Page 5 of 20 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 400

Thread: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

  1. #81
    Lugotorix's Avatar non flectis non mutant
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Carolinas
    Posts
    2,015

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by stevehoos View Post

    So Attila has an in depth building system, how so exactly? Should I build a goat farm or till the fields, I am going to need a well here (in every town) because my sanitation level is -2; oh man the endless choices! What will I build with my 4 choices? I think we disagree on what the word "complex" means.

    The recruitment system in Attila is more complex, how exactly? By mid game many lower tier units are no longer available making army composition bland and un-diversified. Late game one has armies of all top tier units, that equates complexity?
    1. A well in every town? Just stop pretending you play the game. Sanitation alone has a building tree.
    2. This was changed with a patch. You still have access to lower tier infantry now. You can get them anyways with levying client states. Which also wasn't in Rome. There's no subjective interpretation here. One is objectively better in vanilla. I'm pretty happy, with 1085 hours played that the only ammunition you have are map modding, building slots, and traits.
    Last edited by Lugotorix; May 27, 2016 at 01:24 PM.
    AUTHOR OF TROY OF THE WESTERN SEA: LOVE AND CARNAGE UNDER THE RULE OF THE VANDAL KING, GENSERIC
    THE BLACK-HEARTED LORDS OF THRACE: ODRYSIAN KINGDOM AAR
    VANDALARIUS: A DARK AGES GOTHIC EMPIRE ATTILA AAR


  2. #82

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lugotorix View Post
    1. A well in every town? Just stop pretending you play the game.
    2. This was changed with a patch. You still have access to lower tier infantry now.
    Yes, I am pretending to play the game! Look everyone, a dissenter, he disagrees with our mantra!

    So you don't need a building slot for sanitation in every town? Ah.... Yes you do.

    So, CA righted the ship in the blundered recruiting area, I would't know because Fall Of The Eagles has been the only thing I have invested time in.


    You are making an objective claim about whether one game is better than the other? I see, the circular reasoning in here is blinding.
    Last edited by stevehoos; May 27, 2016 at 01:31 PM.
    Shogun 2, no thanks I will stick with Kingdoms SS.

  3. #83
    Lugotorix's Avatar non flectis non mutant
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Carolinas
    Posts
    2,015

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by stevehoos View Post

    So you don't a form of need sanitation in every town?
    Of course not. And yes, believe it or not, the features are better in one game than another. If you enjoyed the game more, that's your prerogative. For example, the game 'Pong.' for DOS was a classic, but it was meant to simulate ping pong. You can say all you want that 'Pong' is a better game than a Nintendo Wii simulator of ping pong, but is a Nintendo Wii simulator a better simulator of the game? You betcha.
    Last edited by Lugotorix; May 27, 2016 at 01:42 PM.
    AUTHOR OF TROY OF THE WESTERN SEA: LOVE AND CARNAGE UNDER THE RULE OF THE VANDAL KING, GENSERIC
    THE BLACK-HEARTED LORDS OF THRACE: ODRYSIAN KINGDOM AAR
    VANDALARIUS: A DARK AGES GOTHIC EMPIRE ATTILA AAR


  4. #84

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Let me rephrase this:

    You all are trying to say that a city of 6 building slot options (one has to be a sanitation building) is more complex than one with 20 or 30 options like I had in my modded version of Medieval 2. Just trying to stay on track here. A galaxy with 1000 stars is more complex than one with 100. That is objectively true.
    Last edited by stevehoos; May 27, 2016 at 01:44 PM.
    Shogun 2, no thanks I will stick with Kingdoms SS.

  5. #85

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lugotorix View Post
    Of course not. And yes, believe it or not, the features are better in one game than another. If you enjoyed the game more, that's your prerogative.
    You still don't seem to understand that this is your opinion. I could like Atari basketball from 1982 better than NBA 2k16 if I wanted to.

    Blue is a better color than red, I proclaim this to be true. Now try to debate me.
    Last edited by stevehoos; May 27, 2016 at 01:48 PM.
    Shogun 2, no thanks I will stick with Kingdoms SS.

  6. #86
    Imperator Artorius's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Royal Holloway, University of London
    Posts
    311

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Eh, if someone can explain to me the logic behind Rome, the largest city in the Western world at the time, having room for only six buildings, or how a blacksmith or fishing jetty cause public order problems, then I will accept the superiority of the new, restricted building system.

    Or indeed, why having a population surplus of " 1" or whatever that means, is superior to knowing your town contains 8,000 people and is growing at 160 people per turn or whatever.

  7. #87
    Lugotorix's Avatar non flectis non mutant
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Carolinas
    Posts
    2,015

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by stevehoos View Post
    You still don't seem to understand that this is your opinion. I could like Atari basketball from 1982 better than NBA 2k16 if I wanted to.
    ^^ That's the best explanation you're going to get. And now you're talking about mods? Unchained? I'm not going to humor you anymore.
    AUTHOR OF TROY OF THE WESTERN SEA: LOVE AND CARNAGE UNDER THE RULE OF THE VANDAL KING, GENSERIC
    THE BLACK-HEARTED LORDS OF THRACE: ODRYSIAN KINGDOM AAR
    VANDALARIUS: A DARK AGES GOTHIC EMPIRE ATTILA AAR


  8. #88

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lugotorix View Post
    ^^ That's the best explanation you're going to get. And now you're talking about mods? Unchained? I'm not going to humor you anymore.
    I understand, argument is like a river, a polluted beginning mucks the whole river downstream. You can't debate someone who starts with their opinion (on a video game) as widespread objective truth.

    Yes mods, because Medieval 2 did not have hard coded building slots like Rome 2 and Attila. Is this not revelatory to the conversation at hand? The debate is whether 6 buildings are more complex than 20. I am waiting for a response for those that feel 6 is a greater harbor of potential complexity.
    Last edited by stevehoos; May 27, 2016 at 02:02 PM.
    Shogun 2, no thanks I will stick with Kingdoms SS.

  9. #89

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Best TW game since Med2 for me, mostly because they removed everything AI couldn't cope with or use. Now the campaign finally makes sense, AI is smart and take advantages of every weaknesses.

    What could be used in an historical game? Not sure, but if this is the direction I hope they stay away from history for a while. It's clear that having to follow historical settings limited CA a lot, and at the same time they never really delivered a vanilla version that was really "authentic" and accurate.



    "With such valorous troops, I could easily become King of Italy"
    Frederick II the Great, after the Piedmontese victory at the Battle of the Assietta (1747)

  10. #90
    Lugotorix's Avatar non flectis non mutant
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Carolinas
    Posts
    2,015

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by stevehoos View Post
    I understand, argument is like a river, a polluted beginning mucks the whole river downstream. You can't debate someone who starts with their opinion (on a video game) as objective truth.

    Yes mods, because Medieval 2 did not have hard coded building slots like Rome 2 and Attila. Is this not revelatory to the conversation at hand? The debate is whether 6 buildings are more complex than 20.
    Read what I posted. You seem to be slow to catch on. This isn't a debate. Some features of games are more complete and more complex and therefore better. Having regional tribes representing Gaul in Rome 2 is better than a single faction in Rome 1 in a historical simulation. The hard evidence of this was Caesar's method of conquering them, you know, in history. Divide et Impera Therefore it's more accurate, more detailed, and does it's job portraying the story better. You can't give me a good reason why the single faction Gaul is better so your argument, however misguided, is invalid. If you persist with the straw man, I will report you, as has no doubt been done many times.
    Last edited by Lugotorix; May 27, 2016 at 02:10 PM.
    AUTHOR OF TROY OF THE WESTERN SEA: LOVE AND CARNAGE UNDER THE RULE OF THE VANDAL KING, GENSERIC
    THE BLACK-HEARTED LORDS OF THRACE: ODRYSIAN KINGDOM AAR
    VANDALARIUS: A DARK AGES GOTHIC EMPIRE ATTILA AAR


  11. #91

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lugotorix View Post
    Read what I posted. You seem to be slow to catch on. This isn't a debate. Some features of games are more complete and more complex and therefore better. Having regional tribes representing Gaul in Rome 2 is better than a single faction in Rome 1 in a historical simulation. The hard evidence of this was Caesar's method of conquering them, you know, in history. Divide et Impera Therefore it's more accurate, more detailed, and does it's job portraying the story better. You can't give me a good reason why the faction Gaul is better so your argument is invalid.
    So the color red is better than the color blue as a universal principal, got it. So the lower the numbers are in mathematics the more variation there is. Thanks for the disambiguation.

    Europa Barbarorum is too simple, let's all revel in the more complete and complex graphically giddy post Rome 2 Attila age.
    Last edited by stevehoos; May 27, 2016 at 02:24 PM.
    Shogun 2, no thanks I will stick with Kingdoms SS.

