2/2

- Cavalry are OP. Quite obvious, I know, but holy shit are knights overpowered in this game. I don't know why are there so many infantry units, since they all die the same to a well placed cavalry charge. Not even spearmen are spared.

- Campaign is, frankly, worse than Shogun's. Building bloat makes it a chore to manage your settlements specially if you go for total domination, and character bloat rears its ugly head. I mean, why the fuck are there like 15 emissaries, princcesses and other niggas in my province, have they got nothing better to do?

- Good variety of artillery, but unfortunately its efficiency depends upon unit size. Since every unit of artillery has only one piece regardles of sizes, the bigger the unit size the less effective it is. So if you are like me and always play with huge unit sizes, artillery is going to do jack and shit in field battles.

- Gunpowder units are decent, if underwhelming. I find it amusing that they have fire-by-rank by default, which explains why each volley does so little damage. Good effect on morale, though.

- Viking Invasion is an absolute improvement over the base game. The limited faction, unit selection and map does wonders, and it really feels like a Shogun 1.5. The Norse are a blast to play with their raiding mechanics.

- The soundtrack is top tier. Jeff van Dyck really went all out on this one, it's so fucking good. He sure was on a roll throughout the first four TW games.

And that's about it. An enjoyable experience but quite inferior to Shogun and specially Rome, which is still the best in the franchise.

TL;DR: It's good but not as good as first or third. Will keep on listening the soundtrack tho.

>>2121244
>Skirmish mode is non-functional, which makes skirmishers completely useless.
lmao

>>2121244
I thought this was Dominions from the thumbnail, then I opened it and realized it looks too good

>>2121244
I remember going over to my friend's house and watching him play this while I was still playing Starcraft; thinking this looked amazing.

>>2121244
>>2121250
>the Steam version works out of the box in W11
The battle UI has a horrendous impact on framerate for some reason though. No idea if there's any way around it.

>where the fuck is the run button, I want my soldiers to run AFTER I put them in formation.
I'm like 90% sure there's a keyboard shortcut for it. Ctrl + R?

>Skirmish mode is non-functional, which makes skirmishers completely useless
In my experience it can work okay, but only against one unit at a time. There was a trick where you set them to "hold formation" instead and retreat manually, which works a bit better.
Micro-heavy, but javelins do shred entire units if you can pull it off. Love me some bonnachts.

>the early medieval period when you don't have access to decent artillery and you CANNOT build siege equipment like in Rome
Hire siege engines from inns, they'll give you units from one age forward. Also Viking Invasion gave archers the ability to destroy wooden fortifications with fire arrows, but the game doesn't really tell you about it.

>knights and artillery
Hey, that's the medieval times for you. Artillery being immobile is what kills it in field battles IMO.

>Gunpowder units are decent, if underwhelming
Handgunners are fun because they're tough enough to kill lighter units in melee. Makes for a neat assault unit.

I'm suprised to see no complaints about diplomacy or the pope, lol. Seriously, fuck that guy.

File: Screenshot 2025-08-17 at (...).png (214 KB, 566x431)

214 KB PNG

>>2121896
>Battle UI
No idea, I don't seem to be having framerate problems during battles so I can't help you troubleshoot it.

>Ctrl + R?
Holy shit, that worked! I had to check the manual and no, it ain't there. So thank you anon, have a good one. By the way, just found out you can actually drag select by using Ctrl. Don't know how I missed that.

>Javelins
Tried using them as Spain, I just can't seem to get them to work. I'll try your way, see if it goes any better.

>Siege engines
Yeah, mercenary catapults have saved my bacon more than once. Funnily enough I learned about the flaming arrows when playing the Viking Invasion campaign. They are useful, but against stone gate and walls you are shit out of luck, since the fucking towers will make short work of them.

>Artillery
Just like Rome and Medieval II (and Shogun II). That's why I didn't mention it as a con. But yeah, especially with the tendency of the AI to fuck off out of range there is no use for them in offensive field battles.

>Diplomacy
Diplomacy is LOL LMAO tier in the first TWs. Who could forget the "Don't attack us or we will attack you" loop in Rome. And in regards to the Pope, after about 2000 hours in Medieval II I've gotten used to dealing with that son of a bitch. Always use lighting strikes to take a region or two before the Pope interferes, and have another army ready to attack infidels or schismatics while the truce lasts. Ideally by requesting a Crusade.

File: 1755306002758118.jpg (80 KB, 798x720)

80 KB JPG

>>2121244
>And where the fuck is the run button, I want my soldiers to run AFTER I put them in formation.
skill issue
>Any move order and they do the classic "left wing crushes into right wing" move.
skill issue? i don't know what you're talking about
>Skirmish mode is non-functional, which makes skirmishers completely useless
skill issue (just micromanage them yourself)
>The so-called "great AI" makes the exact same move, every single battle: camping on the highest hill. I mean, yeah, it's the logical move, but it ain't exactly fun.
why would an AI playing as the defender not take a defensive position?
>I'll give the game some leeway regarding sieges since it's the first game with them. But man, are they bad.
the only thing i don't like about sieges is that arrows spawn out of walls
>Unit bloat is real, by god is it real.
i will concede this.
>Campaign is, frankly, worse than Shogun's.
i will concede this.
>Viking Invasion is an absolute improvement over the base game.
also agree
>Rome, which is still the best in the franchise.
highly disagree

File: 1755305085779038.jpg (287 KB, 816x713)

287 KB JPG

>>2122128
>highly disagree
to explain why because the thought just hit me: rome's battles are way too fast paced and they made the AI retarded and while there's cool things like tetsudo the simulation aspects feel like a downgrade in many regards. in s1/m1 the battles are mostly about positioning and almost everything except the moment when your actual lines touch. i've had many battles where i've spent more time maneuvering and getting my army into a good position and trying to goad the ai out of their positions than actually fighting. but in Rome units die in 30 seconds and you have to be constantly micro'ing your units the entire battle. and sure, that's probably better for MP games, but the AI is brain damaged. I've also been doing a bunch of archeological deep dives into old TW history and the battle engine programmers who made shogun/medieval really good and were well-known by the community actually jumped ship and left after medieval. And also apparently one of the shitty guys at CA who is one of the reasons the company sucks so shit now joined specifically during the time of rome 2's development and has some contract clause with sega that they can never be fired or something. So yeah I think Rome is where things went to shit. I also think things like the TV deal got them in over their heads and made them lose sight of what these games were actually trying to be and that ended up causing a lot of problems, maybe it wasn't visible with Rome because obviously things hadn't gotten that bad yet but it was sure as hell visible with Empire. There's something an ex-tw employee called "the curse of the battle ai programmer" and it's been in existence ever since rome and empire and basically every battle AI programmer ends up quitting because management is retarded, gives them no ability to actually work and do their job well and tells them to make the AI retarded on purpose because they don't care. This is all real.

>>2122141
>joined specifically during the time of rome 2's development
rome* (1) oops dont know how that 2 got in there

>>2122128
>>2122141
>skill issue? i don't know what you're talking about
You have a unit. You give that unit a move order to someplace, while changing its formation. That unit decides that its soldiers have to switch places, and the left wing moves to the right and the right wing moves to the left, thus shattering unit cohesion while moving. It happens constantly in S1/M1.

>skill issue (just micromanage them yourself)
If there is a gameplay mechanic available to me, I want it to be functional. Just excusing it with "do it manual" is not acceptable. Also, you are complaining that there's too much micromanaging in Rome (which is false, by the way), so you're one to talk about skill issues.
>why would an AI playing as the defender not take a defensive position?
Because it's boring, and it leaves their army vulnerable to all-cav armies while en route to their favorite hill. Which you would know, if you weren't the board's resident S1/M1 fanboy.

