I don't get it.

[Sint]

Tried to give Rome 2 ,with DeI, a chance after not playing it since 2013 and it just reminded me why I dropped it in the first place.The terrible city and campaign building mechanics,the battle engine and the horrible animations the hoplites in particular.

[Dago Red]

I understand that small armies things. yeah, and you're right about that.

Now if DEI could just implement captains, everyone would be happy. Imagine if those guys could actually leave the city, and lead say, a half stack of men (not as many as a full general). And that old MAN OF THE HOUR mechanic could bring you more captains every now and then, or you recruit some...

Of course this would also need a limit cap because the very worst thing about TW games is repetitive army spam with barely any decisive field battles because there's always 2 to 12 more stacks coming to fight.

[copden123]

the thing about siege battle is true,the AI stuck 5k units in my door is a big trouble on fps,even if have i5 9400f with are pretty good cpu is still cant handle that things,the game become a slowmotion for me,all i can do it look in sky to help my fps and press x3 speed button and pray for my poor general

[Jake Armitage]

you can simply raise army caps for player only (you'd need lua, not db)
that man of the hour thing won't be done, not even sure till what level would work, but would surely need some complex script

[Dago Red]

Raising army cap is not the solution for captains though. I love the army cap, I loved my early TW mods for Rome1 and MTW2 but they struggled badly with stack spam.... it's no fun fighting 20 battles in a row with no consequences and seeing 10+ more stacks coming your way. And the older I get the less tolerance i have for it - need decisive battles (not to mention more historically realistic).

Man of the Hour isn't needed but it was such a cool feature. There seems to be an artifact left from it or something similar though - you often get notices of a captain getting an ancillary after a successful siege defense. Of course you cannot locate this captain or use him in any way unless that same city is sieged again. And even then, its not like you can click on him and see this ancillary... its a nice flavor feature, but practically, useless.

[Vardano]

DEI needs another map, I know about modding limitations, but Greece of that time period needs way more cities than it has now to immerse me. The biggest turn off for me is campaign AI, everything has been said about it, but when you know you're gonna win - it kills the core of fun. I'm kind of a pro and probably know the game too well, so what I find easy is hard for others, one should be fair, but I still left with my issue. Deep complex script probably could solve this as a simple Imperium level system is just something easy to adapt.

I wrote before in Jake's brilliant mod forum how I see it some time ago. You should not trick AI with alliances and suffocate your enemies one by one when you want it and how you want it. In Rome I diplomacy is almost non-existent but in Rome II Player can make the game too easy with his "clever" diplomacy as AI can't plan and see as far as you do, it is sort of cheating in my opinion. Seleucids should start war with anyone who grows big around them and threatens their dominance, you should get huge penalties for taking cities if regional powers consider something as their area of influence. AI should form contra alliances to you more effectively, preferably much earlier than it tries to do. It would be really cool to see real identity for factions, Imagine Egypt taking Jerusalem and all of Africa and then deciding it has everything it needs for its people, culture and focuses only on defending that territory... Only after a successor king with different traits comes to power - their politics change.
I really think challenge and fun should mostly come from this type of things and not Imperium level.

[Jake Armitage]

I agree about the AI diplo concept

[Nochyan]

AI should form contra alliances to you more effectively, preferably much earlier than it tries to do. It would be really cool to see real identity for factions, Imagine Egypt taking Jerusalem and all of Africa and then deciding it has everything it needs for its people, culture and focuses only on defending that territory... Only after a successor king with different traits comes to power - their politics change.
I really think challenge and fun should mostly come from this type of things and not Imperium level.

Agreed, but the task sounds monumental

[Vardano]

Agreed, but the task sounds monumental

It is what DEI is, is not it?

We all love TW games with fleshed out rosters for an obvious reasons, maybe this is time to take this term to another level, interestingly, in Rome II there is some basis how to make factions politics and identity more unique, but it certainly limited and not working as it potentially could.

CA with its latest games proved that it can make politics and diplomacy much deeper and meaningful, so I believe we should really expect some more evolution in TW games in all areas, AI really needs to grow to a level of human intelligence as some other games already do well, but with historical foundation and flavor as we love it.

[Dumanthis]

If you want to make the game more challenging with less monumentalism I suggest trying play DeI in multiplayer versus campaign There is a pro singleplayer DeI player and then there is the multiplayer which is a whole different world. Tricks that you can cheese against the AI won't work on another player at all. And some tricks only work on other players

[Vardano]

And some tricks only work on other players

This is funny

[Dakirin]

Filnisius I understand your frustration, but there is a huge difference between vanilla Rome 2 and DeI (many years of work from a passionate team to make the game more immersive), but nobody can make a sport car from a tractor.

In order to understand why newer Total War games are such a disappointment for veterans of the series, we have to look what happened with the company Creative Assembly. After they became part of SEGA, the focus changed from customer to the corporation and thus instead of investing in improving the AI they choose to cut costs by putting rails for the player. It's cheaper to tie the player hands than to invest years into research. The AI doesn't know how to competently build his cities? Solution: reduce the number of buildings available. The AI doesn't know when to consolidate/divide his armies? Solution: put a max number of armies that can be built. The AI can't retrain his armies? Solution: automatic replenishment etc.

On top of this, in order to increase sales they focused on attracting a wider audience (generally younger and younger audiences), so "streamlining", "dumbing down", "handholding" and so on had to be employed to attract people with less patience. Plus the DLC conundrum: how less of a game can we sell before the customers get mad.

That being said there are things that have improved: PATHFINDING is my favorite one, GIVING ORDERS to units, animations, graphics.

In conclusion, if we expect newer games from CA to have wide range of decisions for the player, competent AI on campaign and battlefield, and slightly challenging battles that force the player to become better, we're dreamers cause that's not going to happen.

[valerius karamanus]

Every problem mentioned in OP come from base game, locked behind engine limitations. There is nothing DeI team can do about most, they have already fixed-polished this oversimplified battle simulator as much as they could.

[Jake Armitage]

yo valerius, long time no see

[valerius karamanus]

yo valerius, long time no see

Good to see you still around Jake, hope everythings well
Wanderin around the forum for the first time since a year, had to comment to this bizarre thread.

[Jin-]

Every problem mentioned in OP come from base game, locked behind engine limitations. There is nothing DeI team can do about most, they have already fixed-polished this oversimplified battle simulator as much as they could.

Yep and for that reason i still skip every walled city battle in this game, well to be fair in every TW game since Rome II. I always wonder how could they fail so badly in that regard. Shogun 2 has reasonably fun siege battles. AI knows how to attack from multiple sides and defend when needed to :S.

[Dumanthis]

Yep and for that reason i still skip every walled city battle in this game, well to be fair in every TW game since Rome II. I always wonder how could they fail so badly in that regard. Shogun 2 has reasonably fun siege battles. AI knows how to attack from multiple sides and defend when needed to :S.

AI can't attack walled cities in any total war. Except in Shogun 2 (also in Warhammer I-III). If you think about why this is for a moment you will understand (hint: magic ladders )