Grand Strategy Have you played Total War and/or Paradox games?

[GrafvonMoltke]

The best Paradox game is Cities: Skylines.

 

[Twiglard]

Any of you have Thrones of Britannia? Please help me with these shader files, I don't wanna buy it or abuse the refund functionality. Requires switching Steam beta to "allegiance update".

https://steamcommunity.com/app/325610/discussions/0/1744479064005576968/?ctp=4

 

[A horse of course]

Any of you have Thrones of Britannia? Please help me with these shader files, I don't wanna buy it or abuse the refund functionality. Requires switching Steam beta to "allegiance update".

https://steamcommunity.com/app/325610/discussions/0/1744479064005576968/?ctp=4

I remember the historical TW general thread in that /v/ subforum for strategy games used to always put the files in the OP.

 

[Ghostar]

Best TW game: Medieval Total War.
Best Paradox Game: Crusaders Kings 2

 

[Twiglard]

Having bought Rome 2 and Attila, and ran half a campaign for Shogun 2, I summarize as such:

Vanilla Rome 2 is a glorified map painting sim. There's no grounding in reality and it plays little different than Civ. I haven't played DeI yet though. Whereas Rome 2 is a cakewalk, WRE in Attila is murderous and has decent historical basis. In Saxon campaign I've done very similarly to what really happened, simply because it was the path of least resistance (held coast east of the Rhine and colonized Britain).

Suprisingly battle AI in Rome 2 is decent. It's somewhat worse than Attila in that I didn't find myself flanked in the ass, that enemy doesn't regroup with reinforcements properly (at the start of battle) when pressured, and that it's too eager to suicide the cavalry when there's no decent opening. The formation attack toggle is problematic though, in that the AI may not always use it optimally. The morale and fatigue mechanics are inferior to Attila.

Rome 2 has absurd replenishment bonuses, and it's sensible to play the later third of the campaign exclusively on autoresolve (I haven't tried legendary difficulty). Also province management is piss easy with public order growing on trees. The requirement to take a province (rather than liberate, or actually raze) raises corruption sky high.

In Attila, it was always a hard choice whether to form another legion. It's a drain on the income, and I couldn't just spam 20/20 doomstacks to make things easier. Up till the end, even with pimped-out cash cow provinces.

Attila has good AI, but there are some non-exploit ways that work each time:

- cavalry chases off archers, then main army walks into range
- battle lines form, then cavalry has utterly free reign
- second line does a crescent-like movement, enveloping the enemy's line
- in sieges, javelinmen have basically free reign with AI swapping front-line units as they get damaged to hell and back
- when sieged, wait till the enemy commits the infantry, then get 1k kills with basic horse equites garrison (first the archers, then slam the rest)
- enemy uses archers and they barely manage ~50-70 kills each if they ever manage to expend all ammo, and pila throwers manage 200-300 and burn through ammo quick
- chasing missile units with any shitty melee unit makes them run away to the point of cheese, but on very rare occasions the AI can kite

Shogun 2 has decent AI, comparable with Attila, but it's so simplified I won't be buying or playing it. But it has a siege defense semi-exploit whereas it'll assault immediately if you simply walk out of enemy archers' range (to the other side of the compound). Also the wall climbing is fucking asinine.

I should play Attila without pausing. I think I managed with WRE simply due to the pause functionality. I should also try Ancient Empires, but the province management is shit.

I'm actually in love with Attila's narrative campaign, it's truly revolutionary. I wonder how long a timespan could a narrative campaign hold without collapsing -- say, from the Punic Wars up to including Caesar Octavian Augustus? A man can dream.

Are the WH games better battle-wise? I don't like the trashy (even if grimdark) fantasy and "awesome button" units...

 

[AdamReith]

The original Shogun was absolutely amazing. Loved the atmosphere, the little videos of ninjas murdering people and so on.

Since then the graphics have been getting better and that's about it. I enjoy WH but I find TW games really live or die on whether not you can immerse yourself in the setting, it's too barebones otherwise to really sustain my interest.

Paradox games are very interesting to me but the only one I really got into CK2 because that seems to be the only one where you can fail hard and still have a good time. It also seems to have got more and more confusing as they added huge amounts of DLC to it, for example every character seems to have a chance at some kind of immortality event when they die; that makes sense as a once in a blue moon thing but it kind of hurts the setting a little when it happens every single time.

Both companies are on the precipice when it comes to sacrificing their core selling points to adopt more mainstream appeal but I suppose it's good that they are still even semi-legit at this point.

 

[A horse of course]

Having bought Rome 2 and Attila, and ran half a campaign for Shogun 2, I summarize as such:

Vanilla Rome 2 is a glorified map painting sim. There's no grounding in reality and it plays little different than Civ. I haven't played DeI yet though. Whereas Rome 2 is a cakewalk, WRE in Attila is murderous and has decent historical basis. In Saxon campaign I've done very similarly to what really happened, simply because it was the path of least resistance (held coast east of the Rhine and colonized Britain).

Suprisingly battle AI in Rome 2 is decent. It's somewhat worse than Attila in that I didn't find myself flanked in the ass, that enemy doesn't regroup with reinforcements properly (at the start of battle) when pressured, and that it's too eager to suicide the cavalry when there's no decent opening. The formation attack toggle is problematic though, in that the AI may not always use it optimally. The morale and fatigue mechanics are inferior to Attila.

Rome 2 has absurd replenishment bonuses, and it's sensible to play the later third of the campaign exclusively on autoresolve (I haven't tried legendary difficulty). Also province management is piss easy with public order growing on trees. The requirement to take a province (rather than liberate, or actually raze) raises corruption sky high.

In Attila, it was always a hard choice whether to form another legion. It's a drain on the income, and I couldn't just spam 20/20 doomstacks to make things easier. Up till the end, even with pimped-out cash cow provinces.

Attila has good AI, but there are some non-exploit ways that work each time:

- cavalry chases off archers, then main army walks into range
- battle lines form, then cavalry has utterly free reign
- second line does a crescent-like movement, enveloping the enemy's line
- in sieges, javelinmen have basically free reign with AI swapping front-line units as they get damaged to hell and back
- when sieged, wait till the enemy commits the infantry, then get 1k kills with basic horse equites garrison (first the archers, then slam the rest)
- enemy uses archers and they barely manage ~50-70 kills each if they ever manage to expend all ammo, and pila throwers manage 200-300 and burn through ammo quick
- chasing missile units with any shitty melee unit makes them run away to the point of cheese, but on very rare occasions the AI can kite

Shogun 2 has decent AI, comparable with Attila, but it's so simplified I won't be buying or playing it. But it has a siege defense semi-exploit whereas it'll assault immediately if you simply walk out of enemy archers' range (to the other side of the compound). Also the wall climbing is fucking asinine.

I should play Attila without pausing. I think I managed with WRE simply due to the pause functionality. I should also try Ancient Empires, but the province management is shit.

I'm actually in love with Attila's narrative campaign, it's truly revolutionary. I wonder how long a timespan could a narrative campaign hold without collapsing -- say, from the Punic Wars up to including Caesar Octavian Augustus? A man can dream.

Are the WH games better battle-wise? I don't like the trashy (even if grimdark) fantasy and "awesome button" units...

I wouldn't recommend playing EVERY Attila battle without using half-speed/pause. Some of the massive battles (e.g. the rare 2/3 stacks vs. 2/3 stacks) are going to be frustrating as hell when the AI is controlling its cav and skirmishes simultaneously, meanwhile you're trying to sort out your front line whilst a bunch of your other units are getting shot up half way across the map.

WH battles are very fast-paced with a lot of MOBA-esque elements like being expected to micro units out of spell radii (AI do this as well), cycle buff/debuff cooldowns on hero units etc. There are a lot of single-entity hero characters who can literally walk straight through your front line and kill your whizzard (often the AI is too retarded to do this reliably though). You can still have a lot of fun battles, but yeah it's clearly oriented towards AWESOME e-sports commentary gameplay for retards (yuropoors and spics). There are also, as you say, a lot of incredibly overpowered units who you simply aren't going to be able to defeat with clever tactics alone (Dragons, Mages who can delete entire units with an unavoidable spell, cavalry heroes who can solo entire armies...). If you want a somewhat more "traditional" tactics-based faction you can try picking dorfs, who generally rely on slow and steady frontlines supported by heavy ranged units.

 

[Twiglard]

You can still have a lot of fun battles, but yeah it's clearly oriented towards AWESOME e-sports commentary gameplay for retards (yuropoors and spics).

I tried playing this like a Total War game and failed miserably. As opposed to awesome button units, you know what is awesome? Getting 1500 kills on a scout equites garrison in a single battle, prior to winning. It would make a better commentary as well, except for the retards.

In any Total War game, you can kill an exhausted Praetorian Guard (or other top-tier heavy infantry unit) by surrounding them from all sides with naked barbarians. WH2 general units ride on dragons that are physically larger than old-school 160-men units and survive being surrounded with anything, horse-sandwiched, etc.

 

[JarlFrank]

You can still have a lot of fun battles, but yeah it's clearly oriented towards AWESOME e-sports commentary gameplay for retards (yuropoors and spics).

I tried playing this like a Total War game and failed miserably. As opposed to awesome button units, you know what is awesome? Getting 1500 kills on a scout equites garrison in a single battle, prior to winning. It would make a better commentary as well, except for the retards.

In any Total War game, you can kill an exhausted Praetorian Guard (or other top-tier heavy infantry unit) by surrounding them from all sides with naked barbarians. WH2 general units ride on dragons that are physically larger than old-school 160-men units and survive being surrounded with anything, horse-sandwiched, etc.

Yeah I don't like Warhammer as much as the historical titles. Fantasy is fun and all, but there's a lot more focus on using special abilities, hero units, etc. It's heavier on the micro than on maneuvers. In oldschool historical TW games it was all about building a solid battle line, then flanking with light infantry, cavalry and skirmishers, trying to exploit weak points in the enemy line, going for a breakthrough in the center by heavy infantry mass push, etc.

In Warhammer it's more about microing individual units to prevent them from being killed by mass destruction spells, while simultaneously trying to land the same powerful mass destruction spells on enemy mobs. Eh. Feels more like Warcraft than Total War.

 

[fantadomat]

My dad says only homos play Paradox games.

You don't know your dad!

 

[Sranchammer]

Tried getting back into TW with Attila - I really enjoy the period and the strategy level but my god the battles just seem so ridiculous. I hate real-time micromanaging.

I'm getting too old for this shit.

 

[gurugeorge]

I remember when I played TW games, at first I'd be all into the battles, but eventually I found myself auto-resolving most of them and playing TW as a mediocre strategy game. The micro-management does indeed get tedious.

 

[Xamenos]

Tried getting back into TW with Attila - I really enjoy the period and the strategy level but my god the battles just seem so ridiculous. I hate real-time micromanaging.

I'm getting too old for this shit.

Switch the pause key to space and show orders from space to whatever. That's what made it manageable for me.

 

[thesecret1]

Tried getting back into TW with Attila - I really enjoy the period and the strategy level but my god the battles just seem so ridiculous. I hate real-time micromanaging.

The AI falls for the same tactics as always. Just snipe their general with flanking cavalry, then proceed to charge in enemy back line for an easy win. As for the strategic layer, I found the best experience in Attila to be playing as WRE and trying to survive. The game advises you to fall back and let enemies eat a bit of your lands if they want to, but that's actually a shitty advice - the refugee mechanic will obliterate your public order everywhere if you allow that to happen. Best to stop the enemies at the border whenever you can, while investing all your money into raising public order and removing pollution wherever you can. Once you get public order under control, you've basically won.

 

[Blaine]

Victoria II is possibly the overall best grand strategy game of all time.

