Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

How's Paradox relationship with Creative Assembly(Total war) and Firaxis(Civ V)?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Show only dev responses
seeds24 said:
These problems have been fixed by patching. TW Rome 2 is playable and enjoyable now.
Click to expand...

Do whole armies still die in 5 minutes? Do Romans still have exploding ballista shells? The game may be playable, but has it become a little less stupid? I heard something about an amazons dlc, which should not have happened, since when period armies used women, and some of them did, especially the Scythians who trained women horse archers, they usually had them mixed in with the men, or at least in very similar units.

For my point on turn based stuff, the problem is that turns have to be quite short, meaning that there are a lot of them.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Big Blue Blob said:
Do whole armies still die in 5 minutes? Do Romans still have exploding ballista shells?
Click to expand...

No, combat length has been fixed and is fine now, and moshpit battles are gone. The amazon dlc and beast of war can be safely ignored. There are still some problems with siege battles and naval battles are not really engaging but the game is good.
 
seeds24 said:
No, combat length has been fixed and is fine now, and moshpit battles are gone. The amazon dlc and beast of war can be safely ignored. There are still some problems with siege battles and naval battles are not really engaging but the game is good.
Click to expand...

Then I may take another look at it. It seems like the game is somewhat better than Shogun 2 in principle, with fewer fantasy units and more actual tactics, since CA knows that Europeans actually know about Europe, and there are not a slew of stupid Italian cartoons distorting how people view the country, unlike Japan's situation.

One last question - do most deaths occur in the rout? This seems an odd question, but it was the nature of battles in those days that most people were killed after their side started running away. Bloodbaths usually happened because retreat was blocked. I just got tired of seeing ranks of legionaries hacking each other down at massive speeds with no regard for defence and staying in line, which was very important to Romans so they would not suffer massive casualties.
 
Big Blue Blob said:
One last question - do most deaths occur in the rout? This seems an odd question, but it was the nature of battles in those days that most people were killed after their side started running away. Bloodbaths usually happened because retreat was blocked. I just got tired of seeing ranks of legionaries hacking each other down at massive speeds with no regard for defence and staying in line, which was very important to Romans so they would not suffer massive casualties.
Click to expand...

Depends on your units, really; you can massacre lightly armored troops before they rout if you hit them hard enough. That being said, if you can catch fleeing armies, they drop like flies. I can't remember if they're DLC or "free-LC", but I recommend taking a turn with the Royal Scythians. Fielding Mongol Tumen-style armies of 4 lancer cav to 6 horse archers is one of the most amusing play styles I've encountered in any game. If you're willing to take extra turns to win the war of attrition, they will actually carry you against pretty much every opponent you'll face.
 
About naval battles, do men still turn into ships by magic and beat navies at sea? That was another major complaint I had. As Egypt I did not need a navy even to fight Carthage and Rome because my troops just turned into ships and won the battles anyway.

My point about routing came mainly from Napoleon TW, where muskets were far too deadly and casualties far too great before 1 side started to withdraw.
 
Big Blue Blob said:
About naval battles, do men still turn into ships by magic and beat navies at sea? That was another major complaint I had. As Egypt I did not need a navy even to fight Carthage and Rome because my troops just turned into ships and won the battles anyway.
Click to expand...

They still turn into ships but transport troops are very weak now against proper navy ships
 
Damn it, before seeing your comments, i was hoping Beasts of War DLC were somewhat historical, i even bought it!

Crap! Is it not even a little bit historical? :sad:
 
seeds24 said:
They still turn into ships but transport troops are very weak now against proper navy ships
Click to expand...
Sounds slightly better. I may try Rome 2 again, minus those daft DLC.
Choksquaker said:
Damn it, before seeing your comments, i was hoping Beasts of War DLC were somewhat historical, i even bought it!

Crap! Is it not even a little bit historical? :sad:
Click to expand...

Hopefully you can uninstall it. Trust CA to bungle things, even when they should know better...
 
Last edited:
Choksquaker said:
Damn it, before seeing your comments, i was hoping Beasts of War DLC were somewhat historical, i even bought it!

Crap! Is it not even a little bit historical? :sad:
Click to expand...

