Shogun 2 DX11 Patch To Land Early May

By Quintin Smith on April 15th, 2011 at 2:38 pm.

Are those men far away, or are they simply very small?

The Creative Assembly have announced that a patch for Total War: Shogun 2 adding DirectX 11 support will… oh, what’s the point. You’ve already read the headline. A DirectX 11 patch will be released in the first week of May. Why are you even reading this? Hell, I bet nobody’s reading this. I bet I could fill it with nonsense and nobody would notice. The Creative Assembly announced today that they’re implementing an innovative new office policy of human sacrifice, inspired by the ancient Aztecs. Studio director Tim Heaton had this to say: “Ca yz tonoc in tiquauhtli in tocelutl! Auh in ticueie in tiuipile.” Does this mean we can look forward to Total War: Mexica? More on this as it develops.

, .

64 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. Stitched says:

    Cool! I hope they dont effin’ blow it like Bioware did for Dragon Age 2. It made that game completely unplayable.

    • Mac says:

      eh? Just played DA2 today in DX11 all maxed at ~40FPS on a 460GTX and Q6600 …

    • Mac says:

      Try the beta 270.51 Nvidia drivers – really help :)

  2. Premium User Badge

    Schaulustiger says:

    Thanks Quinns, I laughed so hard that I spat my drink on the screen. At work.

    • GenBanks says:

      lol I’m glad I saw your comment because I hadn’t read it…

  3. Groove says:

    Their humble sacrifice pleases me.

  4. telpscorei says:

    Their attempt to stave off the end of this world next year are in vain! Cthulhu will devour all!

    • Blackseraph says:

      Everyone should own a Cthulhu plushie! I know I do.

    • telpscorei says:

      But will they appease our dark lord and future master of all creation including doughnuts?

  5. Bhazor says:

    Total War Mexico? Seen it.

  6. Starky says:

    Can someone explain to me what he said? I started trying to read it and it all blurred into meaningless babble…?

  7. Giant, fussy whingebag says:

    Quintin, I was disappointed with the lack of puns! Then I actually read the post and forgave you. Slightly.

  8. Stitched says:

    Speaking of slow performance. I am finding the site way slower to load than a month or more ago. What changed?

  9. MCM says:

    Maybe they should think about adding a patch so that you can’t alt-f4 when you’re losing in order to escape the game. Everyone at the top of the ladder is a habitual alt-f4’er.

    Maybe they should think about adding a patch so that the economy of the campaign mode actually makes sense instead of making the optimal way of playing be “build nothing, only train troops.”

    Maybe they should think about adding a patch so that samurai aren’t made completely useless by hordes of cheaper, more numerous, and “benefits more from upgrade” ashigaru (is there a good word for that? “Benefiting more from upgrades”? Surely not just “upgradeable”, it’s too narrow).

    Maybe they should think about adding a patch so that multiplayer campaign mode works. AT ALL.

    Maybe they should think about adding a patch so that siege weapons aren’t effectively battlefield snipers, picking off generals from 500 yards out.

    Maybe they should think about adding a patch so that multiplayer battles don’t devolve into mindless staring for hours, because of the way fatigue works.

    Maybe they should think about adding a patch so that the AI actually knows how to defend a castle during a siege, instead of just sitting there and dying.

    I could go on.

    This is an awful game. At least it’ll be a prettier awful game, some time in a month or so.

    • John Connor says:

      The game is awful? And all this time I thought I was enjoying it.
      I guess I better stick it in the bin with Invisible War and Mass Effect 2.

    • MCM says:

      Oh, it’s certainly enjoyable at first – the problem is that the enjoyment is all surface-level. The game completely falls apart once you play it more than a few dozen hours. Before that, hey, yeah, it’s fun to RP being a Japanese daimyo! Look at me with my Japanese-accented advisors and unit responses in Japanese!

      If you visit the totalwar forums you notice that almost nobody is asking for a DX11 patch. Everyone is screaming for CA to fix multiplayer (broken in several ways) and to fix campaign mode, and to fix various problems in battles (whether multiplayer or single player).

    • Chris D says:

      I don’t think we’ve been playing the same game.

    • MCM says:

      Chris, perhaps you could elaborate?

    • weego says:

      Hipster commenting much?
      “I guess you would think this game is enjoyable, you obviously aren’t able to see beneath the thin veneer that I was quickly able to discredit”

    • MCM says:

      Wow, ad hominem much? And yeah, if “quickly discern” means “few dozen hours”, then sure. If you’d like to engage with any of the point I made instead of insulting me, feel free to do so.

