Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 108

Thread: Hannibal at the Gates seems to be good, eh?

  1. #61

    Default Re: Hannibal at the Gates seems to be good.

    Quote Originally Posted by alQamar View Post
    I would have wished seasons would have caused anything more but introducing a cool animation. In wonder how enjoyable a campaign stays with not inflicting effects weather has (not only winter)
    Seasons do have an affect on provinces. But I get what you mean, because the effects are too small to notice, generally, and armies themselves don't take any extra attrition from them.

    But that is a problem that isn't unique to HatG... much of that is inherited from the base game, so I don't hold it against HatG by-itself (though I do when it comes to the base-game, because the patch that accompanied HatG sort of made the base-game odd with seasons that last a full year).

  2. #62

    Default Re: Hannibal at the Gates seems to be good.

    Am i the only one experimenting summer in spring, fall in summer, winter in fall and spring in winter ?

    The game starts in february but he considers it's spring... All seasons are screwed after that point.

  3. #63

    Default Re: Hannibal at the Gates seems to be good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keyser View Post
    Am i the only one experimenting summer in spring, fall in summer, winter in fall and spring in winter ?

    The game starts in february but he considers it's spring... All seasons are screwed after that point.
    Heard something about a shift in the calendar at this period in history, compared to ours?

  4. #64

    Default Re: Hannibal at the Gates seems to be good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Butan View Post
    Heard something about a shift in the calendar at this period in history, compared to ours?
    Well, i've heard of some indeed , however it can't be because they based the seasons on the calendar of this period since first, it's CA we are speaking about...
    Why would they number the year according to our own calendar if they decided to use the roman one ?

    Secondly, the months of July and August came after the punic war and shouldn't be in then, lastly and its linked to that point, the roman calendar didn't work at all like our own and didn't work like he do in game either.

    So, i am still wondering about why i am experimenting this strange effect (and if i am alone (i am using the french version, might be linked to a bug in the translation or the season table ?)).
    Last edited by Keyser; March 30, 2014 at 08:53 AM.

  5. #65

    Default Re: Hannibal at the Gates seems to be good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keyser View Post
    Well, i've heard of some indeed , however it can't be because they based the seasons on the calendar of this period since first, it's CA we are speaking about...
    As mind-blowing as implementing seasons but keeping 1TPY, amirite?
    Anyway I believe there must be a basis for a logic reason there, and if not, well, enjoy the umpteeth oddity of Rome 2



    Still, from looking at this thread, I believe its a minor inconvenience compared to the quality of said DLC (not evocating its meaningfulness compared to main campaign improvements, not again!).

  6. #66
    ♔Old Dragoon♔'s Avatar I'm Your Huckleberry
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    At my mind palace...
    Posts
    1,083

    Default Re: Hannibal at the Gates seems to be good.

    Yeah I am looking at behaviors of the AI including diplomacy. I am just starting Hannibal and had to mod it because Carthage merc lineup still sucks. Pretty much nothing new with another Balearic slinger (wtf?). So now that I fixed that I am giving it a try to see if it is a vast improvement.

  7. #67

    Default Re: Hannibal at the Gates seems to be good.

    do you mind sharing that fixed version?

  8. #68
    PonySlaystation's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Steiermark / Austria
    Posts
    280

    Default Re: Hannibal at the Gates seems to be good.

    Quote Originally Posted by CheesyFreak View Post
    I havent got the expansion yet, but maybe with sacrifice it means you get more public order by killing war prisoners after a battle?
    no. i got this bonus in the grand campaign playing as lusitani as well. it just means you get +4 public order bonus in every province you own. its listed as "faction" in the public order overview of your provinces.
    and trust me you are going to need that because the iberian culture isnt really spread and the lusitani kinda lack temples with good cultural conversion. the only really efficient way to get cultural conversion as lusitani are those techs in the civil tech tree. or you have to build the same temple in every province which is kinda a waste of building space imo.

    edit: ok now i checked it in my lusitani-mpc campaign and i just had +1 public order (next turn +2) added by faction and not +4 as it should (i am atm not in war with a neightboring faction as well). cant really say why its only +1/+2...i remember i got +4 public order at the start of the campaign. its a bit confusing right now. but ill keep an eye on it^^
    Last edited by PonySlaystation; March 30, 2014 at 11:09 AM.
    Ferrum Noricum


    TEAM SKAVEN
    TEAM DARK ELVES
    TEAM TOMB KINGS

  9. #69

    Default Re: Hannibal at the Gates seems to be good.

    it surprising, its fun! What you know... I like the Iberians. 1to10, I say 7...

  10. #70
    ♔Old Dragoon♔'s Avatar I'm Your Huckleberry
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    At my mind palace...
    Posts
    1,083

    Default Re: Hannibal at the Gates seems to be good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toho View Post
    do you mind sharing that fixed version?
    I didn't make any mods if that is what you are implying. I meant that I loaded up mods involving Carthage that are in the Steam workshop. Sorry old boy for my wording and all that. Cheers!

  11. #71

    Default Re: Hannibal at the Gates seems to be good.

    Positives:
    -Carthage's mercenary units/diverse line-up. CA finally added Numidian cavalry that isn't almost worthless.
    -Campaign map. Even Italy is larger than I thought.
    -Rome looks like it may be somewhat challenging as they have three stacks of armies in Northern Italy that were waiting for me.

    Negatives:
    -Gripe with the tech tree. The +25 for the Gallic tribes should have been the 1st or 2nd you get to research instead of the third. With the way the AI works, had I marched through the territory of the Volcae or Insubres to get to Italy, I would have angered every 3 of the 4 Gallic factions. I was determined to get Hannibal into Italy after destroying the two Iberian factions.
    -The minor Iberian and African factions are too quick to declare war. I look at it as a substitute from CA for the fact that they know Rome won't attack Carthage anywhere but maybe Africa. So, I ended up conquering most of NA.
    -Similar to above, they have no way of recreating the Iberian theater or, if you play as Rome, Hannibal in Italy (which is odd, because it's called Hannibal at the Gates.
    -As a result, it really is just the same as the Grand Campaign. There's nothing that makes it the Second Punic War. I didn't fight Rome until 30-40 turns into the game.

    How hard would it have been for CA to script something so that, if you play as Rome, Hannibal strikes from the Alps, and if you play as Carthage, the Romans bring armies down? They did it in CiG with the imperium levels.

    My complaints basically center around the broken diplomacy and the fact that I wanted to try and recreate what Hannibal did in Italy to the best that the game allows, but isn't that the point of a mini-campaign based on the Second Punic War? It really is just the Grand Campaign on a smaller scale.

  12. #72
    TuranianGhazi's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    614

    Default Re: Hannibal at the Gates seems to be good.

    I can't wait to play HatG. Been putting it off to release an AFP update with 10 more factions.

    I agree with all the positives, they're really stacking up. Yet, the largest negative that keeps biting pretty much all DLC campaigns is the shallow diplomacy/politics system. If they revamp or overhaul it, all DLC campaigns and main Grand Campaign would benefit. It strikes me as odd that for HatG they didn't go for Imperium levels, when for HatG, it made much more sense for Carthage as a phoenix rising empire challenging that of Rome. Gauls or Suebi were never quite an empire, in the strictest sense of the word. Mighty confederations or nations, but certainly not empires. So lack of Imperium levels for Carthage and Rome is dubious.

    Lastly, is it just me or what, but I see TWO DUPLICATES or CLONES of Publius Cornelius Scipio for Rome main political party? Does Scipio have his doppelganger? What's going on? I know there was a father and the famous son, but they're names are exactly the same. One is 42 and the other 18 (to-be-Africanus I'm guessing)




  13. #73

    Default Re: Hannibal at the Gates seems to be good.

