Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.


"I Disdain ..." An extemporaneous list of my year TWRii experience.

MalZen333MalZen333 Senior MemberPosts: 225Registered Users
edited November 2014 in Rants and Raves
"I Disdain ..." - A verbose Tumultus of my disparate TWRii experience

I Disdain...
a TW:Rii; convoluted list of accumulated Tumultus.

( [!] Disclaimer: Forgive the formatting. Forgive my style of humor where needed)
[#] Chrctrs_pt.01 of 03+
13,973+13,197 /of/ 73,913 (roughly*) (well kinda**)

-/(The laconism lexicon: "I Disdain ...".

I've written a number down on TWRomeII, as I played in a note structure. Have attempted to consolidate and make legible all the buried points I want to say in the .txt docs throughout the year.
However still I anticipate a number of readers may see how I begin to kinda lose pragmatic cohesion the more I write about my concerns, think about the Tumultus, and encounter my disputes as I play.
As I become more frustrated with the concepts I encounter everytime I play my esoteric becomes a bit more extemporaneous and, though not all so incoherent or less any less relevant, I may write less concise and my note bullet points format of tumults can become interpreted as ambiguously verbose. Plz don't allow that train to derail you.

... So I'll just let y'all have fun tearing it apart. Gl!

I disdain expanding Tooltips.
I hate that the Base stat is the same # shown on the Porthole Panel, instead of the reading [base# + mods# = porthole#]
I'm not all so fond of why somewhere hidden away in the encyclopedia is a page that can read
Yet on an expanding tooltip after hovering over the chevron icons of a unit card it can read
I hate using a calculator when playing a game that won't just always show the number differentiation next to all percentage modifiers, every single would be percentage and every single percentage that is.

I disdain that out of thirty four preset formations, seven of the eight Hellenistic factions share the same twelve. I disdain the Punic faction is that eighth Hellenistic faction, as opposed to the being the first Punic or at least African Hellenistic Punic faction.
I disdain the time was taken at all to program in a Historical Battle main menu if they were only going to add 4 (that is four!) historical maps four launch. (I will not plead fourgive the pun)

I disdain how ineffective and meager it feels like the walls of Syracuse are.

I truly have An Animosity for When every single homeless faction army leftovers just happens to curiously be in a raiding stance Goldilocks zone directly one hex out of range of both the
Hostile Armies. AndHostile Agents.
... curious.

I disdain that the CPU# units default back to the Show Basic Setup in Custom Battles every time I Swap Attackers /Defenders or change Battle Types.
I hate going into Sound Options and immediately Accept Changes, without making any changes, each time I load the client so the sound reverts from 100/100/100/100 to the levels I actually have each bar set to.
I hate that I have to go into Controls Options every time I start the client to load my current keys, slide Battle Camera Movement Speed to 0, Accept Changes, go back into Controls, slide Movement Speed back to 100%, Save Keys, Overwrite Saved Keys with same name, and accept changes all to get the still too slow 100% Movement Speed.
I hate that holding {Shift} as a modifier key moves the Battle Camera faster than the Battle Camera moves with the Movement Speed slide bar cranked up to the highest setting.

I disdain every modifier key I am unable to change.
I disdain Dev choice for modifier keys. And I pity Dev comprehension of what a modifier key is actually intended to accomplish.

I hate that all Greeks hate all other Greeks, until they all decide at once to actually not hate all Greeks; on the sole condition that all the Greeks hate only all the Epirote Greeks.

I disdain Agrianian Axemen with axes have the same weapon damage and the same AP as other skirmishers with daggers. I disdain they have the same melee damage stats as every other skirmisher. I hate their mundane peasant clothes and that the common peltast runs faster, suffers less from fatigue, has slower fatigue degen, has quicker regen, and with higher armor less health less morale less charge and less melee attack the peltast at the same cost surpasses the Agrianian Axemen every time.

Why are Ships stoping to pivot 45degrees while Cavalry are making 360 degree circles?!
Ships need to turn without losing all momentum, no pivoting unless the halt command is given and the ship gradually decelerates.
Cavalry need the opposite, to learn how to turn quickly when they are inert in melee and given a move command to break off. Why the hell are they doing ring around the Rosie when the horse has no momentum?! Colliding into one another and right back into the melee they've been told to avoid.
Both ships should also learn this neat little real world feature, backwards.
Horse, stop pivot go. Ship, go turning going. Figure it out.

I disdain these wizard sallies nowhere near a settlement under siege.
Asininity. Regardless of the ineptitude required to be able to con yourself into believing every besieged city just had the luxury mustering out the front door and marching miles to form battle array with their glitter fairy city gleaming on the horizon;
yea disregarding that audacity
- I just don't find it enjoyable every time the AI has numbers on my besieging army they are able, and alway do, just tap-your-heels twice warp us away from reality on some open field where their numbers tend to attain maneuver advantages and in this never never land I the aggressor am put on my Peter Pan back foot.
Verbose, I know. Derogatory, yes yes, if you took offense it's your choice to do so and in the end you had it coming. Amicable argument where any rebuttal will be met in kind until with both find this lost boys pixie dust median of accomplishment in further discussion? No.

I disdain replays without unit card panels, each parties roster shown depending on the unit currently selected in the replay.
I disdain you are unable to select units in replays.