    • Chris D says:

      MCM

      Fair enough.

      “Maybe they should think about adding a patch so that the economy of the campaign mode actually makes sense instead of making the optimal way of playing be “build nothing, only train troops.”

      I don’t recognise this from my game, too large an army only bankrupts your economy. Larger castles are much easier to hold, and more efficient in the long term. Of course, you need more food to sustain them, but that still encourages building.

      “Maybe they should think about adding a patch so that samurai aren’t made completely useless by hordes of cheaper, more numerous, and “benefits more from upgrade” ashigaru (is there a good word for that? “Benefiting more from upgrades”? Surely not just “upgradeable”, it’s too narrow).”

      Sure, numbers count for a lot in open field, but they’re far less important in taking a castle where quality counts. Morale counts for a lot, and ashigaru don’t really have it.

      “Maybe they should think about adding a patch so that siege weapons aren’t effectively battlefield snipers, picking off generals from 500 yards out.”

      Not my experience, I’ve seen an occasional lucky shot, but not as a widespread phenomena.

      “Maybe they should think about adding a patch so that multiplayer battles don’t devolve into mindless staring for hours, because of the way fatigue works.”

      Haven’t played a lot of multiplayer, so can’t comment on this although I’m not sure why this should be the case or what you’d want to do to fix it.

      “Maybe they should think about adding a patch so that the AI actually knows how to defend a castle during a siege, instead of just sitting there and dying.”

      I presume you’re referring to them not sallying out if you have them under missile fire. I’ve tried doing that a few times, but generally stopped because it rarely ends well.

      Sure it’s not perfect. My main issue is that the AI sometimes stops trying to attack your castle and just sits there until the time runs out. But other than that I don’t think there’s too much wrong with it and I’m certainly having fun with it.

    • Soon says:

      Sounds about right, though. And it seems to be the same with every Total War game. It’s as though people go into denial and convince themselves they’re playing well, using superior tactics to beat the AI when it’s just that the AI is just dumb.

      The biggest challenge is when you’re massively outnumbered and everybody just runs directly at you, throwing caution to the wind. Should probably just do that every time. If it’s trying to defend then it feels like picking on a child (probably).

      Using ultra size armies helps a little, as melee becomes more of a grind, so morale and fatigue play more of a role. But, archers still own the field.

    • Scatterbrainpaul says:

      Interesting

      Did a Shogun touch you up when you were a kid?

    • Vague-rant says:

      Haven’t played it, but frankly a few dozen hours isn’t too bad. More than what I played of Empire, less than what I played of Rome. (Then again, I had alot more free time when I was playing Rome).

      Do you get a few dozen hours out of every game you play?

    • Chris D says:

      MCM

      Fair enough

      “Maybe they should think about adding a patch so that the economy of the campaign mode actually makes sense instead of making the optimal way of playing be “build nothing, only train troops.”

      I don’t recognise this. Too big an army only bankrupts your economy. Castles are much easier to defend, and much more efficient in the long term. Sure you need food, but that still encourages building.

      “Maybe they should think about adding a patch so that samurai aren’t made completely useless by hordes of cheaper, more numerous, and “benefits more from upgrade” ashigaru (is there a good word for that? “Benefiting more from upgrades”? Surely not just “upgradeable”, it’s too narrow).”

      Numbers are important in open field, but much less so during a siege. Also morale is important and ashigaru don’t really have it. Also the unit limit means that once you hit the top quality is what counts there as well.

      “Maybe they should think about adding a patch so that siege weapons aren’t effectively battlefield snipers, picking off generals from 500 yards out.”

      I’ve seen a few lucky shots but never anything approaching sniper type accuracy, although anyone leaving their general under artillery fire is asking for trouble.

      “Maybe they should think about adding a patch so that multiplayer battles don’t devolve into mindless staring for hours, because of the way fatigue works.”

      I haven’t played much multiplayer so I can’t really comment on this. Not sure why it should be the case though, nor what you’d want to do to fix it. Also artillery is useful for encouraging someone not to just stand there.

      “Maybe they should think about adding a patch so that the AI actually knows how to defend a castle during a siege, instead of just sitting there and dying.”

