Green-skins are pissing me off. The WAAAAGGHHH army is great and powerful but.... you start the battle with no control over any of your units. You must start the real time battle and your main army SLOWLY enters the battlefield. By the time you get control and move them quarter the way of the destination, your WAAAGHH army is already fighting with the massive enemy forces with 1 lord/boss and getting destroyed. By the time your main army reaches the fight, the WAAAGGH is weakened and they all start running :bang: I certainly made a massive mistake by not building my structures to recruit trolls and the big un's instead of having my force consist of expendable and weak front lines. I also dun goofed and never realised the raid give you alot of gold before it was too late and I was in minus :wanker: But, I still have hope I win this current battle without restarting (5 hours in). My unit control and micromanagement has alot of improvement to do.
Hows the pathing ? Can you actually micro properly or is the engine still like old total war games where everything moves so slow and not great pathing (which makes it even worse) ? Thanks for sharing your findings !
I'd say the pathing seems pretty good. My Lord has some troubles when I order him to attack the enemy Lord in a big battle as he has trouble moving through the front lines (but that is to be expected). I did notice one issue where a unit kept going invisible and despite them not disappearing my units literally had to be ordered to move to the spot where they were (flying units) before attacking to get them to follow the order. That only happened once so far.
9.5/10 developers handled the games concept really well, love every bit of the game so far, about 150 turns into the Vampire Counts campaign. That Chaos Evesor fella's gonna get whats commin to him soon enough
As requested, I did a short video going into detail about the different graphical presets and then did a comparison showcasing the difference they make in game.
Anyone else getting very distracting black lines and flickering when enabling v-sync in this game? It's really annoying and while turning it off seems to fix it (and, bizarrely, improves performance) it does mean having to endure screen tearing. Call me cynical but as soon as I saw the AMD Evolved loading screen, I knew there would be some kind of issue with my card. How on earth does anyone manage to break v-sync?!?!?!?!?
How do you run a benchmark in this game? I can't find the benchmark button in the graphics options unlike in Rome II or Attila. Also, how do you (de-)activate DX12 mode? The game seems to have really bad performance on my rig even at 1920x1080, no matter which settings I seem to use, I get 22-34 FPS during battles (although the framerate "feels" even lower, more in the 10 FPS range). And GPU as well as CPU utilization is very low, even at the highest possible settings. 368.22 drivers on the Titan X, by the way, under Windows 10 64 bit, Game installed on OCZ Trion 150 SSD 960MB. On my laptop with 2x Radeon 7970Ms 2GB (16.5.3 drivers) and the game performs better at ultra settings (even though I didn't monitor the framerate or GPU/CPU utilization there). Mind boggling.
Seen quite a few with the same problem, windowed mode fixes it too. Apparently its coming in a end of June update.
What's the betting that DX12 for this game uses lots of asynchronous compute and runs better on AMD cards? I'm calling it out right here, right now!
So any amd users here with the game? I saw that @ 1440p 390x was getting avg 59 fps. Interested how Fury, Fury X handle the game. And Sephking I just subbed, awesome work.
Well that's how it seems http://www.pcworld.com/article/3073...erformance-preview-radeon-reigns-supreme.html
man I'd like to have this game.. but I don't want to spend the $45 for it.. $45 seems the cheapest deal... hopefully people start putting up those AMD Vouchers for it on Ebay for like $30 then I'd be in
Having seen the performance on Nvidia cards in other vids...skipping this one. If they pull the same bs with Dawn of War 3, then, I'm skipping that one aswell. You hear me Sega?
You guys talking about performance in terms of Video Cards don't know much about the studio and the engine they use, which happens to be almost completely CPU dependant. GPU's have NEVER mattered in Total War games, I been playing since the original Rome Total War in 2005 I think.... With Rome 2, Attila they had terrible performance issues even on high end PC's... the problem is the Warscape engine would just stress out one core, while the others were idle... They finally admitted it was an issue after years of denying it, this happened recently when hyping up Warhammer, they even have an official blog post about it, and said they resolved this issue in Warhammer because they upgraded the engine to 64-bit... I don't believe them and either way I'm not spending a dollar Sega's way again.... they know many of their loyal Total War players feel the same way about their games after the Rome 2 and Attila fiasco... and it's why they went with the Denuvo DRM route in order to curb piracy. They know many people are pissed and might not pay for the game after years of broken games and promises. Here's a video of mine I made a while back showing the terrible CPU usage their Warscape engine... if you guys are ok with 20-30fps gameplay then go for it though https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75kNd5Gqowg
no Total War has always been about real world historical settings.... so no if you're asking a Total War purist or even casual fan, they will tell you no.... only guys who are excited about this are the Warhammer and other such fantasy nerds.... I been playing Total War since original Rome TW came out, so I'm a longtime fan and player and I can tell you I had absolutely 0 interest when I heard this game got announced, no exaggeration here.. I mean literally 0 interest