Come on then!, who else thinks Rome Total War or its mods is better than Total War: Rome 2 is it just me ?.

**BroskiDerpman** · November 01, 2013, 10:29 PM

I do wish some things from the original MTW and STW were brought in i.e the idea of rank bonuses as a direct affect.

**GnaReffotsirk** · November 01, 2013, 10:36 PM

If they didn't go overboard with the polygon count and such, we may be playing with much more massive battles now. I think the M2TW polygon count was enough. More animation sequences added and its perfect.

I'd rather have 30k men battles than 5k with more polygons.

**stackero** · November 02, 2013, 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by Jonoleth Irenicus

@ stackero : are these images true ?

Could it be that RTW 1 AI was able to keep formations ?

Was there a time when battles made sense ?

Where is there a RTW 2 apologist to come to the rescue of CA and denounce these heretical postings ?

(PS : please continue)

It is true and they will come.

**Leonidas II** · November 02, 2013, 04:42 AM

Oh YES ! Rome 1 was better in any aspect and made a lot of fun !
It gave me a vintage feeling and the were so many possibilities !

Also , when someone didn't like the AI , he could download a lot of good mods .
Rome 1 was made with a lot more heart than Rome 2 , and was not that broken on release.

**stackero** · November 02, 2013, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Dunadd

I played the original Rome when it was released and lots of mod since - and i can promise you, with unmodded AI generals with mounted bodyguards frequently threw their own lives and those of their bodyguards away to try to kill skirmishers.

When modded with Sinuhet's (now no longer online) or Darth's AI formations it stopped doing this.

Because fighting basically the same battle over and over again. Because when battles are common and the results of them don't change anything at a campaign level it's dull and ridiculous. It gets to the point that every turn or every second or third turn you are refighting the same battle on each front though - and none of them mean a damn thing. One major battle that makes a significant difference was what tended to happen historically, because there was no army size limit. Limiting the number of armies each faction can have but increasing the maximum number of units in each army, as in Rome II, is better from that point of view (though unfortunately Rome II is worse in all kinds of other ways)

I'm having trouble believing you played the game at all. I've played Rome I and mods of it using all three exes (Rome one , BI.exe and ALX.exe) recently and ALX.exe is the only one that bothers combining armies into full stacks before attacking, or retraining understrength units. Rome and BI AIs don't bother - they constantly send in part stacks one at a time that could have been combined into one army before attacking and they constantly send in units that have almost no men left in them.

And the Scipii invaded Carthage's territory in North Africa and Sardinia and Corsica and the Balaeric Isles by sea in vanilla total war. But try any mod, with any of the three exes and playing as Carthage the Romans just don't bother invading by sea if you use the Rome 1 exe or ALX.exe - except tiny token forces to Sardinia late in the game. If you use BI they do, but with part stacks and poor battlefield AI.

You could be right that they don't have capture those towns as an objective - maybe it's destroy the Carthaginians as a faction that is the Scipii's first objective from the senate (I play as Carthage not Rome and only played as the Scipii to unlock other factions when Rome first came out, so don't remember).

However the fact remains that if you play any mod with a single Roman AI faction it almost never invades Carthaginian territory by sea - and if you play as Romans the Carthaginians don't invade Italy by sea either - losing any hope of an exciting Punic wars style conflict.

I greatly preferred that to all the factions that are out of period (Etruscans, Garamantines) , historically irrelevant in the period and area Rome II covers (e.g Nasamones) and made up (Nova Carthago etc) that often come to become major powers in Rome II. It's concievable that e.g the Seleucids or Ptolemaics might have defeated the Romans, but the idea that the Nasamones or Garamantines could become major powers is just ludicrous - and its annoying having to fight all these out of period and made up irrelevances - destroys the atmosphere.

Hi Dunadd. I'm not going to debate you're entire post but I will refer to your experience with vanilla Rome, which I assume was patched to at least 1.3 or 1.5.

Generals charging to their death in the way you describe. I never saw. Not saying it never could of happen but if it did in my games it wasn't enough for me to take notice or remember.

However, I have seen after a battle has started some AI generals will charge in behind their own troops to help break the enemy. If your line is tiring or wavering he could cause a breakthrough, problem was if the the AI general charged at the the enemy line and the enemy line held, it was a good chance the general would be killed, though I did see some retreat to reform before being killed.

I wouldn't have played a game where the enemy generals kept charging to their death before the battle even got underway, like unpatched Empire generals would do.

