BF2S Forums [Shogun 2: Total War] First Look

Hallvard wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

There's just less strategy involved with melee once the armies meet. Yeah, you send your cavalry around the flanks and break the enemies morale but that gets old after a while. Maybe the AI in S2 will actually be passably difficult without having to give them double morale over the player.

yea.... as opposed to "you'll line your guys up over there, and I'll line mine over here. Remember to wear your brightly colored clothes so you are easy to see and aim at. Then both sides start firing at each other for a while with crappy guns until one side is dead. There might be some actual action if our fancy-looking cavalry guys do a bit of flanking, but don't keep your hopes up."

Shrug. I don't consider a horde of troops fighting each other one at a time in the middle of the map for twenty minutes 'fun'. At least in Empire you could time a bayonet charge to route the enemy. There was at least a bit of strategy.

I've put probably 1500 hours+ into the TW series. I started with Shogun and have played everything except Napoleon. Like I keep saying, to each their own, I just despise the melee scrums. Real war was fought with a lot more discipline.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Real war was fought with a lot more discipline.

source

surely a man well versed in military history realises why the shogun system works the way it does. comparing the romans to japan is a bit crazy.

I'm not into Japan and the scale of the game is too small for me. I'll wait for Rome 2.

Hope they do well though.

DesertFox- wrote:

You should listen to Galt. After all, he is the very model of a modern major general.
_{I've got to stop making these lame references}

Challenge accepted.

Can you say crap. So far worst total war ever judging by the demo

from the demo campaign i can see myself liking it... but not as much as medieval(2) and rome

So, anyone got it?

worth a try or don't bother?

I didn't play the demo, what was it like?

I fucking loved the first few total wars but it went down hill fast with/after medieval 2 (imo).

Shouldn't really start with a new game atm as I have tests in two weeks and I have to catch up 6 weeks worth of work can't afford getting addicted.

Uzique wrote:

i might buy it... fuck it, why not.

i enjoyed the original so much that my impressions of the demo almost don't matter

Wasn't Shogun 1 fucking terrible?

Rome was awesome, completed that shit twice.

Huh. I only played it a few hours and it wasn't for me from what I remember. I'll probably get this though.

Well I didn't like it tbh.. was an improvement on Empire and the ability of someone else to fight a battle against you in your campaign was pretty great. But; the campaign itself offered you very little choice in what you were going to do. The objectives were always very straightforward and didn't really let you be flexible about the way to handle things. Also, it wasn't just one big map but small areas of Europe for every part of the campaign.

You were either napoleon and had to conquer from point A to B step by step, or you were against napoleon and you would be given very specific objectives on how to stop him; british empire, go with your navy to confront his navy here, etc.

Besides, gunpowder in general is just.. boring really. I don't know, it just doesn't get me excited.

my mistake, thought it came out as I saw a review on pcgamer

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/03/11/total … eview-224/