>the only thing i don't like about sieges is that arrows spawn out of walls
Yeah, because you can't put units up on them so they had to simulate archers up there. Sieges suck, and the pathfinding shits itself even harder than in Rome/M2. They are boring as fuck and are miles worse than the open fortresses of S1.

>highly disagree
I don't give a fuck. M1's AI isn't that good, not even compared to recent games. And I already told you in another thread that battle AI is not the end-all, be-all of a Total War game and that there are tons of other factors and elements in regards to their quality.

I admire your passion, but holy shit are you blinded by it. Try to look at Medieval 1 with a bit more objectivity, and stop ultrafocusing on one, single element which, to CA's credit, not everyone cares about, at least not as much as you do.

>>2121949
>Holy shit, that worked! I had to check the manual and no, it ain't there. So thank you anon, have a good one. By the way, just found out you can actually drag select by using Ctrl. Don't know how I missed that.
You're welcome. It shows up if you right click the unit tab. There's a bunch of other orders there, like withdrawal or dismounting (before battle).

>Tried using them as Spain, I just can't seem to get them to work. I'll try your way, see if it goes any better.
Spain has jinetes, they should be a lot easier to manage and still useful when out of ammo.

>>Artillery
>Just like Rome and Medieval II
No way, flaming projectile onagers/catapults can be very nasty against blobs in the later games.

>>2122177
>You have a unit. You give that unit a move order to someplace, while changing its formation. That unit decides that its soldiers have to switch places, and the left wing moves to the right and the right wing moves to the left, thus shattering unit cohesion while moving. It happens constantly in S1/M1.
Wedge formation helps a lot to prevent this. Not sure about 180 turns, but it makes weaving horsemen between enemy units much easier.

File: 1754760806611826.jpg (7 KB, 250x241)

7 KB JPG

>>2122177
>M1's AI isn't that good, not even compared to recent games. And I already told you in another thread that battle AI is not the end-all, be-all of a Total War game and that there are tons of other factors and elements in regards to their quality.
>I admire your passion, but holy shit are you blinded by it. Try to look at Medieval 1 with a bit more objectivity, and stop ultrafocusing on one, single element which, to CA's credit, not everyone cares about, at least not as much as you do.
The Total War series has been in decline, as we are both in agreement, ever since the second fucking title. Every single game they make is quantifiably worse than the last in objective ways that can be documented and measured. It's just easiest to point out the flaws of the battles and the AI because they are the most core part of these games (shogun 1 was rts first, campaign second, from the mouths of the devs) and because they are also the part they have most obviously and brutally butchered and murdered, and is also by far the least subjective and least defensible. It's just obvious that they haven't known what they're fucking doing for like 20 years and the fact that their company is so shit and has probably had their entire development team turn over at least 10 times doesn't help anything.
They have also known for 20 years what their problems are and why their games are shit and they know what fans of the series actually want and no problems have ever been fixed, no fans have ever been listened to. They refuse to even go back to their older titles to push bug fixes, engine updates, or to fix glaringly obvious issues that were left unfinished at the time of release. For fucks sake, the only way you can have proper, working guns and pike units for medieval 2 is if you buy the fucking phone port. This company deserves zero sympathy and ruthless criticism.

Don't even get me started on warhammer.

File: 1755293400461805.jpg (36 KB, 600x583)

36 KB JPG

>>2122260
>ever since the second fucking title.
Small addendum here: i was reading a bunch of old total war forum posts, and it might actually be correct here to say the first DLC. Because according to forum members, mongol invasion was made without the input of the battle programmer for the game and they ended up fucking up the balance and introducing nonsensical issues, so there's that too.

>>2121250
>>2121244
spot on
>>2121250
>Viking Invasion is an absolute improvement over the base game
eh, it bloat the base campaign with extra units, kind of like MI did for shogun

>>2122177
>You have a unit. You give that unit a move order to someplace, while changing its formation. That unit decides that its soldiers have to switch places, and the left wing moves to the right and the right wing moves to the left, thus shattering unit cohesion while moving. It happens constantly in S1/M1.
it also happen in rome 1, the swirl movement

>>2122260
>The Total War series has been in decline, as we are both in agreement, ever since the second fucking title.
The thought of a 200 titles series being in decline since the second title amuses me.
Like a 2000 years existing empire that was only ever good iin its first year of existence, and has been in decline ever since.

>>2122241
>You're welcome. It shows up if you right click the unit tab. There's a bunch of other orders there, like withdrawal or dismounting (before battle).
Another thing that doesn't show up in the manual. How I hate that. Thanks again anon, that was certainly useful.

>Spain has jinetes, they should be a lot easier to manage and still useful when out of ammo.
I use them like Roman legionaries: throw a couple javelins, and charge. Never used them as skirmishers to be honest.

>No way, flaming projectile onagers/catapults can be very nasty against blobs in the later games.
I meant being static, somehow in my head I had the idea that in M2 artillery was also immovable, am I a fucking moron. I know M2 artillery can be devastating against infantry, specially once you get to culverins with explosive ammo. It was great tearing through stacks of Aztec infantry with them and with conquistadores.

>>2122527
>eh, it bloat the base campaign with extra units, kind of like MI did for shogun
True, no less than 29 fucking units. Talk about bloat, I'm starting to understand the "spearmanni" meme against historical TWs. Anyways, I meant the VI campaign, not the expansion as a whole. It is much better than the base campaign, for the reasons I listed.

File: difficulty levels.png (408 KB, 1096x716)

408 KB PNG

>>2122553
>The thought of a 200 titles series being in decline since the second title amuses me.
since first expansion of first title, heh
>>2122723
skirmishers can be fixed with some small changes in one of txt, i think you can find it online
>>2122723
Factions in med could use some trimming, the 3 eras also don't help, especially with no ability to upgrade units. Factions being more clear cutted would much better for gameplay reasons. Also basic units need to be solid like in Shogun, in Med many basic units are just chaff and trash, many units exist for no reason at all.
The whole tiered recruitment plus separate branches of unit really keep down all TW games, even the modern one.

>>2122260
>The Total War series has been in decline, as we are both in agreement, ever since the second fucking title.
We are not in agreement. Rome, the third title, was the pinnacle for me, and while they've been unable to reach that level of quality, it does not mean that their games have progressively been worse. In fact, their nadir was with Empire, and ALL games since have been better than that piece of unholy shit. Many of them have been fun, decent, well-made games, like Shogun 2, Rome 2 (at present, no at launch), Attila, and 3K. And yes, even Warhammer, they are not bad games at all in spite of their issues. As >>2122553 mentioned, it is weird to say that in such a long-lasting franchise only the first and (maybe) second entries are the only good ones, and it's been downhill since then.

Look my froggy friend, I am certainly no lover of how CA is doing things in recent times. Pharaoh has been a rude awakening for them, and while they tried to fix things with Dynasties it was too little, too late. And yes, this is all because of the suits, going always for the lowest common denominator. But they still have decent people in there, trying their best. At least for now.

>For fucks sake, the only way you can have proper, working guns and pike units for medieval 2 is if you buy the fucking phone port.
Now THIS was fucking enraging. Feral, in spite of everything, is a competent studio, with SOVL, and knowing that they WANT to remaster M2 for PC but can't since CA won't give them the resources to do so is fucking enraging. And those fixes for the mobile port are actually GOOD, they developed a very elegant and efficient solution to the pike, two-handed and arquebus problem and I would fucking love to see it ported to PC. One of the reasons I stopped playing M2, and why I think it is terribly overrated, is the fact that it is a bug ridden mess; with those fixes I would play it again ASAP.

