EternalSilence
Legacy Member
boeffel zei:kheb zo'n bigass poster meegekregen van GM![]()
Heb jij je spel al geinstalleerd?
anyway:
Sieges – which I was a bit worried about at the preview stage – actually seem pretty tidy, too. The earthwork basis of the castles means that any infantry unit can, pretty much, climb the walls of your castle, and this means there’s always a straight way in for any siege. It also means that as an attacker you can always come at the fort from several directions and often outwit the AI into not defending all its flanks. That said, it can do the same to you when you are defending. I was even surprised to see an enemy general dismount his cavalry and climb up to get inside and finish off my decimated defenders on a map I assumed I had won. Because the castles are much more open, much of the fighting is actually within the grounds. While you can hold the “battlements” such as they are, they don’t sit atop a wall like Western fortifications, and once you’re up the wall you’re back on a battlefield. Ultimately, I began to rather enjoy sieges, which had been something I’d begun to avoid entirely – auto-resolving all the way – in the previous games.
When fortresses are involved, artificial adversaries are less intimidating. CA has vastly improved castle assaults by a) encouraging attackers to attack from multiple directions, b) leaving castle interiors empty and c) giving all troops the structure scaling abilities of sticky squirrels.
De ai in sieges is toch wel ietsje beter geworden =p
kort samen gevat, moet je battles op HARD spelen om toch iets van een deftige ai te hebben.
Wel jammer dat er geen aparte verschillen zijn kwa moeilijkheid voor de campaign map & battlesThere is – at least for my personal tastes – an still imbalance in all this. I found the campaign map difficulty pleasingly yielding on normal, with the battle maps being far too easy. I’d like to have been able to play on hard battle-map AI, and normal campaign AI. (In fact, wasn’t that an option in previous Total War games? Because it’s not an option here.) It feels like the game is tuned to someone else’s difficulty tastes, which wasn’t true of earlier instances of the series.
So, final words: a tight, coherent Total War offering. It’s a bit of a system hog, I suspect. My God-like monster PC chuntered a bit on the very highest settings and the biggest battles, so although the game can look dreamy, I should imagine it’s going to have to be scaled way back for the average gaming PC. Apparently the DX11 support is in a follow up patch in the coming weeks, too, and I should imagine there will be some bugs emerge in that time. I haven’t found anything game-breaking (just a glitch or two), although some other press types are reporting occasional CTDs.
Technical Difficulties?
The Creative Assembly was raked over the Internet’s hottest coals thanks to the bugs, instability, and many technical difficulties of Empire: Total War. Napoleon shored up that rickety foundation, and was solid even if the AI was still easily exploitable in combat. Shogun 2 is an incremental improvement over Napoleon. The AI for both enemy generals and your units is much better in sieges, to the point that massive battles over multi-level fortresses are interesting and fun instead of an exercise in figuring out how to exploit a broken AI. On the campaign map, I saw rival clans successfully invade over water, blockade trade ports, and reinforce besieged cities. The AI still recruits masses of crappy units instead of more effective mixes of cannon fodder and elite troops, and the combat AI has a few holes still like picking the wrong ground to fight over and running its troops too hard. Having recently played a fair amount of Empire and Napoleon, though, the improvements make a significant difference. That said, I had more crashes than I am comfortable with on several different machines while reviewing Shogun 2. I’d advise downloading the demo to make sure the game runs reliably on your system before committing the money.

