Rome II Complaint Thread

[MemnonOfRhodes]

Read somewhere that Syracuse that was in decline after the Romans captured it.
But that doesn't explain dissapearing walls.

[TotalWarker]

Biggest thing for me is the lack of unit numbers on cards. It seems a really odd decision to get rid of something so useful, I use exact numbers as a reference during melee brawls and a bar just isnt going to cut it.

Theres a big difference between 35/160 left and 25/160 left. I'm hoping for an option in the menu or a simple mod (dont know how feasible that is)

[Jimakos1966]

Read somewhere that Syracuse that was in decline after the Romans captured it.
But that doesn't explain dissapearing walls.

Actually, that doesn't explain how a great city became a small fishing village.... LOL I just hope they will release a DLC or something that will add new cities, represented as Alexandria, Carthage etc

[PROMETHEUS ts]

That's Syracuse according ot CA video .



you can also clearly see how now the new garrison system works, when a city gets attacked ( non capital ) a battlefield map is loaded , no more sieges as seems that people didn't like them and or AI was not good enough to siege cities . So they removed the walls for most of them .


btw that city also looks like a copycat of the other Introduction video port city battle of the prologue ... perhaps thats the "standard city look" for a port one .

[Anna_Gein]

Read somewhere that Syracuse that was in decline after the Romans captured it.
But that doesn't explain dissapearing walls.

Good. The city was taken after Hannibal invade North Italy anyway.

[MemnonOfRhodes]

Good. The city was taken after Hannibal invade North Italy anyway.

Then I don't understand why they said ''Syracuse will revolt'' when it's not under their control.

[Anna_Gein]

Then I don't understand why they said ''Syracuse will revolt'' when it's not under their control.

It is probably a deliberate "twist" made by CA. In the campaign map from the trailer, Syracuse is held by the Roman faction.

At the beginning of the Second Punic War, Rome controlled all the Sicily except the area around Syracuse. The problem is that given the map, to reproduce Syracuse semi-freedom would take away all the Easterner part of Sicily from Roman control, include a majority of territory Rome did hold historically at that point. It would also cut the Western part still in Roman control from the rest of the Roman territories. Needless to say it is the full gate open for AI crazy expansion or just usual diplomatic BS that could appear on the way to CA shiny trailer. So they took the simplicity solution which is also the most logical one and annexed Syracuse when they were preparing the trailer.

3 different settlement as it was the case in RTW is the very least minimum in order to represent properly the situation in Silicy at the beginning of the game to allow it to develop "naturally" in my opinion. Sadly it is not the case in R2.

[Dave Scarface]

you can also clearly see how now the new garrison system works, when a city gets attacked ( non capital ) a battlefield map is loaded , no more sieges as seems that people didn't like them and or AI was not good enough to siege cities . So they removed the walls for most of them.

That's a really smart decision CA made, nothing more time consuming than having to play a siege battle every other turn. Also, do you think we can expect to see anymore capital cities given the Carthage treatment with epic siege battles? I hope the siege of Rome will look just as cool.

[HinFoo]

i would presume that syracuse is not the capital of that region.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Nevermind.

[Grimbold]

They said it was Massilia on the video...

That's before they move on to Syracuse.

Too be honest, i doubt that's Syracuse. The cities we've seen so far look somewhat similiar to what we see on the campaign map. What we saw on the video looks nothing more than a port town and the city shown in the map was considerably larger than that.

[HinFoo]

see, its not the province capital, so no walls to defend it.
its one of the capitals villages that cant have walls and thus no real siege with walls.

[Miszel]

i would presume that syracuse is not the capital of that region.

...

Its not the point. The point is that historical Syracuse were pretty big city.

[HinFoo]

...

Its not the point. The point is that historical Syracuse were pretty big city.

did you expect this to be a historical correct game?

[Anna_Gein]

Too be honest, i doubt that's Syracuse. The cities we've seen so far look somewhat similiar to what we see on the campaign map. What we saw on the video looks nothing more than a port town and the city shown in the map was considerably larger than that.

Most settlement will look like random fishing villages or countryside villages. Only provincial capitals will look like cities and they will be a minority on the camapign map.

[Dan113112]

I know it's small but it still looks cool.

[Miszel]

did you expect this to be a historical correct game?

Well, in part yes. Even in popcultural version of history Syracuse is quite well known, mostly because of Archimedes and alleged use of mirrors to destroy roman fleet.
For me even port city randomly generated by engine would be better than this abdomination. From what ive heard most less known siegable cities, apart from Alexandria, Rome, Carthage and maybe few more, will be generated - not reconstruction.

CA went the easiest way possible and instead of making conquering cities more interesting they reduced their number.

Removed an off-topic and disruptive statement. -TDD

[Dan113112]

Well, in part yes. Even in popcultural version of history Syracuse is quite well known, mostly because of Archimedes and alleged use of mirrors to destroy roman fleet.
For me even port city randomly generated by engine would be better than this abdomination. From what ive heard most less known siegable cities, apart from Alexandria, Rome, Carthage and maybe few more, will be generated - not reconstruction.

CA went the easiest way possible and instead of making conquering cities more interesting they reduced their number.

I wouldn't call it the easy route. Many people dislike sieges in TW games. It's obvious that CA did put a lot of time into these cities. Even if they are a little small. Isn't this battle scene from the prologue, though? I want to see the city in the actual grand campaign and compare the two. See if there are any differences.

All I said was that, despite its size, it looks amazing. Doesn't really do the city itself justice but whatever.

[Deathofjams]

We've already (supposedly) got more historically accurate cities in this game than any previous Total War. Which is to say, we have more than zero. If Syracuse had its own special map then you'd have to make special maps for every city of similar importance. That would be nice, I agree, but would involve quite a lot of time and effort that might be better spent elsewhere.

[HinFoo]

Well, in part yes. Even in popcultural version of history Syracuse is quite well known, mostly because of Archimedes and alleged use of mirrors to destroy roman fleet.
For me even port city randomly generated by engine would be better than this abdomination. From what ive heard most less known siegable cities, apart from Alexandria, Rome, Carthage and maybe few more, will be generated - not reconstruction.

CA went the easiest way possible and instead of making conquering cities more interesting they reduced their number.

to make the siegable towns look alot better they have to reduce them to have the time and money to do so.