      I assume you’re referring to the AI not sallying out when under missile fire. I’ve tried that a few times. It has atendency to go horribly wrong with units routing once they realise they’re out in the open. While it can work if you’re desperate usually staying inside the walls is the smart thing to do.

      Sure, the game’s not perfect but I don’t recognise the broken mess you seem to be describing. My main issue is that the AI can sometimes stop attacking your castle and just sit there until the time runs out. But once they fix that I’m not sure there’s very much else that I’d say really needs to be done.

      I’m having fun with it.

    • Eight Rooks says:

      “Maybe they should think about adding a patch so that samurai aren’t made completely useless by hordes of cheaper, more numerous, and “benefits more from upgrade” ashigaru”

      Not played the game but… welcome to actual history, surely? ‘But we’re a loyal band of samurai!’ ‘But we’re five hundred angry starving peasants with spears!’

    • Soon says:

      Although staying behind the walls should be the best thing, the AI can’t recognise when it isn’t. If I have a few units of peasant bowmen and little else, they’ll slaughter everybody by firing over the walls and beat far more powerful armies without taking a loss. Also, if the AI has its own bowmen it never places them in the best position. It’ll tend to face the bulk of your army, even if it isn’t moving. So your own archers can just go to the sides and they won’t react.

      I experimented and took Kyoto this way (although I had to climb the walls to finish off some remaining troops). But, experimenting with how to exploit the AI does tend to be part of the fun for me.

      Maybe it’s also to do with bad design, maybe of the archers or the castles themselves.

    • Chris D says:

      Soon

      On the other hand, if they had moved you could just have marched your main army up unharmed by decoying with a handful of troops. Anytime the AI is predictable you can exploit it, but I think expecting it to be as skilled as a human player is still a big ask at this stage. Also, humans do stupid things too, and if you the AI really is a deal-breaker for you there’s always the option to find a drop in player.

    • MCM says:

      I don’t recognise this. Too big an army only bankrupts your economy. Castles are much easier to defend, and much more efficient in the long term. Sure you need food, but that still encourages building.

      Well, the problem is the very Food thing you mention. Upgrading your basic Markets costs food and a ton of koku. Maybe I’ll be mocked for this, but after making a spreadsheet and comparing the “upgrade Market/don’t upgrade Market” decision, it’s painfully obvious that upgrading Markets is literally a money sink that never pays for itself. You are actually hurting your economy if you upgrade to Rice Exchanges (and obviously castles). There is no upgrading your economy besides building better Farms, and the initial markets.

      This is especially painful if you compare it to the value of holding the map-edge trade nodes. While some clans are in a better position to do this than others, each node is worth thousands of koku per turn. It’s not really difficult to support an army.

      Further, the best armies are full ashigaru anyway and cost a fraction of any samurai army, and so maintenance is rarely a problem. I’ll elaborate on this below.

      Numbers are important in open field, but much less so during a siege. Also morale is important and ashigaru don’t really have it. Also the unit limit means that once you hit the top quality is what counts there as well.

      I don’t see how numbers aren’t valuable during a siege, either as attacker or defender. Attacking an AI castle is a silly experience anyway, because the AI cannot manage its troops and will literally sit there and die while you fire arrows into the castle.

      As to morale, it seems like an issue at the start of the game, but you can’t really avoid using ashigaru then anyway because they cost 1/3 what a samurai unit costs and you’re poor at the start. But the real issue is that as your general levels up – quickly reaching 3+ stars – he becomes so good at motivating your troops that ashigaru fight as well as samurai. Because ashigaru units have higher numbers, they also benefit more from bonuses: every figure gets the bonus, and more figures means more bonuses. Ashigaru quite easily and quickly reach samurai effectiveness in battle, cost 1/3 the price of samurai (or less), require no building to train so can be trained anywhere, train faster, and replenish FOUR TIMES AS FAST (this is perhaps the most important point, base replenishment for samurai is 2% per turn, for ashigaru it’s 8%).

      I’ve seen a few lucky shots but never anything approaching sniper type accuracy, although anyone leaving their general under artillery fire is asking for trouble.

      The problem is that a well-leveled veteran cannon, or even mangonel, has a chance to immediately win the game at the start of a multiplayer match. With sufficient range upgrades I can cover the entire starting area. It’s not that he’s leaving his general “in range”, it’s that the match starts, and if he my opponent is not immediately micromanaging his general in a zig-zag, he has a very good chance of losing the general, which is tantamount to a loss because the morale bonus the general provides is so huge.

