Rome Total War 2 Hopes, Dreams

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Shut up already about persians!

How is Caesat greater then? You shut up yourself, if you have nothing to say.

[Vice]

IT better be a different time period too...say around Julius Ceasers time period (60 B.C.+) or Marcus Aurelius time period (160 A.D.+)

[Pharoah]

umm...total war + an option where you can play as your general/ hero like in mount& blade

Ah I don't think that's going to happin zack

[lemondude]

Bigger map?

The Middle east is not very represented? I mean no India and other places + the Romans may have the advantage in a better trained army, but Middle eastern armies should have the advantage of numbers. Cheaper upkeep and faster recruit time. Historical events? Like Hanniable's invasion? Maybe make the turns shorter in the sense maybe four turns for one year.

The ability to unite rome and actual elections based on how much money you spend and your military victories. The ability to become emporer?

diplomacy not crap, if someone goes into an alliance then alliance can't be easily broken by you or CPU, on the penalty of decrease happiness and a coup against you? Decrease population? Low income


overall just more political stuff thrown into it.

War is not only fought on the battle field it's also fought on the negotiation table

[Maiar93]

Damn man, im just saying you dont have to promote persians in every thread you crawl your way into. Did I in any way even mention Caesar? There is no clear facts who did the best conquests, therefore it still is matter of opinion. I have no problem with your admiration towards persians, but you seemingly have with people admiring other nations than Persia.

[Zarax]

Anyway they all pale compared to bronze age nuragics, aka Atlantis

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Damn man, im just saying you dont have to promote persians in every thread you crawl your way into. Did I in any way even mention Caesar? There is no clear facts who did the best conquests, therefore it still is matter of opinion. I have no problem with your admiration towards persians, but you seemingly have with people admiring other nations than Persia.

So you didn't see the quote. I only promote persians in some cases, like:

1. It's a thread about ancient greece;
2. It's a thread featuring ancient greece;
3. It's a thread with a vague suggestion of greeeks;
4. It's a thread mentioning the persians;
5. It's a thread not mentioning persians;
6. It's a thread with lists of greatest something;
7. It's a thread where there is a post on the persians;
8. It's a thread where someone names greatest cultures, generals, etc.;
9. It's a thread where the persians don't get enough attention;
10. It's a thread where they get enough or too much attention.

[Zarax]

4+5 = tautology

[Inflatable]

Well you can just leave out the rest if 4 and 5 are true, because then it's always true.
Not quite "in some cases" eh

Back on topic: I'd like to see the older "simpler" style of Rome Total War back, because I don't really like the new Total Wars.

[Grimmy]

Well you can just leave out the rest if 4 and 5 are true, because then it's always true.
Not quite "in some cases" eh

Back on topic: I'd like to see the older "simpler" style of Rome Total War back, because I don't really like the new Total Wars.

Here here.

Not a big fan of the attempts to mimic Civ tech research.

[Zemdu]

1. more factions

2. better diplomacy

3, to be able to play historical campaigns (exept for the grand campaign)

4, to be able to fight multiplayer campaigns like in shogun

5, naval battles

6, make the game more modable

7, more units and no super unit roasters like Roms

etc, etc

[The_Valiant]

War is not only fought on the battle field it's also fought on the negotiation table

True, and a quote that CA should really look at. It's discouraging when diplomacy fails so often to work. Diplomacy is a very important aspect of not only history, but warfare itself. Look at diplomacy today. It hasn't changed that much since Roman times (except the creation of the UN); all the tactics are the same.

Enhanced diplomacy is one of my top three things.

[Inflatable]

Hmm, I never thought about point 7. It would be nice if the Roman factions really needed to fight smart in order to become great, and an empire.

[Maiar93]

Disciplinary moraly system would be nice. When they have no experience, they are disorderly and fight like barbarians. When they have some experience, they fight somewhat in discipline. And when they are veterans, they fight in perfect discipline. Just an idea.

[Grimmy]

Disciplinary moraly system would be nice. When they have no experience, they are disorderly and fight like barbarians. When they have some experience, they fight somewhat in discipline. And when they are veterans, they fight in perfect discipline. Just an idea.

This brings up two things I'd like to see, someday, in some version of RomeX TW.

1. Battle leader (general or captain) experience limiting or expanding formation types, and distance units can be away from the battle leader before they loose discipline (self charge, ect)

Of course, players would be able to set up their own formations, and use the alt click to move them, but for those wishing to rp, they could stick to the limited formations available.

2. Units in disciplined ranks (not meaning as army as a whole, but the unit itself), much slower on the move than a unit broken and routing. Chasing routers best done by a button on the interface that "releases" the units to pursue. This breaks up unit cohesion, much like a routed unit, can not be recalled, but allows the individual soldiers of the released units to pursue fleeing enemy.

This would allow the AI to feign breaking in an attempt to dupe the player into releasing his men to pursue, then regrouping and hammering the disorganized player forces. You know. Like what actually happened on a battlefield or few throughout history.

This would also give the player an actual difficult tactical question to ponder during battles.

[Maiar93]

That's a very good idea. I hope that'll be a feature.

[Pharoah]

Named and numberd legions and Aor

[Makus]

A (much more) historically accurate system for roman politics, allowing for civil wars that more closely follow what actually happened.
Better system for client kingdoms (make it advantageous for both parties)
Fix the Hellenistic factions. Egypt should be "greek" (with some exceptions), the Seleucid Empire should be made more powerful, so that its actually a threat to rome and greece.
Roster issues. Too many wardogs and chariots. AI should be able to create a balanced and effective army.
Culture penalty: if anything, this system is backwards. A conquered city/people will be glad to see their buildings remain and their culture preserved.
City growth: cities grow too quickly. This results in 10 or so identical cities by mid-late campaigns.
Final point/Idea:"lost" armies. If an army ventures too far from its faction's territory (possibly near one of the maps corners), perhaps it could become "lost", where the player loses contact and control of the unit. Could create that fear of marching too far

[Pharoah]

Like hoplites not useing phalanxe formation

[Grimmy]

I'd also like a prelude type campaign that starts at the time period where Rome is breaking away from the Etruscans.