  12. #92

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by JaM View Post
    i'd say its relatively simple - CA did a lot of mistakes with development of R2TW.. and if I watch a video of a game that came several years later, and still contains same flawed design, it is just a pure disappointment for me. I have no intention paying them 60eur for practically same type of game as Rome 2, with same oversimplifications, and misconceptions.. i wouldn't buy it even if it cost 1eur, its just not worth of my free time anymore. its simple as that.
    If you have no intention of ever buying or playing the game, and you aren't interested in the experiences of those who have, then what do you plan/expect to get out of the Warhammer sub forum?

  13. #93

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by ckangas View Post
    If you have no intention of ever buying or playing the game, and you aren't interested in the experiences of those who have, then what do you plan/expect to get out of the Warhammer sub forum?
    eventually i will (leave). but i came here to actually check the game first. I saw some "Lets play" videos, i saw CA's conference on siege AI (If it even can be called AI anymore), so as a long term TWCenter member, i came here to discuss it. Its my right, you know?

  14. #94
    Lugotorix's Avatar non flectis non mutant
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Carolinas
    Posts
    2,015

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by JaM View Post
    eventually i will (leave). but i came here to actually check the game first. I saw some "Lets play" videos, i saw CA's conference on siege AI (If it even can be called AI anymore), so as a long term TWCenter member, i came here to discuss it. Its my right, you know?
    You should buy it on a holiday sale. I know the kind of dirt bin you think it is, but for 40% off, at the very least it's an enjoyable mini-campaign DLC. Truth be told, Warhammer has always seemed like a silly setting for me too, but they've portrayed it very well. It's a very common stereotype in RTS, but against the AI, your generals and your agents are the predators for once, not the prey, and to me, that's a great game concept.
    Last edited by Lugotorix; May 27, 2016 at 02:58 PM.
    AUTHOR OF TROY OF THE WESTERN SEA: LOVE AND CARNAGE UNDER THE RULE OF THE VANDAL KING, GENSERIC
    THE BLACK-HEARTED LORDS OF THRACE: ODRYSIAN KINGDOM AAR
    VANDALARIUS: A DARK AGES GOTHIC EMPIRE ATTILA AAR


  15. #95

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lugotorix View Post
    You should buy it on a holiday sale. I know the kind of dirt bin you think it is, but for 40% off, at the very least it's an enjoyable mini-campaign DLC. Truth be told, Warhammer has always seemed like a silly setting for me too, but they've portrayed it very well. It's a very common stereotype in RTS, but against the AI, your generals and your agents are the predators for once, not the prey, and to me, that's a great game concept.
    thanks, that is actually kind of a suggestion i was looking for here

  16. #96

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by stevehoos View Post
    I understand, argument is like a river, a polluted beginning mucks the whole river downstream. You can't debate someone who starts with their opinion (on a video game) as widespread objective truth.

    Yes mods, because Medieval 2 did not have hard coded building slots like Rome 2 and Attila. Is this not revelatory to the conversation at hand? The debate is whether 6 buildings are more complex than 20. I am waiting for a response for those that feel 6 is a greater harbor of potential complexity.
    The argument is simple..

    You say 6 building slots as though there are only 6 buildings to choose from. You need to plan what to build with your limited space vs just building everything in every town in Medieval which actually became quite tedious.

    You're also failing to understand that provinces exist, which can give you anywhere from 10 to 18 building slots all of which an synergize together and specialize your province.

    Provinces have taken the place of single towns in M2TW.. in many cases on the map you have single towns taking up the same amount of space of provinces in the newer titles.

    Again, the province system is more complex because you actually have to plan what you build vs just building everything possible in every city.

  17. #97

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by JaM View Post
    eventually i will (leave). but i came here to actually check the game first. I saw some "Lets play" videos, i saw CA's conference on siege AI (If it even can be called AI anymore), so as a long term TWCenter member, i came here to discuss it. Its my right, you know?
    It makes perfect sense to get a sense of whether you wish to purchase the game or not.
    It makes less sense once you've made the decision that it's not a game you'd ever wish to play.

    Obviously it's your right either way. I was just confused at what you were hoping to get out of it is all.

  18. #98

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by stevehoos View Post
    I understand, argument is like a river, a polluted beginning mucks the whole river downstream. You can't debate someone who starts with their opinion (on a video game) as widespread objective truth.

