. Yes, the AI can still renew its forces but it takes some reasonable time for it to happen.
    (6) the allegiance feature (impaction on the public order) seems to work quite ok. The fast swings are much more convincing for a history-lover than the swings in religion in M2TW/ATW or in culture in RTW/R2TW. It may indeed be a few years for the local leaders to be persuaded to stand behind you. The usurper allegiance provides for a convincing way of having problems in your kingdom. And the civil war (after a disloyal character rebels) is a real and present danger. Good for the gameplay and also historically convincing.
    (7) province and region system is a good one: no razing, less frequent destruction of infrastructure, but a loss of a particularly rich village (with much food or money or PO) may cripple your campaign. It's much better than those in Empire or R2TW. It also put less emphasis on the siege battles (before you always had to conquer the main settlement, not it may happen you don't need to).
    (8) history... well, this is disputable. The scale is good: the armies (if possible to call them such) in that period would consist of a few hundreds or (especially in future England) a few thousands. The fantasy units are very limited (the dogs...), and they come from the right period (you recall those 1000 years obsolete Egyptian chariots in the RTW ;-). But the main problem is the logic of empire: it was very difficult to control lands. Any larger entity was achieved through an overlordship to local communities. The conquest was just a part of the game in town. The Thrones do much in this direction but I'd say: for the history-lovers the first part (short victory) is ok, while for those who don't care - they may go on the conquest spree.
    (9+) there're also many small good choices: automatic trade agreements, the Vikings are much better at sea battles etc.
    (10) esthetics - very fit for the period, very fine.

    On the negative:
    (1) !!! it seems that both BAI and CAI are very inept. I've seen much better campaign army movements in the R2TW-DEI, the diplomatic behavior is entirely botched up imo, and in the battles, the AI makes serious blunders (plus it's still the same Warscape and you get the same - some people like it, I prefer the M2TW one). As I perceive this aspect to be extremely important, I'm very disappointed. It may indeed prevent me from frequent games with the Thrones.
    (2) you build up the settlements according to pre-cooked map: you're heavily constrained in the choice due to the "resources" in the villages. So you just follow the path and your choice is about what to do first and will come next.
    (3) buildings - well, I don't have that immersion I had in Medieval 2, not so much choice, no possibility to make many of them - but they're at least better than in the R2TW, imo.
    (4) character development is also constrained and, frankly speaking, boring. The ancillaries are de facto the previous skills' trees from R2TW/ATW. You cannot swap them, once you've got your preferred choice, all your characters will have it (eg. I always prefer Quartermeister benefits of more movement allowance for my generals, or the Public Order benefits for the governors - and all characters are the same). No interaction between the generals whatsoever as in the Medieval2, where you could swap the ancillaries, and in some mods you can gain loyalty from the FL or learn things for a more experienced general.
    (5) the siege battles seem to be botched up - the BAI doesn't know what to do, the large spaces of the settlement seem to baffle it, the units can bring down walls without equipment etc.
    (6) of course, battles are pretty much the Attila battles, so you know what to expect. If you prefer the Medieval 2 style of fighting (what I do despite playing 1000 hours on the Warscape engine), then the Thrones will disappoint you.
    (7) alas, the historical reality makes all factions having access to each types of units (well, there're exceptions, but not big ones) - so you are not forced to change your tactical fighting style. In the Medieval 2 playing a faction without heavy cavalry (eg. Hungary in 12c) was different from playing a faction with it (HRE) or having plenty of cheap spearmen and missile troops (eg. Venice) was different from playing a faction with strong troops but with vey limited numbers and money (Byzantines). You don't have this variety in the Thrones, even if it could be possible (as the Medieval 2 mod The Last Kingdom shows: very light Welsh with very effective archers, very heavy vikings with limited other troops etc).
    (8) the whole game should be a DLC for Attila.