I disdain the options checkbox to auto-save before an end turn or auto-save at the start of a new turn is a nonexistent optional options checkbox.
I disdain the weak Zoom in level in battle and hate there is not a function comparable to Close Up of The Action. I disdain there is not an Increase Radar Scale. I disdain I can zoom out so far in tactical view I can see the entire battle field, but I am unable to zoom in far enough to make use of it without losing sight or unintentionally boxing overlapping unit icons. I disdain wishing I could zoom in so far each individual elephant has to be represented as a dotted separate unit from its unit. I disdain wishing this because it is a wish; I shouldn't be spending more time wishing soberly conscious that I feel like I disdain aspects of a game than I do spend ignorant blissfully playing a game.
How swell it would be if I could only use Tab to select next and cycle my unit cards. I disdain impulsively trying to press the most logical key for such a function and being startled by the tactical map popup with a swoosh noise. Startle whenced into a bummer let down sigh into a vehemently grinding teeth type of startled. I hate that the not tab key pans to the next unit instead of selecting it, because I have already multiple ways to pan to units when I want that. Whoa, what if you could set the same key for the next binding and pan to selection alternative binding to get that effect instead? Whoa! But you can't. So not whoa.
I disdain the radar is on the illogically placed right. I hate I am unable to choose right left in options. Or up down middle of the screen wherever hades hell I want it options.

I disdain that a possible solution for siege complications "instantly start every siege with ladders" ever hit the drawing board.
How about an entirely new system. Siege technologies that allow for instant ladders, or increase the number of siege equipment that is built per turn.
Or how about a siege stance, with a drawback like the others, that allows one siege equipment to be built per turn. Upon leaving the stance or if the force is attacked in open field the accumulated equipment is lost and forfeit. This stance is a connotation of preparation and intent to siege a destination. Once the force in siege stance initiates an attack or encirclement the defending capital is unable to Sally out.

I disdain that the balance of forces bar does not expand a tooltip showing the percentages of kills for each party.
I disdain how regardless of all the settings it somehow feels as if all Expanding Tooltips are set to Delayed.
I disdain how essentially any information I'm seeking is somewhere on a tooltip that expands. Delayed.
I hate how many Tooltips there are. I hate how many Tooltips don't clarify anything, when they should.
I hate hovering over the same icon in different locations expand a tooltip and in other location not expand the same expected tooltip.

I disdain the circadian unit card status updates that cycle. Under fire, Walking /Running, In Melee /Firing... I disdain why anyone ever thought 3 /5 of these icons couldn't fit static on one horizontal unit card row at 1/3 their current size or vertically on one side of a unit card each at its current full size. I disdain more so the idea that there must of been some of those anyone's who did have that thought, and yet still concluded a unanimous placeholder for the multiple critical information the user needs to know for multiple units in the span of milliseconds should flash one by one over intervals of seconds. I disdain the anyone's ineptitude. Play a game before you make one.

I disdain when only one click, under any circumstance, can cause selected units to run.
I disdain the existence of a run/walk speed toggle altogether. Was it put there just to taunt me? Now that be some wicked sick despotic masochism of twisted humor right there then Devs now I say we says.
I disdain the Devs humor.
I disdain that an active Formation Ability toggles off when the unit runs, as opposed to only toggling off when a double-click registers or the toggle speed off... is toggled... off...
1 On / 0 Off
01001111 01101110 On
01001111 01100110 01100110 Off
01001111011011100010000000101111010011110110011001 10011000101110
On /Off. See how that works? Swell. Moving on then.
I disdain that a Pike Phalanx in active melee will point their pike points poking enemies towards the sky so becomes parallel the persons pointy possessory when they believe to be pointed towards a location by move run command (nearly always intended by the user to be a walk command). Oh noW they Listen! Mhmmn... sweet, sweet catatonic copacetic Cohesion.

I love it when I press the move unit forward up arrow key and the selected units always run.
Vaha! I'm only kidding. I actually disdain it.

I hate how Formation Abilities do not have a designated location on the unit abilities bar. I disdain how I am unable to select a Hoplite and press a activate ability hotkey to enter Hoplite Phalanx; then select a Pikeman and use the same hotkey to go into Pike Phalanx.
I disdain that Hoplite Phalanx feels like a Shield Wall. I hate how Hoplite Phalanx is a shield_wall_formation.
I find it a nuisance Pikemen are not deployed in Pike Phalanx.
I find it a bummer the cache does not recall my last deployment schema state upon the start battle initiation. Inclusive of previous unit specific average: rank/file width/depth, ability bar toggle state & auto-casts, and relative position to differing unit classes & types.
My head hurts from thinking about how not one individual has been thoughtful enough to think the thought "hey, I think I thought we should think about adding a few Custom Formation slots to go along with the dozen presets we thought to code in, even though of course we think our plenty dozen is plenty enough and no one can possibly conclude our way is not the better best. I think. Wait... what were we thinking about?".

I disdain that I am unable to amicably utilise the Select Next hotkey to re-issue a sequence of attack orders one by one down a breaking line because Select Next also acts as the Pan to target key, and changes the camera orientation behind the next unit.
I hate how Toggle Tracking can be toggled off by functions other than another Toggle Tracking keypress, {Esc}, or a directional move camera key. For instance when Pan to target toggles Tracking off.
I disdain the irony in the debug cam being the least bugged and having functional camera control.

I hate how holding down {Ctrl} is used to rotate a units facing direction with the left click move, yet rotating a units facing with right click move requires {Alt} be held instead.
I hate more that I am not given the option to change either of these modifier keys.
I disdain my locked control group chasing shattered units across the map when I give the attack command, rather than target the steady enemy unit charging the groups flank.
I hate how the AI changes my locked formation when I give it control.
I disdain being unable to use AI Attack or AI Defend for any unit that will inadvertently gain the negative symptoms of an ability that shouldn't even exist.
I disdain a unit can run across the map for five minutes and get winded, yet that unit can rapidly advance for thirty seconds and go from active to exhausted instantly.
I disdain the AI is compelled to use any and every ability cooldown although I haven't toggled on any ability auto-cast. Regardless of the current situation, and on the basis of absolutely no relevant intelligent reaction and with no dynamic clause, the AI will use abilities simply because it can. Particularly abilities with adverse effects. Why toggle a Hoplite Phalanx formation to brace for an imminent cavalry charge (that can be toggled right back off, absent any negative exertions)? When instead you could just instantaneously use all of your energy (if you survive the next 30s) to counter charge with a Rapid Advance?!
Got a dozen Impetuous Elephants running amok near a group of shattered enemies fleeing 300 meters from the culminating battlefield?! Not an issue, we all know what must be done, and there is an ability that can be activated to do it! (Yea, there is your Auto-Resolve predicament. It is not based on careless finite algorithm variables; just trigger happy AI, who has a full brigade of expensive methodically trained beasts of war, a momentary lapse of a moment when the beasts see their own shadow, and an armament of Dracula stakes that will otherwise have been a poor consumer purchase.)

I disdain the "shattered" concept. Really, you're just gunna keep running while the other 19 units of us are wrapping up killing all we can of the 20 shattered enemy units? And you expect to come back into the army after we finish here like nothing happened?! Sure, alright. The price is decimation.
I disdain the effect of the disciplined attribute. Disciplined should entitle a unit is unable to be shattered, will only rout, and will only be guaranteed 100% to rout off the field if every other unit is routing. And as for the current inept affect, the Generals death should play a sincere role on moral. Dynamically. How much it affects moral. How long. Balance of strength? Units with a captain like encourage status that can potentially rise to the challenge fill the void and rally the forces? Already another General on the field leading the reinforcing army?! Distance from general dying, possibility to have seen it happen at all?

I hate when an ability is used that I toggled to auto-cast after an attack command is given... on a target so far away, by the time my exhausted unit reaches the target, the ability has already come off CD... and yet I get to hate how it was not auto-cast again right before the charge...

An eye vessel of mine is cauterized with each line of extracted .txt settings their lupine gaze falls upon. When the eyes vociferate to the mouth in the personified lexicon of grinding teeth, that buried in the rigmarole of files is found the DB by the nomen battle_arena_camera.txt that holds the location for a broad spectrum of settings that should be accessible through a range of editable options in the client GUI

I disdain when my units surrounding and surrounded by an enemy die one by one trying to stutter-skip back into the line... due to Formation Attack.
I disdain even more so that this chain reaction continues until my unit routs; because there is always a gap left in the ranks that the previous fool died while bunny hopping backwards to fill, so the next fool has to prance back into the shifting formation trying to now both consolidate files and fill the gaps in the ranks ... before dying until...
Seriously. Animosity for everyone who thought and still thinks of Formation Attack as a viable concept. Drop it already, moving on to the other multitude of your problems.

I disdain that some units are able to throw javelins while charging in a full sprint. I disdain that only sometimes they actually do. What constitutes when another charge becomes applicable again?
I disdain these some units inability to fire while inert & idle, from the deeper ranks not yet engaged in melee, over the heads of those ranks that are. I disdain these some units inability to fire at any point ever at all never while inert & idle. Watching that packed horde barrelling towards them, clenching and caressing those pilum, just waiting.. praying, eager^ for me to give that charge command so the first two ranks can drop that ammo count to 90% 300 milliseconds before being ran over... Waiting & watching. Yea; just waiting and watching, all 'disciplined' like.
I disdain missile cavalry can throw a javelin as they charge while the FireAtWill and MeleeMode are simultaneously toggled on; however a unit of javelin infantry with the same toggles refuse to throw in motion during the charge (like the missile cavalry can and the some unit melee infantry must); neither can the javelin missile infantry take a moment to halt, fire, then proceed to collide into the target's now disrupted formation (due to the fire).
I disdain the inconsistencies and disdain how these inconsistencies conflict with dynamic tactical interests.
I disdain missile infantry with various armaments all share identical Base & AP Weapon Damage.

I disdain I have never been offered military access from a trespassing faction.
I disdain I have never been offered military access under any circumstance.
I disdain I can't demand a fine for trespassing or offer to sell one way military access for a designated amount of turns.
I hate military access does not come automatically when one defensive ally is invaded by a faction both defensive allies are at war with.

___\\\___\\\___\\\ --- /// --- /// --- ///
_-/ [ Recent Tumults' :
Tumultus v13 .7...ish? | This game doesn't ever end up as play for me...