    Quote Originally Posted by TuranianGhazi View Post
    I can't wait to play HatG. Been putting it off to release an AFP update with 10 more factions.

    I agree with all the positives, they're really stacking up. Yet, the largest negative that keeps biting pretty much all DLC campaigns is the shallow diplomacy/politics system. If they revamp or overhaul it, all DLC campaigns and main Grand Campaign would benefit. It strikes me as odd that for HatG they didn't go for Imperium levels, when for HatG, it made much more sense for Carthage as a phoenix rising empire challenging that of Rome. Gauls or Suebi were never quite an empire, in the strictest sense of the word. Mighty confederations or nations, but certainly not empires. So lack of Imperium levels for Carthage and Rome is dubious.

    Lastly, is it just me or what, but I see TWO DUPLICATES or CLONES of Publius Cornelius Scipio for Rome main political party? Does Scipio have his doppelganger? What's going on? I know there was a father and the famous son, but they're names are exactly the same. One is 42 and the other 18 (to-be-Africanus I'm guessing)
    I noticed this as well. I thought it was wierd


    my eternal thanks to the EB team for making R:TW such an epic game, and to TWC and all other modders for pushing the boundaries with each Total War title .

  14. #74

    Default Re: Hannibal at the Gates seems to be good.

    Just beat the campaign as Rome. It was a really fun campaign. At the end it came down to me sending legions from Libya and Numidia at the same time, and Carthage put up a hell of a fight.

    It came down to a huge battle with three stacks on each side. Can't wait to play as an Iberian tribe next.

  15. #75

    Default Re: Hannibal at the Gates seems to be good.

    How do I tell what season it is? Is there anything that tells us?

  16. #76

    Default Re: Hannibal at the Gates seems to be good.

    There's a little icon next to the date and turn number. Sun is summer, seed is spring etc

  17. #77

    Default Re: Hannibal at the Gates seems to be good.

    I would have liked to see Carthage have more non mercenary quality Iberian units to represent the quite skilled Iberian troops used during the war. Hannibal's army is all African and that's unfortunate.

    Greece should have been included in the game if it's supposed to be the second war since the Greeks certainly played a role in the war. It doesn't feel like the war when Greece is totally excluded. Sicily could have had more cities as well. The game doesn't really feel like the second war in terms of how the campaign plays out. Though, that may have more to do with the game not being able to represent it very well. Some of the issues are really with the overall game and have just found themselves in the DLC as well.

    I do like that they sort of have client states and allies represented and we have the ability to try to get them to switch sides.

  18. #78

    Default Re: Hannibal at the Gates seems to be good.

    Quote Originally Posted by GenTiberius View Post
    I would have liked to see Carthage have more non mercenary quality Iberian units to represent the quite skilled Iberian troops used during the war. Hannibal's army is all African and that's unfortunate.
    You can also recruit local units when you are in the territory of one of your client state, but it's rare to have access to quality troops.

    Also, many of the new mercenaries units are from the "carthaginian" pool, so they still are mercenaries, but represent those troops that went looking for work from Carthage or were raised by Carthaginian agents.

    Lastly, Carthage discounts from the faction bonus and technology upgrade mean that you can use mercenaries almost as if they were factional troops. I always do when i play Carthage. The basic spanish horse unit is very good for its price.
    It's not so bad i guess.

  19. #79
    Yerevan's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,504

    Default Re: Hannibal at the Gates seems to be good.

    So, is Rome AI faction able to put preassure on both theaters (Iberia & Sicily) ?
    Last edited by Yerevan; March 31, 2014 at 10:32 AM.
    " Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! "

  20. #80

    Default Re: Hannibal at the Gates seems to be good.

    Is it me or are Pike units over powered? I slaughtered all the melee guys in Rome mainly with just 4 units of pike men. It was a cake walk to destroy Rome and her allies with Syracuse on normal difficulty. They didn't pressure me at all, and the couple of big battles I had my Pikes just cleaned house.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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