    So for now, I find Thrones to be the best TW since Medieval as far as the mechanics is concerned, and also on the front of "historicity" (map and buildings, also units, and for some people - the battles), even though it lacks depth and variety of R2TW-DEI and ATW-AE (not to mention the plethora of the Medieval 2 mods). If only a team of modders would 1) polish the triggers and effects for the traits, 2) balance some of the parameters, 3) fix the diplomacy (there's already at least one submod in the Workshop, but I have no idea if it works), 4) if if if possible: improve diplomacy and the AI behaviour, 5) improve the behaviour of the units - then the whole campaign would be very good.

    Nevertheless, and this is the bottom line, I find playing the Medieval 2 advanced mods (SS submods, BC, EBII, TATW etc.) much more rewarding: I may fight the battles, build up my kingdom, role-play characters, role-play history (or the literary worlds in the TATW), optimise various parameters (ie: play for a win).

    JoC
    (I'll probably edit this entry in future once I've got more observations. Further thoughts:
    - the Estate system for the nobles resembles the ideas implemented in the Byg Grim Reality for the SS for M2TW. He made "personal wealth" of the nobles and this would take away some faction's income each turn (iirc, 200 for one estate, 400 for two estates) while making the nobles happy / loyal)

    Additional thoughts put in another thread (I'll combine them at some point):

    "What I want to share is that after a game in ToB I have taken up the TLK mod for Medieval and it have a feeling of having much more understanding why things happen, and also that they happen in a "realistic", sometimes "historical" way. I don't know if it's because I understand the engine, or the M2TW is better programmed, or just because the ToB has it's oddities... (I do tweak the parameters and do some modding, so it may be that me having a kind of "control" of the game gives this feeling).
    On the battlefield it's similar: I have a certain feeling for the units in M2, but in Warscape the soldiers, are just points on the battlefield (with the fast pace of the battles I don't have much time to look into the units...). The main advantage is that you can have a nice replay after the battle and see what was happening.
    Anyway, I'm still unsure what to think about the ToB.
    JoC
    EDIT: I've played a few hours Gwynedd in ToB and:
    - the pre-set (in terms of production) villages really lower the experience: you don't choose, you just get what was pre-cooked;
    - the whole food mechanics feels very gamey: if you're not blessed with many farms, then you are screwed; furthermore, it makes the real limit, not money. Hmm, I prefer the M2TW recruitment pools, to be frank (I've described the ideal recruitment system here).
    - I still don't know why certain generals get certain traits, why they do require estates etc. (it seems that they start longing for the estates only after I got hold on an estate).
    - AI still (as in the ATW) recruits 20-unit armies and you need to have similar ones to face it;
    - yeah, battles are so straightforward: just go and then run towards the enemy... nothing like M2TW-SS battles, not to mention the long EBII. I basically don't pay attention to the data of the units. I've seen a clip with a Warhammer II competitive battle and this looks so differently paced: the player timely decisions seem to have clear impact.

    EDIT2:
    - the new system of recruitment pools (based on 1. probabilities: new unit is likely to show in the poll with a certain probability, iirc I've seen something like between 6% to 66%; and 2. maximum number of units for each unit type) is a good step back to the M2TW system, but it doesn't appeal to me as 1. the player doesn't know the relation between his actions and the changes in the parameters (for each unit type: probability and max number), 2. doesn't seem to have some relation to historical realities. I prefer the M2TW recruitments pools, but the Thrones system is better than anything between them.
    - the scale of the units and map feels quite ok. There's tactical movement indeed.
    - I don't feel immersion when I look at a province data - I'd like more possibilities to set the parameters etc. The buildings do have nice graphics, but I'm much more happy with having RTW/M2TW city-panel with all the data, and also the buildings cards etc.
    - I'm not sure about the granularity of the benefits from traits etc (like +15% of something) - I prefer numbers like +1 Law, +1 squalor etc. (so, actually, some traits in the ToB feel ok, like +1 Influence, +1 Legitimacy). However, it's not so bad.
    - the traits: it's very good there're explanations why the characters get them ("from a port", "from great victory").
    - it's also good there're trade-offs of building higher-tire buildings: so you think twice if you can afford that profit-bringing building given the public order you've got in the province.
    - a rather low marginal profit of the higher-tier buildings is equally good: it's not like you can build one building and afford another full-stack.
    - concerning diplomacy: after a great battle, there's rarely an opportunity to conclude a conflict. Historically, the side heavily beaten would be very willing to have a kind of truce - if only to gather troops and to fix the lost legitimacy at home (presumably by killing some more vocal opponents). The ToB is a total war: you won, but very few changes to make a break / finish the conflict.
    - the usurper allegiance is a great mechanics reflecting the real challenges for a king.
    - the farms are distributed in a pretty unbalanced way. If you're lucky, the food is not a problem for you and you may afford two full-stacks (400 food). Otherwise you may struggle to have even one full stack - and you can't do much about it.

