rome 2

[clone]

i trust very much the eb teams oppinion(based on eb1 mod) and i would like to create this thread to discuss the new rome 2 game. how do you feel on the new rome 2 game features http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012...ome-2-preview/

[Yomamashouse]

Honestly I don't feel like they gave away much. I like numbers and details so I don't actually know what the unit roster is (my guess is it will pale in comparison to EB's breadth). We have no idea whether or not the Roman units will be vastly superior, yet again.

I'm excited but I'll be waiting for a more analytic look at it.

[Stath's]

I can see your point as to why you made this thread in this forum. I believe it should stay here and not be merged or moved elsewhere.

1)"A Roman emperor was not thinking about what to do with specific units of archers, he’s thinking about where the tenth legion is. We want the player to be thinking about their legions rather than a random collection of units"

I am a little worried about that, it seems that less micromanagement will come and maybe smaller variety of units.

2) They said the traits will be about armies, not generals, and this could be awfully bad. But a combination of them would be awesome.

3) There is too much talking about Rome and only Rome... What about the others?

I have read about unique tech-trees for each faction, but i am waiting more clues about Barbarians, Carthage, Successors, Persians and Indians and everyone else.

[Yomamashouse]

3) There is too much talking about Rome and only Rome... What about the others?

Big red flag for me too - it reminds me all too much of the first one which had a clear Roman slant.

[Y Brenin]

Big red flag for me too - it reminds me all too much of the first one which had a clear Roman slant.

Seeing as the game is called "Rome" I do not find a Roman slant particularly surprising.

[Petroniu]

I can see your point as to why you made this thread in this forum. I believe it should stay here and not be merged or moved elsewhere.

1)"A Roman emperor was not thinking about what to do with specific units of archers, he’s thinking about where the tenth legion is. We want the player to be thinking about their legions rather than a random collection of units"

I am a little worried about that, it seems that less micromanagement will come and maybe smaller variety of units.

2) They said the traits will be about armies, not generals, and this could be awfully bad. But a combination of them would be awesome.

3) There is too much talking about Rome and only Rome... What about the others?

I have read about unique tech-trees for each faction, but i am waiting more clues about Barbarians, Carthage, Successors, Persians and Indians and everyone else.

Honestly, it is too early to criticize. Plus, what you are quoting (as an overall, not referring to your specific quote) are some reviews of a couple of minutes from a historical battle - the siege and sack of Carthage in 146 BC that appeared in articles in some magazines. Every article in spite of being from different places said almost the same thing about what happened. I assume it was only one guy that did it and they spread the news to give "more" views on the sneak peek.

Now, on the first point I think that taking away micromanagement of units would be a really bad move! You can't command a legion to be the anvil and then take another entire legion to be the hammer. I believe that they made it different. For example, you have 1 Army containing 3 Legions and in battle you can't issue orders only for 1 Legion at a time. That is why they said that you should be worried where the tenth legion is - because while you are focused commanding the 9th on the right flank, maybe the 10th waiting to ambush in the woods was discovered and may be fighting for their lives or fleeing. That's what I see from that description. I hope it will be so at least.
For the second point, I hope they still retain the trait system for generals and leaders too, if not, that is a terrible loss indeed. On the other hand, making you armies and units in them more personalized (with a built in system not stupid own naming like in the S2 multiplayer - I really hated that because it was stupid and spoiled the little realism a battle had by seeing a katana samurai unit being called "crazy ass junkies" or smth like that). But this seems to imply more of an post marian type of army rather than republican. And from what we've seen so far, the imperial version of Rome so much displayed by Hollywood already is a big influence in the new game. I hope it is just a wrong impression given from the fact that what we've seen so far is indeed a battle where a marian like army wasn't far away (well, give or take 40 years).
As for the third point, I think it is too early to say anything yet, but I do expect a Rome centered game. They like to "monopolize" their games lately, to say so. They are suppose to follow a specific route, even if you are given multiple possibilities to personalize the way it follows. But not to change it.

[hamjam]

Seeing as the game is called "Rome" I do not find a Roman slant particularly surprising.

Surprising? No. Disappointing? Yes.

Although, they gave very small and less significant cultures pretty equal billing to major powers back in Empires and Napoleon -- so maybe small powers like Syracuse, Diadochi, etc will get a more fair treatment and the Roman focus is more for marketing purposes.

The move to the east, internal conflict specific to each faction, varied tech trees all sound good.

I am worried about the lack of micro management and what that will end up like. I hope it is not just a detailed animation of battles you set in motion -- you need battlefield strategy in a strategy game.

I am looking forward to this game, but not as much as I am to EBII. Let's face it, the EB team has earned my confidence much more than the CA team. I will buy it though. I will probably buy a new computer to play it. I will play it too much. And by the time I am bored with it and disgusted at its historical inaccuracies -- hopefully by then EBII will be released in beta.

[The Glorious Nationalist]

Yeah i was thinking about it,what will you guys do once Rome II is lanched? a EB III?

[Petroniu]

I will buy it though. I will probably buy a new computer to play it. I will play it too much. And by the time I am bored with it and disgusted at its historical inaccuracies -- hopefully by then EBII will be released in beta.

Ehehehehe... You guys from EB2 don't need to hear this guy's nonsense. You can release a beta this year on Christmas too, or early spring 2013, or the same day with R2 or smth. You don't have to wait until everyone is sick of playing ancient era battles...

[Rasic]

Surprising? No. Disappointing? Yes.

Although, they gave very small and less significant cultures pretty equal billing to major powers back in Empires and Napoleon -- so maybe small powers like Syracuse, Diadochi, etc will get a more fair treatment and the Roman focus is more for marketing purposes.

The move to the east, internal conflict specific to each faction, varied tech trees all sound good.

I am worried about the lack of micro management and what that will end up like. I hope it is not just a detailed animation of battles you set in motion -- you need battlefield strategy in a strategy game.

I am looking forward to this game, but not as much as I am to EBII. Let's face it, the EB team has earned my confidence much more than the CA team. I will buy it though. I will probably buy a new computer to play it. I will play it too much. And by the time I am bored with it and disgusted at its historical inaccuracies -- hopefully by then EBII will be released in beta.

They already said on that all factions would be playable from the start and have their own internal politics and also that the map would be extended to the east, which to me sounds like they will be including at least a chunk of india or else it wouldn't be something justifiable to say this early if they were just extending it to include more of persia.

The fact they would be expanding the map, and also have given past recognition to the EB team leads me to believe that they are making an attempt to streamline some of the better ideas from one of, if not the best, modding teams.

[Stath's]

Honestly, it is too early to criticize. Plus, what you are quoting (as an overall, not referring to your specific quote) are some reviews of a couple of minutes from a historical battle - the siege and sack of Carthage in 146 BC that appeared in articles in some magazines. Every article in spite of being from different places said almost the same thing about what happened. I assume it was only one guy that did it and they spread the news to give "more" views on the sneak peek.

Now, on the first point I think that taking away micromanagement of units would be a really bad move! You can't command a legion to be the anvil and then take another entire legion to be the hammer. I believe that they made it different. For example, you have 1 Army containing 3 Legions and in battle you can't issue orders only for 1 Legion at a time. That is why they said that you should be worried where the tenth legion is - because while you are focused commanding the 9th on the right flank, maybe the 10th waiting to ambush in the woods was discovered and may be fighting for their lives or fleeing. That's what I see from that description. I hope it will be so at least.
For the second point, I hope they still retain the trait system for generals and leaders too, if not, that is a terrible loss indeed. On the other hand, making you armies and units in them more personalized (with a built in system not stupid own naming like in the S2 multiplayer - I really hated that because it was stupid and spoiled the little realism a battle had by seeing a katana samurai unit being called "crazy ass junkies" or smth like that). But this seems to imply more of an post marian type of army rather than republican. And from what we've seen so far, the imperial version of Rome so much displayed by Hollywood already is a big influence in the new game. I hope it is just a wrong impression given from the fact that what we've seen so far is indeed a battle where a marian like army wasn't far away (well, five or take 40 years).
As for the third point, I think it is too early to say anything yet, but I do expect a Rome centered game. They like to "monopolize" their games lately, to say so. They are suppose to follow a specific route, even if you are given multiple possibilities to personalize the way it follows. But not to change it.

Well, i think that the thing about the "where is the 10th legion" meant in the campaign map and that is the opposite of what i would like.

Yes, they seem to want to make a "Hollywood game about the heroic Romans". I think that can be proved very bad for the replayability of the game and overall, too.

I wanted a super-mega EB, that is to say the core to remain the same and just improve and enlarge it as much as it could be done. Mainly, the campaign map (where you can add so much and relatively easily) and secondly the battle map (shogun graphics and smart A.I. could be enough for me).

If history would not be taken into account, then.... i don't know maybe they have to think what traits orcs shall have.

[Rasic]

Now, on the first point I think that taking away micromanagement of units would be a really bad move! You can't command a legion to be the anvil and then take another entire legion to be the hammer. I believe that they made it different. For example, you have 1 Army containing 3 Legions and in battle you can't issue orders only for 1 Legion at a time. That is why they said that you should be worried where the tenth legion is - because while you are focused commanding the 9th on the right flank, maybe the 10th waiting to ambush in the woods was discovered and may be fighting for their lives or fleeing. That's what I see from that description. I hope it will be so at least.
For the second point, I hope they still retain the trait system for generals and leaders too, if not, that is a terrible loss indeed. On the other hand, making you armies and units in them more personalized (with a built in system not stupid own naming like in the S2 multiplayer - I really hated that because it was stupid and spoiled the little realism a battle had by seeing a katana samurai unit being called "crazy ass junkies" or smth like that). But this seems to imply more of an post marian type of army rather than republican. And from what we've seen so far, the imperial version of Rome so much displayed by Hollywood already is a big influence in the new game. I hope it is just a wrong impression given from the fact that what we've seen so far is indeed a battle where a marian like army wasn't far away (well, five or take 40 years).
As for the third point, I think it is too early to say anything yet, but I do expect a Rome centered game. They like to "monopolize" their games lately, to say so. They are suppose to follow a specific route, even if you are given multiple possibilities to personalize the way it follows. But not to change it.

I don't see them making huge changes to the fundamentals on how the battles work. The impression I got was they are attempting to give it a more cinematic feel while also keeping it free form like it currently is. What a cinematic feel means exactly or if that's good or bad, who knows.

If anything I'm more worried about what he said about having less regions more than anything else, but then again its a new engine and they announced the modding summit around the same time so maybe they are looking to incorporate actual modding tools into this one.

[Petroniu]

maybe they have to think what traits orcs shall have.

Don't say it twice. A SEGA corporate might hear you and God knows what history will the next TW use.

[Stath's]

If anything I'm more worried about what he said about having less regions more than anything else, but then again its a new engine and they announced the modding summit around the same time so maybe they are looking to incorporate actual modding tools into this one.

About the "less regions", maybe 1 region could have 2 or 3 cities.

If there are actually fewer cities...i can't find any words for them..


EDIT: I will never forget the disgrace of Alexander:TW's map...

[Rasic]

About the "less regions", maybe 1 region could have 2 or 3 cities.

If there are actually fewer cities...i can't find any words for them..

I think maybe was describing it like a province, so maybe you're right. I just got a mental picture of gaul being one city like empire's france and a small chill came over me.

[Petroniu]

Gaul as one province. Bleah... Dude, don't say that anymore. Just don't. Seriously.

[Rasic]

I'm liking all the talk about making the soldiers feel more real, like facial expressions and reacting to the guy next to you getting shot with an arrow. Also I've seen it mentioned that rome 2 will have the biggest budget of any of the games so far, I'm liking the sound of things for the most part.

[Petroniu]

After the great excitement now people themselves that Rome 2 sucks and it is bad and it is not modable and so on. And they are talking about gameplay and how all the new features are good or wrong and the only thing they know is the 2 screenshots they have and the 90%same review of a 6 minute historical battle (146BC siege of Carthage) posted on different gaming websites.
All these fans, they don't know anything yet and they're already drawing conclusions. That really turns the newly formed Rome 2 forum into a pile of crap. Until new info comes out, I would recommend to stay away from that place if you just want to enjoy the fact that the most demanded sequel to the most acclaimed, played and loved TW game was just announced just a couple of hours ago.

EDIT: I am talking about the new Rome 2 TW forums, not about this thread. Sorry for the confusion. I just wanted to let you guys know that it developed from over excitement to over whining in a matter of hours. I think that the emotion of the announcement got people on both joy and sorrow edges today.

[Razor]

I can see your point as to why you made this thread in this forum. I believe it should stay here and not be merged or moved elsewhere.

1)"A Roman emperor was not thinking about what to do with specific units of archers, he’s thinking about where the tenth legion is. We want the player to be thinking about their legions rather than a random collection of units"

I am a little worried about that, it seems that less micromanagement will come and maybe smaller variety of units.

2) They said the traits will be about armies, not generals, and this could be awfully bad. But a combination of them would be awesome.

3) There is too much talking about Rome and only Rome... What about the others?

I have read about unique tech-trees for each faction, but i am waiting more clues about Barbarians, Carthage, Successors, Persians and Indians and everyone else.

It may be just me but... eh?

@1: I think it's an interesting idea that there's a shift from separate units to legions. However I do hope that it leaves room to train separate units like alae and cohorts and dispatch them to other places on the campaign map.

@2: I'm fairly sure that characters get traits too. It's just that legions get them too so that they gain a history and track record that can affect them in battles.

@3: Are they? I thought that they were talking in general terms and gave away very little info about specific factions and cultures.

[Alkimachos]

I can see your point as to why you made this thread in this forum. I believe it should stay here and not be merged or moved elsewhere.

1)"A Roman emperor was not thinking about what to do with specific units of archers, he’s thinking about where the tenth legion is. We want the player to be thinking about their legions rather than a random collection of units"

I am a little worried about that, it seems that less micromanagement will come and maybe smaller variety of units.

2) They said the traits will be about armies, not generals, and this could be awfully bad. But a combination of them would be awesome.

3) There is too much talking about Rome and only Rome... What about the others?

I have read about unique tech-trees for each faction, but i am waiting more clues about Barbarians, Carthage, Successors, Persians and Indians and everyone else.

I like the new and fresh ideas and i think that we should fully support the R2TW game. I think it's better to have more epicness as the CA focusing now, than have a game like Europa Universalis with tones of details to rule your empire.

It worth to give a chance imo on this wonderful new ideas...