    Yes mods, because Medieval 2 did not have hard coded building slots like Rome 2 and Attila. Is this not revelatory to the conversation at hand? The debate is whether 6 buildings are more complex than 20. I am waiting for a response for those that feel 6 is a greater harbor of potential complexity.

    To be fair, the complexity depends on how relevant each permutation is. If each ordering of the 6 buildings is a relevant ordering pending on circumstances, 6 buildings would be more complex than 700 buildings which always featured a clear path (X is always built first, then Y, then Z, etc.) since 6! = 720.

    Generally in games (in general, not just the PC variety), a modest branching factor of a few well-known options where most branches are relevant leads to the most "entertaining" and "deep" game. For example, you could create a new version of chess with 20 different pieces instead of 6. But because chess is sufficiently complex already, the introduction of the additional 14 pieces would predominantly raise the learning curve, without effectively making it a much "deeper" game. Perhaps it could be said that this new version is more complex since it would take longer to learn, but adding the additional 14 pieces is not guaranteed to make it significantly more rewarding strategically. It might, but the effect would depend on how well the new pieces were designed.
    If the power level and balance of the new pieces were not calibrated well enough, you could end up with a smaller series of openings, or openings that ran much deeper into the midgame. Potentially, the new pieces could form openings and counters which would run until the end-game. As a result, you'd end up with a game with a much smaller relevant solution space; i.e. a less complex game even though you have 20 pieces instead of 6.

    If a person wanted to make chess a "deeper" game which would still be quick to learn, but take a lifetime to master, expanding the relevant moves for each ply would arguably be the best method. If all moves at each ply were close in terms of the benefit for the player, chess would become drastically more complex. Probably too complex to be enjoyable since it would take a person too long to determine the best move on a board...but complex nevertheless.


    I guess what I'm trying to say is that adding more pieces/units/buildings/etc. may not be the best way to add complexity. And if the new parts added aren't well-balanced, complexity will either not be greatly affected, or will be reduced.
    Furthermore, if there's a "set opening building chain" which is always the most advantageous, it doesn't make much difference if you have 4 or 100 buildings to choose from; there's essentially one path. I'd argue that this is the issue in most TW games regarding buildings. There's typically an optimal way to spend your gold concerning buildings/troops/etc. Yes, each game is slightly different, but usually if you have X gold to spend on buildings, there's an optimal method to figure out (whether you have 6 or 20 buildings).

    Overall, ensuring strong unit counters exist and countries are well-balanced are probably the easiest routes to creating a strategically deeper TW game, not adding buildings.


    Edit: These statements are intended to be general. They are not pointed towards any specific TW title or mod. I'm especially *not* trying to suggest anything concerning the aforementioned mod's balance.
    Last edited by ckangas; May 27, 2016 at 04:11 PM.

  19. #99
    Yerevan's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,504

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lugotorix View Post
    Attila is the most advanced TW yet.
    The more complex maybe. But all those parts reassembled to the main body after R2's dismemberment are not interacting quite harmoniously. Same for the new stuff : things like offices just bring more complexity but not much fun. And the CAI pre Age of Charlemagne was terrible with this player vs rest of the world thing.

    But I'm curious about TWarhammer, despite the silly lore. THe return of things like guard mode or relief on the battle maps among other stuff is tempting me. And I never cared about naval battles. Maybe I should watch a few let's play. It's really hard to have an opinion on TW games so soon after it's out.
    Last edited by Yerevan; May 27, 2016 at 04:41 PM.
    " Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! "

  20. #100
    Druout's Avatar Libertus
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    97

    Default Re: Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yerevan View Post
    The more complex maybe. But all those parts reassembled to the main body after R2's dismemberment are not interacting quite harmoniously. Same for the new stuff : things like offices just bring more complexity but not much fun. And the CAI pre Age of Charlemagne was terrible with this player vs rest of the world thing.

    But I'm curious about TWarhammer, despite the silly lore. THe return of things like guard mode or relief on the battle maps among other stuff is tempting me. And I never cared about naval battles. Maybe I should watch a few let's play. It's really hard to have an opinion on TW games so soon after it's out.
    Keep in mind that individual unit formation options are non-existent, groups are limited to two formations missile front/melee front, siege combat is very basic (start within range of of towers, no tiered fortresses like in MTW2). Combat reminds me more of Battle for Middle Earth than TW combat.

Posting Permissions

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