Each time, over the last 9 months, I fool myself into trying to play this 'game'; I end up frustrated, I exit debilitated that the disputes I have still exist...
Each tumult that burns me out, CA must not hear enough clamor to justify them attention.
Hard reset my PC down jaded by how these disputes could exist undisputed from the start...

_ ___ _______
When my diplomatic status becomes universally Untrustworthy the very first time I hit the End Turn button;
Because one of my Client States arbitrarily decided to go to war with another Client State...
Siding with the defender against the aggressor?
Siding with the aggressor against the defender?
Arbitrate an armistice, demanding a ceasefire for the benefit and prosperity of each environ belonging to my empire?
-No option for that.
What's a protectorate again?

Disdain Those great end turns when a 4 unit rebellion is able to move and take actions the same turn they appear; those guys far surpassing any garrison belonging to a province pushed to rebel.
Meanwhile I reinstate Army legacy
-1 year immobile.
I merge an Agent in with a General, who just had a full meter worth of movement potential; entire Army
-1 year Immobile.
Conquer Settlement with full meter
-1 year Immobile.
Merge units between two armies
-may as well be 1 year immobile.
Those oh so great end turns, same turn sieged... every one of the on the brink of rebelling end turns...

I disdain wacky siege replenishment mechanics.
I siege city.
Garrison sallies out.
I send the 30% remaining living Garrison running back home.
I assault city.
Garrison at 100% living.

I siege city.
I successfully defeat enemy General garrisoned inside.
I occupy city. Enemy General flees my city with heavy casualties.
I end turn.
Enemy General assaults my new City and its Garrison at 10% manpower with 100% casualty free units. And the 5 mercenary stacks the province must ov just happened to replenished.
Not fun.

I disdain Agents.
Enemy Agent Hindered!
How hindered can an enemy Agent really be if he is able to wound the second Agent of mine during an assassination attempt the same turn my first agent hindered him?
Multiple agents surrounding and using costly actions against one lone enemy agent, on my home turf...
-No exponential variables accounted for.
Agent hindered!
-From only taking action against you next turn... Just pixels and wasted memory till then.
Agent hindered! So I'm killing him slowly through attrition increasing the probability him and his kids will stay off my **** lawn?!
? But..
-No. no.

I do not enjoy trying to annihilate a routed army of 30 exhausted single file dumb bobble heads around for longer than it took the army to break every battle. Or any battle.
I might enjoy it, if for some reason my fresh light units could ever catch any of them.
How is this pathfinding issue still an issue?
-Rout in single files instead of a dispersed mob; y'all seen those clumped Mob units in a game called Rome Total War? . Broken.
-Exhausted and outpace every unit, aside from cav, unless I micro glitch exploit booster jump a trailing unit with alternating increase/decrease rank/file spam slightly ahead of routing unit bobblehead line leaders. Broken.

_ ___ _______ _________ _ ___
_ ___ _______ CiG Tumults:

Had 7 Generals (composed of only 30 stacks between them) all prepped & in position to initiate a siege next turn. I end the turn. The same faction I am about to attack with the 7 generals offers me peace. I accept. Start of my next turn I take a -200 to diplomacy for trespasses of my 7 generals with the faction that offered the peace. Asininity

- Raiding Enemy Region: -10 Diplomatic Attitude per Character.
- Trespass Enemy Region: -30 Diplomatic Attitude per Character.

-/ War with ... : -112 DiploAttitude.
-/ Tresspasses against ... : -210 DiploAttitude.
-/ Total attitude value : -441.
-> Offered Peace:
-> Trespass Enemy Region: Instant -207 Diplomatic Attitude per 7 Characters after your last turn but before your current* turn. (I.E. -207 Diplomatic Ineptitude).

I disdain the severity of attrition. Like...
- Winter: Standing next to a herd of deer & a forest of trees in raid stance.
-> End Turn Attrition: -30% foolish dead.

Again... still hate:
- Hinder Enemy Agent -> Agent Wounded same turn by same 'Hindered' Agent.

Recommendations and inquiries concerning diplomatic military access have been vindicated for three months, yet met absent response on CA's behalf.
Nervii have diplomatic relations in the green and a nonaggression pact in my Suebi campaign. I see a Nervii full stack in forced march on our border heading straight towards a two stack rebel army in my lands that I just defeated the previous turn. I suspect they are in preparation to lend aid I don't need upon the next turn; but will be trespassing to do so, and insist on refusing any alliance, military access, or trade agreement. So... WTF.
Would be mighty swell if...

- A one way military access grace period, in effect for several turns or several armies, could be purchased or sold between factions.
/ - if the diplomatic screen will popup when a trespass occurs giving the player opportunity to request a grace period or demand compensation for a grace period (met with the optional threat of retaliation if refused)

- and yada yada yada much a lot more diplomatic stuff and things blah blah blah enough excuses ca

Honestly I think there is a heavy chance system that determines when a diplomatic agreement is refused with absolutely no rationale.

Several occasions I have QuickSaved, requested a nonaggression pact & been refused @low chances, done a few things, before the game crashes. I load up the QuickSave and before doing anything request in the same sequence a nonaggression pact with that same faction with low chance... Somehow accepted...

Sometimes I can't figure out why trade agreements will not be accepted.
I'm starting to figure out there is no reason why they refuse. No reason why they accept. No reason why. Just cause

--- And a lil fyi on that Nervii I had a hunch was going to trespass next turn.
Ya the Nervii trespassed next turn. But rather than trespass to attack the now 6 stack rebels with their full stack; the Nervii crossed my border in normal stance, ran to the edge of the rebels magic 20mi radius area of control red bubble, went back into forced march, turned directly around, and went the same path back into their region...

- Deployment Phase: Overhaul - Reinforcement;
:: The Battlespace of a general's area of control (redefine it please), indicated red bubble on the campaign map, has some major flaws relating:
Deployment Phase & Reinforcements.
Action Points on the campaign map (movement points. Keep continuity for once; Explain in the tutorial, Encyclopedia, and some tooltips that action points are character movement potential -> and after the 13 second orientation refer to Movement points as action points everywhere always until the end of time. If the player does not comprehend what you mean then they can go through the tutorial again... or just AltF4 and go color in their coloring book. Getting old guys, difficult enough addressing the many issues as it already stands without these inconsistencies.)
• Initiated attacks should target the Battlespace depending on the defenders stance, requiring the attacking general's action points only up to a point along the pentameter (circumference) of the defending General's red area of control, not depleting the action points to move to the defender's central hex location. If not, drastically smaller red bubbles, that apparently the force does not have any control over, are in demand. Although choosing not to implement a change for attacks to initiate on the Battlespace-RedBubble-AreaOfControl_ButNotReally as opposed to the current flawed design of attacks targeting the direct source (in campaign mode, not the battle map location; which these redesigns could even open a door to a new variable system that determines the specific battle map location within the defending generals Battlespace-RedBubble-AreaOfControl_TrullyReallyForReals)
• Reinforcing Defenders: If a reinforcing armies red bubble overlaps by more than half of that which is the attack generals bubble especially when standing side by side) -> then those defending reinforcements need to have their own deployable zones towards the outer rim of the battle field. I can sympathize I suppose to balance factors; this overhaul is a solution to an issue in the game. The issues I address here, it has been insinuated in various ways, was birthed by the solution determined by the Devs for an issue (disregarding lack of imagination... and perhaps cognitive reasoning). I am finding that there seems to have been a pattern of logic in the games designs where solutions to previous issues introduced new issues. As this broken pattern of logic accumulated through the stages of development the decisions broke the product. Why the hell anyone ever needs to be told "a solution to an issue should not create greater issues" is merely a testament of our peregrination of destitute and reiteration of the inevitable doom of Man.
• All Reinforcements: In deployment should have

- Custom Deployment;
:: Instead of the Start Deployment button at the beginning of a battle the should be a Start Deployment: Default button and a Start Deployment: Custom button. Importantly, the custom deployment should save unit type rank depth.
/When saved, If multiple ranks and files were chosen for the same unit *Type then when deployment begins each stack of the type should default to a per specific unit formula.
/When saved, If multiple ranks and files were chosen for the same unit then when deployment begins each stack of those units the player has fielded should alternate between the custom formula the player has saved.
- 3 *Custom Formation Slots:
_-> Set up a Groups orientation
_-> Lock Group Formation.
_-> hover over Formations Button to expand.
_-> hover over a new button Custom Formation 1 or Custom Formation 2 or Custom Formation 3 to expand.
_-> select new button Save Custom Formation 1 (or 2/3).
Post edited by MalZen333 on


  • Voyager IVoyager I Senior Member Posts: 122Registered Users
    edited September 2014
    Nobody but you takes you seriously and you should seriously reexamine what you are doing with your life.
  • SasuSasu Moderator FinlandPosts: 8,876Registered Users, Moderators
    edited September 2014
    Moved to R&R. Some well deserved one.
  • MalZen333MalZen333 Senior Member Posts: 225Registered Users
    edited September 2014
    The "I Disdain ..." is just a hyperbolic theme attempting to better each points cohesion...
  • SasuSasu Moderator FinlandPosts: 8,876Registered Users, Moderators
    edited September 2014
    I urge all to read the Forum Terms and Conditions (link in my sig).

    10. All actions taken by moderators are final and are not an invitation to begin a debate. If a thread is closed, moved or deleted it was because it violated one of the forum rules.

    If you feel that the line of moderating is unfair or unacceptable, you should contact and inform the Forum Administrators .

    Posts removed.
  • MalZen333MalZen333 Senior Member Posts: 225Registered Users
    edited September 2014
    How am I able to broach a private inquiry between myself and an Admin?
  • SasuSasu Moderator FinlandPosts: 8,876Registered Users, Moderators
    edited September 2014
    You can locate an active administrator (e.g. from here: http://forums.totalwar.com/showgroups.php) and converse through private message.
  • BackoBacko Senior Member Posts: 1,199Registered Users
    edited September 2014
    I sincerely enjoy MalZen333's posts. If you spend the time on them, he genuinely has a point to argue in most cases. He is also the most idiosyncratic regular poster on the forum, which I enjoy too. It's like a puzzle.
    Never promise crazy a baby
  • MalZen333MalZen333 Senior Member Posts: 225Registered Users
    edited September 2014
    Idiosyncrasy... Now that's a word I like! Not heard it till now, and a short inquiry lead to the Greek origins Sunkratikos. 'mixed together. Now that's cool, close enough to an Ancient Greek military rank for me to claim!
  • MalZen333MalZen333 Senior Member Posts: 225Registered Users
    edited September 2014
    So what then is the Basil- in Basilikos? Hmm.. -ikos suffix
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,702Registered Users
    edited September 2014
    Backo wrote: »
    I sincerely enjoy MalZen333's posts. If you spend the time on them, he genuinely has a point to argue in most cases. He is also the most idiosyncratic regular poster on the forum, which I enjoy too. It's like a puzzle.
    Sorry, got bored two paragraphs in. Don't like overly long and pretentious rambling especially if it could be summarized as "I personally don't like this game" which in six words says more than his OP's ~14000.

  • Voyager IVoyager I Senior Member Posts: 122Registered Users
    edited September 2014
    Legitimate curiosity: what is your first language and/or diagnosis?
  • BackoBacko Senior Member Posts: 1,199Registered Users
    edited September 2014
    Voyager I wrote: »
    Legitimate curiosity: what is your first language and/or diagnosis?

    "And/or" is an abomination.

    I would be interested to know if English is the OP's first language. I suspect that it is.
    Never promise crazy a baby
  • SmokeScreenSmokeScreen Senior Member Posts: 2,429Registered Users
    edited September 2014
    Sorry, got bored two paragraphs in. Don't like overly long and pretentious rambling especially if it could be summarized as "I personally don't like this game" which in six words says more than his OP's ~14000.

    You make no sense at all! OP has some really good points, and I have to agree with many of them. Just saying "I don't like this game" doesn't really explain why, and what's wrong with the game. He has actually dissected what's wrong with the game quite well in his post, even though it's written kinda obscurely.

    If you are interested in reading what OP has to say about Rome 2 is an entirely different matter.
    Voyager I wrote: »
    Legitimate curiosity: what is your first language and/or diagnosis?

    Neat! If OP's first language isn't English, you still get at him with the "diagnosis" part. You are a master of covering your bases when insulting somebody on the Internet.
    "I just traded Finland's military to Kenya for 50 lions"

    The awesome World War 1 Thread
  • MalZen333MalZen333 Senior Member Posts: 225Registered Users
    edited October 2014
    I had made attempt to watch this thread for a few days, and thought I setup correctly notifications so that I may, when a new response is post, be... notified. Apologies for the tardy prudence.


    The crux 'I disdain ...' was not intended to convey how much animosity I have for this game in as many characters of verbosity I could manage...
    My purpose wasn't to express why I hate the game; I wrote this in an attempt to share in detail the aspects preventing me from loving this game.

    - English 1st language. (& only)

    7yrs accumulative diagnosis:
    _/Avolition: non-restorative chronic Insomnia (elapsed in circadian cycles \measured not by anon) Late onset Undifferentiated negative symptom Schizoaffective ( [ Schizophrenic {catatonic, disorganized, residual} + Bipolar >=|+\-| Anomia + 'aleatoric anomaly' + 'unknown' + ... ? ] )
  • Rath_DarkbladeRath_Darkblade Senior Member Posts: 2,125Registered Users
    edited October 2014
    MalZen333 wrote: »
    So what then is the Basil- in Basilikos? Hmm.. -ikos suffix

    Basilikos is Greek for "Imperial". Why 'Basil'? I'unno. *shrug* Maybe because of Basil the Bulgar-Slayer? ;)
    "There is nothing wrong with nepotism, provided you keep it all in the family."
    --Winston Churchill
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 18,657Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    edited October 2014
    Interesting thread. Keep up the discussion...

    brokencomputer_zpse21154a0.gif popcorn_zps6eb273f1.gif
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
  • The Great PamphletThe Great Pamphlet Senior Member Posts: 423Registered Users
    edited October 2014
    Basilikos is Greek for "Imperial". Why 'Basil'? I'unno. *shrug* Maybe because of Basil the Bulgar-Slayer? ;)
    Actually, it should be translated to regal, not imperial, to be exact.
  • MalZen333MalZen333 Senior Member Posts: 225Registered Users
    edited October 2014
    dge1 wrote: »
    Interesting thread. Keep up the discussion...

    brokencomputer_zpse21154a0.gif popcorn_zps6eb273f1.gif

    Really? Alright thanks, I might do that. I have been working on a new .txt file from scratch since this one became locked in an attempt to more vernacularly (as best I can) share my opinion for a more amicable discourse between users & to avoid the thread ending up in this naughty corner again. It is not prepared, but I can run some general trials here as I go I suppose. My main focus is UI, hotkeys /navigation, and most sentimental to me -diplomacy.

    Heres a small teaser I was just working on. Truly, my aim is constructive criticism I swear.


    _-/ [Cordiality vs. Disparagement]

    - The Statistics tab in the Faction Overview window... Ya, most of that could have all fit on one page split into 3 columns; likely only requiring a slightly decreased text size.

    - Dude! Like cmon, ok. Cmon mk. Mk. 'Toggle Strategic Overview' <Tab>. You make these five almost awesome maps, but leave the current campaign Date off of it!!! Cmon man mk!? Progress Screen Shots! Hellooo. Wake up friends- 'CrrntTrsry, 'PrdctdIncm, 'FdSrpls, 'Ssn+Dt BC{E}. All below the mini-map porthole on Strat-map. Add it all to the Strategic Overview map somewhere anywhere please, theres room for it I promise there must be ya silly caledonian Gauls you!
    (Disclaimer; Tone no one has super powers to 'read': { ! } is not me yelling at you at the top of my lungs. '!' is not proliferated rage or prevaricated anger. OK!?!?!?.! Mk.)
    (prevaricate... Vaha! Me?! Neva. Alright maybe like that kne singke time. But me Vociferate I howeva?! Nevarrr!!!)
    (TLTR: too long to read: then dont. And in reference to this bullet point, don't try to read my tone please; this is a rave, not a rant. With neon lights. And music. No dancing allowed though take it outside.)

    _-/ [Glass Panes... they Break]
    - Pane; Replace current General selection left/right arrow buttons are still inverted...
    - Pane; Force needs Command General selection popup left/right arrow buttons are still inverted...
    - Pane; Levy troops from Client/Satrap pane will minimize once a Unit in the army is dismissed, yet still will remain selected... still. You are then forced to select another pane and reselect Levy.
    - Pane; Recruit Mercenaries pane will minimize once a Unit in the army is dismissed, yet still will remain selected... still. You are then forced to select another pane and reselect Recruit Mercenary.
    - Pane; Recruitment pane will minimize once a Unit in the army is dismissed, yet... Hey it refreshes. Good job team.
    - Pane; Character Details pane locks minimized when an Event Message is popped out and Accept button is clicked. Burden enough, at this point I don't even bother clicking through the Character Trait Report Event Message list.
    -\ Pop-Up; Why does the stupid Character Trait Report Event Message still not just show what the Trait effects are already. And no. Before you even contemplate how you would code it in; No! No another unwieldy inept asinine Tooltip hover window. In fact not another Tooltip ever. We've got enough at this point.
  • MalZen333MalZen333 Senior Member Posts: 225Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    Zone of control has always been an issue in my top three Strat-Map tumults. Wrote this recently-ish.

    -_-___-/ [ Zone of Control ; Settlements ] :::

    _-/ Garrison; Garrison'ed:
    {?} I can tell you I have for certain broken my right hand a number of three times. What I cant tell you is how many times I have accidentally right clicked and used a percentage of available Action Points for a Garrisoned General. So why does a movement order take place when I have my current selection as a Settlement? If I wished to move the General, I will select the General.

    _-/ Garrison; Sally:
    {?} Why is it mandatory to have a rostered General character lead an attack on an enemy that is close enough for a Garrison to act as reinforcements? Considering if a Settlement is attacked without an allied army around a Garrison receives a promoted General; if an enemy force is within proximity of a Settlement Zone of Control, then that Garrison should be able to initiate an actual Sally lead by that Garrison General who has a distinct given name regardless in Battle Deployment.
    If I park next to a Settlement in Forced March right up to the circumference as far as I can get towards the settlement, then the AI should weigh the opportunity to sally out and ambush me
    If a defeated force of one single measly General's Bodyguard unit right outside in Raiding Stance, causing the same amount of Public Order penalties as a full army would, I should be able to Sally against him with just my Garrison.

    {?} Defender; 'Sallied' Stipulations?:
    After fighting so many field battles chosen by the AI that just potentially handicapped themselves on an attritional basis, I was eventually just under the impression:
    : AI # of manpower >= Player # manpower
    : AI Battle Deploy = Just Sally Out...
    (I comprehend that sheer numbers should overwhelm lesser and the potential to engulf flanks on should theoretically increase with open terrain in which to maneuver. Unfortunately that is *if the AI outflanks or has the numbers /necessary unit classes to punch my center. And unfortunately for the game and the AI, Lanchester's law, 2v1, doesn't quite apply or play out so well. Even if either linear or square law was to be more prevalent and represented, the AI army build and soldier classes available in the battle seems to be of little revalent.
    What I mean by handicapped: defender's edge, battlespace,

    \- If a Sieged settlement Sallies, forfeiting the defender's advantage, they (now the aggressors) shouldn't get a 100% Hill top-side advantage on any battle map -
    _unless... *Zero attrition occurs and they sally on the opponent's turn; requiring the opponent to initiate the Siege Attack the same turn they moved to encircle the city, without waiting 1 turn.
    _ if... *One turn of attrition has passed; the Besieged Garrison should only be able to Sally on their own turn!
    Read these words-
    If the Besieger has waited a turn,
    any attrition has taken place,
    or it is the last turn before surrender defaults
    Then = No potential for the Besieged to choose a Sally option leading to an Open Field Battle.
    None. End.
    _ if... Now if it is the last turn before surrender defaults; the Besieged may sally- On the Settlement Battle Map, with Gates Neutral & open, all Arrow Towers inactive or 100%dmgd, and the Besieged Garrison acting under the Aggressor.

