Rome II: Thoughts from Late Roman Players, please!

[Diocle]

Yes Wulfgar, but the new expansion is about the second triumvirate, now it's no more a matter of policy, it's no more a fight between traditionalists and progressives, now it's a titanic struggle for power between leaders belonging to the same political part, it's a fight between the winners.

Cassius, the Senatorial party, and all those small, weak and pitiful creatures now belong to the past, this is the time of the Empire, you should adapt your mindset and your playing style to the new world, this is the...

AGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

[wulfgar610]

One thing for for, the August campaign is a major improvement on the Main Campaign. You get 4tpy and the full run of seasons. The color balance has been changed and it's now only half as surrealistic as it was original release. The strat and battle maps look better.

Yes Wulfgar, but the new expansion is about the second triumvirate

Nice piece of music, they could use that in Rome2.

[Emperor Caesar]

The only sensible thing to do is play as Octavian. Antony and Sextus are traitors and Lepidus is weak.

[Diocle]

The only sensible thing to do is play as Octavian. Antony and Sextus are traitors and Lepidus is weak.

Wise words Emp, wise words! .... when one is wavering about the Roman Truth, it's always very, very useful and helpful having a friend reminding you the right way!

[First Citizen Gallienus]

Antony really kind of was a traitor wasn't he? But I feel as though it was only in the sense that he seemed to express larger interest with Eastern culture towards the end rather than his own. If you ask me, I don't blame him for trying to get out of politics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJvAHMtN04c

[Diocle]

Yes FGC, we have to agree that actually the man had a natural form of the most absolute interior greatness ....

... but in this case I'm speaking as a man belonging to the Caesar's Party, the Political Part of Marius and before him the Part of the Gracchi, yes I'm with the Populares, because I think you cannot give shape to any Empire based on the Greek-Roman civilization without the lower part of the society, I'm with the Populares because I don't see why a Greek or a Gaul or a Briton cannot enter in the Senatorial Aristocracy, I'm with Caesar because the Democracy of the Senate was no more a Democracy it was an horrid oligarchy of fat and corrupt Italian landowners, I'm with Marius and Caesar because I love the idea of Rome as a bridge between East and West, I'm with Caesar because I hate the mental stinginess and the disgusting obtuseness of his political enemies, I'm with Caesar because he has been one of the best political minds of the European history, a good soldier, and a good and honest man.

So, my opinion is the most biased opinion you can find about this political matter, I'm with the Gracchi, Marius, Caesar, Antonius and Octavianus for precise political and cultural reasons, my opinion is absolutely and proudly biased.

[wulfgar610]

I recall watching a documentary series about the Spy business years ago. There was this question about what took to corrupt to people your agency. Oddly enough it was only money some of the time, there were those immune to direct bribes. Then one looked for other weakness, in some cases it was sexual, aim the beautiful young spy at them. Or power and prestige, offer them a path to rising in the world by say acting against their government.

This view quite impressed me, but recently I realized it was hardly original. One of the oldest European legends has similar theme. In the Judgment of Paris, each goddess attempts to bribe Paris so he would judge in that goddess favor. Hera offed all the wealth of Europe and Asia. Athena greatness and stature as a War leader. Aphrodite offered the love of the world's most beautiful women. Paris was a sucker for sex.

So we can all be corrupted, but it's a question of what the trigger is?

Poor Anthony seems to have been a sucker for sex. He is beloved by Romantics.

Democracy it was an horrid oligarchy of fat and corrupt Italian landowners

And fat financiers who own the press in the modern west, are we that different?

[Diocle]

And fat financiers who own the press in the modern west, are we that different?

You know my answer: No, we are not different but ... our situation is worse.

Poor Anthony seems to have been a sucker for sex. He is beloved by Romantics.

About romanticism and Anthony: Maybe, maybe .... anyway I don't think that loving in such a desperate way a woman (and the sex itself) to whom sacrifice all you have, political aspirations, personal dignity, military career and honor, it is strictly a form of romanticism, IMO it's a form of passion, and in passion there is even a strong physical component, passion is made of flesh and blood, passion is for a body and the woman contained in it, passion is devouring like fire ...



In short and without any form of idiotic nationalism, I think that Anthony, as his name suggests, was simply an Italian, born in Rome on Januaury 14, 83 BC ...



