1. Post #161
    Gold Member
    Dark Kite's Avatar
    July 2005
    343 Posts
    I've run into a bit of a problem running shogun 2 and would appreciate some help. For some reason my initial install of shogun 2 was a bit iffy. I couldn't play multiplayer, historical battles, or custom battles. So, I figured I just needed to reinstall. Now I can't even play. I get to the loading splash screen but before the credit videos play I get an error requesting I insert my shogun 2 disc. I bought the game on steam... I've tried verifying the game files a few times, but that hasn't worked. Any advice would be appreciated.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 8 United States Show Events

  2. Post #162
    known terrorist
    PollytheParrot's Avatar
    April 2011
    8,749 Posts
    I'd recommend you uninstall everything, then just download the game again over steam.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  3. Post #163
    Gold Member
    Dark Kite's Avatar
    July 2005
    343 Posts
    I'd recommend you uninstall everything, then just download the game again over steam.
    I have. As I said, I get as far as the loading splash screen but then I get an error requesting I put the shogun 2 disc in my disc drive followed by a crash to my desktop.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 8 United States Show Events

  4. Post #164
    SJW 4 lyfe
    DaysBefore's Avatar
    December 2009
    7,598 Posts
    Unless the roman army had significant anti-cavalry capabilities, a bunch of knights could smash into the Roman forces, followed by hit and run tactics to devastate them.
    It's not entirely certain. Harold Godwinson's shieldwall held up against the Norman cavalry until the Norman archers started firing over them. And the Romans did love a good shieldwall. The odds are obviously in a medieval army's favor, though.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events

  5. Post #165
    Gold Member
    RainbowStalin's Avatar
    July 2011
    8,434 Posts
    It's not entirely certain. Harold Godwinson's shieldwall held up against the Norman cavalry until the Norman archers started firing over them. And the Romans did love a good shieldwall. The odds are obviously in a medieval army's favor, though.
    I'm pretty sure the Norman archers played a fairly minor role in the battle of Hastings what with them firing up a hill towards a shield wall. Pretty sure the big mistake the anglo saxons made was breaking the shield wall when the Norman knights feinted a retreat.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  6. Post #166
    Gold Member
    DanRatherman's Avatar
    January 2007
    3,434 Posts
    If the Roman general used his spearmen flexibly and deployed them as a front rank rather then as replacements or line-holders for the legionaries he might have good chances against lightly-armored cavalry of the 8th-12th century. Obviously they would falter against plate armor wearing gothic knights, so again, specificity is important in these hypothetical battles.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events

  7. Post #167
    Proudly supporting the JIDF
    Dennab
    July 2010
    22,819 Posts
    It's not entirely certain. Harold Godwinson's shieldwall held up against the Norman cavalry until the Norman archers started firing over them. And the Romans did love a good shieldwall. The odds are obviously in a medieval army's favor, though.
    True, but remember that late medieval heavy cavalry was terrifying.

    Full plate with heavy lances and well bred horses covered in armour. Quarter a metric ton coming down on you.

    Norman knights were relatively lightly armed and armoured in comparison to the late medieval ones.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Informative Informative x 1Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  8. Post #168
    known terrorist
    PollytheParrot's Avatar
    April 2011
    8,749 Posts
    I have. As I said, I get as far as the loading splash screen but then I get an error requesting I put the shogun 2 disc in my disc drive followed by a crash to my desktop.
    Ah I thought you meant that you installed via disk and then updated afterwards. Just to clarify, you've completely uninstalled the game and made absolutely sure that the files under your Steamapps folder were gone and the files under your Roaming folder are gone? Then you completely downloaded the game again from scratch from Steam (without a disc)? And when you attempt to launch the game the splash screen comes up with a prompt asking to insert a disc? That's pretty strange.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  9. Post #169
    Gold Member
    Jake Nukem's Avatar
    October 2006
    1,474 Posts
    True, but remember that late medieval heavy cavalry was terrifying.

    Full plate with heavy lances and well bred horses covered in armour. Quarter a metric ton coming down on you.

    Norman knights were relatively lightly armed and armoured in comparison to the late medieval ones.
    Those are some rich knights, also gotta remember the Romans were masters of defense. They were a fan of caltrops and I remember them having a larger, easily built spiked caltrop design.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudis_%28stake%29
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Australia Show Events

  10. Post #170
    Proudly supporting the JIDF
    Dennab
    July 2010
    22,819 Posts
    Those are some rich knights, also gotta remember the Romans were masters of defense. They were a fan of caltrops and I remember them having a larger, easily built spiked caltrop design.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudis_%28stake%29
    Well then, I guess when all else fails, longbows and/or crossbows would spell doom for the Romans.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  11. Post #171
    SJW 4 lyfe
    DaysBefore's Avatar
    December 2009
    7,598 Posts
    True, but remember that late medieval heavy cavalry was terrifying.

    Full plate with heavy lances and well bred horses covered in armour. Quarter a metric ton coming down on you.

    Norman knights were relatively lightly armed and armoured in comparison to the late medieval ones.
    Yeah see that's the problem. Just saying "medieval" armies is too vague, as that stretches from small bands of Viking raiders in boiled leather and ringmail to thirty-thousand Englishmen with pikes, plate steel, longbows, and cannons. Just as "Roman army" can mean pre- or post-Marian reform. And there are too many variables like morale of the Roman force, terrain, capability of the leaders, weather, etc.

    I'm pretty sure the Norman archers played a fairly minor role in the battle of Hastings what with them firing up a hill towards a shield wall. Pretty sure the big mistake the anglo saxons made was breaking the shield wall when the Norman knights feinted a retreat.
    No they recovered after that. It was the archers pouring arrows into their ranks, similar to later Plantagenet English battles during the Hundred Years War, and more importantly the death of Harold Godwinson that cost the Anglo-Saxons the battle and England. Many historians, given obviously scarce contemporary evidence, think that, had Harold not died, he may very well have beaten William.

    Well then, I guess when all else fails, longbows and/or crossbows would spell doom for the Romans.
    Arrows and bolts run out eventually and those huge shields kept a soldier well covered. The Romans learnt to deal with archers pretty well during Eastern campaigns. Without discounting the strength of the average French medieval host, the Romans truly made war a science. It'd be a damn close fight, but I think at close quarters, medieval steel would beat out Roman training.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events

  12. Post #172
    Gold Member
    Mackalda2k6's Avatar
    January 2009
    1,216 Posts
    I keep coming in this thread thinking that, with all the posts, the final faction must have been announced. Instead I get heavy tactical/historical warfare discussion which, while very interesting, pains me as I wait for the final faction.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  13. Post #173
    Gold Member
    Dark Kite's Avatar
    July 2005
    343 Posts
    Ah I thought you meant that you installed via disk and then updated afterwards. Just to clarify, you've completely uninstalled the game and made absolutely sure that the files under your Steamapps folder were gone and the files under your Roaming folder are gone? Then you completely downloaded the game again from scratch from Steam (without a disc)? And when you attempt to launch the game the splash screen comes up with a prompt asking to insert a disc? That's pretty strange.
    I have no disc. I bought the game on steam. I simply hit the Delete Local Game Content button near the Verify Game Data option and then reinstalled through steam. When I attempt to launch the game the splash screen comes up, but then closes as the insert disc prompt comes up. Every time I hit verify game files I end up downloading a single small file. So far I've downloaded 8, each time having to re verify the game files in order to begin each tiny download. I'm fairly baffled by this but incredibly irritated.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 8 United States Show Events

  14. Post #174
    Here
    Dennab
    March 2013
    12,416 Posts
    Alright, I have Rome, Medieval II, Empire, Napoleon, Shogun 2 and Fall of the Samurai.

    What won the battle of Hastings was the Norman cavalry and brilliant commanding of William the Bastard.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events

  15. Post #175
    SJW 4 lyfe
    DaysBefore's Avatar
    December 2009
    7,598 Posts
    What won the battle of Hastings was the Norman cavalry and brilliant commanding of William the Bastard.
    Really the main things were the collapse of the Breton division, when the pursuers were cut down by a Norman counter-attack and the death of Harold Godwinson. If the Breton's had not broken the English fyrdsmen, and Harold's brothers, would not have pursued and ultimately died.