I enjoyed some of the TW series, but eventually (right around Shogun 2) started to get angry with how badly the AI cheats on the campaign map. That's by no means because the agents or battles were too difficult for me due to the cheating, but because I realized that what I wanted from the campaign map was an opponent whose strengths and weaknesses could accurately be assessed, whose moves could be predicted, and so on. That's not really possible when the computer is awarding itself free armies (or transmogrifying one peasant into a militia stack, etc.) as soon as it's in the fog of war, for example. You know all the shit in the Art of War? You can't put it into practice when the AI can miracle up men and materiel whenever it pleases to shore up its weaknesses.

While I realize that because it's a computer AI, it needs such crutches, in the end that defeats the whole exercise. The stiffest challenge the AI in TW games can offer is harassing you with silicon-based strengths, such as the ability to effortlessly manage large numbers of very annoying agents with which to harass the human player.

There would need to be some sort of apotheosis of the TW design doctrine and gameplay formula before I'd have any desire to return to it.

 

[Twiglard]

The game advises you to fall back and let enemies eat a bit of your lands if they want to, but that's actually a shitty advice - the refugee mechanic will obliterate your public order everywhere if you allow that to happen

Depends, I couldn't sensibly defend Gaul, Ravenna and Pannonia -- the latter had to go. That gave me precious turns to stabilize public order prior to mobilizing armies.

Once you get public order under control, you've basically won.

I disagree, you've won at the point of making a shitload of cash despite having a few decent armies.

Just snipe their general with flanking cavalry, then proceed to charge in enemy back line for an easy win.

It takes a while for the AI to commit all the spearmen that protect the general, and the AI loves spearmen. At the point they do, you could already be doing envelopment. Also, you're going to be constantly waiting on cavalry replenishment, or searching for more merc cavalry. Or you could just spam javelinmen. Put them at the enemy back line and see it melt, armor or not.

I'm warming up to WH2. There's a difference between making a reasoned argument in 14th century wigs, as in historical TW, and being charged by a foaming-at-the-mouth Somali wielding a machete.

 

[Twiglard]

I'm still hooked on WH2. Some thoughts:

Most of the changes they made are controversial, but they make the game more unpredictable. Factions have major holes in their rosters, bigger than e.g. Rome not having axemen or other high-charge-bonus units. The AI is excellent despite the great differences in special units.

The Empire units suck ass despite being supposedly a "balanced" roster. Greatswords are almost the worst front-line infantry ever. Halberdiers and spearmen are shit too and can't hold the line against cavalry, monsters, or chariots. Brettonia has OP and cheap archers. Brettonian cavalry can just charge into a braced spear wall and win. I'm playing Wood Elves since they resemble Rome 2/Attila's infantry balancing the most.

The decline is the lack of need for, and in fact non-viability of holding infantry in reserve. Except perhaps low-armor units and anti-large. Also there very little need to maneuver infantry. Archers are very good, especially the armor piercing variants, with little downsides, and they make flanking a lot harder. With monsters and "heroes" it doesn't even matter as much that the center collapses.

It's a lovely quirk of modern technology that I get to have my peak childhood nostalgia game on my phone

This is fucking amazing, what's the display size and specs?

 

[TemplarGR]

Best TW game: Medieval Total War.
Best Paradox Game: Crusaders Kings 2

Not even close.

Best TW game: Empire Total War, and by a huge margin.
Best Paradox game: Victoria II

 

[Sergiu64]

Guess its different for everyone. I like original Rome: TW and EU4 the best.

 

[TemplarGR]

Guess its different for everyone. I like original Rome: TW and EU4 the best.

Saying something is the best, and you liked something the most, are different things. You can like non-best things, you know. It is a matter of personal preference. BUT, it can be demonstrated that Empire Total war was simply a better and more in-depth game in both Grand strategy map and on tactical battles, and that Victoria II had more meaningful gameplay than EUIV.

 

[Sergiu64]

Setting matters though. I prefer earlier time periods.