File: OP_is_a_faggot.jpg (63 KB, 680x495)

63 KB JPG

>>2121244
>reddit spacing

>>2122752
NTA but how was Napoleon?

>>2121613
I know right kek. Incredible how that lazy retard dev STILL cannot come up with basic sprites that look near as good as some 20 year old game

I'm much more of a fan of Shogun I than Medieval I so I'm biased but:

>The so-called "great AI" makes the exact same move, every single battle: camping on the highest hill. I mean, yeah, it's the logical move, but it ain't exactly fun.
That's the whole point of the game. If the AI doesn't try to grab the high ground that means you will always have the high ground and you don't even have to think or maneuver your units. Where's the fun in that? Also Shogun does the exact same thing.

>>2121244
> Speaking of formation, soldiers can't keep formation for their fucking lives. Any move order and they do the classic "left wing crushes into right wing" move. And good luck trying to order a retreat followed by a 180 turn to front the enemy.
It's in the manual and also the exact same command as Shogun and the later Total Wars. Select a unit and hold down the Alt key and left click on a destination. The unit will move to this new position without changing its facing. Individuals will turn on the spot before moving instead of the entire unit.

>Skirmish mode is non-functional
It still works for archers. Naturally the AI doesn't always choose the best retreat route but that's only to be expected. There's a lot of new short ranged units where skirmish doesn't work due to the range but in later games that's not fixed either (lol).

>>2121949
>I had to check the manual and no, it ain't there.
Oddly enough, the Shogun manual has it. In fact the Shogun manual is much clearer at listing of all commands.

No (You) for the newfag whining about Reddit spacing. I've been here since '06 son, I ain't changing how I write because of your internet nerd fight bullshit.

>>2123026
It's cool, forgot to mention it. It's what Empire should've been, minus the scale. I still consider it slightly worse than games like Shogun 2. And honestly, if I want some gunpowder and line infantry, I'd rather go with Fall of the Samurai.

But I'll be real with you, I'd give my left nut for a well done Empire 2. I miss the ambition on that game.

File: 4chan spacing.png (107 KB, 909x720)

107 KB PNG

>>2122964
It's 4chan spacing, newfaggot

>>2123067
> "great AI"
I've already mentioned in another post why I don't find it interesting. It's just a stationary target for your troops that, contrary to your assertion, is in no way conducive to maneuver warfare. What is there to maneuver, if after camping on high ground the only thing the AI moves is its cavalry, if you leave ranged units exposed? It is not realistic, it is not fun, and it is only viable thanks to the humongous bonus that high ground gives in S1/M1, and the lack of movable artillery. If I could get my culverins close you fucking bet their bitch-ass would be grass.

>Select a unit and hold down the Alt key and left click on a destination
I know that command, I've been playing this franchise for 25 years. I appreciate it nonetheless. But that was not what I meant. With that command, the unit keeps the exact formation and facing as before, but what I want to do is give a move order WHILE changing formation. Say, retreat some arquebusiers from the front lines, make them do a 180 facing the enemy while reforming into three lines. They always do the left-right swerve, always.

>Skirmish mode
Yeah, it's barely usable with archers thanks to their range. Try using it with javelineers and see how it goes, it's beyond busted. And while it is still whack in Rome, it sort of works, sometimes.

>manual
Goddammit, I'll have to check the Shogun manual then. What a weird thing.

File: You.png (189 KB, 416x413)

189 KB PNG

>>2122964
fuck off faggot

>>2123148
s1&m1 BAI is still better than rome+ for few reasons
>rome bai spend a lot of time moving around and exhausting itself
>rome bai was tied with bonus stats(and not small one) based on its difficulty, sure s&m get it too but it was neglible

>>2123093
>newfaggot posts screencap all the way from2005 to pretend to be an oldfag
>name is 4chan spacing, showing that he only has it to pretend reddit spacing hasn't been loathed on the tibetian yak forum for years

>>2123148
> "great AI"
What's the problem? If you don't being challenged like it you can just choose easy mode and deal with a lobotomized AI.

>>2121244
>No mention of captain shuffling autism

>>2123286
Let's agree to disagree. To me, the flatter maps of Rome and M2 give way to much more interesting and dynamic tactics. And Rome's BAI depends more on bonus stats because most of the difficulty-based tactics of M1 are used by the Rome BAI on ALL difficulty levels. It will skirmish, it will retreat skirmishers if you send cavalry against them, it will go after your artillery if left undefended...
>>2123418
Have you not read my post? What I'm complaining about is that it is NOT challenging. It is a stale tactic very easily countered by all-cav armies, or by harassing with massed archers/crossbowmen. It's as simple as that. Switching to easy is not going to help, because the AI STILL does the same shit. I know, I've just opened the game and tried.

>>2123428
To be perfectly honest, I never gave a fuck about captains or titles. It's one of those gameplay mechanics that can be safely ignored. Like ancillary switching in Rome. I won't miss them.

>>2123431
>flatter maps of Rome
eh, I do not gonna argue about M2 as i never played this much but rome 1 could have pretty hilly maps, with cliffs and other stuff
NTA but i think the captain system should be expanded, especially for fantasy titles
and about challenge, well most of TW challenge come from strategic map and usually BAI offer little resistance outside of high stats units and its even worse in modern TW

>>2123431
> "great AI"
You want the AI to be a retard and attack you for no reason, that's all it is. The AI of later games also behave the same way in every battle, just without strong hill grabbing behavior. So your problem isn't that it's boring, it's that it's hard and you don't like being challenged.

>>2123439
not him but I think that is what devs said when they make AI play less optimal or never withdraw from the battle like in older titles
they wanted to remove to ''no fun'' mechanics that some people complained about
>>2123431
the problem in m1 is army compositions and that with recruitment and building setup AI often can field decent armies and in general rely on spam
on Shogun it was less visible because basic units like yari or archers were main stain of every army and useful even late

>>2123431
All I get from this post specifically and the thread in general is that you're a baby who likes flat maps and bad AI because handling terrain and smart AI is too difficult for you.

>>2123435
Flatter compared to M1, not overall flat. I think Rome had a nice mean between M1 and M2, boy were the maps in M2 flat as fuck.

And yeah, the captain system COULD be fun if properly developed, but as it is in M1 it's just mindless busywork for barely any benefit. Then again, I must be the only motherfucker in the entire board who likes the three generals system in 3 Kingdoms, so what the fuck do I know.

>>2123443
Yeah, same problem as in M2. The AI throws inhuman amounts of chaff (and artillery) at you. Which is why all-cav armies are so powerful and the BAI does not know how to counter them. Another reason why S1 is the superior game for me, playing it in expert was certainly an experience.

>>2123439
>>2123448
You dumb illiterate faggots would do well in learning how to read. I never play below hard in either classic or modern TWs, and I'm in fact asking for BETTER battle AI that can deal with things like cavalry or artillery instead of its "high ground or bust" script like it's fucking Obi-Wan. You're a pair of nostalgic morons who haven't played the games you try to defend for years, and it shows.

>>2123454
>mindless busywork for barely any benefit.
disagree

>>2123456
Agree to disagree, then. I just think it's not worth my time.

>>2123431
>>2123454
>What I'm complaining about is that it is NOT challenging. It is a stale tactic very easily countered by all-cav armies, or by harassing with massed archers/crossbowmen. It's as simple as that.
How is this any different from the later TW AI of always charging into you regardless of tactical or strategic considerations, a stale tactic very easily countered by all-cav armies, or by harassing with massed archers/crossbowmen? Seems like the only difference here is difficulty.

The AI is also perfectly capable of not camping a hill, it does this when they're the ones invading a province. Of course when you're the one doing the invading, they have no incentive to be retarded and attack you. You are the one attacking - why should they throw away the defender's advantage?

>all-cav armies are so powerful and the BAI does not know how to counter them
MTW and STW AI deals with all cav armies better than all later games. MTW has trouble, but that's got nothing to do with the AI and is because cav units are deliberately overpowered.

>>2123468
>How is this any different...
It isn't, that's the point. But from what you read around here, the BAI of S1/M1 is some tactical genius that offers some real challenge, not like the brain-dead BAI of Rome onwards that was made by retards for retards.

>Of course when you're the one doing the invading, they have no incentive to be retarded and attack you.
Just like all TW games, from the first to the last. Go on, show me where in this thread have I complained that the IA is excessively defensive when attacked, or that I want it to attack me when I invade a province.

The only difference between S1/M1 BAI and the rest is that it hogs hills, because the high ground bonus in S1/M1 is higher than the rest. That's it, that's the great and wonderful AI people are preaching about. NEVER, not once in this entire thread, have I said that it is worse than the BAI of other TWs. Only that it is overrated by the fanboys, which you are marvelously showing me.

>MTW and STW AI deals with all cav armies better than all later games.
Bullshit beyond belief. It deals with them just the same as the later games, retreating ranged units from the front and trying (pathetically) to face spears against them. Give me ONE piece of evidence that it acts in any way different compared to modern games. I'll wait.

>>2123474
>It isn't, that's the point.
It is different, because it doesn't do it every time, but only when the situation requires it. It doesn't camp when it's invading a province.

>Go on, show me where in this thread have I complained that the IA is excessively defensive when attacked, or that I want it to attack me when I invade a province.
>>2121244
>The AI makes the exact same move, every single battle: camping on the highest hill.
I guess you can play semantics and claim it's not a complaint/excessive/unwanted, but that would be nonsense. It's not even true that the AI camps on the highest hill every single battle.

>The only difference between S1/M1 BAI and the rest is that it hogs hills
Camping on a hill is a basic part of intelligence which elevates it above any AI that doesn't. It's also not the only thing the STW/MTW AI has over later games.

>Give me ONE piece of evidence that it acts in any way different compared to modern games.
It is pathetically easy to bait units out with cavalry, and even bait out multiple units. It responds really badly to flank attacks or if you split your army in two sections - it deals with general chaos really badly. Facing anything that isn't a single formation causes it to just respond badly and just give up and let units make decisions on their own instead of as a team. The AI sometimes just sits there under arrow fire, not even bothering to be in loose formation.

File: 2025-08-19 15-48-04.webm (2.56 MB, 640x480)

2.56 MB WEBM

>>2123148
>but what I want to do is give a move order WHILE changing formation.
Nice goalposts, that's not what you said in the beginning, you said that >>2121244
>Any move order and they do the classic "left wing crushes into right wing" move. And good luck trying to order a retreat followed by a 180 turn to front the enemy.
Do you have a video of the flanks crushing into each other? Even the simple alt-less move command doesn't make the wings crush into each other.

>retreat some arquebusiers from the front lines, make them do a 180 facing the enemy while reforming into three lines
Works on my machine. There's some small disorganization at the beginning, but no big deal and certainly no wings crushing into each other.

I've also been clicking my hardest and don't see any wing crushing at all. Soldiers are telepathic and magically move to the the most appropriate spot in their new facing an location.

This thread spurred me to reinstall my CD copy of med 1 and not only did it not work on W10 through any means I tried it also refuses attempts at uninstallation or deletion. I've spent 2 hours today fiddling with privileges and folder ownership and cmd line and nothing works. What the fuck?
Fuck you /vst/

>>2122752
The whole thing is just funny to me. I don't think I have ever seen even the oldfaggiest of grognards treat s1/m1 as anything other than a historical curiosity rather than games one actually plays for fun, but this one fag is trying to make it a thing.

I think it's a broader effect of people picking something obscure and inaccessible as the best thing ever and nobody will know or care enough to prove them wrong.

>>2123621
>oldfaggiest of grognard
I would post a video of me playing the game but you'll just call me an oldfaggiest of grognard so I don't see the point. Also half the non-paradox games threads here are around the same age or even older than Shogun.

>>2123443
>>2123454
I've been wondering if the crappy AI armies are an artifact of playing in the early period. Everyone starts underdeveloped, so provinces can end up nearly empty after they change hands a few times and bots have little choice but to spam spearmen and urban militia. Is it quite as bad in later starts?

>>2123617
Try Bulk Crap Uninstaller?

>>2123621
I still get the urge to reinstall M1 every now and then. The 2D map has a charm of its own. And guess what, I have fun

File: MEDIEVAL Total War - Gold(...).webm (3.86 MB, 1138x480)

3.86 MB WEBM

>>2123495
>It is different
No, it isn't. It does it in every defensive battle when in a map with the "hilly" tag. In offensive battles, or in plains, it acts EXACTLY the same as in any other TW.

>I guess you can play semantics
Nice cherrypicking, faggot. Read the first part of my sentence: The so-called "great AI". As a matter of fact, I EXPECTED the BAI to be better compared to the post-M1 BAI. And I found it exactly the same, except for its obsession with high ground.

>It's also not the only thing the STW/MTW AI has over later games.
I've spent more than a few hours in this game, and I haven't seen a thing the BAI does different compared to other games. Except the hill hogging, of course.

Everything you mention in your following paragraph are either things the M1/ BAI also does, or pure exaggerations like the AI not using loose formation when under fire.

>>2123606
>Nice goalposts
You say this, while posting a video of S1. Funny, I thought I was talking about M1. Also, that the hell is wrong with your copy, those textures look all wrong.

>There's some small disorganization at the beginning
Look at this, and tell me it's some "small disorganization". I don't want my soldiers to be telepathic, only for them to not be absolute retards.

File: win 7 (2).png (550 KB, 850x884)

550 KB PNG

>>2123617
sorry to hear that

>>2123714
It worked, many thanks. But my mind is still reeling, what was that all about

I have a dedicated Win 7 toaster just so I can play my old favourites without headache

>>2123769
Sorry, I just assumed Shogun was the same as Medieval. I guess the rot set in far earlier than expected.

>what the hell is wrong with your copy, those textures look all wrong.
I have to emulate with PCem ever since my Windows 7 PC died.

>>2123769
now post rome webm

File: Rome Total War_2025.08.19(...).webm (3.92 MB, 854x480)

3.92 MB WEBM

>>2124115
It's the same situation as with Rome and M2. The latter made some changes to unit movement that were absolutely whack, particularly cavalry and gunpowder units.

And no, don't talk about rot, 'cause this shit doesn't happen with Rome. I know, I've just checked. >>2124140 Here you go, mah boi.

>PCem

Just use debloated Windows 11. I can run S1, M1 and Rome with no problems. S1/M1 even works somehow in ultrawide resolution, as you can see in the previos webm. Only 16:9 for good old Rome, though.

>>2124094
You're welcome, keep it for annoying programs!

File: Rome Total War_2025.08.19(...).webm (3.67 MB, 854x480)

3.67 MB WEBM

Bonus track. This shit is why Rome is da best. And that's the bottom line, 'cause I said so.

>>2124167
>Just use debloated Windows 11
I suspect vanilla Medieval and Shogun simply can't run on Windows 11, it was made for the the Win95 era after all. The Steam version likely uses emulators or something in the background, clearly more competently set up than mine.

>>2124228
That may be, I do use the Steam versions after all. They tend to go on sale fairly often, 2.5 eurobucks during the Summer Sale. I think it's worth it.