Good gaming

**stackero** · November 02, 2013, 02:55 PM

Reason Rome 1 better plus mods

[/SPOILER]
Roma Surrectum 2 mod Discription

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

RS2 vids

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

I fought a massive battle against the Arvenii(Two full stacks). Here you can see them crossing the river. Never fight a horde in Winter.... No no no no but I still won killing 6000+ barbarians
century x RS2

Roma Surrectum 2 pics

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

**stackero** · November 02, 2013, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by GnaReffotsirk

If they didn't go overboard with the polygon count and such, we may be playing with much more massive battles now. I think the M2TW polygon count was enough. More animation sequences added and its perfect.

I'd rather have 30k men battles than 5k with more polygons.

Yes GnaReffotsirk, less graphics, more soldiers"and" better AI. In R2 I'd say, alot better AI.

Good gaming

**General Maximus** · November 02, 2013, 05:38 PM

Great pics. It is so nice to see troops holding their lines, like real Romans.

I wonder why CA cannot make 1v1 animations WITHOUT troops shifting and flying about insanely. In ETW and NTW, troops fought melee and bayoneted each other without breaking their lines or blobbing. Simply making them hold their positions with animations that don't require flying...could've done the work.

**Ganossa** · November 02, 2013, 05:50 PM

Off-topic
As the rome II subforum is already crowded and the rome I forum is not, I would suggest the following to a moderator:

Can we please shift this discussion (and another one that just started) about rome I (and also a little bit about rome II) to the rome I subforum to breath some life into it.
It would be better/reasonable to have it there instead of here. All these nice people talking so well about that rome I here could make the rome I subforum a much more active place.

**GussieFinkNottle** · November 02, 2013, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by LuciferHawk

Off-topic
As the rome II subforum is already crowded and the rome I forum is not, I would suggest the following to a moderator:

Can we please shift this discussion (and another one that just started) about rome I (and also a little bit about rome II) to the rome I subforum to breath some life into it.
It would be better/reasonable to have it there instead of here. All these nice people talking so well about that rome I here could make the rome I subforum a much more active place.

I disagree. Since far more people read the R2 one, more people are likely to read or comment. Also, the issue in question is more of a reaction to Rome 2 than a specifically R1 debate

**Ganossa** · November 02, 2013, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by GussieFinkNottle

I disagree. Since far more people read the R2 one, more people are likely to read or comment. Also, the issue in question is more of a reaction to Rome 2 than a specifically R1 debate

From what I read (and its pretty obvious) it is far more about rome 1. -there are more people here but thats exactly the point. Everyone seems to like rome 1 but still this shifts the attention to the wrong subforum/game. Rome 1 should be the game getting the attention, isnt it?

**stackero** · November 02, 2013, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by LuciferHawk

Off-topic
As the rome II subforum is already crowded and the rome I forum is not, I would suggest the following to a moderator:

Can we please shift this discussion (and another one that just started) about rome I (and also a little bit about rome II) to the rome I subforum to breath some life into it.
It would be better/reasonable to have it there instead of here. All these nice people talking so well about that rome I here could make the rome I subforum a much more active place.

Problem is, R2 is the successor of R1 and and there's alot of people (see views of this thread) who are comparing the two games.

And this does not sit well with some people for various reasons, especially those who dislike R1 a 10year old game and its mods making R2 look, shall we say, lacking.

The moderators know about this site and I'm assuming they have no problems with it.

Good gaming.

**Ganossa** · November 02, 2013, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by stackero

Problem is, R2 is the predecessor of R1 and and there's alot of people (see views of this thread) who are comparing the two games.

And this does not sit well with some people for various reasons, especially those who dislike R1 a 10year game and its mods making R2 look, shall we say, lacking.

The moderators know about this site and I'm assuming they have no problems with it.

Good gaming.

No, there is no problem with it but it would be good for the rome 1 subforum to have more people there that like and talk about the game. Whats wrong with that?
I think rome 1 deserves that as many of the people posting here seem to think too! Lets bring rome 1 and its player base back!!

**stackero** · November 02, 2013, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by LuciferHawk

No, there is no problem with it but it would be good for the rome 1 subforum to have more people there that like and talk about the game. Whats wrong with that?
I think rome 1 deserves that as many of the people posting here seem to think too! Lets bring rome 1 and its player base back!!

I think you don't understand. TWC fans know where the Rome 1 forums are, but we have a lot of new people coming into the R2 forums seeking info or likely help with that game.

And whether they stay with R2 or not they can compare it to it predecessor Rome 1. If any of them thumb through the pic and vids of this thread, TWC is likely gaining more fans for the good of the whole site.

But I suspect your concern is not for Rome 1's base, but for something else.
Sorry if I suspect wrongly.

Good gaming.

