Anything good in Rome 2?

[5th Lieutenant]

Appreciate there have been reviews - good, bad and ugly - in the actual Rome 2 forum but I was wondering if any Roma Surrectum players had bought it? Does it have anything that an RS2-fan would appreciate or is it too arcady and ahistorical for someone that likes to play 'realistically' as Rome?

[ur-Lord Tedric]

I think I can qualify as a RSII fan, indeed 'lover' (in a purely platonic, but easily passionate way!); let alone having a very serious interest in Ancient Rome and the time period - and I've bought it. In fact I have even been playing it and persevering (now 150 turns/years in to my first Roman campaign).

I have looked at many posts and reviews and do have an understanding of most people's gripes. I can't even keep up with the live forums of so many posts. I do recognise, however, that there are many thousands of people who have bought and are playing the game that aren't saying anything. I will note that Patch 2 helped quite a lot and Patch 3 looks promising this week. I'm not trying any early quick-mods - I do think it's too early for that and the game is not apparently completely stable - although I have had no issues myself (perhaps by not quick-modding).

I think it's obvious that I won't find battles much fun just now, given I've striven for what we have now in RSII and I'll obviously have a few issues with the units (all manned by zombies it seems - they look just like those in 'The Walking Dead') and general stats. Overall it is also indeed 'dumbed down', but that's not surprising.

But, certainly at the campaign level (apart from the ridiculous movement ranges and bonuses) and with the graphics in general there is indeed a lot to like. Someone certainly has taken the RS hill-forts and really upped the game! The fortified marching-camps are also a joy.

As to the campaign and the multitude of factions - that certainly has taken the grand scale of the map and the interplay of factions to a whole new level. The ability to influence and interfere in more local politics and interract is great. Because you are not always at war with your immediate neighbours there is the hope that you could, indeed, expand and grow as Rome actually did, or at least in a more realistic style. Taking advantage of rebellions has reduced since Patch 2, but is an interesting way to expand and also get involved in places relatively far away sooner that you would think.

The limitations imposed on numbers of armies/navies/agents under 'Imperium' is a good restraint overall, but I'm sure will be tweakable. The fact that settlements have garrisons means they don't need separate ones. The percentage of settlements that do have walls being relatively low means that siege-battles are in proportion to others and the numbers of battles are wayyyyy down - which means you can progress faster. My last/running RSII Cimbri campaign had two battles every turn and I could do just one turn in the time it takes to do 3-4 with Rome2.

In short - are there issues - oh my goodness yes! But, 'am I enjoying it', yes, overall I am. At the campaign level it has real potential. At the graphics level and ability to play under Win8 (I'm using Win7), yes. Can battles/stats be better, yes, and Patch 3 will be interesting. Units can be tweaked. The Battle AI, however, may be an issue. Although given I am lead to believe that it hasn't really changed that much and recalling the Vanilla-RSII changes in look and feel; there is some hope.

There is one thing I would change before all others - melée cavalry and CA's love of the 'Ride of the Rohirrim' must go the way of cold-blooded and slow-moving dinosaurs!

[_Tartaros_]

i didn´t buy rome2 and maybe i never will.

i´ve playing rome and me2 mods alot. never played empire and napoleon and buyed me2tw kingdoms just too leave it for a year, after mods like SS 4.2 evolved. i buyed shoghun2 fall of the samurai and played it like 4 time since a year now. CA-vanilla games suck the more budget they invest.
when i saw the first previews about rome2, i didn´t expected much (mainly because of this two rallypointnerds, that talk 90% and are just there too hype there cause). As the first player giving feedback and saw the mess in some video-aar, i lost interest to play rome2 for now.

[5th Lieutenant]

Thank you both for your replies. I appreciate that there are issues and CA will be releasing patches. I was wondering, mostly, if the overall game / engine mechanics gave some hope. I love RS2 and as an incorrigible Rome player I was interested to know if it was a question of good ideas but poor implimentation or simply a poor game with better graphics. Lord Tedric's opinion is very useful and interesting but specifically:

- Is there more of a trade / economic aspect?
- Has diplomacy changed (is seems that it has)?
- Is the battle aspect OK (seen differening opinions, 'too fast' seems a common gripe)?
- How does the Roman military evolution feel?
- Can you replacate the historical Legions in name, symbols and composition?