... with all the bad and the good features belonging to this damn Mediterranean anthropology.


Anyway, just to stay on 'Anthony & Passion' topic, have you seen the movie 'Damage' by Luis Malle, and starring Jeremy Irons and Juliette Binoche?
It's a wonderful and atrocious movie, Mr. Irons shows us he's a great actor and Ms Binoche shows us what a woman is (or can be), and, a part from this, the story clearly shows us that passion can f... your life, even in the case of a cold British gentleman, especially if he meets the right (French) woman, ... passion is not for romantics.

[Emperor Caesar]

Going back to FGC's comment. Antony was a more a traitor than one may think. Cleopatra had him convinced that he should name their children and her son by Caesar as successors tot he Roman state. Caesar's son would take the west and Rome while Antony's would split up the rest and create some ridiculous Romano-Egyptian state. If I am wrong correct me and Antony might redeem himself cause I like Antony - good soldier.

[Gen.jamesWolfe]

Going back to FGC's comment. Antony was a more a traitor than one may think. Cleopatra had him convinced that he should name their children and her son by Caesar as successors tot he Roman state. Caesar's son would take the west and Rome while Antony's would split up the rest and create some ridiculous Romano-Egyptian state. If I am wrong correct me and Antony might redeem himself cause I like Antony - good soldier.

the donation of Alexandria? yeah, that did happen, though the details differ:

Antonius wanted to hand to Cleopatra over the possessions in the Levant, Arabia, and parts of North Africa and Anatolia--in effect recreating the Ptolemaic empire at its greatest extent. Caesarion was to rule that bit (after Cleopatra's death), and Antonius would rule the rest (Greece, most of Anatolia). the two would form a coalition that ruled the east, and possibly even do as you propose, and have all ruled by Caesarion. There is the possibility that they intended to fight Octavian and seize the rest, but the evidence is indirect, and it is clear that this move was easily Antonius' biggest blunder, as it gave Octavian the opportunity to literally have a civil war, without having one. (the declaration of war was against Cleopatra, who was said to have "bewtiched" Antonius). This guaranteed that any military move by Octavian was going to be more powerful than all of Antony and Cleopatra's capabilities, as it inspired a great deal of "patriotism".

[wulfgar610]

Here's a game-play video on the recent release of EE.

[Diocle]

Sorry but .... why has the Roman guy the horrid face of Stalin?

[First Citizen Gallienus]

Sorry but .... why has the Roman guy the horrid face of Stalin?

Cause that youtuber happens to be called "DaStalinator" who happens to be a fan of Stalin and Communist Russia. He's fairly well known for making Lets Play videos. I'm not really sure if he's a subscriber to communism though.

[Diocle]

Cause that youtuber happens to be called "DaStalinator" who happens to be a fan of Stalin and Communist Russia...

Ah! Now happens I've understood! Thanks, Gallienus!

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...lone-Expansion

More speculation on a Late Roman stand alone expansion in the above thread. It contains nothing we already haven't read in an earlier thread on the subject!

[Diocle]

Thanks, Nobilissimus, I love speculations, gossip and rumors ...

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Indeed! I predict there will be an expansion into BI territory but whether it will be worth it aside from the in-game units, I doubt it.

[Emperor Caesar]

Well if it were to end up being cheap or free like the Augustus campaign I wouldn't see a reason not to get a future BI expansion.

[Diocle]

Indeed! I predict there will be an expansion into BI territory but whether it will be worth it aside from the in-game units, I doubt it.

Prediction? OMG! I'll preserve your 'VATICINIUM' as the dearest relic, Nobilissimus.

Well if it were to end up being cheap or free ...

Your words make you deserving of honorary citizenship of the 'Most Serene Republic of Genoa', brother.

[wulfgar610]

I saw rumors that CA higher a couple of good game programers a few months ago. It appears to paid off, the game is much more payable now. Had a battle with the Parthian's and the AI was playing more cleverly than before and way better than earlier Warscape's.

The weakness of the game remains immersion. Something every other Total War has done better, even Rome1 with it's lousy AI made you sort of feel like you were there. Shogun2 (especially ROTS) with the beautiful ambiance sucked me in. Rome2 comes up clunker here.