    I was incorrect about the impact of the English pursuit of the Breton's though.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events

  16. Post #176
    LiamBrown's Avatar
    November 2008
    209 Posts
    A bit of info about the Rome 2 campaign: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-Year-One-Turn
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Informative Informative x 1Winner Winner x 1 (list)

  17. Post #177
    Gold Member
    CMB Unit 01's Avatar
    May 2007
    2,812 Posts
    That bit about disbanding and reforming armies was pretty neat.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  18. Post #178
    known terrorist
    PollytheParrot's Avatar
    April 2011
    8,749 Posts
    I have no disc. I bought the game on steam. I simply hit the Delete Local Game Content button near the Verify Game Data option and then reinstalled through steam. When I attempt to launch the game the splash screen comes up, but then closes as the insert disc prompt comes up. Every time I hit verify game files I end up downloading a single small file. So far I've downloaded 8, each time having to re verify the game files in order to begin each tiny download. I'm fairly baffled by this but incredibly irritated.
    That's very perplexing. I'd recommend you file a ticket through Steam Support if you have not already done so.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  19. Post #179
    Here
    Dennab
    March 2013
    12,416 Posts
    I would like to see Rome II integrate the division of Rome up by families better, instead of having 3 countries representing the different families all taped onto the city of Rome through an alliance.. if they could get Paradox interactive working on that. :P

    Would be amazing to see a Crusader King-esque dynastic system with similar rivalries and such.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  20. Post #180
    Gold Member
    BananaMed's Avatar
    May 2011
    2,259 Posts
    About the armies traits.

    Love it, been waiting for something like this for a long time!
    Makes you feel a little bit personal with your army. And the armies diverse not only with rooster diversity but their history as well. Let's say Legion III, veterans of the fights in Carthage, THE legion which burned the city down. Stories around your armies will give a pretty nice flavor to the game overally.

    Can't wait!
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Poland Show Events

  21. Post #181
    SJW 4 lyfe
    DaysBefore's Avatar
    December 2009
    7,598 Posts
    Most of that sounds good, and I know they explained it in a good way, but i can't help but be disappointed by one turn being one year. I loved the four seasons of Shogun II.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  22. Post #182
    Gold Member
    gonedead0's Avatar
    May 2007
    904 Posts
    True, but remember that late medieval heavy cavalry was terrifying.

    Full plate with heavy lances and well bred horses covered in armour. Quarter a metric ton coming down on you.

    Norman knights were relatively lightly armed and armoured in comparison to the late medieval ones.
    Here is what Dan Carlin said on this matter:

    The fortifications of late dark age/early Medieval Europe were not as advanced as what the Romans actually faced. Hard to say they would have trouble with those tiny Motte and Bailey (and barely beyond that) castles when cities the size of Carthage weren't giving them any trouble.
    As far as the heavy Cavalry...the Romans fought Sarmatians, Seleucid and Parthian Cataphracts...all with fully armored men and horses wielding the Kontos (lance). The Knights may have been on somewhat larger horses...(but those horses also wouldn't be armored). And let's remember: a 11th century "Melite" (or "Miles") is not really what we conceive of when we imagine a 14th century high medieval knight (although, I doubt a Hundred Years War army would do that well against Romans).
    If you want to throw a REAL monkey wrench into this conversation, throw in Alexander's Macedonians. Given the weapon systems involved, Knights wouldn't stand a chance against the Phalangites.
    Let's also point out one of the most important elements in warfare: leadership. Someone already pointed out the leadership at the NCO level (which is sorely under-appreciated by many...it's not very "sexy" subject-wise)...but what about leadership at the top level? Macedonian generals (especially) but also Roman ones would have been exponentially better than early Medieval ones (and the ability to use drilled troops to maneuver on the battlefield would have been a killer. Medievals couldn't really move...especially infantry...without becoming disordered. So your choices are to move and be disordered...or stand still and be outmaneuvered tactically). Having a general that could outflank opponents is going to be devastating no matter what the other disparities involved. Most medievals had no battlefield reserve (while Romans and Macedonians ALWAYS did). Getting flanked or surprised by ambushes and the like (Medievals were horrible scouting armies as well) would just make the Medievals seem like total amateurs compared to the "civilized" armies (the "Knights" were superbly trained individual warriors...but the Romans and Macedonians are trained to act in concert...as units).
    Finally, the ad hoc nature of the medievals pretty much assured that you would have ad hoc units that had no expertise acting in concert with each other. Romans (or Macedonians) were trained in large scale wargames to move in concert and by signalling.
    How are 15,000 Medievals (with maybe 1,200-1,500 "Knights") going to beat 30,000 Romans or Macedonians? Heck...13th Century knights couldn't handle Flemish pikemen (who were amateurs compared to Alexander's pikemen).
    What am I missing?
    Oh yeah...Byzantines. Well, I am a fan of the Byzantines. Their armies were built to correspond to the last major changes of the mid-late Roman empire (the mobile reserve idea with local forces manning the empire's borders/perimeter). The Byzantines had issues recruiting good infantry forces (essentially ending up with the problems the Eastern Roman Empire was dealing with vis-a-vis the Western Roman Empire when the Western Romans could still recruit vast numbers of Gallic and German infantry into the legions...tough, warlike fighting men that the Byzantines had trouble matching in the East (with the exceptions of groups like Varangians, etc. Byzantine Scutarii, for example, were not the equal of Trajan's legionaries). The Byzantines also had smaller forces they could field. Their horse archers and mobility would have given their Imperial counterparts fits...but the field fortifications the legionaries would erect whenever they stopped would be a pain to overcome. Byzantine commanders were every bit the equal of Roman ones though. That would be a good fight to witness! The Byzantines (before Manzikert) had few problems with Dark Age/early Medieval armies...even if they didn't like Normans very much...but they were trying to fight knights with cataphracts...a better matchup for the knights than knights trying to break solid, well ordered infantry formations of the sort the Imperial Romans and Macedonians would be fielding in large numbers...)
    Source
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  23. Post #183
    Mort and Charon's Avatar
    April 2009
    1,821 Posts
    Anyone else annoyed by the way people behave in the buildings in Empire and Napoleon? A lot of the time men don't fire at all, and when they do it's one man per window, with the rest of the men standing there like a wally. It should be everyone at a fire point and taking it in turns.

    At the moment buildings are pretty much useless unless you're in some last ditch attempt against cavalry.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 8 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 5 (list)

  24. Post #184
    Gold Member
    CMB Unit 01's Avatar
    May 2007
    2,812 Posts
    Anyone else annoyed by the way people behave in the buildings in Empire and Napoleon? A lot of the time men don't fire at all, and when they do it's one man per window, with the rest of the men standing there like a wally. It should be everyone at a fire point and taking it in turns.

    At the moment buildings are pretty much useless unless you're in some last ditch attempt against cavalry.
    They're irritating in field battles, but I was able to put my weak units into one of the armouries/barracks during a fort siege. Meant they weren't getting completely mauled by the 500 strong regiments of Mughal levies, and there were some intense fights on the roof. They were even able to break off a few of these 500 strong units, with supporting fire of my stronger regiments in their trenches in the centre of the fort.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events

  25. Post #185
    Here
    Dennab
    March 2013
    12,416 Posts
    My least favorite part of Empire was the huge amount of factions on the single player map, it took forever for a turn to load, which really ruined the experience. The muliplayer on Empire is much better than Napoleon's. Better maps, better unit's/unit diversity, etc.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events

  26. Post #186
    Mort and Charon's Avatar
    April 2009
    1,821 Posts
    They're irritating in field battles, but I was able to put my weak units into one of the armouries/barracks during a fort siege. Meant they weren't getting completely mauled by the 500 strong regiments of Mughal levies, and there were some intense fights on the roof. They were even able to break off a few of these 500 strong units, with supporting fire of my stronger regiments in their trenches in the centre of the fort.
    Problem with Napoleon, especially the Peninsular War campaign which I'm in at the moment, forts are scarce, so defenders have no real advantage anyway, and buildings are more of a hindrance, getting in the way of my formations, than a help.

    1 thing I did really like about Napoleon is the (re?)introduction of ambushes, can really change the odds of a battle, and I actually find it quite fun being put on the spot and having to fight a rapid and intense battle on the backfoot.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 8 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  27. Post #187
    Gold Member
    kamikaze470's Avatar
    October 2008
    7,769 Posts
    I must be the only one here that genuinely enjoyed Napoleon. Although, I have to raise a few brows when people say Empire had more unit diversity, when the French faction in Napoleon alone has one too many unique units in it's roster. The Ottoman roster is also worth a mention, because there's a variety of melee and ranged units as well.

    Edited:

    Admittedly I never played Empire, so I only heard stuff about how notoriously bland each countries armies are (i.e: they're all clones).
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)

  28. Post #188
    Mort and Charon's Avatar
    April 2009
    1,821 Posts
    I prefer Napoleon too. It's one of my favourite areas of military history, and the game seemed overall more polished and challenging. The units in Empire were definitely a lot more homogenous. People don't like the extra unit DLCs for Napoleon, but I think i picked up the game and all the DLCs for under 10 so I can't complain.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 8 United Kingdom Show Events

  29. Post #189
    Voted WORST Gold Member 2012
    Killuah's Avatar
    August 2005
    20,814 Posts
    Tbh. I love the diversity. Makes it feel more life-like if you get me. It gives "what the fuck just happened" moments without being unfair because a) I could've known and b) next time I know for sure
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Germany Show Events

  30. Post #190
    Here
    Dennab
    March 2013
    12,416 Posts
    The Peninsular campaign is more about attacking supply lines and winning the skirmishes across the Iberian peninsula. The Large battles matter but they are fewer. You can defeat/cripple an army with spies/guerilla's, cutting supplies and causing rebellions.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events

  31. Post #191
    Gold Member
    RearAdmiral's Avatar
    May 2010
    6,167 Posts
    Napoleon Total War - Or how I learned to stop using cavalry and love the artillery.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 5 (list)

  32. Post #192
    Here
    Dennab
    March 2013
    12,416 Posts
    Napoleon Total War - Or how I learned to stop using cavalry and love the artillery.
    Infantry squares that can be formed in less than 5 seconds, artillery like that of Ww1 era technology, Canister shot...
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events

  33. Post #193
    Dennab
    December 2012
    1,069 Posts
    lmao im gonna use his character in the vanguard
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  34. Post #194
    Gold Member
    theseltsamone's Avatar
    March 2010
    2,802 Posts

    Japan builds some pretty sturdy bridges.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Funny Funny x 7 (list)

  35. Post #195
    Dennab
    July 2010
    6,533 Posts

    Japan builds some pretty sturdy bridges.


    Dang Japans.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events

  36. Post #196
    Here
    Dennab
    March 2013
    12,416 Posts


    Sheer numbers and bayonets prevail.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Canada Show Events Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  37. Post #197
    Resplendent Reenactor
    Dennab
    June 2010
    23,896 Posts
    Woah wait!
    Rangergxi? From the 62nd Battalion from Napoleonic Wars?


    (I know it seems out of place I just can't PM you for some reason)
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  38. Post #198
    Mythman's Avatar
    August 2011
    777 Posts
    Final Faction Revealed:

    http://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Factions

    Dunno how I feel about this; would definitely prefer the Selucid Empire.

    Also, new icon at the bottom of the Factions page. (Probably pre-order bonus faction..)
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Winner Winner x 4 (list)

  39. Post #199
    Stalk's Avatar
    April 2007
    867 Posts
    Final Faction Revealed:

    http://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Factions

    Dunno how I feel about this; would definitely prefer the Selucid Empire.

    Also, new icon at the bottom of the Factions page. (Probably pre-order bonus faction..)
    Egypt was kinda predictable. My favorite faction was the selucids and that last icon gives me hope.

    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Sweden Show Events

  40. Post #200
    Gold Member
    RainbowStalin's Avatar
    July 2011
    8,434 Posts
    Eh always knew it was going to be Egypt, they were a major power during that period so its not really surprising.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)