>>2124228
steam version also come with no drm, you can copy paste them and they work

>>2124249
Thanks for the info, I probably won't bother with MTW1 and stick with STW1 though, the absolute state of that webm lmao.

File: rometw-alx 2021-05-15 08-(...).webm (2.66 MB, 702x408)

2.66 MB WEBM

>>2124251
https://www.mediafire.com/file/fo4c4zczqve9br4/Total_War_Shogun_1_Gold.zip/file

>>2123769
>>2124251
OH NO NO NO MEDIEVALBROS, WE GOT TOO COCKY

File: the arrow.png (2.27 MB, 1920x1080)

2.27 MB PNG

>>2123769
is it raw medieval or modded?
because I remember running some mods for Rome and units behaved even worse but as you can see they work here>>2124182
so it get me confused but I started Rome myself and, well, it work well so I am not sure about whats going on
>>2124264
in general I think both Meds 1 and 2 get shafted seriously
1 is too bloated for its good(units and factions) and the map could really use few more provinces just so there is strategic depth, it also lost 4 season year(with taxation if fall)
2 is just a fucking mess, with pikes and 2 handers not working properly, charges being broken(especially for infantry) and some other crap

>>2124272
>is it raw medieval or modded?
Clean install M1 and Rome. No mods, no wrappers like dxvk or dgvoodoo. I'm not a fan of mods, so I can't tell you if Rome's mods make any changes to unit movement. What you see in that webm is what I remember playing ever since its launch in 2004.

>in general I think both Meds 1 and 2 get shafted seriously
Absolutely agree with this and with the rest you've written. And as I said before, I am still mad about M2, because I love pike and shot and in that fucking game BOTH pikes and gunpowder units are completely broken. I pray Feral will bring their fixes to PC, but I have no hope left in me.

File: let me tell you about fer(...).jpg (212 KB, 680x944)

212 KB JPG

>>2124280
>Feral
I am still mad on these fucking cunts(for excluding Win7 from remaster and UI too)
anyway, I think the swirl movements in Rome was caused by formation mods that I tried to import and make AI ''smarter'' - it didn't work
desu I still wonder how they could fuck pikes in M2 so much

>>2121613
>weirdass perspective and shading is better than win95 mspaint sprites
idk mang neither of them are the mona lisa but OP pic looks uncanny

>>2124182
>lost_technology.webm

>>2123769
I fired up my copy of Medieval 1 Gold to have a look. Now I won't deny it looks terrible, but at standard unit sizes (60 for that unit of arquesbusiers) the milling around is not too bad and is a case of the front and rear ranks swapping around with a little bit of sideways swapping like convection cells, and the appearance of wings smashing together is because the convection cells are in sync and very wide at 120 unit size. It's odd that it's happening at all and a bit detrimental to movement, but I think this only happens if you put unit sizes to max and use very thin formations. So it's easy to see why Medieval I players would never have noticed this problem since the majority of players would had stuck with the standard unit size.

File: Medieval Total War_2025.0(...).webm (3.86 MB, 1138x480)

3.86 MB WEBM

>>2124749
This barely looks like an improvement. In fact, there is no improvement at all, they are just as retarded as before. Compare it to the Rome webm above, which has huge unit size. And then come back and tell me I'm wrong when I say that unit controls fucking suck in this game.

>>2124761
strange
i tested it and somehow they move better than your unit even on huge size
there is some shuffling but not so excessive and not often

>>2123617
Med 1 will absolutely work on W10from a disc install, it's just that the copy protection in the installed .exe won't let it launch. Find a no-CD crack and it will run fine.

>>2124228
The steam version doesn't use emulators, they just removed the original DRM which doesn't work with a modern OS and replaced it with steam DRM which does work

File: show-me-morpheus.gif (2.86 MB, 498x311)

2.86 MB GIF

>>2124972
You know what to do, son. Time to rev up that screen capture software and bring us some webms showing how the game is supposed to run.

>>2125176
This, OBS works pretty well to record and there's a plugin you can get for it that works like shadowplay.

>>2125176
you don't trust word of stranger on the internet?
>>2125184
OBS dont record it for me at all
tried window and display capture

>>2125184
True, though for the webms in this thread I simply used AMD Adrenalin to record, and Boran to convert to webm. But yeah, OBS is far more versatile than using Shadowplay/Adrenalin.

>>2125191
Hahahahaha. No. Even less on 4chan. Nothing personal, fren.

>>2125192
not your friend, mate
anyway if I remember correctly OBS do not work with Shogun and so probably will not work with Med 1
I remember using fraps for Shogun 1 but seriously don't gonna bother with it
anyway the infantry I tested don't that funny stuff unless I change deep of their formation or order them change front but even then its less than on your webms

>>2125191
For OBS try game capture->capture specific window. Then in game settings change the game to windowed.

File: [Migoto]_Ai_Mai_Mi_~Mouso(...).jpg (73 KB, 1280x720)

73 KB JPG

>>2125176
I'm >>2124749 and I can't fucking prove it because obs doesn't work. That's why I didn't bother replying back to >>2124761, saying
>trust me bro
would just be a waste of time.

>>2125202
>For OBS try game capture->capture specific window.
tried that
>Then in game settings change the game to windowed.
i dont see that option anywhere, is it in some .ini or something?

>that doesn't happen in med1, old good, new bad
>provided video evidence
>i-it works on much m-machine
>record it
>r-recording doesn't work for me
kek

>>2125224
lmao of course

File: Medieval_TW 2025-08-20 18(...).webm (2.93 MB, 800x600)

2.93 MB WEBM

I got fraps
it record in gigantic sizes like 600 mega for a minute and converting this into webm take forever
anyway
the unit march well trying to keep formation, only when I change its deep or front abruptly then it become chaotic for a moment

>>2125197
>>2125203
Just use Shadowplay if using an Nvidia GPU, or Adrenalin if using an AMD GPU. It isn't perfect, but it works and it's easy to use.

File: Medieval_TW 2025-08-20 18(...).webm (2.88 MB, 800x600)

2.88 MB WEBM

>>2125233
I have win7 and 3060, no such things for me

>>2125232
Try telling it to go backwards from a dead stop and with few ranks like the other guy. Not that I see what the fuss is about. The swirling around takes about a second and wouldn't make the unit collide with anything, it's all internal.

>>2125236
check
>>2125234
>>2125237

File: SPQRt.jpg (90 KB, 700x655)

90 KB JPG

>>2125232
>>2125234
>>2125237
Nice webms, you've proven yourself a man of your word.

There is just one element missing, and admittedly it was my fault for not mentioning it in the OP: running. If you notice, in both of my M1 webms I immediately ctrl-r so that they run into formation. That, apparently, is what causes that severe swerving. Give it a try, see how it's far more chaotic when running.

>>2125232
Fraps used to work on everything back in the day so that makes sense and yeah the filesizes are always huge. Neat.
>>2125246
Based anons in this thread

File: Medieval_TW 2025-08-20 18(...).webm (2.95 MB, 800x600)

2.95 MB WEBM

>>2125246
sigh

File: well-there-it-is-nods.gif (2.29 MB, 640x334)

2.29 MB GIF

>>2125289
Thank you for posting this, in spite of knowing that it shows how utterly borked unit movement is in this game. Shows a lot of integrity by your part.

>>2125295
yes but what is the problem exactly?

>>2125297
That it looks like shit, and that losing unit cohesion in such a way makes it far harder to make them stop and reform in case there's cavalry charging them.

And for fucks sake, it is only ONE of the things I mentioned in the OP. It doesn't break the game for me, but it is one of many things that makes me think less of it. Again, compare it to the Rome webm, where everyone is running too, to see the difference. It is a much more enjoyable experience, when you feel like you are not babysitting retards instead of ordering trained soldiers. It is not that hard to understand.

File: spear tactics.png (763 KB, 967x651)

763 KB PNG

>>2125299
>That it looks like shit
yes
>and that losing unit cohesion in such a way makes it far harder to make them stop and reform in case there's cavalry charging them
yes, that is the point tho

>>2125305
That only says that when running, the bonus gained from maintaining formation is lost. And only for spearmen. It doesn't say shit about units going whacko when doing a 180 turn. You cannot convince me that it was made on purpose, not when they fixed that in the following game.

Using the "it's not a bug, it's a feature!" argument when you've spent the entire thread denying the swerve existed, is absolutely dishonest. Do better.

>>2125314
no
I refuse

>>2125314
It wasn't in Shogun, so it's definitely weird and might have been introduced deliberately.

File: pikes in action.png (1.62 MB, 1154x640)

1.62 MB PNG

>>2125329
med 1 and 2 are just cursed, or sabotaged by local weeb or romaboo
that is the only answer
>>2125314
for spears and pikes, I think tho you can add rank bonus to every unit if you want too

>>2125166
The .exe did launch but for both shogun and med they would crash on opening the main menu right after intro played. I have recollection of actually playing them for a few moments few years back, but I'm not sure if that was on W10 or my old pc with W7 on it, I don't really feel like playing anything anyhow desu.

File: SHOGUN Total War - Collec(...).webm (3.83 MB, 1138x480)

3.83 MB WEBM

>>2125329
>>2125348
Oh great, so just like Medieval 2. What the fuck were they thinking. I just don't understand how they could look at that, and think that it looks great, it's either idiocy or pure incompetence. They grab a game where everything works just fine, and then they ruin it with shitty unit movement. I fear for Medieval 3, I truly do.

For completedness’s sake, I've gone back to Shogun to make a webm in the style of those I've done before. It's fascinating, the unit starts to do the swerve but it quickly corrects itself and reforms before marching. It's almost as is this were the sequel with the fixed movement instead of being the first game, which I find extremely funny and sad at the same time.

Anyways, I think this particular subject has run its course, and now that we have resolved the mystery of the retarded movement it is time to leave it to rest. Purposefully or not, I hate it, and that is something I sure as hell won't change my mind about. Shogun and Rome are the way to go.

>>2125397
That is a common bug in the retail version, use the fixed .exe:
https://community.pcgamingwiki.com/files/file/2764-medieval-total-war-crash-fix/

>>2125403
you can tell that med 1 was less polished than shogun 1, probably some secondary team handled it and fucked up something in the making
same for med 2 which was made by australian branch, not the main studio
and its not like Rome 1 was free from this sort of crap
like they broken exp system(it used to be that unit exp was based per troop basis so if you retrain unit it was filled with local recruits, so usually unit exp dropped(or raised) to local level) - now it stay the same so you could easily farm exp and never lose it(unless for merc units or when unit was wiped out), morale upgrades was broken and weapon/armor upgrades were mostly meaningless for higher tier units because of stat inflation

>>2125403
Can you give a quick tl;dr on the debate before you go? I'm having a hard time sifting through all the webm and the autism

>>2125403
It might be to simulate disorder when giving commands. It really shouldn't be happening since Medieval 1 is just a tweaked Shogun 1, almost a mod. Maybe Creative Assembly just like the idea of Medieval armies being an unruly mob? Medieval 2 also had very bad unit handling, nothing like the trouble-free and responsive movement of Rome 1, despite being built on the same engine.

>>2125608
>OP (me) says that Medieval: Total War's unit movement sucks
>Couple of anons say it doesn't suck
>One of them posts a webm of Shogun: Total War (built on the same engine) of its unit movement not sucking
>OP posts two webms of M1, showing that unit movement does, in fact, suck in spite of being in the same engine as S1
>OP also posts a webm of Rome: Total War, were unit movement definitely does not suck
>Everyone agrees that for some reason or another M1 has worse unit movement than its predecessor and its sequel

>>2125624
So savage unwashed barbarians and filthy commoner ashigaru have better discipline than chivalric knights? Did the retards at CA ever open a history book?

I am thankful that modern TWs have snappy controls, even if they feel gamey. I'd rather play with automatons than with retards.

>>2125634
Cheers

>>2125634
I'd like to point out that while it sucks, it doesn't really affect anything, it's basically cosmetic. The movement is all internal, doesn't take long, and doesn't cause any unwanted collisions with enemy units.

>>2125403
I dunno, it's less pronounced but still somewhat present. The problem is the whole unit must change orientation to switch directions, whereas in later games models can pivot individually so there's no problem (at least until Empire forced units to assemble into formation before they can start firing, but that's a different matter). Medieval seems a bit more tolerant towards marching before fully formed up at least.

>>2125409
Shogun has its own share of jank too. The AI is really confused about whether it has enough strength to fight or not, and it will repeatedly send forces against you only to cancel the attack, or even deploy for battle only to immediately withdraw.

>>2125634
I'd rather go with the retards, that way the battle looks like it's being fought by real people.

>>2125644
In my experience it tends to make disengaging extremely difficult since units can get re-engaged even in that short duration. That's not necessarily a bad thing though.

>>2125689
>The AI is really confused about whether it has enough strength to fight or not, and it will repeatedly send forces against you only to cancel the attack, or even deploy for battle only to immediately withdraw.
consider simultaneous turns, you and AI give orders on strategic map at the same time so situation in attacked province can change
that actually may look like jank but its not

Does anyone have a document or link handy for useful Total War hotkeys? I didn't know the trick with alt-click, for example.

File: Screenshot 2025-08-21 at (...).png (759 KB, 786x604)

759 KB PNG

>>2126080
Depends on the game. S1/M1 use the same hotkeys, while from Rome onwards they start to change. Here you have the ones for S1.

>>2126025
I don't buy it, mostly because it's absent from Medieval and because it'd happen even while playing Japan in the Mongol Invasion campaign and keeping a static frontline, sometimes turn after turn.

>>2126373
Get used to the "i-it's a feature, n-not a bug" bullshit the grognards are trying to peddle

>>2126373
>mostly because it's absent from Medieval
and? that is proof of nothing, they started remove things that players complain early
and that wasn'r exactly liked because it felt like AI is wasting your time on purpose
but again consider this
>simultaneous strategic turns - give orders at the same time then move at the same time
>no perfect vision, AI need spies or towers or didn't get composition or quality info just numbers and that info can be denied
>player my no shuffle often but probing attacks make sense - especially if you actually move or attack with your forces and AI can sometimes attack under defended province or can prevent attack from province
most of the time it sure feel like waste of time from player side tho
>AI march look withdraw
>>2126423
sure but in this case i think its actually feature

Someone screencap this entire thread, so everyone can see the absolute autism of the faggots defending Shogun 1 and Medieval 1. They deserve to be shamed out of every TW thread from now on, seeing as they eat shit gladly as long as it's old and janky.

>OP gets filtered by Total War (lel)
>makes 20 webms about it and refuses to shut the fuck up
Wow, talk about butthurt

>>2127403
It's just a game dude, calm down. Nothing bad is going to happen in the world if somebody likes a video game you don't.

>>2127403
old tw are good games on thier own even if janky but they look better than they should because of total abortion that are new tw games

>>2126737
Jesus man, learn some English before posting. This was painful to parse.

>>2121244
>Not that it works great in future games
That feature never worked in any game, there's a reason why everyone recommends turning it off and microing your skirmishers
I'll bet my nutsack it will still be broken in the next one, too

>>2122553
The only reason CA is still around is because they never had a real competitor. They're incredibly lucky in spite of their unquestionable incompetence.

File: 20250505020414_1.jpg (729 KB, 1920x1080)

729 KB JPG

>>2131026

>>2131043
Is that Strategos? It's just battles, isn't it? If it doesn't have a campaign map then it's not really a competitor.
Looks alright, though.

>>2127403
Shogun 1 catching strays when no one in this thread was even shitting on it.

>>2131043
As the other anon said, no campaign no party. It's just too important to the TW formula, it gives meaning to your battles and your men.

File: Map-Based campaign.jpg (201 KB, 1455x783)

201 KB JPG

>>2131071
>>2131074

File: Screenshot 2025-08-27 at (...).png (65 KB, 630x137)

65 KB PNG

>>2131075
Yeah nah, that shit is window dressing for a set of lineal missions. There won't be a true campaign map like in TW.

File: spooky.jpg (69 KB, 748x748)

69 KB JPG

>>2131082
y
dev is retarded

>>2131086
Autism. The same kind of retard you see in every TW thread saying only the battles matter and the campaign is secondary

>>2131075
>We've started work on a very WiP basic campaign that simply strings battles together in a thematic way with some unit selection and some mandatory units.
Yeah, it still doesn't count. I'm not shitting on the game, I had it wishlisted months ago, but without the 4x-ish campaign layer it can't really compete with Total War.
Maybe if this game is successful enough to warrant a more ambitious sequel or a big content patch, though. Here's hoping.

>>2131086
It's not retardation, TW is a very broad game and with modern game development's inflated costs, some indie studio wouldn't be able to pull it off right out of the gate.

File: centurio_005.png (18 KB, 320x200)

18 KB PNG

>>2131092
>only battles matter and the campaign is secondary
that is not wrong but its more
>battles matter and the campaign is secondary but still important
>>2131095
i just wanted centurion sequel

>>2131095
A Risk-style map like the ones on S1/M1 or even DoW Dark Crusade shouldn't be that hard to make, and it's miles better than a linear campaign. For the first game of an indie developer it would be more than adequate.

>>2131092
The battles are the most important aspect. No one plays TW for the campaign only. Autoresolving TW battles is how you bore yourself to death.
That said, having a barebones campaign wouldn't do these games any favours. You still need that context and down time between each battle and it's all the better if there's depth to be found there, too.

>>2131102
Perhaps, but even then, without the high production values you can't ever compete with TW. That's the problem and it's what I meant here >>2131026
CA knows how fucking blessed it is that the industry has reached a point where no one can easily compete with them. Maybe a decade ago, but now it'd be incredibly difficult. That's why they've become complacent and have released the same buggy, repetitive, disjoined and disposable mess for years, with no sign of stopping. Have you noticed how nearly every Total War game was essentially abandoned in favour of the next one and left in a buggy, barely functioning state? They treat these games as utterly disposable and barely give them any post-launch support outside of content DLCs that introduce more bugs than fixes.
Creative Assembly has got to be the most frustrating developer I've ever had the displeasure of supporting.

>>2131113
>barebones campaign
what do you mean by barebones?
Shogun 1 have really simple campaign layer and its still one of the best TW games
>>2131113
Rome 2 get plenty of support over atilla or tob

>>2131086
>dev is retarded
dev is smart. YOU're retarded thinking a guys first game should be
>TW KILLER WITH GRAND CAMPAIGN STRETCHING FROM EUROPE TO CHINA WITH OVER 200 FACTIONS AND THE BEST CAI AND BAI EVER
thats how this shit is supposed to go. start small. then eventually in the sequels add in more features until you get where you want to go.

>>2131162
>Shogun 1 have really simple campaign layer and its still one of the best TW games
for contrarians, yeah. most everyone loves med 2 and rome.

>>2131168
Shogun 1 had a grand campaign, and back then Creative Assembly had only previously worked doing ports, that was their first game. So not an excuse.

>>2131172
>Shogun 1 had a grand campaign, and back then Creative Assembly had only previously worked doing ports, that was their first game. So not an excuse.
>a team of people who have had work doing ports and knowing the inside of games versus one guy who has never had real game experience
yeah no youre retarded.
>but shogun was simple
retard, having to create even a "simple" CAI is extremely hard work. making sure the AI knows when to attack defend, have proper army compositions, gets even worse if you have any sort of diplomacy. then having to create the map however simple.
no. this is why indie retards dont ever finish their game. because of idiots like you.
>DUDE JUST DO EVERYTHING
no. he should focus on one aspect, whether its the grand campaign layer or battles. perfect it, then in future games add in the other stuff. thats how it should work. otherwise you never end up releasing a game and if you do itll be shit because you dont have any sort of game experience.

>>2131168
>>2131177
Average CONSOOOOMER that forgives everything to "smol indies please understand :(".
Pathetic.

>>2131181
kek retard that wants an everything game to compete with TW right out the gate. even Darth who had a huge ego who thought he could do everything better than CA had to release a small-scale game and even with multiple games under his belt, his TW-killer game was still shit. or how about grand tactician where the AI on both sides of the game are absolutely terrible. no you retard, focusing on one aspect is the move. expecting one guy to create good CAI and BAI out the gate is delusional.

>>2131170
one of the best, not the best, you illiterate crayon muncher

I'm pretty sure there is one ultracontrarian anon in this thread that makes every single one of the dogshit opinions around here. Easily identifiable by never using uppercase letters at the beginning of his sentences, like the ESL retard he is.

>>2131188
nope. rome med 2 even rome 2. shogun is only ever parroted by contrarians here. everywhere else its those games i mentioned.

>>2131162
By barebones I mean what Strategos dev's doing.
>Rome 2 get plenty of support over atilla or tob
It's good that you brought up Atilla and ToB, since they reinforce my point. Attila was made to obfuscate the launch of Rome II and was completely abandoned in a buggy and unoptimized state when it failed to become a blockbuster because people were, rightfully, still mad at Rome II's terrible launch, and ToB was designed from the ground up to be a disposable game for easy money.
Fast forward and we have "The future of Total War: THREE KINGDOMS" showing just how fucking scummy they are to even the most successful launch in their history, and then the pathetic disaster that was Pharaoh.
How about Warhammer, being sold as a "trilogy" when it could have easily been just one massive game, which is basically what 3 is, except they'll charge you hundreds of dollars because you "need" the two previous planned-to-become-obsolete games and their DLCs before you have the right to play the intended experience.
How about Medieval II, an already buggy game which they actually broke even more when they merged the two .exes in the Steam version, while all the bugfixes that game desperately needs only exist in some unnecessary mobile port no one asked for. Really, we could go on, but you get the point.
Besides, for all the "support" CA gave to Rome II, that game is still filled with issues. CA's idea of post-launch support for that game was, for the most part, to make throaway campaign DLCs that are disjointed from the main campaign that everone actually plays, with reskinned units and a pretty new map for the Redditors while the game's core issues were left untouched. Have you played any naval battles in the last patch? They're still completely fucking broken.

>>2131185
I just want a good game, with the bare minimum. Darth is an absolute midwit and should never be used as an example. And if the bare minimum is too much for a developer, maybe that game is not worth making. As it is, people have been clowning on Strategos for its lack of grand campaign, both here and in other forums, even in Steam. So it is clear that the game will crash and burn, because it does not have the bare minimum.

Now keep seething and coping. That game is trash and in the trash bin it belongs.

>>2131198
>I just want a good game, with the bare minimum. Darth is an absolute midwit and should never be used as an example. And if the bare minimum is too much for a developer, maybe that game is not worth making. As it is, people have been clowning on Strategos for its lack of grand campaign, both here and in other forums, even in Steam. So it is clear that the game will crash and burn, because it does not have the bare minimum.
>Now keep seething and coping. That game is trash and in the trash bin it belongs.
You're the one seething and coping because you think every game that has battles MUST be the total war killer. As if Field of Glory doesn't exist and is doing perfectly fine. Only reason TW tards are jumping onto the game is because they've so badly want any TW game and shid and fart their pants when someone isn't making the next TW killer. Like you are doing right now. Darth was able to make an entire franchise out of games that according to you wasn't even the bare minimum. So get fucked. Not every real-time RTS game needs to have a grand campaign you TW spaz.

>>2131192
the only contrarian here is you
most TW didn't even played it

>>2131202
not him but nobody outside you is ranting about TW killers
you create your own strawman in your empty head and then fight him, like wtf man
the problem with Strategos is that not only it have no campaign layer(even simpler than Shogun 1 would be great) but also battles are based on FoG games system and that suck - in the end there will be no campaign layer, no good battles

>>2131210
>not him but nobody outside you is ranting about TW killers
?? Go to the forums and see people bitching about no campaign because TW has a campaign and so this game must have it too. Hell look at you, it must have a campaign (shougn 1 !!!!) because of your TW brain. It must be the TW killer so it must have a campaign and battles exactly like TW!!!! No it doesn't you retard. It's not a problem for a game focused on battles to not have a campaign and if the battles don't play out like TW.

As I already explained, it's idiotic to expect some lone dev to be able to produce both CAI and BAI assuming he wants to go that direction with his future work.

>>2131202
A Total War killer? Why would I want that, when I'm quite happy with TW? Yes, even the latest ones. However, I know that with more competitors in the market, CA will have more pressure to step up and deliver better games. It benefits us all, after all.

So keep hatin', seethin', and copin' you little bitch.

>>2131217
Ok, so one question for you. Do you really think there is a public willing to buy a game focused exclusively on the battles, and is that public big enough to make that game profitable?

Are there any examples of a game like that? Field of Glory is turn based and doesn't count, and even if it does, even they had to concede and make Empires/Kingdoms for the grand campaign public.

>>2131229
>Do you really think there is a public willing to buy a game focused exclusively on the battles,
Yes. Field of Glory.
>Nuuuuu that doesnt count because i say so
Ok then idiot, Darth's series. The entire point is that they start small. There countless examples of developers from first time devs to Star Citizen of biting off more than they can chew. Which is what started this whole chain of replies.
>WHY SINGLE DEV NO MAKE CAI AND BAI
Because it's extremely hard to make AI, harder to make two separate AI well. Grand Tactician both absolutely dogshit CAI and BAI. Maybe their next game they'll get it right who knows but they certainly couldn't hack it with their first game. Which is the point. Focus on one thing, perfect then try to expand the game. Worked for Darth, Worked for Field of Glory. INB4 Darth doesnt count because it destroys your narrative of games with no campaign failing.

>>2131217
>Go to the forums
nigga pls, go to the forum and bitch there, not here

>>2131238
>Field of Glory.
its shit, and I mean battles not lack of campaign
its also extremely niche
their Empires and Kingdoms are not bad but also not really good, and by that I mean art style, colors and their auto battles( I don't mind idea but they are lacking)
dunno why you behave like a kid throwing a fit but there will be little interest without campaign layer

>>2131238
Are you the developer or someone close to him? His tranny lover perhaps? No one should be this involved and this mad, it's just a game, relax. Go dilate or something, seeing you are so obsessed with that chaser Darth.

>>2131284
>Are you the developer or someone close to him?
either that or someone invested personally, he mention forums so he must spend times there
dunno why there are plenty of these sort of faggots recently that always try to ''defend'' their cult object by getting mad and throwing insults at everyone
its fucking counter productive, especially if they want to shill their game

>>2131277
You said profitable. Darth and FoG specifically disprove this notion that there HAS to be a campaign or it's going to fail. So that's it you're wrong. And if according to you FoG battles are shit, then apparently the battles don't even need to be good for it to be profitable.
>dunno why you behave like a kid throwing a fit but there will be little interest without campaign layer
So first its
>and is that public big enough to make that game profitable?
and now its
>uhmmm well it will be niche!
Thanks for conceding.

>>2131300
you are a dumb faggot who should fuck off back to your discord buttbuddies
they are niche and barely profitable, low production value trash

>>2131307
>they are niche and barely profitable
so
>name one that is profitable
to
>WELL ITS NICHE AND BARELY PROFITABLE
thanks for playing

>>2131238
>>2131300
I'm the anon who made the questions, not him. And you are a fucking moron, an absolute retard who can barely two sentences together without shitting yourself from the exertion.

I mean, you don't even know what games Darth developed. It's "Ultimate General", not "Grand Tactician", you fucking mouthbreather. So I don't give a shit about what else you have to say.

>>2131300
So if the game is bad, low budget, and only sells among autists that only buy this niche titles to feel superior to normalfags, why was that game recommended in this thread about Total War, a high budget, high quality franchise that is popular even among normies? Why even mention that game? Why are we even talking about it in the first place, if it's not because of your obsession with it? Again, you must be the developer, I'm sure of it.

>>2131319
>It's "Ultimate General", not "Grand Tactician",
I know that you retard. You ever stop to think since I mentioned CAI AND BAI that maybe I was talking about Grand Tactician and NOT Darth's game. Even though yes, I know Darth recently abandonded a revolutionary war game with CAI and BAI but I was talking about Grand Tactician and how hard it is to develop good AI for both aspects of a game.
>>2131329
>So if the game is bad, low budget, and only sells among autists that only buy this niche titles to feel superior to normalfags, why was that game recommended in this thread about Total War, a high budget, high quality franchise that is popular even among normies? Why even mention that game? Why are we even talking about it in the first place, if it's not because of your obsession with it? Again, you must be the developer, I'm sure of it.
If you can't follow the thread, he was complaining about why a lone developer wasn't making an everything game for his first game. I told him he was retarded because he wasn't trying to do everything all at once and then he doubled down on his retardation by saying
>but shogun
and it went from there.

>>2131332
fuck off already you wanker
go suck dick that incompetent dev in person, you wasting your time here

>>2131332
But WHY are you still here. Can't you see we don't give a fuck about your fucking game? I don't care if it was you who posted the screencap, you are obsessed to a degree I've not seen in quite a while

File: fa014244d98301dec2bf2b43b(...).jpg (1.11 MB, 3893x2516)

1.11 MB JPG

What do you think of Darthmod for Rome Total War? I do like new unit visuals and expanded rosters for factions but I had to nerf some of Thrace units because they kept killing Greek and Dacia factions very fast. The units called Falxmen and Bastarnae auto win every battle against NPCs, nerfed their stats and it fixed the problem.

>>2121244
I mod the game to give Turks machineguns by increasing the firing rate of arquebuses.

>>2131773
I never liked any of the Darthmods. Not in Napoleon, no in Shogun 2. It's bloat for bloats sake, and not even good bloat. If I wanted the good sort of bloat I'd play RTR Surrectum for the remaster.

Also, post more Centurii.

File: 6ee31a1b03bbb63f0dd1a7d6d(...).jpg (859 KB, 4096x3692)

859 KB JPG

>>2131785
Here, proper one. Fuck these numbers.

>>2131787
>Echosaber
Good taste, but it ain't what the costumer was asking. And organize your smut ya dingus.

>>2131789
It's the numbers Anon, the numbers are all wrong.

>>2131773
its just bloat that do not really fix anything