    EDIT 3:
    Some more thoughts on the ToB versus M2TW mechanics: consequences of "exchangeable" nature of generals.
    (1)
    - ToB: you've got many generals (in and outside the family): they lead the armies or are governors. Because of the loyalty penalty (-1) from removing a general from either function, you have to devote a general to one for life: if he starts by leading an army, he has to do it forever. He may go to the reserve at times (-1 loyalty), but if he just tastes the other role, he would have another -1 loyalty (so while in reserve: -2). (exception: it's irrelevant for the faction leader).
    - in M2: generals may lead the armies and they often become meanwhile governors. This is because they're there at the right moment (it takes time for any general to travel and to take up the function), and because they often get useful features in the process (like Dread - a general with a high Dread can keep public order, and this is very handy in a newly conquered city; or +siege equipment abilities while governing). In some mods there're specializations (DLV, SS, EBII) but there're rather positive incentives to employ a better governor, not penalties for switching between the functions (see eg. my submod to the SSHIP).
    (2)
    - in ToB the generals "teleport". If he's a bad one, may you remove him and assign to another province / another army or just put into reserve. Or you assassinate him meanwhile. What is important for gaming is the location of the army and, as the consequence, the tactical level of gaming is indeed about moving an army.
    - in M2 it's essentially where the general is. You may have a very efficient governor (say, giving +30% mining income) but it may be very inefficient to move him across your kingdom to a province with high-level mines - too many turns lost while on the move. As as result, sending a general to the right place is an important part of gaming, in addition to the tactical moves of the army. You also need to pay attention where are your generals (this is even more important in some mods, like BGR with the system of Wars Councillors and Professional Training Staff).
    (3)
    - in ToB you just hire generals. They're seemingly an infinite resource. However, in practice, you need to keep their number as low as possible due to the loyalty issues: you don't have so many estates to give away, or not enough money for bribes. Therefore their number is a part of playing: you do optimize here.
    - in M2 they're seeming finite unless you've got a facility to train new bodyguard units. However, the engine gives you a new one if you're going low compared to the number of the provinces (Man of the Hour event, adoption). However, in my style of playing (no adoptions, no MotH) they are indeed finite and the management of the family is an essential part of playing.

    Caeterum censeo: the ToB is not bad, but the M2-with-mods is better.
    Last edited by Jurand of Cracow; January 31, 2019 at 03:00 PM.
    For those who want to play a historical mod in a medieval setting:
    try either the Stainless Steel Historical Improvement Project + minimods,
    or the Broken Crescent + Buff and Shine submod.
    ..........................................................................................................................................................................
    Reviews of the mods: SSHIP (2018), Wrath of the Norsemen (2018), Broken Crescent (2018).
    Thrones of Britannia: review, opinion on the battles, ideas for modding.
    Minimods for the SSHIP: Generals Traits, Provincial Titles, Crowns.
    Short guides for the SSHIP: population growth, forts and watchtowers.
    Pros and cons of having Merchants in an M2TW mod.
    Home rules for playing a game without exploiting the M2TW engine deficiencies.
    Dominant strategy in Attila TW and Rome 2 TW: “Sniping groups of armies”.