I think some of the beasts of war units are historical enough, given the descriptions and anecdotes they have on the page. The issue is that they've turned situational tactics (hurling pots of snakes/scorpions/bees when under siege) into standard army tactics by making these into recruitable units for mobile armies. If they were options as defensive siege weapons, then they'd be pretty legit. The other six units seem fine enough, although I'm not sure that they're necessarily worth turning into discrete units. For example, why do Celtic war hounds, Molossian war hounds (for Epirus only), and Roman war hounds need to be that different?
 
justin6477 said:
I think some of the beasts of war units are historical enough, given the descriptions and anecdotes they have on the page. The issue is that they've turned situational tactics (hurling pots of snakes/scorpions/bees when under siege) into standard army tactics by making these into recruitable units for mobile armies. If they were options as defensive siege weapons, then they'd be pretty legit. The other six units seem fine enough, although I'm not sure that they're necessarily worth turning into discrete units. For example, why do Celtic war hounds, Molossian war hounds (for Epirus only), and Roman war hounds need to be that different?
Click to expand...

I generally agree with this. Bees should be siege defences only, and war dogs should just be war dogs, whoever is using them.
 
Choksquaker said:
Firaxis, in turn, is "guarded" against those companies and has started "denouncing" them, claiming to the gaming industry that they are not to
be trusted.

Lol, how i hate the "denounce" system from Civ V
Click to expand...
Then CA declares war on everyone. Because that's all you can do.
 
The trailer for Attila total war showed the Haiga Sophia, despite it not even existing at the time. O, CA. You really do want your games to make sense, don't you? What next, Dr. Who turning up in his TARDIS with Egyptians from 1000 years earlier? O, wait, you already did that in one of your most allegedly "acclaimed" games. Fortunately, there were mods to fix that.
 
Most of the games these developers release get better over time, though some really take some steps back in depth.
Shogun 2 had the best multiplayer of any of the TW games... Rome 2 really failed to live up to that.
For Firaxis, Civ 4 was much better with all its xpacks then most of Civ 5. Civ 5 really failed to do anything new other then client states and reworked combat, Mods will always push civ4 to be better then what civ5 will ever be.
Paradox themselves have had some nice games but have failed to expand upon them other then being a techenical expansion or their failure to understand how to redo the Pops from vicky2 with out destroying modern CPUs.

They have all one thing in common that their games will never be better then the last till it has a few or alot of xpacks or get patched enough so they're not broken like Rome 2, then theres civ 5 tossing some much out and really only improving the combat.

I would rather them do Rome again then try another vicky game.
 
Killzemall said:
Most of the games these developers release get better over time, though some really take some steps back in depth.
Shogun 2 had the best multiplayer of any of the TW games... Rome 2 really failed to live up to that.
For Firaxis, Civ 4 was much better with all its xpacks then most of Civ 5. Civ 5 really failed to do anything new other then client states and reworked combat, Mods will always push civ4 to be better then what civ5 will ever be.
Paradox themselves have had some nice games but have failed to expand upon them other then being a techenical expansion or their failure to understand how to redo the Pops from vicky2 with out destroying modern CPUs.

They have all one thing in common that their games will never be better then the last till it has a few or alot of xpacks or get patched enough so they're not broken like Rome 2, then theres civ 5 tossing some much out and really only improving the combat.

I would rather them do Rome again then try another vicky game.
Click to expand...

Shogun 2, as I have said, was a big mess full of nonsensical units and total absence of period formations and tactics - no, any formations and tactics. The battles were over far too quickly and even poor ashigaru who had no honour codes and were just trying to survive politely waited in line to duel individual samurai instead of dogpiling them and killing them, or taking them hostage.

I agree about Dwarf Fortress, though.
 
Big Blue Blob said:
The trailer for Attila total war showed the Haiga Sophia, despite it not even existing at the time. O, CA. You really do want your games to make sense, don't you? What next, Dr. Who turning up in his TARDIS with Egyptians from 1000 years earlier? O, wait, you already did that in one of your most allegedly "acclaimed" games. Fortunately, there were mods to fix that.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, if the game timeframe lasts at least 202 years, then it will be in the game.

On the general topic, at large, my opinion is this: As I've just downloaded and played Civ:BE and TW:R2 and gotten bored with them in relatively short fashion, I appreciate Paradox's games all the more. Quite simply, Civ and Total War feel like games from start to finish, every single step of the way. I don't mean that they'r more fun, I mean that they lack immersion. You can just take a moment to survey the world in a Paradox game and its much easier to pretend you're looking at a real world, as opposed to the others, where the game itself just overwhelms any sense of immersion.
 
I think that the reality is that company relationships can be hostile while personal relations between people working within those organisations is very good. After all who cares what CEO 's shout at each other ?

So enough space for intrigue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back