Welcome

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.

Categories

Total War Empire 2

124»

Comments

  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089


    I’m simply asking you to prove what you say beyond your own personal experience - you haven’t. If you’re asking me to prove a negative then I don’t need to, it’s not up to me to disprove an assertion based on your personal experience.

    There’s no evidence to suggest that a substantial amount of people believe Victorian era games are less tactical than earlier games.

    If you have no objective evidence beyond your own personal ‘feelings’ just admit it; if you do - let’s see it.

    Oh, now you're trying to say you don't have to prove anything to back up your argument, but the other guy does.

    Wow.


    And guess what dave, you and one or two other guys don't speak for the majority of TW fans either. So you can just stop right there with that whole BS attempt of an "argument".


    I guess one bit of evidence is the fact that a FotS line infantry with 30 reload skill will fire considerably faster than a Matchlock unit with 30 reload skill. Go test it out, and don't be a liar about the results.


    I'm honestly just getting sick of your crap dave.

    Because you're just trying to pick and choose what counts and what doesn't as a valid point, when you have no real authority to do that.

    I bring up historical examples that support my side of the debate, and you just think you can dismiss them and pretend they don't exist.


    I've seen the good and the bad in all but two of the TW games son, so I actually know what I'm talking about when I say I think a TW game with too much focus on guns WILL not be super great.

    And Empire 2 should start at 1680 or something, basically right after the Battle of Vienna.

    That would in fact offer a lot more possibilities for playable factions and army playstyles than starting it in 1800.
  • WarlockeWarlocke Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,083
    edited August 2021
    @Commisar @davedave1124

    When you are in a protracted and circuitous debate with somebody who constantly uses melodramatic sarcasm (“Wow,” “nice one,” etc…); refuses to accept any criticism of their ideas; consistently uses condescending put-downs (“son”); generally misses the point of your statements; and just demonstrates an overall bad attitude and lack of basic etiquette (“I’m tired of your crap”), this is all fine evidence to suggest you are probably better off walking away from the conversation.

    Just my two cents.
    ò_ó
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089
    Commisar said:


    I don't. I know the scale of the map, and that's why I wouldn't expect it if they do Empire 2. It plays no role in the setting, why they didn't need to expand to cover it. Even if they did it still makes no sense to make it playable as you'd have so many other important nations that would need to be covered and they have to limit even those.

    Again no I haven't. TW is not a Paradox title. All factions are not playable. They focus on factions in the setting that played a role and had interesting developments during the period portrayed. Mongolia did not have any of these.

    What is with you two and thinking you can pick and choose what is or isn't valid for a game?


    And again, the TW games are in fact Sandbox games, get over it.

    The Mongols would be a great little faction, but especially for people who want to have a challenging campaign, but without being a Dark Souls level of difficulty.

    They could easily go toe to toe with most factions if they can establish themselves.

    Because there's a lot of factions that may seem kind of weak on the surface that could be a lot stronger if given a chance.

    And people like YOU don't get to dictate what factions are or aren't valid for a TW game.


    I mean, factions like the Native American tribes could be so much more than what they were in Empire 1 if they were given a little effort and attention, and without making them focused solely on guns or being some sort of stealth faction either.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089
    Warlocke said:

    @Commisar @davedave1124
    When you are in a protracted and circuitous debate with somebody who constantly uses melodramatic sarcasm (“Wow,” “nice one,” etc…); refuses to accept any criticism of their ideas; consistently uses condescending put-downs (“son”); generally misses the point of your statements; and just demonstrates an overall bad attitude and lack of basic etiquette (“I’m tired of your crap”), this is all fine evidence to suggest you are probably better off walking away from the conversation.

    Just me two cents.

    That's hilarious seeing as how you guys have been trying to pick and choose what it a valid argument or not.

    And the nice one and wow were only twice dude, not exactly a common thing.


    But I'm not the one trying to pick and choose stuff here, you three are.


    I've stated historical examples that support my side of the debate, and it's you guys who are trying to blatantly dismiss it and act like you're the only ones who can make valid arguments.

    So if anyone's being arrogant or condescending here, it's you guys, for thinking you have the authority to pick and choose what is or isn't valid points or arguments.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,086

    What is with you two and thinking you can pick and choose what is or isn't valid for a game?


    And again, the TW games are in fact Sandbox games, get over it.

    The Mongols would be a great little faction, but especially for people who want to have a challenging campaign, but without being a Dark Souls level of difficulty.

    They could easily go toe to toe with most factions if they can establish themselves.

    Because there's a lot of factions that may seem kind of weak on the surface that could be a lot stronger if given a chance.

    And people like YOU don't get to dictate what factions are or aren't valid for a TW game.


    I mean, factions like the Native American tribes could be so much more than what they were in Empire 1 if they were given a little effort and attention, and without making them focused solely on guns or being some sort of stealth faction either.

    We aren't. I'm following on from CA, the people who make the series. Second, what makes you think you have the right to choose what gets added to the game?

    Being a sand box means nothing if it doesn't cover the area. Same way we didn't get the region of Mongolia in R2 either.

    For you maybe, there's hundreds of other factions that would make great factions, most of them have more elements that would add to the game than Mongolia would bring.

    Neither do you. CA does and so far I'm in their corner.

    Yes, and they are factions I'd expect to get an overhaul in an Empire 2 and be playable in the grand campaign compared to E1.
    Warlocke said:

    @Commisar @davedave1124

    When you are in a protracted and circuitous debate with somebody who constantly uses melodramatic sarcasm (“Wow,” “nice one,” etc…); refuses to accept any criticism of their ideas; consistently uses condescending put-downs (“son”); generally misses the point of your statements; and just demonstrates an overall bad attitude and lack of basic etiquette (“I’m tired of your crap”), this is all fine evidence to suggest you are probably better off walking away from the conversation.

    Just my two cents.

    Oh I know, they are a troll who doesn't answer questions and shoots themselves in the foot all the time while spouting nonsense. But generally keep it going to wind them up while also trying to have some interesting discussions on the topic.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 19,259
    Warlocke said:

    @Commisar @davedave1124

    When you are in a protracted and circuitous debate with somebody who constantly uses melodramatic sarcasm (“Wow,” “nice one,” etc…); refuses to accept any criticism of their ideas; consistently uses condescending put-downs (“son”); generally misses the point of your statements; and just demonstrates an overall bad attitude and lack of basic etiquette (“I’m tired of your crap”), this is all fine evidence to suggest you are probably better off walking away from the conversation.

    Just my two cents.

    I have no doubt I will buy and enjoy a Victoria game while appreciating equal anoints of strategy and tactics.

    After noticing that the last reply will involve me having to explain the basics - a person is not obliged to prove a negative, I concur, our time is being wasted in this thread.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089
    Commisar said:


    We aren't. I'm following on from CA, the people who make the series. Second, what makes you think you have the right to choose what gets added to the game?

    Being a sand box means nothing if it doesn't cover the area. Same way we didn't get the region of Mongolia in R2 either.

    For you maybe, there's hundreds of other factions that would make great factions, most of them have more elements that would add to the game than Mongolia would bring.

    Neither do you. CA does and so far I'm in their corner.

    Yes, and they are factions I'd expect to get an overhaul in an Empire 2 and be playable in the grand campaign compared to E1.


    Oh I know, they are a troll who doesn't answer questions and shoots themselves in the foot all the time while spouting nonsense. But generally keep it going to wind them up while also trying to have some interesting discussions on the topic.

    Yeah you are.

    And now you're trying to say you practically speak for CA now too.

    Your arrogance is amazing.


    And guess what genius?

    I would expect an Empire 2 to not simply have the equivalent of lord pack DLCs, but actual bigger map expansion DLCs, in the end, turning the game into a nearly global scale TW game.

    I can't believe you couldn't pick up on that.


    And I'm not a troll just because I don't bow down to your overly inflated ego.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089


    I have no doubt I will buy and enjoy a Victoria game while appreciating equal anoints of strategy and tactics.

    After noticing that the last reply will involve me having to explain the basics - a person is not obliged to prove a negative, I concur, our time is being wasted in this thread.

    Except you won't say anything if it's an unbalanced mess like FotS was.

    It'd be nothing but crickets from you guys.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,086
    The Remaster for Empire thread had me look up the Rome Remaster, gave me a few other ideas that an Empire 2 could use to maintain some of the E1 elements in the new set up.

    RR brought in the Merchant as a new agent type, I guess Empire 2 could get them as well to set up trade with the trade links. Keeps in line with the army/navy cap which doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

    Also figured the port defences in FotS could make a comeback for the ports to avoid the issue of garrisons for them. Higher level more damage and health, so more/stronger ships would be needed to subdue the defences before they could disable or invade via it. Could have bomb ketches & Rocket ships get bonuses to port attacks.

    Yeah you are.

    And now you're trying to say you practically speak for CA now too.

    Your arrogance is amazing.


    And guess what genius?

    I would expect an Empire 2 to not simply have the equivalent of lord pack DLCs, but actual bigger map expansion DLCs, in the end, turning the game into a nearly global scale TW game.

    I can't believe you couldn't pick up on that.


    And I'm not a troll just because I don't bow down to your overly inflated ego.

    As I said I'm following their lead. You can disagree with what CA does but that doesn't make us wrong or arrogant because it goes against your wishes. It's how the world works, we can look at what CA has done and draw conclusions from that.

    Yeah I already took the idea of DLC faction packs. A big issue you seem to have missed, a lord pack of nations that played next to no role in the period and as a result have very little content...doesn't seem likely to sell very well and is far more likely to cripple the game. Also you forget that the larger the base content the less depth for all the regions from the start. That means more DLC packs would be focused on fleshing out the core factions and their periphery groups.

    So again simple maths that any genius can doesn't work well for you.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089
    Commisar said:


    As I said I'm following their lead. You can disagree with what CA does but that doesn't make us wrong or arrogant because it goes against your wishes. It's how the world works, we can look at what CA has done and draw conclusions from that.

    Yeah I already took the idea of DLC faction packs. A big issue you seem to have missed, a lord pack of nations that played next to no role in the period and as a result have very little content...doesn't seem likely to sell very well and is far more likely to cripple the game. Also you forget that the larger the base content the less depth for all the regions from the start. That means more DLC packs would be focused on fleshing out the core factions and their periphery groups.

    So again simple maths that any genius can doesn't work well for you.

    No you're not dude.

    Quit trying to use CA as a shield, because that's clearly what you're trying to do.

    You're trying to use CA as a sort of shield in the sense that it saying you "agree with them" somehow gives your argument more weight, when it's clears as a sunny day that you're just trying to give your argument more weight then it actually has.


    And you're trying to twist what I said around to suit your arguments. Just amazing.


    I said that instead, INSTEAD of lord pack DLCs, CA could give us actual expansion DLCs for an Empire 2 that add on parts to the campaign map.

    They could either be major region by major region, or they could big big ol expansion packs that add in giant chunks of the continents.

    But I guess it's too much to expect you to try to understand what the other guy is actually saying.


    And it would be dumb for CA to try to focus on making DLCs for the "core" factions, when there's so much that could done with all the factions that could be in a Empire 2 game set in a proper time period.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,086


    No you're not dude.

    Quit trying to use CA as a shield, because that's clearly what you're trying to do.

    You're trying to use CA as a sort of shield in the sense that it saying you "agree with them" somehow gives your argument more weight, when it's clears as a sunny day that you're just trying to give your argument more weight then it actually has.


    And you're trying to twist what I said around to suit your arguments. Just amazing.


    I said that instead, INSTEAD of lord pack DLCs, CA could give us actual expansion DLCs for an Empire 2 that add on parts to the campaign map.

    They could either be major region by major region, or they could big big ol expansion packs that add in giant chunks of the continents.

    But I guess it's too much to expect you to try to understand what the other guy is actually saying.


    And it would be dumb for CA to try to focus on making DLCs for the "core" factions, when there's so much that could done with all the factions that could be in a Empire 2 game set in a proper time period.

    We are.

    Was Mongolia in Empire TW? No.
    Did Shogun 2 double the world covered? No.
    Did Medieval 2? No.
    Did Rome 2? No.
    Did they greatly increase the playable factions? No.
    So should we expect Empire 2 to more than double scale of the map and include Mongolia? No.

    So yeah that is what CA has done so far, so following that to a possible future sequel is inline with that. Attacking the person rather than the argument just shows how weak your position is.

    That's a faction pack, the equivalent of a lord pack. Even with that they wouldn't expand the map that much. Looking at them adding small areas and not more than doubling the base map size. Second if they are expanding the regions it's still not going to make unimportant factions that played no notable role in the period as playable. If they are doing a DLC to expand the map east in to central Asia there's more factions that would be covered.

    No it wouldn't. Adding content to the most played and most popular factions is what will sell the most. We've already seen how well going off and making unlinked content to the base game works with 3K. It ultimately paved the path to the game development ending before finishing their roadmap.

    Also as the game will still and always have limits they wont be able to do every faction possible. Even on smaller maps they've not been able to make every faction playable. This isn't a Paradox game. So they will always need to choose which factions they focus on and enhance. Again they will go with those that have both content to be added and are popular. Factions which played no role wont have the content to add and wont have the popularity to be added.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089
    Commisar said:


    Was Mongolia in Empire TW? No.
    Did Shogun 2 double the world covered? No.
    Did Medieval 2? No.
    Did Rome 2? No.
    Did they greatly increase the playable factions? No.
    So should we expect Empire 2 to more than double scale of the map and include Mongolia? No.

    Well, you kind of walked into it now.

    Because you're trying to avoid the GIANT thing that completely counters your attempt at an argument.

    That being the TW Warhammer games, and how big their campaign maps are.


    No, the Mongols weren't in Empire 1, because the map was never expanded in the way that an Empire 2's would be.


    Get off your high horse of BS and actually try to understand what I'm saying for once.


    Think about how big the full "Immortal Empires" campaign map for Warhammer 3 will eventually be.

    Seriously stop with your BS and think about that.


    The campaign map IS going to be HUGE.


    Now try thinking about comparably easier it will be to make a campaign map when all the factions are just humans with no magic or monsters and such.


    There's no reason why CA couldn't do the same sort of thing for an Empire 2 over time, but instead of making 3 games out of it, they simply make large map expansion DLCs for it, adding in a bunch of different playable factions along the way.


    And you clearly never played Rome 2 if you think they didn't increase the number of playable factions, because that game had a lot of playable factions, in just the grand campaign alone.


    So in the end, yeah, we should expect CA to actually expand an Empire 2's map quite a bit further than Empire 1's.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 23,135
    Thread closed.
    "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/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

This discussion has been closed.