    _-/ Zone of Control; Jailbreak:
    "This force is inside an enemy zone of control and cannot move. Attacking the enemy is its only option." ( -Expanding Tooltip... another...)
    ... *moment of silent reflection, please*.
    . . . It has taken over a year, since release, for me to see this message for the first time.
    . Thirteen months I was angered that CA neglected to fix the bug that was randomly causing immobility of my characters on the strat map, what seemed like almost every time, by some fluke of a broken pathfinding mechanic after an action, they ended up within an enemy characters inane implemented insipid magic red wizard bubble.
    . 3 hundred. & 9ty. 7vn days I'll never live again passed without even conceiving the possibly such a stupid idea was intentionally coded into the game.
    I am ashamed at myself at this point, for the money received by Sega's Creative Assembly. for developing a game I did not expect by now. to have hidden away someplace. somewhere. the explanation: "This force is inside an enemy zone of control and cannot move. Attacking the enemy is its only option". I am literally disgusted with myself.
    I will never be able to finish or play again this campaign. How could you contemplate any situations that this mechanic would be at all logical or beneficial to game play. Name one time when one person thought when this mechanic made one amicably possible completely subjective sense.
    Why (not how) could this broken mechanic be an intentional bug.

    ~\ @[email protected]_ArmyRetreats!; Cardinal Rose:
    _ ___ _______ _________-/ [ ~o~.Tyrrhenian (Etruscan) ]
    _ ___-___-/ [ Corsica et Sardinia ] (Alalia et Karalis)
    _v|^~^|v_ [ ~n_.Corsica <~|^Bonifacio^|~> ~s_.Sardinia ]
    I give a marching attack order to my general against an enemy general in forced march outside of a settlement;
    -> crossing the (modern) Strait of Bonifacio, from Karalis (Sardinia, my territory) to Alalia (Corsica, enemy region) in Province Corsica et Sardinia.
    -> Enemy Army Retreats... over the straits, behind my general, from the region Alalia, into my region Karalis...
    -> I do not have enough Action Points remaining to backtrack across the straits into my land again by means of an attack command on this general that fled.
    -> nor am I able to cross back into my territory (though I do have available the Action Points necessary to do so), for two reasons, both Zone of Control regulated:
    1) before this forced marching joker retreats his hex locale on the stratmap, the pixels delineating a sword icon with a *kaChnnk' noise following my general's chargeee MB-Rclck command, was a force marching jerk that happen to be within a settlement's (Alalia) Zone of Control. So he flees, and I get a "This force is inside an enemy zone of control and cannot move. Attacking the enemy is its only option".
    2) Using our imagination, like a video game creator might, let us play pretend my general was not now within that travesty red zone broken shell mechanic no one controls of control This force is inside an enemy zone of control and cannot move. Attacking the enemy is its only option" settlement behind enemy lines go Rambo go bubble. Yea pretending Im not inside that, and they're not in mine.
    If I wished to cross back over to my territory, say in forced march, I would still be unable to do so. Because the Zone of Control of that joker jerk that somehow fled behind my zone of control now controls the straits on the other side in my territory! I am unable to land through the straits without an attack order on this joker. What a joke.

    _-/ Zone of Control; Land-locking Transport entry:
    Ya I'd say this was an unintentional issue that needs a fix. If I have a navies zone of control extending over a beach disembark point that allows armies to enter transports, does that prevent them from being able to do so and attack my navy? That would bother me too if it doesnt prevent them from embarking. I especially don't like when my city blockade is attacked, like a Sally, and the battlefield is the middle of the ocean.
    ... (some hours later)
    Bah humbug man. Unless it just happens to be another peculiar unintentional oversight, or even an issue simply overlooked, by CA that breaks a mechanic once conditional triggers are met; then I just don't comprehend the Dev principles of development.
    Was just put into the situation of my last comments inquiry.
    13 stack dedicated navy. I park it right next to shore, with red dumb bubble area of control overlapping and extending far beyond a beach transport embark point on the campaign map.
    When they were at the drawing board did they really not hear my naval commanders voice in their head as his armada stares down a hostile army on the beach over the course of one year-
    "Hey... What'r y'all doing with all that wood?"
    "No seriously, you don't think we're gunna allow you the opportunity to assemble and cast away 20 ships to sea right?"
    *'mhmm... I don't think these Gauls comprehend the systematic steps of creating an ad hoc fleet...'
    !"we're just going to take your ships out before they ever have the ability at all to array against us *******es!"
  • MalZen333MalZen333 Senior Member Posts: 225Registered Users
    edited November 2014
    So what do yall think; are the above two last posts of mine in a constructive' enough tone to avoid my next full thread avoiding the raves forum or am I still too "wonder what his first language /diagnosis" ambiguous?

    Oh and that Basil-ikos inquiry ended up just being confusion over greek suffix form changes / tense and etymological translations I think. Particularly the word 'Regulus' was throwing me off. So not Basil- but the suffix -ikos, in Basilikos & Sunkratikos.

    Basil. Basilica. Basilisk.
    {Gk.} Basilike- Basilikos. Basilikon {neuter}
    _/Regulus: Reg- Basilískos. _\; Regulus (Rex<Reg, king).
    /- Basilisk - king of serpents, has the power to cause death with a single glance (Europe) \ Calcatrix (Cockatrice).
    basilisk (/ˈbæzɪlɪsk/, from gk. βασιλίσκος Basilískos, "little king;" ln. Regulus).

    Again, I'm inclined to blame the French in this vaha.
Sign In or Register to comment.