This was meant to be constructive in terms of 'lessons learned' from RS2 as I am very undecided as to whether I should invest.

[stackero]

Thank you both for your replies. I appreciate that there are issues and CA will be releasing patches. I was wondering, mostly, if the overall game / engine mechanics gave some hope. I love RS2 and as an incorrigible Rome player I was interested to know if it was a question of good ideas but poor implimentation or simply a poor game with better graphics. Lord Tedric's opinion is very useful and interesting but specifically:

- Is there more of a trade / economic aspect?
- Has diplomacy changed (is seems that it has)?
- Is the battle aspect OK (seen differening opinions, 'too fast' seems a common gripe)?
- How does the Roman military evolution feel?
- Can you replacate the historical Legions in name, symbols and composition?

This was meant to be constructive in terms of 'lessons learned' from RS2 as I am very undecided as to whether I should invest.

I played R2 over 80 hours. I Played as Rome, the Spartans and the Athenians on Legendary.

Trade was okay needs a patch or two. I don't like the fact you can't build roads. They slowly appear as you improve the province. Trade is linked to diplomacy and there are improvements, but out with giving or taking cities in diplomacy. But the best change in diplomacy is you can make allies who will come to your aid. I really like that one.

Economics. We have to consider cities. For me, I hate, yes I hate the city building system with 4 or 5 city boxes or maybe 6 or 7 as I remember for Rome if you expand her enough. You construct small little unimmersive buildings as you get the funds or advance on the tech tree which can be confusing since you can't always guess where it may lead you.

Don't care for the province system. Less cities, less work for game designing.

After 80 hours I started to get the hang of it, but still found the cities and tech trees unsatisfying. My opinion, the time period should not have a tech tree like games that last hundreds or thousands of years. Building advancements should be enough to cover the few advancements that took place in that time period.

I did like the food idea. if you don't build enough food producing buildings your cities suffer and your armies suffer attrition.

Battles. Unless they've done a major over haul since I played it weeks ago, they're nothing like any of the polished videos you've seen. Soldier graphics to my eyes is no better than RS2. In battles soldiers march in formation and once contact is made, its every man for himself, the rank crumbles.

Haven't seen any of those close up cool fights we've seen in videos. Not saying there not there, I just didn't see any. OKAY now here's a bad one.
When you fight a field battle which you won't be often (you'll fight mainly city battles) you don't try to position your troops in the best area for defense or attack, you have to defend a flag. If you have 8,000 troops vs an enemy of a 100 and he occupies that flag you lose.

I hear they're trying to fix that one. But again, forget about fighting very many epic land battles. Cities battles are the norm for this game. YES, the battles are fast fast. Of all the battles I fought in that game, not one equaled or surpassed RS2 and that's not me being bias.

Because of general limitations there no spamming army stacks, a good thing I like.


The Romans as is, no different military organization than the other civilization powers. If you want to make some house rule with Rome you can control their composition, but as the wars drag on its easy to just start churning out Pretorian Guards.

You can name your legions and they can acquire special abilities which doesn't really seem to relate well in battles as you have to keep up with all the different powers units can call upon in fast battles. I'll stop here about battles, just know CA needs a major overhaul for the battles and soldiers.

If your interested in Family tree stuff or role playing your generals forget it. With one year turns your general aren't around long and you have no feeling for them, except watching them from causing civil war, which is easy to prevent once you get the hang of it.

Not going to talk about naval battles, just know its a mess.

I stopped playing the Romans when I began to steamroll everyone, and I didn't even know how to run my cities right.

Played the Spartans. a little harder starting out but nobody could stand up to the mighty Spartans, especially when they would break ranks within seconds of contact with the enemy. Just like in the movie 300, lets breaks ranks and then we'll really kick some ass.

Played the Athenians, crashed twice when I tried to conquer Crete. That's the only ctd I had in the game and I was playing everything near maxed out. Started over as the Athenians and went with the strategy they point out to you in advice, I went to war with Epirus, Broke Macedon's hold over Athens began to steamroll all Greece and, and, and, sounds fun, but it gets laboriously boring fast with how most everything works.