      I haven’t played much multiplayer so I can’t really comment on this. Not sure why it should be the case though, nor what you’d want to do to fix it. Also artillery is useful for encouraging someone not to just stand there.

      Well, there you are (see above). Trust me, artillery is a problem.

      So yes, what people do is immediately back their army out of range (if the map has sufficient space) and then refuse to attack. Artillery is immobile so then neither player moves.

      Even without artillery, the problem is that one side can move to the nearest hill or across a river (this is a more map-sensitive complaint) and then simply wait. Since moving into bow range means dying, and charging in means going in to battle with a fatigue disadvantage, the incentive is for both sides to not attack. An attacker is ALWAYS at a disadvantage in Shogun 2 battles. (There is a “charge bonus”, but the “defender” can just charge later and get the full advantage anyway.)

      I assume you’re referring to the AI not sallying out when under missile fire. I’ve tried that a few times. It has atendency to go horribly wrong with units routing once they realise they’re out in the open. While it can work if you’re desperate usually staying inside the walls is the smart thing to do.

      But the AI also won’t maneuver its troops to cover multiple approaches, or sally when appropriate (especially with cavalry), or even defend the central keep (capturing that flag that ends the fight), because apparently they forgot to program the AI to actually defend the central keep.

    • Zenicetus says:

      The Total War AI has always been poor at castle defense. It’s always been ridiculously easy to fake out the AI into dividing its forces, pinning units exactly where you want them on the wrong side of a castle. The only times I remember sieges being fun as an attacker, were a few times in Med2 where the castle layout itself posed some challenges. The castle designs in Shogun 2, while historically appropriate, really expose the flaws in the AI defense. Also there’s something wacky about how your archers can attack from below the slope of a castle’s hill, firing up and over the walls, with deadly accuracy. It would help if there was more of an accuracy penalty for that, but the AI just needs to get smarter about not standing and dying under arrow fire.

      On the benefit of General-enhanced ashigaru vs. samurai… yeah, I’ve started noticing that (just got the game a few days ago). As noted above, the argument that samurai are better quality once the army’s slots are full, doesn’t hold up. There are still more ashigaru per unit. If you’re careful about micro’ing your General to keep him in influence range, peasant hordes with experience upgrades are deadly.

      On the other hand… I’ve never been able to fully enjoy previous Total War games without some role-playing and “house rules” to make up for flaws in the design or the AI. In this case, it could be role-played as knowing that winning with peasant hordes is more effective, but there is more honor in doing it with fewer numbers of samurai. Honor is important in this game, yes? As long as it’s possible to win with a more expensive, slower-training samurai army, then I don’t see it as a fatal flaw. Also, it’s a nice fall-back position to go with ashegiru armies in an emergency, if my initial grand plans for an honorable (and expensive) conquest don’t pan out.

    • derf says:

      I’m with MCM. This game is bloody awful. Shite battle AI and a pointless strategy map.

    • rivalin says:

      @Eight Rooks
      Presumably you haven’t played much higher level Total War multiplayer, but likely he’s alluding to the fact that most TW games have poorly balanced unit/cost ratios, i.e. a unit that is twice as good as another unit costs three times as much, thus ensuring that noone who ever wants to be competitive will pick it.

      The same happened in Napoleon, no one ever bought elite cavalry because it wasn’t much better than cheap lancers. The imbalance was so bad that the standard for every multiplayer game was for the players to impose the condition that no one use any artillery, could only use four units of light infantry etc etc. All of this was basically because the game was simply not properly balanced.

      Creative assembly may plead that they don’t have the resources of larger companies, but in that case they should moderate their ambitions somewhat, rather than releasing smoke and mirrors type games that look impressive at first but slowly crumble under the weight of sustained play.

    • TariqOne says:

      Between the horrific lack of AA and the fact that multiplayer campaign is totally broken, this went into the try-again-in-six-months pile.

      Not sure why I trust CA. Campaign mutliplayer was on the box for ETW and finally showed up, what, a year later? Always the same horsehit with these guys.

    • Cinnamon says:

      I think that the multiplayer game could use some balancing and hope that they do support it long term but I don’t think that MCM is on the money for all the balance problems.

      Peasant swordsmen are very cost effective compared to Samurai for rushing the enemy but they do have weaknesses especially if your opponent has skill in slowing down the pace and keeping reserves. They are brittle in terms of morale which means that at higher levels only generals who specialise on the leadership skill tree will bring them and I think that the physical tree is also popular in MP. Specialising on leadership makes you physically weak and if your general dies then peasants rout. They are vulnerable to cavalry and matchlocks. Most players are still quite inexperienced so just taking a big peasant army and charging can still be effective, I guess.

      If you think that yari ashigaru are cost effective vs katana samurai in SP then I would have to say, “what, are you mad?” You don’t waste samurai by charging them directly into a spear wall but for any sort of other engagement they will be very effective. If the AI can be tricked into running their swords into a spear wall backed with peasant archers then that is pretty sad, all you have to do is run around them as they move slowly in formation and if they break formation they don’t stand a chance.

      Which leads onto the second point, defence is not overpowered in this game. The relative fast pace and complexity means that against most players you can win by overwhelming your opponent and making them react with attacking. Especially if they have brought a large ashigaru army instead of a small army of elite units. I think that some players overeact to this and play very over defensive strategies that are just not appropriate for the game and you can get matches that go on for ever with one very slow defensive player just standing off against another. Many of these players just crumble when attacked and harassed properly but there are players who just take their defence to the point of griefing and pull the plug if you win an unexpected victory. I can’t think of a way for CA to make the community suck less.

      People who bring a lot of ranged units can normally be fairly easily beaten by rushing. Bring a sacrifice unit with decent armour that leads the arrowhead of the charge in loose formation then follow through and engage enemy unit by unit instead of in a blob. You should still have units left to engage the ranged units if they run. Not always easy if they are camping behind a choke point but still not terrible odds.

      As for siege weapons. Cannons on land battles do sort of suck, but they do nothing against infantry, only cavalry, so you can protect your general by dismounting. Same with fire rockets, nasty morale damage and you can’t use the horsies around them but you can have fun with players by targeting archers on their precious darling rocket squad which they care more about than the rest of their army combined. Mangonels just plain suck and drain the fun out the game completely which is why people love bringing them. You can take them out with a cheap light cavalry unit or two, if they leave them undefended, you can just rush them, take the losses to your strength and hope the other player just sucks, or just wait in the starting area for them to get bored.

    • benjaminlobato says:

      From my perspective, a game that you don’t realize is awful until dozens of hours of play, is pretty damn good.

    • MCM says:

      Hey Cinnamon,
      I was mostly referring to ashigaru being overpowered in campaign mode, not multiplayer battle. Multiplayer battle is much more balanced, because unit costs are more regular.
      For example, in campaign mode, Yari Ashigaru cost 250. In multiplayer battle they cost 350. A Katana Samurai costs 750 in both. Further, there’s the cost of the Sword Dojo required for the Katana Samurai (amortized over all Katana Samurai you build, but still a lot because buildings in S2 are REALLY EXPENSIVE) plus the fact that you’re talking about 2 turns training Katana Samurai versus 1 turn training for Yari Ashigaru.
      Because none of those factors are present in multiplayer, balance is a totally different issue there. Multiplayer balance is actually not as bad as campaign mode balance – siege is an issue but not as serious as most people make it out to be. The real issue is “well you attack me.” “no you attack me.” It’s very easy to get into defensive spots and whoever moves to attack is be default at a disadvantage because of bow men or fatigue.
      My favorite example: I had a 90+ minute game where neither of us attacked. I had artillery, my opponent didn’t want to approach my artillery. He finally came around the side, but my artillery still got him (luckily) and I won. Before the victory screen, he alt-f4’d, so I spent 90+ minutes for nothing. Extremely annoying.
      In multiplayer, 3-4 factors all contribute to each other:
      1. losing to siege can feel very unfair when your general randomly dies
      2. attacking is a disadvantage because archers are already formed up when you come into range, so your archers are always 1 volley behind (if you have any)
      3. you can alt-f4 if you’re losing, and especially if you feel you lost unfairly.
      It’s a synergy of badness.

    • Solly says:

      MCM, i do feel you’re missing the point here, at least about the single player campaign. Sure you can take over the world with ashigaru, and it may be the most cost effective way, but why would you want to? I enjoy seeing my katana samurai slice through hordes of poor helpless peasants, it makes me smile, and likewise with the other samurai units. It isn’t about my spreadsheet slaughtering the AI’s spreadsheet.

    • Cinnamon says:

      “1. losing to siege can feel very unfair when your general randomly dies”

      Losing your general is a fact of life in this game for all modes and you have to either learn to deal with it or be tactically aware of what you have to do to keep him alive. I don’t play siege battles for other reasons.

      “2. attacking is a disadvantage because archers are already formed up when you come into range, so your archers are always 1 volley behind (if you have any)”

      Archer vs archer showdowns are silly and pointless. Little strategic value. If you have an archer disadvantage or are even and want to attack then put your armoured troops in front and save your archers for support when the front lines are engaged. In this case targeting archers is a waste of ammo. One volley from an archer unit into an armoured infantry unit in loose formation isn’t that great compared to a good charge bonus.

      “3. you can alt-f4 if you’re losing, and especially if you feel you lost unfairly.”

      Yeah, so what. Show some backbone man, if you think that people are quitting against you because you are wasting their time or using cheesy tactics then change strategy and have more fun. If they just quit because they suck then rise above. You actually get a win 50% of the time now if you are the host in the match and they alt-f4 and checking the other player to see if they have the dishonourable coward trait is a surprisingly good guide to how they will handle losing.

  10. John Connor says:

    ignore me

  11. Premium User Badge

    The Sombrero Kid says:

    I Noticed.

  12. foda500 says:

    Finally some AA.

  13. Gravy says:

    My games devolved into a crash train wreck one after the other, especially after the latest patch or hotfix whatever. End of turn ctd, look at unit details the wrong way ctd. Do something ctd. Still i persist if only because i want my Shimizu Katana hero.

    There are a few problems with ai, especially on the campaign map where because clans are so aggressive they literally shoot themselves in the foot by sending their stacks at your main forces and allowing you to take all their provinces undefended with ease, effectively wiping out said clan.

    As mentioned above, many features of multiplayer simply don’t work – was looking forward to a co-op campaign with a friend, forget it both games desync and the game stops working sooner or later meaning any time invested is wasted.

    The realm divide needs tweaking, as it stands its neither fun nor realistic, losing your allies auto because you control 1/3rd of Japan – surely that would make your alliance stronger knowing their allied with one of the most powerful clans. Its a bit gimmicky.

    Other than all those problems i enjoy the basics of the game, although another pet peave is that archers are so powerful meaning entire armies consisting of just bowmen rolling at you…. FUN.

    Still i will get my Katana hero send him in to get turned into a sieve. Peerfeek Blosssoomm.

    • Soon says:

      “There are a few problems with ai, especially on the campaign map where because clans are so aggressive they literally shoot themselves in the foot by sending their stacks at your main forces and allowing you to take all their provinces undefended with ease, effectively wiping out said clan.”

      The aggressive clans were pretty welcome until you realise they’re doing that. They’ll only have one main army for a while too whilst all their towns are undefended. So sabotage completely screws them over.

    • Chris D says:

      I found that while you can take undefended cities quite easily the real trick is holding onto them. Unrest is a constant problem, and garrisoning troops to deal with it means that you end up spread too thin while someone else stomps you. And there’s always someone else trying to stomp you.

      While realm divide can be annoying the alternative is that you become an unstoppable force and spend the rest of the game just steamrolling everyone else, so if I have to choose I think I prefer the challenge of taking on the rest of the country by myself.

    • Gravy says:

      @ Soon Yeah its really a bit daft, one province clans attacking you with a full stack allowing you to just skip round that army and end the attack before it starts by wiping them out. It just needs looking at. As you say the aggressive AI is a welcome change and enjoyable until you realise it undermines itself.

      @ Chris D I have few problems holding onto provinces once im there as long as you have a basic garrison of ashigaru, fix any damage you caused in the seige and have your metsuke ready to hop in and then just get the castle up to a decent size (if needed) its a non issue.

      Sure there are people stomping you but you can pretty much hold key areas with decent armies then just take a boat trip or walk into their into the squishy innards and soon cause upset. As for the Realm divide id still like an option.

      Don’t get me wrong i want to enjoy the game and i still do in parts right up until the next ctd and its hardly just me with these problems the official support forums are chock full of people saying the exact same thing.

    • benjaminlobato says:

      There is a mod out now that changes how realm divide works for the better. I recommend it.

  14. Navagon says:

    Will there be tessellation? If you zoom in far enough on your little men will you see all the little hairs in their goatees?

  15. Tizoc says:

    I am certainly pleased to hear this and will perform as many human sacrifices as needed for the release of Total War : Mexica.

  16. bonjovi says:

    AA will be a blast, can’t wait to see how it will look :-)

  17. mod the world says:

    I, for one, would prefer that they fix the invalid army messages in multiplayer. It really kills MP for me.

  18. CraigTW says:

    Hi guys,

    Craig here from The Creative Assembly – just to address a concern or two that’s been put out there: this isn’t just a DX11 patch. There will be a whole host of multiplayer and singleplayer fixes too. Think of it as “a big one”.

    Thanks so much for all of the feedback about the game – RPS rocks!

    -Craig

    • Gravy says:

      Thanks for the update Craig, think of it as contructive criticism its good to see you acknowledge theres problems and its going to be fixed, i’ll wait for ‘the big one’ to drop before i try co-op again though.

      @zal Some lucky people appear to be able to finish the co-op campaigns without a hitch, i tried and tried with my friend swapping save games, checking no mods were installed etc but everytime it desynced we’d swap saves it’d work for one more turn then crash again. For me its the biggest draw to the game and it’d be amazing if it worked.

    • MCM says:

      Hey CraigTW,

      Thanks a bunch for acknowledging our concerns. I really appreciate that you guys do that.

      Really looking forward to some serious economy balancing. Thanks for the continued support!

      MCM

    • derf says:

      Yes, “continued support” for which I strangely fail to recall any such previous instances related to this uninspired game.

  19. zal says:

    and just to people with the co-op campaign, I’ve finished two with a friend, we had some crashes and some desyncs, but he always hosted, and if we got a desync he just emailed me the last turns auto-save and 8 meg later (zipped) we were back in action. whoever says its not awesome must hate fun.. I’ve never had so much fun as handing off my cavalry and he flanks the line and harrasses troops while I hold the middle. tons and tons of fun.

    Also, yea rice exchanges aren’t that great unless you have a food surplus w/ nothing else to do. but roads? farms? ports? all these things improve income. shrines boost hapiness which allow higher taxation too. And samurai do have some huge advantages: A) you don’t need a general, b) you can use them far afield of a general in an extended size battle, allowing for secondary fronts, and the like.
    c) you can pack more awesome on the screen before you hit the reinforce limit.

    I admit it took us 100 turns to rule Japan in co-op, so it may not have been the fastest way to win. but we won. and we did it with samurai. I have no idea about vs’s mp because its not what I play. that could actually blow tremendously, and I’d never know. As for in the campaign I couldn’t get catapults higher than 1 chevron at production. and even after multiple battles I only had a 3ptr. so, no idea how that plays in the campaign.

    so yea. best TW game ever.

    • MCM says:

      Even if you have spare income, you’d make more money if you never upgraded the Rice Exchange.

      Roads never pay for themselves in economy. You’re buying troop speed. The +2 town/turn is never going to pay for thousands and thousands of koku in investment. You might want the speed, but it’s not about the money.

      Ports are interesting for other reasons, like trade ships or Christianity. Although still optional.

      100s for a coop win is, no offense, slow. You can do a single player win in 50 turns with ashigaru only, solo.

      I agree with another poster: you pretty much have to impose “house rules” to make the game interesting. Which is sad. You shouldn’t have to handicap yourself just to experience the game’s content, like using samurai or monks in battle. The ultimate strategy shouldn’t be “spam ashigaru forever”. It should be to make upgrades, but wisely, and to mix troops subtly. Currently, it’s neither.

    • iniudan says:

      Actually the upgrade of market are worth it, but you got to do it in specifically naturally high wealth province (very high fertility farm, gold mine), where you will then boost the tax rate with metsuke overseeing the town.

      There is also the philosophical school province (which most have good soil region if I remember right) that are worth the higher grade market if you go toward law court, since that boost your metsuke training, along increasing tax rate. (Nothing like a rank 5 metsuke right out the door once you got maxed market in that town to go along the law court, who will be rank 10 at overseeing town if you give him the right skill =p)

      But I agree, building them up further then the basic one, without consideration of the location, you are indeed ruining your economy.

  20. matrices says:

    I love the people who play “a few dozen hours” of a game and then are all like, “well, now, this is a trifling and superficial experience which I refuse to dignify with my attention!”

    • formivore says:

      Well hold on a second, it’s a hobby. Have you ever started up a hobby, maybe a sport or a craft, spent a few dozen hours on it, and then decided no this isn’t really worth my time? There are plenty of strategy games, old and new, that will continue revealing depths after many hours of play.