It's okay. The optimisation is pretty bad, there is a lot of bugs, they removed a bunch of features, and the wait between turns is longer than battles. But the game is still decent. Hopefully most of the problems will be gone soon. Most TW games have problems at launch.
Comment has been collapsed.
My laptop lags even when not in battle:(
Should've gotten a gaming desktop...
Comment has been collapsed.
Already set to lowest of lows for settings
It's a laptop...can't really do much for the ventilation I suppose. I do have it propped up with a small fan underneath though but that's it.
Only the game, Steam, and Firefox but that's only for SG.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have a gamingish desktop. I still can't run this game that well :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Me too... Damn it, I bought my PC in 2009... Need to just get a better graphics card.
Comment has been collapsed.
Set unit size to small. That's cpu dependent and seems to make the game run much better.
Comment has been collapsed.
Played a few hours. It's not that bad. Yeah, the optimization... I could run Shogun II on medium with no lags, while I can play Rome II only on minimum details, the game doesn't lag, but the "fast forward" feature in battles doesn't work for me.
Well, concerning gameplay, I feel like Shogun II was less confusing and the whole interface was more user friendly.
There're some things (improvements?) I like though - battles are funnier, more tactic options, war machines (ballistas, etc.), I also prefer the skill and technology system over Shogun's...
Not worth the 60€, but still a good game. Hopefully patches will fix the optimization issues.
Comment has been collapsed.
Unfortunately so many games nowadays are badly optimized, but doesnt seem to be punished enough as it should be. Im hoping with next gen consoles, the games will be better optimized as we are almost dealing with same hardware atm, or so im led to believe.
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha. Shame there is no "merge threads" option on here, and no forum search facility for prospective starters of new threads either :P
Comment has been collapsed.
well there is a thread search tool but everyone is to lazy too check it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't find any horrendous bug, but I'm finding the game too easy. I'm playing as Sparta, which was supposed to be a hard campaign, but haven't had any problems so far... even when I'm heavly outnumbered in a battle, somehow I manage to win. It seems that enemy moral is much lower than your own. Also, it bothers me that all armies have to have a general. You can't split your army in order to chase some smaller units. And that capture the flag shit is fucking stupid.
Comment has been collapsed.
I only saw "Sparta", "heavily outnumbered in a battle" and my mind drew a correlation to Battle of Thermopylae, basically the movie 300. XD
Comment has been collapsed.
Wrong. Sparta was one of the two most powerful city-towns in Ancient Greece, and they were BARELY attacked by any enemies, Greeks or not. Athens was greater in naval battles, where they pwned Sparta, while Sparta was better in land fighting, were they pwned anyone. They berely lost fights. The children were being trained for warriors since they were 8. They also were a lot of educated so that they could use a lot of strategic options in the battlefield. The movie "300" isn't realistic, it's just a Holywood movie. They were using the hardest armor created and they were as powerful as Roman soldiers. Since they were used in tight fights, the Thermopylae battle was perfect for them, but in an open-field battle, they used to trap enemies, or just kill them with their spears while they were charging towards them. Sparta was indeed no real threat, just because nobody wanted to fight with them, besides Athens, which forced a lot of city-towns to fight with them. After the Thermopylae battle, Sparta not only became one of the most respected city-towns in Ancient Greece, but also the saviours of many other city-towns... Who would even touch them after that? Only Romans would, and they barely did, even though there were other reasons too, like their interests were elsewhere. But anyway, Sparta needs a LOT of strategy to be played correctly. First get familiar with the game, then choose to play with Sparta. At least that's my opinion.
Comment has been collapsed.
Spartans had discipline, which is what a shield-based phalanx formation requires. A great many of the battles fought between the Greek states ended before the armies reached each other because one army lost their formation over broken terrain and routed. Most phalanx vs skirmishers ended poorly for the heavier formations.
Spartans were pretty dominant in phalanx vs. phalanx fights up until they the Thebans decided to introduce tactics to them, then they were nothing.
And it's worth noting that Spartan armies had a 1-3 ratio of Spartan warriors to slaves.
Comment has been collapsed.
I never said the individual soldiers were not disciplened or that roman / macedonian soldiers were better, I said that Sparta never was a real threat simply because it's small land size and small units number.
PS: I'm not comparing Sparta with Athens or Corinth, but with the Rome, Macedonia, Carthage and other military powers.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree about the battles I like the new options but I can still win while horribly outnumbered. I mean, I won a fight where I was 1.3k troops vs 4.9k troops and if you are defending with an encampment it is like an auto win for you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Glad i did not preorder. From what i'v seen they've dumbed it down a lot for the casuals, which makes no sense for a strategy game. I'v watched a let's play from a dude that plays on Very Hard and it still looks easy as hell. The battles are easier, there's less buildings to worry about, they've made the tech tree idiot proof, unit replenishment looks stupidly fast(and no i'm not talking about the prologue campaign in which it's faster than normal) and the "take and hold locations" is just dumb and imho does not fit in the game at all.1 Also it irks me to no end that they removed all the historical stuff from unit and building descriptions. Unlike others tho i'm not gonna complain about bugs, if you're a real Total War player then you should be able to deal with the release bugs, they've been like this on release ever since Empire.
So yeah, going staying on Shogun 2(and modded Medieval 2) and, unless they do some big changes, probably staying there until Medieval 3.
Comment has been collapsed.
3 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by Carenard
24 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by Dandey
1,038 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by sensualshakti
43 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by ZPE
9 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Sh4dowKill
1,950 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Lessmessino
6 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by quijote3000
16 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by insideAfireball
2,062 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by jiggakills
3,423 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by ba2
548 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by ElPaPiToSaBrOsO
73 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by HitHard
442 Comments - Last post 20 minutes ago by tubberware
30 Comments - Last post 20 minutes ago by lycankai
So I got bored and looked up reviews of this game. Seems like quite a lot of people didn't like it and are saying it's more like a beta test than anything.
What do you guys think? Are content with the game?
Also, sorry for being kind of a prick lately.
Comment has been collapsed.