Gave up disgusted. I wanted to love or at least like this game so badly. CA has a long way to go to turn this into Rome 2. What's discouraging, after you play enough hours of the game you see that a lot of CA decisions were to leave a lot out of the game, and to put the least amount of work in it. Less cities, small city buildings, one year turns, okay I think you get my point.

Hopefully, CA comes through on not just patching but some major overhaul of certain areas of the game. I have no trust in CA but suspect they will patch and fix a few things, maybe even add new feature or two, but not to the extent the game requires. My opinion.

Now I will say from visiting the Rome 2 forums, there's a lot of people who like the game and how it plays and apparently trust CA to make the game right. And since it's obvious I dislike the game and distrust CA, you should maybe go over and spend a little time there to get another perspective than mine.

They are making mods for the game, but I've to yet seen any that really makes any difference where it matters. If you haven't been there yet, prepare yourself, it can get vicious.

Hope this has been some help.




"If all the world were just, there would be no need of valor."~~Plutarch
'In strategy, the longest way round is often the shortest way home' -B.H.Liddell Hart

[Risasi]

The only thing that sounded remotely intriguing was these regions with capital cities, and a bunch of unwalled sub-cities. Stackero or Tedric, do you have any opinions on that particular aspect of the campaign?

It made me consider, how many cities in that age were walled? I still don't have an answer, but I have been looking.

[stackero]

The only thing that sounded remotely intriguing was these regions with capital cities, and a bunch of unwalled sub-cities. Stackero or Tedric, do you have any opinions on that particular aspect of the campaign?

It made me consider, how many cities in that age were walled? I still don't have an answer, but I have been looking.

I played over two weeks ago but
I seemed to remember some Number quotes. 183 regions, within these regions is 57 capitals that can have 1 to 3 minor provinces.

Starting out, Rome would be a capital and own 3 minor provinces. minor provinces have no walls, this is where the majority of your battles will take place, few open field battles. Capitals can have up to 6-7 boxes, minor provinces 4-5 as I remember. Culture does play a role in the game. Happy, unhappy syndrome.

A lot of people like the province setup, I do not. Just seems another way CA lessens the scope of the game lessening their work. No 199 cities to build and grow. The game overall feels very streamlined to save having to put too much in it and constricts strategy; few open field battles for instance.

I have a fear I may never play R2 again. For me the game is just too laboriously boring and is going to take a lot of improving and new features for me to go back to it.

I assume you haven't bought the game yet, don't until you hear more news about a lot of patching, upgrading and new features added which may take awhile, if CA goes that far in improving the game. That's my bias opinion. Your call.

But right now there's a lot of people playing the game and claiming to be having a good time despite the flaws.

If you have more questions I'll check in here once or twice a day for awhile.





How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin.
And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin. ~Ronald Reagan

[stackero]

In case I confused you. When I say boxes for cities, that represents how many buildings can be constructed in those cites.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

The only thing that sounded remotely intriguing was these regions with capital cities, and a bunch of unwalled sub-cities. Stackero or Tedric, do you have any opinions on that particular aspect of the campaign?

It made me consider, how many cities in that age were walled? I still don't have an answer, but I have been looking.

In fact not many 'settlements' in the ancient world were 'walled' properly. I have been thinking about this and there is a possibility that there is sense in the design - and it's down to the scale thing. The troops in battle (thinking 'Large' (120), or even perhaps 'Huge' (160)) are at a scale of 1:10 and that's quite reasonable - all RTW settings have been like that (where 20 units can represent, in Rome's case, a Consular Army) and it's consistent.

So, taking the analogy to the Campaign Map, now each province is like a Greek-style City State; where the 'central/main' is your Capital City (walled) and the others in the 'area' are the Towns & Villages. This brings the scale of the 'world' down to the size of, practicably, Greece. Your wars are then wars between 'City States'. It's not a bad concept and it keeps the scale under control. Whilst I, having mentioned it previously, have no fear in a Roman Campaign under RSII taking a physical year to complete - I am quite sure the majority of casual gamers aren't and that's CA's market; thus the game of ~300 turn can be completed in a much shorter time.

This system does result in many less battles and, the bad thing therefore, is that they are almost all around a 'settlement' - and that's why the majority aren't walled, for otherwise every battle would be a siege. The m,assive movement rates only guarantee this. If you happen to have an army at a choke point, or sally out to catch an AI unit, then that's the only time you'll have Open Field battles - and it the first it may well be a 'fortified' one anyway!

[Risasi]

In fact not many 'settlements' in the ancient world were 'walled' properly. I have been thinking about this and there is a possibility that there is sense in the design - and it's down to the scale thing. The troops in battle (thinking 'Large' (120), or even perhaps 'Huge' (160)) are at a scale of 1:10 and that's quite reasonable - all RTW settings have been like that (where 20 units can represent, in Rome's case, a Consular Army) and it's consistent.

So, taking the analogy to the Campaign Map, now each province is like a Greek-style City State; where the 'central/main' is your Capital City (walled) and the others in the 'area' are the Towns & Villages. This brings the scale of the 'world' down to the size of, practicably, Greece. Your wars are then wars between 'City States'. It's not a bad concept and it keeps the scale under control. Whilst I, having mentioned it previously, have no fear in a Roman Campaign under RSII taking a physical year to complete - I am quite sure the majority of casual gamers aren't and that's CA's market; thus the game of ~300 turn can be completed in a much shorter time.

I understand what you are saying and have always considered battlefield units to be an abstract of some larger number of men. Up until recently, with the advent of multicore computer I think it would be very difficult to portray at a 1:1 ratio something like the battle of Agincourt, or Thermopylae, or Heraclea...ad nauseum.


And agreed. I would rather take my time and come back to a persistent game than finish something. Sid Meier's new Ace Patrol is like that. It's a WWI turn-based flying strategy for the iPad. You play through the entire war in 24 missions. One could play a campaign in a short afternoon. I am at 550AUC in my Armenian campaign. I have had 27 battles and invested perhaps 20 hours into this one campaign. I'll likely be playing it six months from now. Hard to finish something like that quickly with a wife and two kids...






---

I played over two weeks ago but
I seemed to remember some Number quotes. 183 regions, within these regions is 57 capitals that can have 1 to 3 minor provinces.


Starting out, Rome would be a capital and own 3 minor provinces. minor provinces have no walls, this is where the majority of your battles will take place, few open field battles. Capitals can have up to 6-7 boxes, minor provinces 4-5 as I remember. Culture does play a role in the game. Happy, unhappy syndrome.


A lot of people like the province setup, I do not. Just seems another way CA lessens the scope of the game lessening their work. No 199 cities to build and grow. The game overall feels very streamlined to save having to put too much in it and constricts strategy; few open field battles for instance.

This system does result in many less battles and, the bad thing therefore, is that they are almost all around a 'settlement' - and that's why the majority aren't walled, for otherwise every battle would be a siege. The massive movement rates only guarantee this. If you happen to have an army at a choke point, or sally out to catch an AI unit, then that's the only time you'll have Open Field battles - and it the first it may well be a 'fortified' one anyway!

Alright, that helps me to understand what they were trying to achieve, less battles (to appeal to the more casual gamer), and a better open field battles:siege battles ratio. Sounds like poor execution to me, especially with the "capture the flag" design being so prevalent. I was hoping there was potential there to improve open field battles, but it sounds like an emphatic "No!" to me...




---

I have a fear I may never play R2 again. For me the game is just too laboriously boring and is going to take a lot of improving and new features for me to go back to it.


I assume you haven't bought the game yet, don't until you hear more news about a lot of patching, upgrading and new features added which may take awhile, if CA goes that far in improving the game. That's my bias opinion. Your call.


But right now there's a lot of people playing the game and claiming to be having a good time despite the flaws.


If you have more questions I'll check in here once or twice a day for awhile.

No, I didn't buy it. I was hoping it would be good, but expecting this mess even before it was released. I have misgivings about Steam, but not militantly so. I bought Shogun 2 and haven't played it hardly at all. And then tey way they are releasing DLC leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. The main games I play for PC is RTW with the RSII mod, and then M2TW with the Stainless Steel mod. I also have Empire with Darthmod, and it's not too bad now having been patched and all. But CA's vision of Rome 2 seems irrepairably broken from conception. If they released Rome 2 for iPad I might be tempted to buy it. (Honestly if they released RTW with mod support for iPad I'd be all over it like white on rice...)

As for iPad gaming. I like Sid Meier's Ace Patrol, Sid Meier's Pirates. XCOM and Hero Academy...not necessarily in that order. There is some surprising potential for the platform. Total War Battles: Shogun was a HUGE letdown. Better CA just ported RTW...

[Grimbold]

If i would bring something from R2 over to RSII it'd be the unit replenishment system. I just dislike RTW's back and forth ways, of having to return to a city with the proper barracks to retrain your armies.

[stackero]

Reading Lord Tedric's post, which is a good analysis of Rome 2, by the way, he makes a point I did not emphasize about Rome 2 earlier. It was made more for the casual player, not TW core fans. That's why, in my opinion, the game lacks depth and that thing we call grandeur.

Although if they ever give it good AI it doesn't mean R2 couldn't be challenging. When the hell is CA ever going to give us good AI, I suspect when hell freezes over. Its still bad at my last playing, less 2 patches.

I looked over more closely in the mods forum of R2 this morning and there does seem to be process being made for fixing soldiers to maintain their ranks. A good development, if it works as advertised.

A few hours ago I reinstalled Rome 2 hoping I might change my mind about the game to some degree. I picked Macedon, and I admit the game looks enticing and beckons to be played.

But straight away the city construction and tech tree turned me off, then dealing with one turn years and a political system where my short lived generals had little importance to me was disappointing. Then remembering that orphan CA rarely visits, the AI or lack of. Suddenly, that feeling of those 80 boring laborious hours came rushing back. Sadly, I uninstalled again.

Rome 2 in the prime definition of; different strokes for different folks. A lot of TW fans don't like it,some TW fans love it.

Although, if the core design is not as bad and limited as I fear it is, then maybe its possible CA will advance Rome 2 enough to the point Modders with the right tools, can combine some Rome 1 modifications to it, giving us some of both worlds, like for instance, doing something about the city construction process which I find boring and a killer for immersion and a better army organizing system.

I'd like to see more open field battles. Return the family system with maybe 3 turns per year so you can role-play them. Chunk the tech tree, yes I know we all like tech trees, but it doesn't fit in this time period.

As I write this I realize want I really want out of ROME 2; I want it to be the Rome 2 that I dreamed it'd be, advanced Rome 1 with better AI, diplomacy, and just everything advanced. Of course that's not what this R2 is nor is it likely to get close to what I want it to be even with modding.

But for me even if they fix the whole battle system, ranks, flag pain and naval battles, the campaign system, despite a few improvements, I fear is never going to be improved enough for me to want to play again.

I'll just have to accept that and move on. Still having fun with RS2. Latter maybe, Empire modded, and plenty of Medieval 2 mods to chose from if the mood hits me. Heck still plenty of Rome 1 mods to chose from but I have play the hell out of most of them. That's why I keep coming back to RS2 I never tire of it.

I would still like our modders when they get a chance to take a hard look at the core design and mechanics of R2 to ascertain the possibility of the extent they believe the game can be modded. Hopefully I'm wrong about the limited core design of the game, maybe they'll be a lot of room for improvement and changes. Well, Rome 2, it's just a game after all, but also a dream unfulfilled.

[Krumski]

If i would bring something from R2 over to RSII it'd be the unit replenishment system. I just dislike RTW's back and forth ways, of having to return to a city with the proper barracks to retrain your armies.

I don't like the replenishment feature at all. I never auto resolve because of the stupid amount of experience my troops get and I always replenish my armies with fresh recruits. Without retraining it's quite possible to lose 2 chevrons due to bad decisions during a battle and I want to be punished for bad decisions. With the replenishment system you actually don't care about casualties as long as the unit still exists. If it can be modded so the new soldiers are green recruits (or with some experience, based on the province you are in) it will be fantastic, but I don't think it will be possible.

@Stackero: Couldn't agree more with your posts. I tip my hat to you, sir!

[5th Lieutenant]

Thank you for all your very interesting replies. I always play as Rome and I love building an interesting, functioning Empire that offers challenges at the tactical, operational and strategic levels. The only 3 areas of interest I saw in Rome 2 were the larger map, the ability to 'mould' legions and the way a cohort could evolve from an earlier armour set to a later one (and, to be fair, that there was variety between troops), but these seem fairly shallow at best. The better graphics per se are not that interesting and hopeless AI suggests it is not yet worth buying.

In the mod forum I saw this which gave me some cause for hope: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...re-Description

The significant issues raised, specifically 'capture the flag', fast units and the endless settlement battles have all been mentioned by CA as issues to be changed in forthcoming patches. Against expectations, the modding seem has been very active so hopefully the current gamer-lite approach can be evolved in to something that more serious players might enjoy.

I can understand what CA thought they were doing with the provinces system, especially the relative absence of defences for many towns, though it may appear somewhat as cutting down on their own workload. The 'family' part appears to be poor programming or bug testing which is a shame because that could be used to role-play civil strife and open war. The tech tree also sounds interesting as an addition to the building tree (shame there is a limit on buildings but that again seems like a modders' target). If someone put in the time, it appears that you could theoretically add in aspects such as the Late Roman Army units and equipment. That kind of feature bodes well if the game is going to last in the modding scene.

I expect I will buy this in time but in the knowledge it will not be exactly what I want. If mods like the link I posted above come to fruition then together with improved AI and the flag, speed and settlement battles issues being addressed, it might not be all bad. That the overall conclusion from Tedric and Stackero's posts is that this was aimed at the casual market is a bit sad but I suppose that was ever the case with the TW series. I always give myself stringent house rules (non-use of dogs and gladiators I can envisage being one of the first) so between self-discipline and improvements / mods it sounds from peoples' post here that there might be some fun for a RS2 / True Roman fan

[Zydrius]

R2 units look funny to me - I have in mind those backed-head sky looking folks

[dvk901]

There does seem to me to be something 'strange' about how R2 units look. I can only play the game on 'High' settings...well, at least until Patch3_Beta....but the detail seems very poor, and one thing that sorta bugs me is that they look like they don't have their feet on the ground. Maybe it's just me, but they seem to be 'gliding' about six inches off the ground most of the time I'm looking at them, especially where there is no grass. Maybe it's just me, but it's a bit disconcerting at times.

[Risasi]

There was a thread in the Rome II General Forum, that addressed some of the graphics. There were some claiming that when zoomed out (which is much of the time) that Medieval 2 actually looks better. (Although that makes me question whether they were looking at sprites).

Up close though I think the real issue boils down to a debate of whether overall improvement in graphics. i.e. whether a higher poly count, cool new lighting do-dads and such in Rome 2 is superior to the perceived better aesthetics in Medieval 2. So even though on paper the units are far more detailed, it just feels off.
This may be the eerie feeling some of you are getting when talking about Rome 2 graphics. I don't know because I don't have Rome 2 so I cannot compare the two personally. But the videos I've seen of Rome 2, the only way I can think to describe some of them is the men look "too good"? Almost plasticky and therefore get this fake look to them that is robotic. Whereas RS2 and my SS install on Medieval sometimes looks very realistic with the muted colors. Other times it's not as detailed and I almost feel like I'm playing with little painted lead miniatures from a century ago, especially with the aging RTW engine. Honestly though, it is not altogether unpleasant look, I have grown to like it. I think that one kid nailed it when he identified it as a matter of aesthetics.

[Crymson]

Rome 2 is a disaster. The AI is especially terrible. It's unforgivably bad.

[stackero]

It still boggles my mind how they could mess R2 up so badly. The battle and siege systems are so fracked up. There's just no excuse for CA with its experience to screw up the tactical side of the game to such a degree.

Don't get me started on the Campaign play, don't care how pretty it is.
And forget about AI. CA never gets high marks for its AI in any of its games, but this is a new low.

That is all, for now.