  6. #26
    ♔Greek Strategos♔'s Avatar BEARDED MODERATION
    Artifex Content Staff Modding Staff

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Athens
    Posts
    11,106

    Default Re: Thrones of Britannia: Praise Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    I recently upgraded my computer and started playing the game again after the latest update. The game simply looks beautiful.
    I would be interested to start a new game after the latest additions and fixes. My first experience wasn't that good (not awful though).


    @Jurand of Cracow
    Thanks for your review.

  7. #27
    Huberto's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,259

    Default Re: Thrones of Britannia: Praise Thread

    I've been playing the last few days (first time since May) and it is a MUCH better experience due to balancing costs and adding allegiance. I still question the need to remove features from previous games things without replacing them, but I've enjoyed my time here. ToB is now officially underrated.

  8. #28
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    2,295

    Default Re: Thrones of Britannia: Praise Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Huberto View Post
    I've been playing the last few days (first time since May) and it is a MUCH better experience due to balancing costs and adding allegiance. I still question the need to remove features from previous games things without replacing them, but I've enjoyed my time here. ToB is now officially underrated.
    As you know, I share this opinion. However, what do you think about historical feeling? While food is now a good parameter, I have difficulties to link it to anything material in history...
    Also the "ancillaries" system - while it's better than it used to be, how can I "imagine" it in reality?
    Yeah, on the other hand the civil war is a very historical mechanism - it was great when part of my kingdom just split and the rebels started conquering my other settlements.

  9. #29
    Huberto's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,259

    Default Re: Thrones of Britannia: Praise Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    As you know, I share this opinion. However, what do you think about historical feeling? While food is now a good parameter, I have difficulties to link it to anything material in history...
    Also the "ancillaries" system - while it's better than it used to be, how can I "imagine" it in reality?
    Yeah, on the other hand the civil war is a very historical mechanism - it was great when part of my kingdom just split and the rebels started conquering my other settlements.
    The food system is gamey in the sense that you must scour the map for food and plan your conquests, build decisions and character traits accordingly. On the other hand, food as a proxy for well-being of the people in your lands and for your armies cannot surely be too far from the truth in these times (although I can't pretend I know a lot about this historical period).

    I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the "ancillaries" system. I've always disliked being able to choose traits for my generals and characters from a big menu of choices (RPG style). It's more interesting to acquire traits through specific actions on the map or to be presented with two choices that would be derived from specific actions taken in the game.

  10. #30
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    2,295

    Default Re: Thrones of Britannia: Praise Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Huberto View Post
    I've always disliked being able to choose traits for my generals and characters from a big menu of choices (RPG style). It's more interesting to acquire traits through specific actions on the map or to be presented with two choices that would be derived from specific actions taken in the game.
    I absolutely do agree: I also don't like the RPG "choosing the path" style. The benefits should be related to concrete actions etc. and to stem from them in a rational manner (if you manage a settlement with farms - you're likely to get knowledge of the mines etc.). Furthermore, I also like an element of probability in it: the outcomes should not be deterministic but "may happen". Well, something like here ;-)
    Last edited by Jurand of Cracow; October 26, 2018 at 01:50 AM.

  11. #31
    ♔Greek Strategos♔'s Avatar BEARDED MODERATION
    Artifex Content Staff Modding Staff

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Athens
    Posts
    11,106

    Default Re: Thrones of Britannia: Praise Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Huberto View Post

    I've always disliked being able to choose traits for my generals and characters from a big menu of choices (RPG style). It's more interesting to acquire traits through specific actions on the map or to be presented with two choices that would be derived from specific actions taken in the game.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    I absolutely do agree: I also don't like the RPG "choosing the path" style. The benefits should be related to concrete actions etc. and to stem from them in a rational manner (if you manage a settlement with farms - you're likely to get knowledge of the mines etc.). Furthermore, I also like an element of probability in it: the outcomes should not be deterministic but "may happen". Well, something like here ;-)
    Agreed, that would be much better indeed. I always like how Paradox titles represented traits system, especially in CK2.

