Re: An interesting opinion.
Originally Posted by
eXistenZ
Lack of lategame challenge is something that happens in a lot of strategy games, I agree there. However, I didn't encounter any meaningfull opposition anymore past turn 20. That is not late game. That not even middle game yet. And they require you to conquer 80 regions (because alliances don't count with barbarian factions). Im pretty sure I would have died of boredom. Thats just poor design and playtesting, if any playtesting went in at all.
And yes the AI hasn't always been great in TW. However I've never known it to be so bad that factions leave their last settlement when you invade their land, so you can just walk in and they starve. I don't remember being spammed by stupid diplomatic requests in Shogun 2. I do remember the AI putting up an actual fight. and so on...
I don't expect the same amount of depth we get from other strategy games, but for the few mechanics they do implement, they could at least but the effort in to make them work: diplomacy is a joke, party politics is a drag rather than interesting where you need to keep everybody happy like some sort of delivery boy, character management (which worked really well in previous TW's) is boring. Then you combine that with a terrible AI and questionable design.
I don't see how people can claim the game is good now. Yes, it's better than at release. Only because the only way was up.... To be blunt, a polished turd is still a turd. We are 5 years further and I have the feeling we went more back than forwards...
It sounds like you had a really disappointing Arverni campaign. I'm surprised that you didn't see upgraded enemy units. In my late-stage Carthage campaign (in the 1st century BC), I'm fighting the Iceni. Not all of their armies include Heroic Nobles (in addition to the general) but I've seen an army with several of them, showing that they've upgraded an artisan (infantry recruitment) building to the highest level (Bronze Furnace).
I'm surprised, too, that you didn't experience meaningful opposition after turn 20. Yesterday, I started a new Carthage campaign, to compare the game play to the Carthage campaign which my AAR is based on (which began before Empire Divided, Desert Kingdoms and Rise of the Republic were released, with their associated patches). In the new campaign, I face challenges to the north, the west and the south-east.
To my north, Rome and Syracuse declared war and allied against me. Syracuse took Lilybaeum. Rome sent a full-stack Second Legion by sea towards Karalis. I sent my half-stack fleet to intercept them. My warships were almost all lost, but they inflicted heavy losses and the Second Legion turned back. Syracuse landed a large army at Thapsus. I sacrificed an army to inflict heavy losses on them, retreating into the desert so that the Syracusans would suffer attrition when they pursued me. The Syracusan army was reduced from a full stack to a half stack and it's now marching towards the city of Carthage.
In the west, the Gaetuli took all the African lands which used to belong to Nova Carthago, one of my client states. I fought back, taking Dimmidi and the port of Iol, but the Gaetuli sent a large army to retake them and my western army is still replenishing and replacing lost units. A last stronghold of Nova Carthage remains in Iberia, they're protecting my Iberian lands for now.
In the south-east, Garamantia, the Nasamones and Cyrenaica captured most of the cities belonging to Libya, my other client state. Libya was almost destroyed.
Carthage faces a war on three fronts. The AI is putting up an "actual fight" - on all three fronts, enemies are attacking. I sacrified my fleet and one of my two major armies to inflict losses on invading armies so that major cities could be held. In my previous Carthage campaign, I was using A More Aggressive AI mod - now I'm playing unmodified Rome II, yet I'm seeing similar levels of AI aggression in the new campaign. This new campaign is challenging and enjoyable - and I'm playing on Normal.
Yes, the AI can make bad decisions and yes, it's annoying when AI factions keep asking for something which we don't want to give them. Even so, I don't see diplomacy as a "joke". For example, there are consequences to weigh up when considering a non-aggression pact. It could lead to trade and perhaps a military access agreement, which would give my faction wealth and access to mercenaries. It could also help me to make treaties with friends of this faction. However, it would prevent me from expanding into their territory and enemies of this faction could become hostile. Also, I like the way that AI factions use diplomacy when they're losing a war - asking for a peace, joining a confederation with another faction or being a client state/satrapy of another enemy (or a friend) of the player's nation.
Yes, the political system has shortcomings. There are lots of options in the intrigues system, but I'm not using many of them (perhaps I will when I understand it better). I like the risk of secession as a balancing mechanic. I don't need to "keep everybody happy like some sort of delivery boy" and I'm not "spend my time sending people on missions to keep their loyalty just above 1". Maintaining loyalty can be done in different ways, such as winning battles with commanders belonging to rival parties and promoting their commanders. Rome II rewards players who recruit the best commanders and reward them based on their skill and success in command, as opposed to promoting generals and admirals based on the family they were born into. As in the real world, appointments and promotion based on achievements earn loyalty; appointments and promotion based on nepotism cause resentment. When that's not enough to maintain loyalty, we can use loyalty edicts, a change of government (if we're a republic), or attaching a dignitary to an army commanded by a rival party general (and giving that dignitary the skill which increases the general's loyalty). Alternatively, we can go through the secession, if a rival party's attributes all impose loyalty penalties so that it's too much work to keep their loyalty. Another rival party will appear sooner or later - but the new party could have better attributes.
While it's not perfect, I see it as a flawed gem, not a "polished turd".
Last edited by Alwyn; August 28, 2018 at 03:44 AM.