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

Worst Total War ever?

TopiflovTopiflov Registered Users Posts: 10
This title had a good start. The resources idea was good and everything seemed fine. But the more hours I spent playing the more I realised this game is the worst total war title I have ever played. Sadly there is no place to write a negative review and that got me thinking was that why it was free on epic at the first place?

I will spare the many details and just focus on the most serious ones:

This is NOT a strategy game. This is a deathmatch! Why on earth do nations with next to no armies declare war upon us? They were in no alliance or anything. They just said hey good morning lets start a war with Agamemnon and who cares he has about a dozen states on his side. Lets go to war with all of them! And when I ended a war with 2 nations surprise 2 other nations for no reason declared war upon our alliance.

Why am I unreliable? Two allies started war with one another so I had to break one of the alliances. -25 reliability. Whaaat?

Why do you need a whole copper city so as only to be able to maintain 1 strong unit? What on earth?

How does the enemy have so many armies? They produce resources? Strange because when I take their cities for bronze for example they produce wait for it .... 10 bronze! And they got huge armies. The other guy had 1 city with walls and could also sustain 30 army units. How? He did not produce anything!!!

And you would say dude you got to have allies. Well I do. Some of the strongest ones on the map but they just sit there with their armies doing mostly nothing. Even when I give them targets I can only give one at a time so nothing happens.

And the AI thinks like hmmm how will I make the player's life difficult? Yeah I know I will spam 20 units armies with light soldiers and raze cities till they get destroyed because who cares about our kamikazi troops. And you can by no means keep all borders safe since the more armies you make the more armies consume. Logic... The garrison is not enough so yeah the crazy people blowing everything up make each turn more frustrating.

And the auto resolve feature. Also amazing. Even at 30% win ratio I win and the game is like yeah good job but you lost many units... Seriously? Did you see the initial troop numbers? And chariots gave us a chance of winning the crazy amount of units the enemy spawns but then the update came and last hope was lost. And even at a 60-40% situation with auto resolve we again lost and don't tell me you got to play all battles since loading times are way off although the specs.

Oh and the agents thing. How nice. Knosos for example had one city. But also an agent that travelled around my own cities and caused troubles. Along with many other enemy agents who each turn cause about 5 operations against our cities.

Enough even with the negatives description. In normal difficulty and others playing in easy difficulty we see issues that are unacceptable. None of these were at total wars like medieval, empire, rome 2 even shogun which was much older a game!




«1

Comments

  • epic_159817030363AS6d3l9epic_159817030363AS6d3l9 Registered Users Posts: 89
    edited September 2020
    I never play above normal difficulty, cuz I dont like cheating.

    I played a bit so don't know if this is related to easy and normal diff.
  • DariosDarios Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 476

    I never play above normal difficulty, cuz I dont like cheating.

    I agree with this. I don't really see the point of playing above Normal in Total War games nowadays, especially considering the increased difficulty levels largely involves the AI literally cheating.

    Starting with Attila, I started to really dislike how the devs create the illusion of a Total War game being difficult by programming the CAI to hate and specifically target the human player. For example, I've played Attila campaigns where the Jutes of Northern Germania were endlessly sending full stacks to target me in EGYPT.

    Troy does not reach this level of extreme but I have definitely noticed some issues like the CAI factions having a plethora of resources and being able to field more armies despite having control of far fewer regions.

    I wouldn't call it the worst Total War game ever though. Troy is a world of fun to play and I love the balance between Bronze Age history and pagan myth.
  • TejaSchwarzhaarTejaSchwarzhaar Registered Users Posts: 247
    1. Yeah sure, CA made a huge decision regarding the future on the company based on which distribution platform doesn't have a review function yet.

    2. Diplomacy seems a bit weird sometimes, I agree. But what do you want? That no faction attacks you anymore once you are strong? Can you imagine how easy such a campaign is? There is no fun in something like that. So I rather have some pontless declarations of war than a diplomacy where no one attacks you so you can just isolate and steamroll the smaller factions. Something in the middle would be nice though.

    3. Agreed but partly it's your own fault. If you ally with two factions that hate each other you take the risk of having to choose between the two. This can go well or it can go badly, and in your case it seems to have gone badly.

    4. What on earth are you doing with your copper cities?

    5. The AI gets bonuses in every Total War game, Troy is actually a game where the AI gets less bonuses compared to other games, despite supply lines that only harm the player for some reason... Still, the player can field a weak fullstack with one settlement and some trade as well because of the base supply with resources.

    6. Build garrison buildings in the settlements that are hard to defend. Then you should be able to win at least half of the battles if the enemy attacks with light soldiers as you say. I agree that supply lines make it harder in a very illogical way and this is definitely a problem, but if the game is played well on the strategic level it is quite possible to defend one's territory.

    7. Autoresolve is supposed to lead to a worse result than fighting the battle. If you don't want to fight battles play Paradox games. Also if you feel like you're getting overwhelmed by great numbers even on normal or easy difficulty you might want to choose your battles more wisely. Use the ambush stance, retreat, defend settlements to just fight battles that you can win.

    8. It's funny how you complain about agents yet claim that Rome II didn't have that issue when Rome II had an incredible agent spam. Anyways, just get two highly upgraded spies and murder all the enemies' agents, it works quite well.



    There are obviously some problems with the game, for example that there are no inner politics, supply lines and overall a lack of depth because some mechanics were removed (i.e. population and army supplies), but the ones you mentioned are no real problems in my opinion. As I see it Troy is a great game and very advanced in many aspects and I enjoy it a lot!
  • RafSwi7RafSwi7 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,795
    Topiflov said:

    None of these were at total wars like medieval, empire, rome 2 even shogun which was much older a game!

    You must be joking here.
    Topiflov said:

    Why am I unreliable? Two allies started war with one another so I had to break one of the alliances. -25 reliability. Whaaat?

    Losing reliability for choosing a side in war between allies has been a thing since at least Rome II (might be even in Rome or Med).
    Topiflov said:

    This is NOT a strategy game. This is a deathmatch! Why on earth do nations with next to no armies declare war upon us? They were in no alliance or anything. They just said hey good morning lets start a war with Agamemnon and who cares he has about a dozen states on his side. Lets go to war with all of them! And when I ended a war with 2 nations surprise 2 other nations for no reason declared war upon our alliance.!

    Some silly declarations of war has been a thing since at least first Rome - remember the times when after the peace treaty AI was very eager to block your port in the very same turn? Do you remember situations where sharing a single border with faction meant war with your neighbour?

    Try to use diplomacy next time and by it I mean that you really should keep an eye on all these minor factions and relations between you and them. Left unchecked, sooner or later they will declare war on you, just because you are a growing threat or at war with faction they have good relations with.
    Topiflov said:

    How does the enemy have so many armies? They produce resources? Strange because when I take their cities for bronze for example they produce wait for it .... 10 bronze! And they got huge armies. The other guy had 1 city with walls and could also sustain 30 army units. How? He did not produce anything!!!

    AI being able to field more armies than it realistically should happens in every game. Try to confederate in Warhammer or RomeII. These confederations will quickly destroy your economy, since for some reason AI was able to field 3 armies with just one city. In ALL Total War games AI cheats and it cheats more on higher difficulties. This is not new.
    Topiflov said:

    And you would say dude you got to have allies. Well I do. Some of the strongest ones on the map but they just sit there with their armies doing mostly nothing. Even when I give them targets I can only give one at a time so nothing happens.

    How long have you played? In my experience (after 7 campaigns) allied AI generally tries to reach the war coordination target. They don't always succeed of course.
    Topiflov said:

    And the AI thinks like hmmm how will I make the player's life difficult? Yeah I know I will spam 20 units armies with light soldiers and raze cities till they get destroyed because who cares about our kamikazi troops. And you can by no means keep all borders safe since the more armies you make the more armies consume. Logic... The garrison is not enough so yeah the crazy people blowing everything up make each turn more frustrating.

    Shouldn't we be happy that AI makes our life difficult? I think it is better that it is harder to defeat them. Still, I can say that AI factions focus way too much on player.
    Topiflov said:

    And the auto resolve feature. Also amazing. Even at 30% win ratio I win and the game is like yeah good job but you lost many units... Seriously? Did you see the initial troop numbers? And chariots gave us a chance of winning the crazy amount of units the enemy spawns but then the update came and last hope was lost. And even at a 60-40% situation with auto resolve we again lost and don't tell me you got to play all battles since loading times are way off although the specs.

    Agree, the autoresolve like in Warhammer is bonked for some reason.
    Topiflov said:

    Oh and the agents thing. How nice. Knosos for example had one city. But also an agent that travelled around my own cities and caused troubles. Along with many other enemy agents who each turn cause about 5 operations against our cities.

    Use your agents against enemy agents. They are the best way to deal with them. Like with diplomacy, you must be active with your agents. Otherwise, you might get swarmed.

    Completed ROMEII, ATTILA, THRONES OF BRITANNIA, WARHAMMER, THREE KINGDOMS and TROY campaigns:
    ROMEII
    GC: Ardiaei, Arevaci, Athens, Baktria, Carthage, Cimmeria, Egypt, Epirus, Iceni, Kush, Lusitani, Macedon, Masaesyli, Massagetae, Massalia, Nabatea, Nervii, Odrysian Kingdom, Parthia, Pergamon, Rome, Royal Scythia, Saba, Seleucid, Sparta, Suebi, Syracuse.
    CiG: Arverni, Rome, Suebi.
    HatG: Arevaci, Carthage, Rome, Syracuse.
    IA: Antony's Rome, Dacia, Egypt, Marcomanni, Octavian's Rome, Parthia, Pompey's Rome.
    WoS: Athenai, Boiotian League, Korinthos, Sparta.
    ED: Armenia, Caledonii, Gallic Rome, Marcomanni, Palmyra, Rome, Saxoni, The Sassanids.
    RotR: Rome, Samnites, Senones, Syracuse, Taras, Tarchuna.
    ATTILA
    GC: Alans, Anteans, Eastern Roman Empire, Franks, Geats, Himyar, Jutes, Ostrogoths, Saxons, Venedians.
    TLR: Roman Expedition, Visigothic Kingdom.
    AoC: Kingdom of Asturias, Kingdom of Charlemagne, Kingdom of the Danes, Kingdom of Mercia.
    THRONES OF BRITANNIA
    Dublin, Gwined, Northumbria, Mercia, Sudreyar, West Seaxe.
    WARHAMMER 1 & 2
    W1: Belegar Ironhammer, Durthu, Karl Franz, Louen Leoncoeur, The Fay Enchantress.
    W2 - ME: Alith Anar, Count Noctilus, Ikit Claw, Imrik, Kroq-Gar, Louen Leoncoeur, The Fay Enchantress, Vlad von Carstein, Wulfrik the Wanderer, Wurrzag da Great Green Prophet.
    W2 - V: Eltharion, Lokhir Fellheart, Markus Wulfhart, Repanse de Lyonesse, Settra the Imperishable.
    THREE KINGDOMS
    MOH: Liu Chong, Liu Hong, Lu Zhi, Zhang Bao.
    ROTW: Dong Zhuo, Gongsun Zan, He Yi, Liu Bei, Ma Teng, Sun Jian, Yuan Shao.
    AWB: Cao Cao, King Mulu, Liu Biao, Lü Bu, Meng Huo, Sun Ce, Yan Baihu.
    EP: Sima Ai, Sima Yong, Sima Yue.
    TROY
    Achilles, Aeneas, Agamemnon, Hector, Hippolyta, Menelaus, Odysseus, Paris, Penthesilea, Sarpedon.
  • EldrickEldrick Registered Users Posts: 562
    My experience differs. I find it one of the better TW games, but requires a different style of play other than full aggression paint the map approach many people will be used to.
  • mooshdotjpegmooshdotjpeg Registered Users Posts: 38
    I'm having fun to a degree, although army composition is very boring. Tier 3 is too easy to get and the units just look unrealistic, even though they're modeled after known armor.

    I do think mods will really be able to make the game much more balanced and historical.

  • epic_159817030363AS6d3l9epic_159817030363AS6d3l9 Registered Users Posts: 89
    I agree about army composition and its too bad it probably wont differ much even after DLCs. Imagine for example Rome 2 or Medieval roster here, amazing.

    Generally, what I would like is some records mode like in 3K and with more different roster.
  • coolskillcoolskill Registered Users Posts: 233
    edited September 2020
    Topiflov said:

    This is NOT a strategy game. This is a deathmatch! Why on earth do nations with next to no armies declare war upon us? They were in no alliance or anything. They just said hey good morning lets start a war with Agamemnon and who cares he has about a dozen states on his side. Lets go to war with all of them! And when I ended a war with 2 nations surprise 2 other nations for no reason declared war upon our alliance.

    Why am I unreliable? Two allies started war with one another so I had to break one of the alliances. -25 reliability. Whaaat?

    Why do you need a whole copper city so as only to be able to maintain 1 strong unit? What on earth?

    How does the enemy have so many armies? They produce resources? Strange because when I take their cities for bronze for example they produce wait for it .... 10 bronze! And they got huge armies. The other guy had 1 city with walls and could also sustain 30 army units. How? He did not produce anything!!!

    And you would say dude you got to have allies. Well I do. Some of the strongest ones on the map but they just sit there with their armies doing mostly nothing. Even when I give them targets I can only give one at a time so nothing happens.

    And the AI thinks like hmmm how will I make the player's life difficult? Yeah I know I will spam 20 units armies with light soldiers and raze cities till they get destroyed because who cares about our kamikazi troops. And you can by no means keep all borders safe since the more armies you make the more armies consume. Logic... The garrison is not enough so yeah the crazy people blowing everything up make each turn more frustrating.

    And the auto resolve feature. Also amazing. Even at 30% win ratio I win and the game is like yeah good job but you lost many units... Seriously? Did you see the initial troop numbers? And chariots gave us a chance of winning the crazy amount of units the enemy spawns but then the update came and last hope was lost. And even at a 60-40% situation with auto resolve we again lost and don't tell me you got to play all battles since loading times are way off although the specs.

    Oh and the agents thing. How nice. Knosos for example had one city. But also an agent that travelled around my own cities and caused troubles. Along with many other enemy agents who each turn cause about 5 operations against our cities.

    Enough even with the negatives description. In normal difficulty and others playing in easy difficulty we see issues that are unacceptable. None of these were at total wars like medieval, empire, rome 2 even shogun which was much older a game!


    Troy is 100% a strategy game. One that focuses on a war between two overall rivals.

    Nobody can really tell what you mean by having a problem with copper. There are no doubt minor problems like this. I have seen upkeep for lower tier units more than higher tier version. Yes some things need some fixing. But definitely not a major effect or problem that isn't easily resolved by submitting bug report. And understanding the concept of providing the dev with genuine feedback to fix minor problems you encounter.

    And yes allies are definitely helpful. Supporting your side of the war or leading it is half of the game. They have been working just fine. They're just not going to take major risks that will endanger them. If you feel there needs to be some improvement, then inform the devs. But again, not a major problem.

    Agent vs agent is completely not a problem whatsoever. The design offers just as much for agent defense/counterplay as it does for agent utility and offense. Agents are functioning great.

    Autoresolve feature might be completely broke, but aside from again, informing devs, it's not necessary to use. I use it if I get attacked by an enemy, and it's like 99% in their favor. I have zero reason to fight that battle. Or it's good in later game to speed up fights that are clear overwhelming wins for me.

    There is a trade system so losing a certain resource allows you to still get it by trading other resources.

    And you failing to keep your borders safe is BY FAAAAAAAR and away 1000% not a problem with the game. Nor does it have anything to do with completely legitimate and effective methods of limiting user armies. If you're not playing strategically with basic understanding of the game, that is nobody's fault but yours.

    Nothing else you mentioned indicates any inherent problem with the game design. Troy is an overhauled version of WH2. With tons over tons of improvements and refinements. Yes, it has some flaws right now. Yet, overall, it's a much better and improved design from pretty much any TW game.
    RafSwi7 said:

    Try to use diplomacy next time and by it I mean that you really should keep an eye on all these minor factions and relations between you and them. Left unchecked, sooner or later they will declare war on you, just because you are a growing threat or at war with faction they have good relations with.

    Yes. Your response gives lots of good information. But this says much. Some users want to complain about the game having all kinds of problems. Even if they might be winning. OK. But find out what they're doing in game, and it's clearly their play that's the problem. Not the game.
    Post edited by coolskill on
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 20,743
    Toxic side conversation removed. I am reminding several folks that this is a game, played individually to one's personal enjoyment. Posting opinions on about the game play is permitted, posting inappropriate and derogatory responses in a response are not.

    If the individuals involved continue in the same vein then the terms of the Forum T&C will be enforced.
    "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
  • coolskillcoolskill Registered Users Posts: 233

    1. Yeah sure, CA made a huge decision regarding the future on the company based on which distribution platform doesn't have a review function yet.

    despite supply lines that only harm the player for some reason... Still, the player can field a weak fullstack with one settlement and some trade as well because of the base supply with resources.

    Both incorrect. Review function is meaningless. As made clear earlier, it was a good decision no their part.

    And no. Something that functions extremely well for the game does not harm the player. As already previously made clear about supply lines being highly effective for this game.
  • TejaSchwarzhaarTejaSchwarzhaar Registered Users Posts: 247
    @coolskill I was noticably being sarcastic in my fist point.
    And please dont try to get me into the supply lines discussion anymore, I've made my point quite clear on this.

    @mooshdotjpeg I've seen somewhere that it is possible to turn the colour timing (I think that's what it's called, I play the game in Germen) up to make things look more realistic because the colours are less saturated, you might want to try this. I haven't tried it myself yet so I can't say for sure if it works though.
  • epic_159817030363AS6d3l9epic_159817030363AS6d3l9 Registered Users Posts: 89
    Problem is that with improved diplomatic and campaign since 3K, I can't play older TW titles like Attila etc.
  • TejaSchwarzhaarTejaSchwarzhaar Registered Users Posts: 247

    Problem is that with improved diplomatic and campaign since 3K, I can't play older TW titles like Attila etc.

    I know exactly what you mean. I went back to Rome II two weaks ago to play a Carthage campaign with some mods and although I still think that Rome II is one of the best Total War games it makes me sad every second turn when I look into the diplomacy.
  • Pi2rEpsilonPi2rEpsilon Registered Users Posts: 211
    edited September 2020
    Tastes differ. I find it the second best Total War game after the Warhammer franchise of those I have played, precisely because it is more strategic than the general run of TW games.

    I do hate that agents are still a thing, though. I find them such a tedious game mechanic when used as map agents rather than army supporters. But again, tastes differ.
  • shaganshagan Registered Users Posts: 3
    Love reading tantrums, especially when they are on normal/easy difficulty.
    #1 It's a strategy game in all it's glory. If you are not thinking 5-10 turns ahead when making decisions it will punish you.
    #2 Do not ally with warring factions, read their traits. Many factions have built in grudges you should be familiar with. I.E Knossos hates acheans. Watch diplomacy closely every turn.
    #3 Sometimes that -70 growth building is an amazing option that you should use. Only once you stabilize the province culturally then invest into normal buildings that give bonus resources based on culture. Use envoys vigorously to push conquered provinces to the 60% threshold.
    #4 i got 10+ vassals and 4 allies on hard campaign 30 turns in which all did a great job at going where I tell them to go. Make sure you use select target feature. Keep an eye when they are done with a target. To my surprise this game is actually the first one in the series since Rome 1 that I am able to properly coordinate war efforts of the allies.
    #5 Load the game, recruit a hero in a city being attacked - micro the siege battle. Exposed cities - build garrison building. It's hard to defend in this game, but doable.
    #6 Auto-resolve is fine, if you don't like losing too many units play battles.
    #7 Your envoys can help out killing agents too with denouncing the treachery skill.

    #8 give the game another chance pay attention to diplomacy every single turn :)
  • Eptesicus8Eptesicus8 Registered Users Posts: 35
    edited September 2020
    It's actually one of the better Total War games in my opinion.

    it isn't perfect and i agree with you that the supply lines/immense amount of food every Ai faction magically has needs addressing to make things a bit less tedious. I also agree in part about the garrisons/irritating whack a mole style gameplay caused by the supply lines.

    Random factions declaring war on you for no reason has always happened in every Total War game i can remember.

    Ai agent spam has always been a thing as well.

    On the whole though i enjoyed it. I liked the emphasis on allies, multiple resources, bartering/diplomacy and the god mechanic etc.

    i think my only real criticism is the supply lines. Let us split up armies so we can station at least a modest force to protect our settlements. It isn't that it makes the game too challenging, its just irritating.
  • TopiflovTopiflov Registered Users Posts: 10
    edited September 2020
    First off thanks for your advice. Will try to miss no above comments:

    @epic_159817030363AS6d3l9 The thing is that AI cheats even in normal.
    @Darios At this point only the map being much prettier can save it imho.
    @TejaSchwarzhaar

    2. In civilization such declarations of war do not exist but the game is still very hard to beat. Different games but still a strategy game should not be a deatmatch one.
    4. Constructing the highest possible buildings. When a unit has 150 copper maintanance hmm.
    6. I cannot build such buildings in every city. And in the Aegean where ships can travel very far you cannot protect your borders unless all your armies are there constantly since the enemy keeps on spamming units.
    8. On my end there are even more agents in Troy. Maybe I am just unlucky.

    @RafSwi7 They did declare war but they did not send 5 super units just to raze weak settlements alhtough they are located far away and gain nothing but attacking me. Yes in Rome II war declarations happened but they never really attacked. Allies do reach the coordination target but you can only pinpoint one. When there are so many armies and your ally has many as well you cannot give coordination targets for each of their army. That they should be doing themselves. And yes the AI although in war with a dozen states mostly attacks the player.

    @Eldrick Glad you did. I never tried a full attack strategy. I was willing to make alliances and only battle later on but troy in turn 20 I believe and all its neighboors started declaring war upon me although I did nothing to them.

    @mooshdotjpeg
    @epic_159817030363AS6d3l9
    As for units this game although very old was much better: https://www.slitherine.com/game/gates-of-troy so a modern game should not be like this.

    @coolskill Informing devs of such big companies for things the testing group would see in turn 10 should not be needed. As for trade it is unbalanced, I did post a related thread but even after the update it remains unbalanced. Why do rocks and wood for example have about the same value when the guy has wood but needs rock? Also you must be really good when defending the Aegean islands against 5 near huge armies none all of which have good units but do have great speed. So raze a city off we go. My 2 armies located in the Aegean cannot even reach the maniacs razing cities.

    @dge1 Dont think I did any such thing. If I did please tell me where.

    @epic_159817030363AS6d3l9
    @TejaSchwarzhaar
    Also true. If diplomacy was better and mp in place I would mainly play Empire Total War.

    @epic_159733155967QMZV5rw Indeed people have different opinions. But even Civ games are more strategy that this one guys. And I will not even mention Victoria games because different game classes.

    @shagan Will surely take a while till I reopen this one. Thanks for the advice however. Yet again I cannot say this is a strategy game. Tried focusing in building so as to grow up cities but with so many people declaring war on me for no clear reason, must be a trigger, the starting with peace option was no good.
  • TejaSchwarzhaarTejaSchwarzhaar Registered Users Posts: 247
    Topiflov said:


    @TejaSchwarzhaar

    2. In civilization such declarations of war do not exist but the game is still very hard to beat. Different games but still a strategy game should not be a deatmatch one.
    4. Constructing the highest possible buildings. When a unit has 150 copper maintanance hmm.
    6. I cannot build such buildings in every city. And in the Aegean where ships can travel very far you cannot protect your borders unless all your armies are there constantly since the enemy keeps on spamming units.
    8. On my end there are even more agents in Troy. Maybe I am just unlucky.

    2. I haven't played Civilization so I don't know about it. But compared to i.e. the Paradox games Total War's diplomacy isn't very complex because you can just declare war without a justification and no faction cares about it. The whole way that diplomacy and warfare work is very different between Total War and other strategy game franchises, so it is really hard to compare it. But in Total War an easy diplomacy leads to a really easy campaign which isn't desirable in my opinion.
    4. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that there are units that have an upkeep cost of 150 bronze. Also, if you're having trouble with resources try to get your influence up.
    6. Why can't you? You just need a level 2 main building.
    8. I have made pretty good experiences with agents, especially since the poison well action was nerfed. I generally prefered the campaigns without agents though, especially 3K with the espionage, even in ToB where there was no substitute I didn't feel like something was missing.
  • coolskillcoolskill Registered Users Posts: 233

    @coolskill I was noticably being sarcastic in my fist point.
    And please dont try to get me into the supply lines discussion anymore, I've made my point quite clear on this.

    No you were obviously not being noticeably sarcastic. Hence, nobody can know this.

    Also, supply lines do not harm the player as stated. You claiming you made any sort of point clear does not change this fact. Considering you have never made any point. Just as you refusing to simply improve your play will NEVER mean there is a problem with the game. Rather, have only tried the same type of circular response. If the problem is your play, then it's not a problem with the game. The end.
    shagan said:

    Love reading tantrums, especially when they are on normal/easy difficulty.

    Rather not. But it seems to be more common with users who set their campaign difficulty notches up. Then, confused about having problems with [threat level] of enemies targeting him. I wonder what it is. Who could possibly figure it out?
    shagan said:

    #5 Load the game, recruit a hero in a city being attacked - micro the siege battle. Exposed cities - build garrison building. It's hard to defend in this game, but doable.

    Difficult to defend? I wouldn't consider there to be any additional difficulty in defense. Unless you're fighting some obscene odds. Being even or even a bit of disadvantage, defensive position is usually fine. Sometimes Hera can even be used to help of needed.

    i think my only real criticism is the supply lines. Let us split up armies so we can station at least a modest force to protect our settlements. It isn't that it makes the game too challenging, its just irritating.

    100% not. Pebcak results have nothing to do with inherent problems with the game. So the challenge is perfectly fine. And nothing remotely annoying going on. So no need to split armies to make user ridiculously OP. Or anything with supply lines. Considering how much complaints there will end up being of user being way to OP. And the game just broke. Therefore, supply lines are there and very well implemented to keep the game functioning smoothly and effectively. Your problems in your personal game does not equate to problems with the game itself.
    Topiflov said:

    @coolskill Informing devs of such big companies for things the testing group would see in turn 10 should not be needed. As for trade it is unbalanced, I did post a related thread but even after the update it remains unbalanced. Why do rocks and wood for example have about the same value when the guy has wood but needs rock? Also you must be really good when defending the Aegean islands against 5 near huge armies none all of which have good units but do have great speed. So raze a city off we go. My 2 armies located in the Aegean cannot even reach the maniacs razing cities.

    Completely incorrect. First of all, rocks and wood do not have the same value. Rocks and copper are the equivalent. Wood is 75% value of both of those. So not I'm sure where you're getting your info. Wood is blatantly lower value resource than rocks.

    That faction that has wood and needs rocks is not in any way shape or form a problem. They do not need wood. The value of wood will go down for them. They need rocks. So the value of rocks will go up for them. So it's working perfectly, and you're treating it like a problem. Like those users who keep griping about supply lines, rather than improve their play.

    Same goes for informing devs. 100% false. If you do not inform them of a problem, they will not know about it. Or will not be able to explain something that may not be a problem. Either way, nobody can tell based on extremely ambiguous information that requires an entire query on its own to resolve. Due to the possibility of not being a problem with the game. Therefore, nothing to do with any sort of actual design flaw.

    So no you do not have to be "really good" as you claim in order to handle whatever is going on in the game. As long as you're not going out of your way to play "really bad" which some users seem to be intentionally doing for unknown reasons. Followed by going online to complain about inherent game problems that are not problems with the actual game.
  • TopiflovTopiflov Registered Users Posts: 10
    @TejaSchwarzhaar

    2. Oh in Civilization declaring a war without justification can make you denounced by almost the whole world. It is a very nice game if you are into strategy and such.

    4. The city at central Euboea could recruit a shielded sword unit that needed 400 copper to be recruited and 150 for maintenance. I would tell you exactly the name of the unit but the Ai decided to destroy the city the last turn I played before saying .. no more.

    6. So as to have more buildings producing resources and giving production bonuses plus fixing happiness issues. And in some settlemets I don't think there was an option to make the fort walls building.

    @coolskill The wood rock issue happened too at the last turn I played. The trade unbalance took place almost every time. The rock wood issue was just the last case. My trusted friend vassal would not even give me 700 wood for 500 stone although he did need stone and had plenty of wood.

    In an early access game yes you report all issues. In a 1.0 title details are accaptable to be glitching but bugs should have been dealt with by a companys testing group. And sadly devs listen to people complaining about chariots and now chariots are even slower thant soldiers because there is tall grass. Chariots meant to cut down armored soldiers cannot go through tall grass. Chariots were just fine before and even when the enemy had them directing skirmishers on them and not letting them flank you made chariots a good challenge. But devs have now made chariots very weak. An archer unit can just slow chariots down and take them all out by themselves with the right terrain.

    I do not understand why someone would play really bad intentionally. It does not make sense. And when you spend time to play a game and you see all that time lost because of unbalance issues or glitches then you do complain.

    And in order for this game to be fixed the Ai has to start actually thinking and not spawn armies and resources. If you take their bronze facilities, which have to exist, then their armies should go weak. If you take their food, the same. When taking their resurces and seeing nothing changes for them then there is no strategy. Just a deathmatch. Diplomacy efforts excluded. Although as stated above even there you can start a war for no reason who cares. And small nations whould ally with the big guy that will battle other strong guys. Not start a war with a chain of nations just because. That is what happens with real life too.
  • TejaSchwarzhaarTejaSchwarzhaar Registered Users Posts: 247
    coolskill said:


    No you were obviously not being noticeably sarcastic. Hence, nobody can know this.

    Also, supply lines do not harm the player as stated. You claiming you made any sort of point clear does not change this fact. Considering you have never made any point.

    Maybe it was just you who didn't understand it :)
    I made the point quite clear that I'm not going to discuss supply lines with you anymore because of the reasons I told you, so please don't try to discuss supply lines with me anymore.
    Topiflov said:

    @TejaSchwarzhaar

    2. Oh in Civilization declaring a war without justification can make you denounced by almost the whole world. It is a very nice game if you are into strategy and such.

    4. The city at central Euboea could recruit a shielded sword unit that needed 400 copper to be recruited and 150 for maintenance. I would tell you exactly the name of the unit but the Ai decided to destroy the city the last turn I played before saying .. no more.

    6. So as to have more buildings producing resources and giving production bonuses plus fixing happiness issues. And in some settlemets I don't think there was an option to make the fort walls building.

    2. I think that would be nice in Total War as well, although it would be hard to implement things like that without just becoming a worse Paradox.
    4. Oh ok, I for myself haven't had problems with bronze yet, for me food upkeep is more difficult. If you have issues use bartering, this is extremely important in Troy.
    6. When I have a small settlement that is threatened I normally go for main building, garrison, and two resource buildings/one resource and one special building, that works quite well.
  • Pi2rEpsilonPi2rEpsilon Registered Users Posts: 211
    edited September 2020
    Topiflov said:


    @epic_159733155967QMZV5rw Indeed people have different opinions. But even Civ games are more strategy that this one guys. And I will not even mention Victoria games because different game classes.

    Hah - restored my user name.
    ---

    Well, yes.

    EVERY Total War game since the first, Shogun, have been first rate tactical battle engines coupled with a thin strategy layer. That's nothing new. I doubt anybody plays them for a deep strategy gaming experience.

    Likewise it is nothing new that CA games have poor strategic AI and try to compensate by granting the AI huge amounts of extra resources or units, that a human player would not be able to field in the same position - and that is fine. As a general rule, players play strategy games to be challenged.

    There is a subset of players who always complain about games that don't play fair because the game pretends that player and AI factions are operating by the same rules just under different leadership while it isn't so, but it is generally not worthwhile designing strategy games for them as you get a lot more customers from making strategy games that are unfair, but challenging, than from making games that are fair, but cakewalks.

    CA's design - focusing on the core real-time tactical aspects and wedding then with a functional, thematic, and rudimentary strategy aspect with simplified logistics - has stood them in good stead for two decades, providing a franchise of genre-defining beer & pretzels lightweight strategy games that can be enjoyed by every strategy gamer, no matter how experienced, no matter whether interested in simple or complex strategy games.

    But TW: Troy's resource and divinity system raises it above the other TWs in terms of strategy and balancing opportunity costs, thus making it more interesting in that respect. Both are perhaps too easy for veteran strategy gamers to maximize (e.g. my Odysseus campaign, turn 48: https://imageshack.com/i/pmkxZsq0j )... but then, they pretty much have to be to be accessible to their core demographic.

    Rereading your original post, the only thing you name that I see is a problem is when countries without ready standing armies declare war, when not part of an alliance system that requires them to do so. They should of course wait with their declaration until they could inflict damage on you.

    As an example, when you complain about taking a relations hit because one ally attacks another and you have to dishonour your word with one of them... To me, that just means that you have signed at least one alliance you should not. Treaties are serious business and you have not treated them as such when you end up in that situation. That is a strategic mistake on your part.

    For what it is worth: The simple solution is to get good relations with most neighbours early by getting the gold-techtree relations tech and signing NAPs and MAs with potential expansion competitors you aren't going to kill soon. DON'T sign defensive alliances until you've control of the situation, and don't sign alliances until you are fairly sure your alliance block have the same interests.

    Also build a large army early on, thus further discouraging neighbours from attacking in the first place, and get a second half-army up and running ASAP to support your army and keep on the expansion push, both by throwing more weight at each target, spreading damage over more units, and allowing you to continue pushing while holding one army back to reinforce every few turns. Likewise get three armies before you can support them, and so on. Having a food deficit each turn is fine so long as you fight enough battles to compensate from loot or you trade excess resources for food to maintain your stockpile. There's really no excuse for being so weak in the early game that AI nations get the jump on you rather than the opposite - at least if you are a veteran strategy gamer.

    That last paragraph is particularly important if, like me, you like to autoresolve most battles - and it sounds as if you do. Autoresolve works fine from a strategic perspective; It is hell on people who hate losing units, which often happen if you fight anybody you don't greatly overpower, and micromanaging combat is almost always better though time consuming, but from a strategic perspective it works perfectly fine and rewards those who play with strategy and logistics in mind handsomely.... and in particularly those who bring more units to the battlefield to share the pain.

    With regards to AI agent spam, the simple approach - as a strategy gamer - is to ignore them. No, really. Let us pretend that you aren't somebody impressed with spending time playing spy-vs-spy or more precisely, agent-vs-agent on the overland map. That you are somebody who just wants to focus on strategy.

    Then you devote 3 envoys to boosting production in your best production province and issuing -30% cost construction orders therein (see e.g. my Odysseus example above). You devote 3 priestesses to keep 6 gods at Worshipped most of the time (the standard Apollo/Divine game gambit - I've documented it in several other threads, as have other posters), and your three spies to support your best armies with damage resistance, campaign movement, and ambush chance. You can replace any agent that gets killed with a highrank agent from your Apollo temple should it happen, and between skilling every agent for -enemy success as a sideline and having Celebrated Aphrodite for -30% enemy success rate, the enemies rarely succeed, and when they do it is negligible damage.

    I am not saying that's the best way to use agents - as an example, using envoys in your main armies for upkeep reduction, greatly increased land movement, and MA increase and fatigue reduction in battle is definitely competitive - but it is a strong way of using them that gets rid of most of the fiddly aspects.

    That's not an endorsement of the agent mechanic, by the way - I have all days considered agents one of the worst aspects of TW games because it usually comes down to either sticking them in place and doing nothing, activating them in place every n turns to gain a benefit, and in general having to micromanage aspects that in terms of layers of strategic abstraction fall below the greater vision of the game. But it is a way to use it effectively without getting overly annoyed with it.

    --

    Anyway, Victoria is a great game and so is the sequel, but those are for when I have lots of time on my hands. And if there's ever a Victoria III, you bet I'm going to break the economy in the beta just like I did for the first two.

    Wargames for when I want to think deepest and focus on logistics
    Paradox games for when I want to focus on grand strategy, with a sideline of logistics
    Civilization, Total War, and other great lightweight strategy games for relaxation with little thinking involved

    All have their place and are fun. :smile:
    Post edited by Pi2rEpsilon on
  • Eptesicus8Eptesicus8 Registered Users Posts: 35
    coolskill said:


    100% not. Pebcak results have nothing to do with inherent problems with the game. So the challenge is perfectly fine. And nothing remotely annoying going on. So no need to split armies to make user ridiculously OP. Or anything with supply lines. Considering how much complaints there will end up being of user being way to OP. And the game just broke. Therefore, supply lines are there and very well implemented to keep the game functioning smoothly and effectively. Your problems in your personal game does not equate to problems with the game itself.


    e.


    Why are you so militant about everything all the time?!

    I am simply stating the parts of the game i don't enjoy. I have specifically said repeatedly in a few threads that the problem with supply lines is nothing to do with the challenge or it making the game difficult.

    I just find that what it does, makes parts of the game tedious and it doesn't make sense as a mechanic when you delve deeper/critically think about it.

    if you don't think so, that is fine. However, many feel the same way about supply lines so there is clearly a problem with how enjoyable they are making the game.
  • coolskillcoolskill Registered Users Posts: 233

    Why are you so militant about everything all the time?!

    I am simply stating the parts of the game i don't enjoy. I have specifically said repeatedly in a few threads that the problem with supply lines is nothing to do with the challenge or it making the game difficult.

    I just find that what it does, makes parts of the game tedious and it doesn't make sense as a mechanic when you delve deeper/critically think about it.

    if you don't think so, that is fine. However, many feel the same way about supply lines so there is clearly a problem with how enjoyable they are making the game.

    Despite you the only one acting militant about anything. Including trying to use personal attacks to try to prove false information. And again circular. Claiming as if anything is wrong due to the game punishing you for your play. Despite choosing to play a style that makes the game tedious. Yet who's fault is that? Certainly not the game. So if you're the one making it tedious, and no design of the game as you claim - "makes parts of the game tedious". Oh, but you want to ignore what anybody else has to say. While being contrarian and using verbal abuse. Obviously, very much not a problem with the game. And how supply lines are extremely beneficial to the game preventing user from becoming OP in order to not play the game. Just because the ai isn't throwing down their weapons, and handing victory for free, doesn't mean the game is tedious.
  • coolskillcoolskill Registered Users Posts: 233
    edited September 2020

    Maybe it was just you who didn't understand it :)
    I made the point quite clear that I'm not going to discuss supply lines with you anymore because of the reasons I told you, so please don't try to discuss supply lines with me anymore.

    Maybe not. Considering, it was already made clear that you phrased it in a literal sense. Which is the opposite of a sarcastic sense that you claim. But glad you admit supply lines are well implemented, and function very effectively to the game design. The end.
    Topiflov said:

    @coolskill The wood rock issue happened too at the last turn I played. The trade unbalance took place almost every time. The rock wood issue was just the last case. My trusted friend vassal would not even give me 700 wood for 500 stone although he did need stone and had plenty of wood.

    In an early access game yes you report all issues. In a 1.0 title details are accaptable to be glitching but bugs should have been dealt with by a companys testing group. And sadly devs listen to people complaining about chariots and now chariots are even slower thant soldiers because there is tall grass. Chariots meant to cut down armored soldiers cannot go through tall grass. Chariots were just fine before and even when the enemy had them directing skirmishers on them and not letting them flank you made chariots a good challenge. But devs have now made chariots very weak. An archer unit can just slow chariots down and take them all out by themselves with the right terrain.

    I do not understand why someone would play really bad intentionally. It does not make sense. And when you spend time to play a game and you see all that time lost because of unbalance issues or glitches then you do complain.

    And in order for this game to be fixed the Ai has to start actually thinking and not spawn armies and resources. If you take their bronze facilities, which have to exist, then their armies should go weak. If you take their food, the same. When taking their resurces and seeing nothing changes for them then there is no strategy. Just a deathmatch. Diplomacy efforts excluded. Although as stated above even there you can start a war for no reason who cares. And small nations whould ally with the big guy that will battle other strong guys. Not start a war with a chain of nations just because. That is what happens with real life too.

    Everything you're saying here has nothing to do with your claim of "worst Total War". The game didn't release in January 2021 after more proper development. Nor did it release with "early" access" label. That is a decision based on pros and cons of the company.

    It doesn't mean anything regarding the actual current condition of the game itself. Since the condition of the game itself is independent of whether it is released to the public or not. If not released, you can still look at the game as is, and make assessments about the game. It would be no different from assessments about the game if it is released.

    If you want a to make a petition to delay release to complete proper development. Or put early access label on it. That is fine. I will vote for to do those. But not going to use that to assess the quality of the game as is.

    So you're saying an early access game, you report all issues. So just because the game doesn't have a label on it, means you don't report all issues? This is very incorrect. If you find issues, then report them. So they can address them as they continue development. Nothing more. Nothing less.

    User findings on chariots are based on tests regarding how they perform against enemies in the campaign. Less about how the enemies are using them against the user. They are found to be very unfair, due to how much they turn combat into your favor. So fighting with no chariots involved is like a real fight. You use tactics to defeat the enemy. Use chariots = run enemy over gg. Therefore, chariots have been nerfed. So there is a small difference to chariots taking a bit more damage. However, even after patch, this problem of chariots being too strong is very noticeable.

    Overall, when assessing the game itself, it functions very well. Any sort of design flaws or errors aren't really damaging to the game. And there are many excellent aspects to the game that you neglect to mention. So despite a few flaws, this game has done lots and lots of things right. Yes it does need some fixing in certain areas. And has lots of potential for even more improvement. So overall, it is an excellent Total War game, if not the best.
    Post edited by coolskill on
  • TejaSchwarzhaarTejaSchwarzhaar Registered Users Posts: 247
    edited September 2020
    Comment removed.

    @coolskill if you think that "I don't want to discuss with you" means "you are right" you are more than wrong.

    But anyways, it was mentioned in the OP that there is an annoyong agent spam. Have you guys made the same experience or do you think that agents are fine as they are right now?
    Post edited by TejaSchwarzhaar on
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 1,343
    edited September 2020

    Comment removed.
    But anyways, it was mentioned in the OP that there is an annoyong agent spam. Have you guys made the same experience or do you think that agents are fine as they are right now?

    I only played on normal, and never was attacked by agents noticeably. I also hardly built any myself. This is good. I don't actually like the agent system as it is right now, and it irritates me that the best way to get gold in the end game is by using spies to poison enemy settlements.
    Post edited by dge1 on
  • TopiflovTopiflov Registered Users Posts: 10
    @Pi2rEpsilon

    Fair games with smart AIs are not cakewalks. They can be super challenging. But yes they need more complex thinking and indeed that is not something the majority likes. In Civ VI I was the strongest but one nearly beat me due to tourism. So I had to excuse a nuclear strike against them so tourists changed their minds about going there. The strike had huge consequences but I won the match due to technology. Like in real life. They wanted to take me out but they saw my nuclear submarines near their coasts and they did not start declaring wars. They would if I attacked again but after the strike I was all about gifts and such. That stoped the world going to the UN so as to put sactions against me. Although being a super power meant the UN was partly myself.

    A very nice playthrough for turn 48.

    That is not the only problem. The other problems you mentioned in your post as well as also existed. Along with trade balancing, agents activity which not everybody has as it seems and any other aforementioned.

    In early game most aspects were just fine but I believe there is this totally unfair scripted event. As turns go by no matter how many resource buildings the enemy has they will bring in stronger and stronger troops. So while you are chasing enemy armies and cannot progress further since your allies do not assist as much as they should you see them growing stronger and stronger. The logic is kinda funny. Hey King our huge armies got wrecked everybody died. Ha ha nice. Send more. Who cares. And not in the front line but many times behind your borders which also makes no sense since it is a matter of time to take them out. Kamikazi units have no place in this game. But since you do not need men to make an army in this game..

    Autoresolve can not be working properly when you win a 30-70% lose-win battle. And it is not about some master mind strategy since when the game wants you to lose you lose. There was a medium enemy unit that had 20 swordsmen left and with full moral. SO as for them to hold minutes!!! and your army not to be able to hit at the rear and win the battle.

    @Pi2rEpsilon
    @TejaSchwarzhaar
    @Bastilean

    Yes agents I believe are the best in Civ VI. Just enough not too much. And indeed there are different games for different players and sadly I will have to ditch the total war series since it goes more and more to less map strategy and more battles battles battles.

    Very nice not to have agents constantly "attacking" you.

    @coolskill

    If the game was released as an ea and I would take back my claim. Although the AI would have to start thinking so as to make this a great game it would surely not be the worst of the ones I have played and mentioned in the first post.

    I did not mean players not reporting game bugs. But big bugs should not exist at all so players would not have anything to mention.

    Everybody have their own opinions. Imho I cannot by no means say this is the best total war. The implementation of Age of Empires style resources is indeed very nice. In a bug post I had posted a few weeks back I really hoped this will indeed be one of the best total wars but as the turns went by and I saw how the AI works then it went the other way. I mean even in Medieval Total War you took cities of very strong AIs and they did have the buildings used to contruct their strong armies. That is what I think is wrong with tw. The newer the game the more resource and unit spawning exists. Even in the crusades started against you because ehmm I had killed some highly ranked person the units were weaker as long as the states supporting the crusade were weaker.

  • Pi2rEpsilonPi2rEpsilon Registered Users Posts: 211
    edited September 2020
    Topiflov said:

    @Pi2rEpsilon

    Fair games with smart AIs are not cakewalks. They can be super challenging. But yes they need more complex thinking and indeed that is not something the majority likes.

    Perhaps we define fairness differently?

    Can you name a strategy game that is fair and not a cakewalk, that isn't a classic board game conversion like chess, backgammon, go, or something of similar complexity that is not a cakewalk?

    Something that presents a level playing field?

    The only strategy games that I can readily think of that have challenged me are such simple games where the very lack of complexity allows brute force computational approaches to shine, strategy games that that play by asymmetrical rules where the challenge is baked into the different rules, starting positions, and difficulty level giving bonuses, and strategy games that pretend to play by symmetrical rules with player and AI positions interchangeable, but in fact aren't because the AI factions get rule exceptions and/or bonuses regardless of difficulty level.

    Make no mistake - I love nearly all games from all three categories whether they are strategy games, tactical games, or dedicated wargames, but only the first category of very simple games can be said to play fair.

    So if I'm missed something, a game that isn't simple and yet challenging on a level playing field without AI bonuses, I'd like to know. Either to be reminded of something that one-time must have been a favourite, now regretfully forgotten, or to discover something I've overlooked.

    Post edited by Pi2rEpsilon on
  • MrCanisterMrCanister Registered Users Posts: 126
    Age of Empires 2 has newer AI scripts which can make them fairly tough without giving them any bonuses or backdoor information, but yeah it's very rare. I'd say it's generally easier with RTS's because you can make up for other deficiencies just by superior micro, which is where the AI can shine. Turn-based stuff where the human can take their time to think, the AI either needs a lot of pre-programming - be put on rails a bit, or it tends to struggle.
Sign In or Register to comment.