**Radzeer** · November 02, 2013, 06:52 PM

On the issue of moving the discussion to Rome I: this thread so far was mostly about the comparison which is fine here. I would even say that the highlights Rome I and its mods get here may benefit the Rome I people more than moving this thread there where I think it would slow down a lot. I'm not sure if the posters here would follow the discussion over there. People can always open a thread over there and post a link to it here.

Also, moderators don't read everything all the time. If somebody has a suggestion about moving something, just use the report function and that ensures that several moderators would look into it.

**Ganossa** · November 02, 2013, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by stackero

I think you don't understand. TWC fans know where the Rome 1 forums are, but we have a lot of new people coming into the R2 forums seeking info or likely help with that game.

And whether they stay with R2 or not they can compare it to it predecessor Rome 1. If any of them thumb through the pic and vids of this thread, TWC is likely gaining more fans for the good of the whole site.

But I suspect your concern is not for Rome 1's base, but for something else.
Sorry if I suspect wrongly.

Good gaming.

Ah, right I didnt know you are helping the new Rome 2 players here. I somehow missed that. Hope you can help them more with Rome 2 using the Rome 1 information!

**stackero** · November 02, 2013, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by LuciferHawk

Ah, right I didnt know you are helping the new Rome 2 players here. I somehow missed that. Hope you can help them more with Rome 2 using the Rome 1 information!

Oh no LuciferHawk, your slip is showing, and I have suspected correctly of your true concern.

Plus all I said about new R2 fans is...... excuse me a moment... ah yes, Reason has informed me that logic has no effect on you so I shall leave you to your concern for 'Rome 1's base' and bid you farewell, and good gaming

**Ganossa** · November 02, 2013, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by stackero

Oh no LuciferHawk, your slip is showing, and I have suspected correctly of your true concern.

Plus all I said about new R2 fans is...... excuse me a moment... ah yes, Reason has informed me that logic has no effect on you so I shall leave you to your concern for 'Rome 1's base' and bid you farewell, and good gaming

Guess you are just smarter than all of us

**General Maximus** · November 02, 2013, 09:03 PM

Would you mind if I post pics of my latest battles from EB campaign as Rome, Stackero?

Having huge fun with EB and RTR, and redownloading RS2. Meanwhile, I ran Rome II, played a battle or two, started a campaign and within minutes I was bored to death.

**stackero** · November 02, 2013, 09:14 PM

Reason Rome 1 better plus mos

A bonus on mixed vids

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

General pm me.

Thread: Come on then!, who else thinks Rome Total War or its mods is better than Total War: Rome 2 is it just me ?.

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Re: Come on then!, who else thinks Rome Total War is better than Total War: Rome 2 is it just me ?.

Re: Come on then!, who else thinks Rome Total War is better than Total War: Rome 2 is it just me ?.

Re: Come on then!, who else thinks Rome Total War is better than Total War: Rome 2 is it just me ?.

Re: Come on then!, who else thinks Rome Total War is better than Total War: Rome 2 is it just me ?.

Re: Come on then!, who else thinks Rome Total War is better than Total War: Rome 2 is it just me ?.

Re: Come on then!, who else thinks Rome Total War is better than Total War: Rome 2 is it just me ?.

Re: Come on then!, who else thinks Rome Total War is better than Total War: Rome 2 is it just me ?.

Re: Come on then!, who else thinks Rome Total War is better than Total War: Rome 2 is it just me ?.

Re: Come on then!, who else thinks Rome Total War is better than Total War: Rome 2 is it just me ?.

Re: Come on then!, who else thinks Rome Total War is better than Total War: Rome 2 is it just me ?.

Re: Come on then!, who else thinks Rome Total War is better than Total War: Rome 2 is it just me ?.

Re: Come on then!, who else thinks Rome Total War is better than Total War: Rome 2 is it just me ?.

Re: Come on then!, who else thinks Rome Total War is better than Total War: Rome 2 is it just me ?.

Re: Come on then!, who else thinks Rome Total War is better than Total War: Rome 2 is it just me ?.

Re: Come on then!, who else thinks Rome Total War is better than Total War: Rome 2 is it just me ?.

Re: Come on then!, who else thinks Rome Total War is better than Total War: Rome 2 is it just me ?.

Re: Come on then!, who else thinks Rome Total War is better than Total War: Rome 2 is it just me ?.

Re: Come on then!, who else thinks Rome Total War is better than Total War: Rome 2 is it just me ?.

Re: Come on then!, who else thinks Rome Total War is better than Total War: Rome 2 is it just me ?.

Re: Come on then!, who else thinks Rome Total War is better than Total War: Rome 2 is it just me ?.

Posting Permissions