  12. #32
    Ibutsu's Avatar Laetus
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Oxenaford
    Posts
    23

    Default Re: Thrones of Britannia: Praise Thread

    I dig how the politics system has a bit more of CK2 going on here. I took a few years break from Total War (or more, a break from having a decent PC), but recently came back and caught up with with Attila, Warhammer, et al., and ToB definitely stood out as the title best described as a breath of fresh air. I wasn't sure what to expect given the harsh inital press, but I'm utterly charmed (and I don't think it's as simple as being keen on Anglo-Saxon history).

  13. #33
    ♔Greek Strategos♔'s Avatar BEARDED MODERATION
    Artifex Content Staff Modding Staff

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Athens
    Posts
    11,106

    Default Re: Thrones of Britannia: Praise Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibutsu View Post
    I dig how the politics system has a bit more of CK2 going on here. I took a few years break from Total War (or more, a break from having a decent PC), but recently came back and caught up with with Attila, Warhammer, et al., and ToB definitely stood out as the title best described as a breath of fresh air. I wasn't sure what to expect given the harsh inital press, but I'm utterly charmed (and I don't think it's as simple as being keen on Anglo-Saxon history).
    Τhe CK2 systems and RPG elements in TOB are quite clear. These are indeed a few of it's positives additions. I can't play it for a long time though. For me the arcade feeling is strong with this one or I'm just too used to more hardcore mods, available with the other TW titles. Maybe during Christmas I'll give it another go.

  14. #34
    swabian's Avatar igni ferroque
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Alamannia
    Posts
    3,376

    Default Re: Thrones of Britannia: Praise Thread

    I just bought it during a sale on Steam (it's still on i think; -50%) and i must say that i'm positively astonished to actually get some enjoyment out of it. I expected another disappointment because of the reviews and my own experiences with previous titles, but i stand corrected. It's actually fun - ha!

    There's the usual hassle with the battle mechanics, like units refusing to climb on walls using the siege towers close to them instead of gates on the other side. Or axe-wielders with sword animations, etc. But there's also a lot of positive changes, like more intuitive strategic management, better interfaces, etc.

    I was almost certain i would refund after an hour, but i decided to keep it. My current campaign is with Northhymbre [there's an h missing in the game by the way; normally the th would be a single symbol, the thorn ş, followed by an h: Norşan-hymbre, or Norşanhymbra Rīce (with Rice meaning realm), but there are indeed instances of "Norşhymbre" in Old-English texts as well. SO if the eth is written as a commomn "th", there's an h missing. Hymbre is a word and means "Humber", which is some region at the coast of Northumberland, so Norşhymbre is a compound word - yes this is important] and i'm, having fun so far on medium difficulty. The slaughter is fun to behold, as always, and i noticed that the management of personalities in the family tree is much more comprehensive and straightforward. It's also slihgtly reminiscent of CK2, as has been mentioned above i believe. I can appreciate that. Also the new mod-manager is just fabulous (and overdue).

    The general scenario of late iron-age Britannia and Hibernia is perfect for the Rome 2 engine, btw: The infighting during this period was very intense. There was also treachery and disloyalty abound. The map and number of provinces and the amount of relevant factions are just about right so as to not render the game boring due to overlong turn processing. The army sizes are about right and actually too large in many instances, so there is no need for larger units. It's kind of an optimal historical scenario regarding the limitations of the engine.

    Oh btw... Would anyone be so kind and recommend me some mods that adress the worst battlefield bugs and general nonsense?

    EDIT: my rig is 1080 GTX with 11 GB; 32 MB RAM; I7 8700K with 3,7 GHz and i get only around 20 FPS on highest possible settings during large siege battles. I dunno if this is still appopriate for the aged engine of Rome 2. I already tried out some performance mods, but they don't do squat.
    Last edited by swabian; March 20, 2019 at 01:29 PM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •