Just because you're not waging war in the typical Total War style doesn't stop it being a war game. But if we are being facetious, this isn't much of a role-playing game either in the typical way of Darklands.Originally Posted by belit
I don't get this needing desire to make any game attempting something a little fresh to go back to being a bog-standard sandbox strategy game.
I thought so too, but as the systems are at present there's no great advantage to taking territory and no disadvantage to losing it. These systems would have to be reworked to make struggles for territory worthwhile.
Combining sandbox strategy with RPG elements was fresh. That's what made the first game a success. Had they improved on that formula they would have had a big hit.
R U Sure? Doesnt taking/allying with counties mean that they dont go formorian and thus generate more armies against you!?! I agree that in terms of deeper strategy, there needs to be the incentive of taking provinces - food for instance was a good idea, though perhaps a future expansion would mean something akin to SoIs, where by factions of many noblemen would either join against you or for you in some quest to make a new kingdom through unity.
But thats just an idea.
For God, King and Country - A MARCH OF THE EAGLES AAR
"That there is one damn fine coat you're wearin'." x2 - Marv, Sin City.
If you see me writing in this my moderator colour then don't reply to that post, PM me instead. | Forum Rules
Another review lamenting the loss of strategy:
http://www.gameshark.com/reviews/398...ame-Review.htm
I hope Neocore is taking notes and revising its strategy for the next title.
Only the reviewer seems to lament the absence of aspects of battle (such as fatigue) that weren't in the original King Arthur, either. Which leads me to think their real beef is with the TW-lite aspect of the battles, period.
To see what the Magna Mundi team has already accomplished with their fine EU3 mod, start here. You won't be disappointed.
He notes both the lackluster tactical battles and the elimination of the strategic layer. Both elements are essential to those of us who love the Total War series and looked to King Arthur as a franchise that could compete on that playing field.
My point is that he faults KA2 for things it lacks in battle that KA1 lacked, as well. So he either isn't as familiar with KA1 as he appears to be, or he's riding a hobby horse. One thing I do agree with him about (aside from the obvious crawl of the engine), is that the campaign screen has just about no purpose, any longer. With so much that's now linear, and only one army to do it all with in the first couple of game chapters, it becomes superfluous. I have no objection to more RPG text adventures, but I wish more were randomly available, as in KA1, or that elements of diplomatic behind-the-scenes maneuvering made choosing between factions, kings, etc, different from game to game.
EDIT: And I don't mean to say he's wrong about needing more strategic elements on the battle screen. I've thought so for some time: fatigue, flanking attack bonuses, surrounding bonuses (or negative morale indicators), etc.
To see what the Magna Mundi team has already accomplished with their fine EU3 mod, start here. You won't be disappointed.
Why do you absolutely want to shoehorn the game into a direction that the designers did not want to take ? It seems part of the community want the game to be Total War with druids, but, as far as I am concerned, I don't necessarily want it that way. I do *prefer* the emphasis on the roleplaying elements.
For the record, I love the TW series, have played every game+expansions/DLC from the original shogun onward, plus a lot of paradox/matrix/stardock/civ/4X games, so I am as much a strategic and wargame fanatic as everyone, but I am not averse to playing something different and judge the game on its own merits.
Plus, KA2 is not that different from KA1 in this regard. I can remember from both the original neocore forums and later from the paradox one that there was already quite a lot of complaints from the total war fans about absent diplomacy, cheating AI, quest-breaking by going early conquest, and supposedly unrealistic behavior that were all in fact the consequence of the heavy quest-driven scripting of the campaign (the druids and saxon expansions were partly a response to this criticism).
I don't know what you're referring to, but it seems to be some kind of a discussion you've had with someone else, or several people. As you don't know what I prefer, you really have no bone to pick with me; and in any case, I deserve the same courtesy I extend to you.
I already mentioned that I like the RPG text adventure elements. I still see nothing wrong with introducing more strategic values in battle. This doesn't make the game TW. It only makes the game a bit more realistic, in the sense that if a unit is surrounded by four others, it should most of the time disintegrate (all things being equal) instead of thrash about seemingly forever.It seems part of the community want the game to be Total War with druids, but, as far as I am concerned, I don't necessarily want it that way. I do *prefer* the emphasis on the roleplaying elements.
Nor am I. I'm glad we agree.For the record, I love the TW series, have played every game+expansions/DLC from the original shogun onward, plus a lot of paradox/matrix/stardock/civ/4X games, so I am as much a strategic and wargame fanatic as everyone, but I am not averse to playing something different and judge the game on its own merits.
Again, I'm glad we agree.Plus, KA2 is not that different from KA1 in this regard.
Last edited by Bertouch; 10-02-2012 at 00:49.
To see what the Magna Mundi team has already accomplished with their fine EU3 mod, start here. You won't be disappointed.
The original game was basically Total War with magic/ RPG lite elements, this being how it is, saying that people want to shoehorn this game into Total war clone is kinda off. The only reason people want to make it more Total war like is because it would make the game better. Nothing that gives me choice then takes it away inspires love in me and this how KA II is being looked upon. This game is on the rails as far as strategy goes, that is not good. As far as the rpg elements go this game does not really include anything that could not have been done while keeping the strategy elements intact. I was even hoping that they would reintroduce unit equipment/entourage like they used in Lion Heart. That really is what gets me is that they have done some innovative things in previous games and yet they do not simply implement them but discard them. Lion Heart had a morale system... was not the best but no doubt could have been improved upon, instead it was scraped. KA I gave a little unit back ground story for the player to read this is gone and if the game went into a more RPGish direction why is this? I would also state with out hesitation that KA-I had far more spells and unique spells at that for Christian/ Old Faith - Righteous/Tyrant paths. These are RPG elements that are not expanded upon but rather scraped. The magic system as implemented is dealing with far fewer spells and even so really does not make much use of high/ very high penetration spells. This I would call an RPG issue directly caused by the lack of spell variety debacle.
If this game were wholly an improvement over the last the only thing people could argue/complain about is to what extent did it improve upon its older incarnation. This game SCRAPED features from the previous games that were well liked while only expanding via rudimentary means. I hope KAIII will correct all these mistakes.
Last edited by Son of Stone; 10-02-2012 at 00:59.
@Bertouch :
Sorry, I was not specifically answering to you (in fact, I posted my answer almost at the same minute as yours and didn't see it before I pressed the submit button). My rant-ish reply was more directed at the general vibe of the linked review. In fact, I completely agree with you, deeply sorry for any unintended misunderstanding.
@Son of Stone : point taken, I was probably a bit extreme in my statement. The point that I tried to make (a bit clumsily) is that KA I was already leaning more toward the quest/RPG elements and less toward the total war- style sandbox gameplay (with the obvious exception of the 2 DLCs). Most of the big events, from stronghold conquest to major wars to civil wars were triggered by quests, not "strategy-type" actions by the player or AI, so I was not overly shocked, and in fact, pretty confortable about the new game paradigm. Again, sorry if I have been too offensive in my statement.
Last edited by Kjeld; 10-02-2012 at 01:03.
No problem, and thanks for the apology.
To see what the Magna Mundi team has already accomplished with their fine EU3 mod, start here. You won't be disappointed.
Precisely. No one is saying the game should favor strategy at the expense of the role-playing elements, but rather that both should be present. The first game almost had the right balance -- in fact if the battles hadn't been so lackluster I might have enjoyed it, but the lack of morale and tactical elements like flanking etc. ruined them for me.
I was hoping the sequel would beef up the tactics, keep the strategy/rpg mix, and improve the performance. Had it done so, I would be playing it right now, and telling everyone else to buy it. Instead, it didn't refine the tactics, eliminated the strategy altogether, and failed to improve the performance. I just don't see how it's an improvement over the first game -- in fact it sure looks like a step backward to this wargamer.
The only step backwards i see is that they removed the strategy out of the campaign map. The battles feel better and the performance is fine for me.
To be honest i hope they make a few sandbox dlcs or an expansion for this game. The map deserves to have a wargame played on it as well as the seperate linear campaign.
I just want to write that i bought Ka2 and Dlc legions because of the wargame style i thought they would have(sandbox,etc,what was wrong with that on ka?).I have regret it,it should be as ka1.I dont want to pay extra money for a dlc with the "wargame" element that they should have applied already.They should patch it, an expansion like patch i dont care,they should add it not because i bought it but because it should be there from the start!
Btw how can you add more than one army(hero-army) is it possible?
Chapter 2 gives you a new army as well as chapter 3. The end of the chapters anyway.
I will say.... I'm glad I don't have to worry about food as well as gold, but the game is definitely missing something the predecessor had. In KA1 I never could field the kind of super armies I wanted to due to economic constraints, in KA2... I finally get to field the strength of armies I want but not the Amount. I'm disappointed... but then, I suppose no game will ever live up to the kind of game you want it to be.
Now if only I found a way to give Militia in Jagged Alliance, back in Action a functioning brain....
First of all, this is not Total War, it's an RPG with RTS battles. Think Fire Emblem or Final Fantasy Tactics, except in real time. The reason Neocore took out the world map strategy aspect is because in KA1, people were complaining about facing impossible battles when they moved too quickly in the story, before their armies were strong enough. Anyone remember the first time opening Samhain's gate? I had that happen right while all my armies were still tied up, trying to conquer the northern territories. Not pleasant.
Total War does not have a story, it's a sandbox. KA2 was always meant to be a story-driven campaign with RTS battles. Personally, I prefer more RPG and more story, and I'm willing to give up some of the freedom on the world map to get at that (although I wish the quest chains had more branches like in KA1). Perhaps with enough interest, Neocore will release a DLC or some kind of multiplayer to appease those who just want to conquer the map.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote