Is Rome 2 REALLY that bad!?

[TSD]

Well, for some these are constrains for other strategical challanges. I like to plan my provincies not just to have all possible buildings.

I completely agree. I like that I have to make a decision on what a provinces purpose will be. No thinking is required to make every province a super province with everything.


My only real gripe (and this is with TW games in general) is I find them too easy, and I play R2 on max difficulty. You get about 3 provinces in Rome II and you've pretty much won the game at that point. DEI definitely helps in that regard, particularly with the supply system.

[IndigWindage]

Rome 2 has been my favorite for online battles. There are definitely balance issues there, but it's a fun challenge to use a weaker faction and take on other players using overpowered builds.

[Theramines]

Rome 2 (unmodded) is a bad game because it frustrates and punishes the player for playing well, not for making mistakes or failing to anticipate problems. For example, if you manage your economy well and build up a great treasury you will be spammed with AI requests for gold vis-a-vis non-aggression pacts, gifts and alliances. The game badly needs an ability to block AI diplomacy requests for a certain number of turns. Then at the end of the AI turn, having refused for the nth time these repetitive and ridiculous requests, you'll find that one of your family members is being blackmailed and it will cost most of your treasury to resolve the issue. You might as well have just gifted 90% of your treasury to the AI anyway. All the while your faction leader is recuperating from the fifteenth assassination attempt, or some idiotic general wants to sail down the Via Cloaca. Why should something so idiotic cost money and influence? My god how I loathe those dialemma events.
If you dedicate time and effort into organising and marshalling your forces for a grand offensive, your favourite general will, on the eve of the keenly anticipated and decisive battle, be wounded by yet another assassination attempt. Or your army will be unable to move because of an enemy agent. I've scoured the pages of Livy, Plutarch and Polybius and failed to find any reference to agents poisoning or assaulting or halting the progress of an entire army for a week let alone a year.

"We cannot march, sir, an enemy agent has done some kind of thing to our entire army... Oh no, look out sir, an assassin!"

As your empire expands managing the important things like economy, recruitment and public order are relatively easy and, to be honest, boring because of that. In contrast, your strategic difficulties taper off (Carthage is never a serious threat, for example). You can easily recover from military and diplomatic mistakes by this stage. But, busy work such as clicking through endless notifications and skills upgrades piles up. It's infuriating how many notifications pop up with no option to deal with their problems before the next notification pops up. Why can't we turn off forced notifications? It means having to read them twice and faffing about in the faction lists to locate affected agents and generals. Why not just make it impossible to end the turn unless they're resolved?
To sum up, your reward for making progress in the game is more busy work. The traditional rewards like treasury cash, powerful armies, favourite generals etc, are far too often too vulnerable to the roll of some hidden dice and not vulnerable enough to powerful enemies or your own military errors.

Big shout out to modders like the Hellenika team and DEI amongst other who have made Rome 2 fun.

[Daruwind]

your favourite general will, on the eve of the keenly anticipated and decisive battle, be wounded by yet another assassination attempt. Or your army will be unable to move because of an enemy agent. I've scoured the pages of Livy, Plutarch and Polybius and failed to find any reference to agents poisoning or assaulting or halting the progress of an entire army for a week let alone a year.

"We cannot march, sir, an enemy agent has done some kind of thing to our entire army... Oh no, look out sir, an assassin!"

You know, you can use agent too? Defensively even offensively? I use them a lot and don´t see much difference from Shogun2 where a good agent could do a lot harm.

[Patronus86]

Rome 2 isn't the evolution of Rome 1 that many expected it to be, and it certainly wasn't worth the $60-$70 CA was initially asking for it when it first came out (not even counting all the stupid DLS BS). It was buggy, poorly tested and optimized, and it took away many of the great features from previous games (family tree management, senate mechanics, optional city micromanagement, formation flexibility) and added completely pointless features (ahem...anyone up for some capture the flag anyone).

I know the gameplay has improved with Atilla and follow-up patches, but the fact remains that there were high expectations for this game (which was reasonable given CA's past titles) and CA really dropped the ball on this one. As well, no matter how much patching and updates are done, the game engine of Rome 2, while it looks better than earlier games, is inherently flawed and not as optimized for melee combat as were the game engines for Rome 1 and Medieval 2. The unit collision sucks in this game, even in the modded versions. Whereas in Rome 1 and Medieval 2, you got a very immersive experience with how the units collided and maintained formations during battle, Rome 2's unit movements just don't look as realistic (they tend to glide about in order to get in position for the stupid kill animations).

I applaud the modding community for trying to make lemonade out of lemons, but the core of what they're modding is inherently flawed IMHO, and the blame for that falls purely on CA's shoulders, who it seems went out of their way to dumb down the game mechanics (which is the opposite of what most TW loyalists want) and did absolutely jack squat in terms of testing their game prior to release. What's even more atrocious is how so many of the so-called "game review" websites gave this product, at initial release, such decent reviews...it's almost as if they were being paid to give positive feedback on a game that the gaming community ultimately lambasted...it shows you far the professional game review websites have fallen from their earlier days.

I hope CA does a better job with the next TW game and uses a much better game engine. People get emotional about the TW games; they used to be standard-setters among the strategy game category. The past few have been horrible to lackluster. Go look at the # of people viewing the Medieval 2 and Kingdoms section of this forum....it's just as much, if not more, than the # of people viewing Rome 2 and Atilla....that should tell you something about how many TW enthusiasts view the most recent TW games.

[svartalfimposter]

Oathsworn, Pikemen, Royal Peltasts, Roman infantry... all the elite units seem to me to be way too powerful.

[Switz]

To sum it up, it is the most anticipated TW I was hoping to play but ended up being one of the least played (unless you count WH, only TW game I have sat out, but seeing they are making like 12 of them back to back, might as well at least try it once it gets dirt cheap).

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Oathsworn, Pikemen, Royal Peltasts, Roman infantry... all the elite units seem to me to be way too powerful.

There are historical accounts of battles where the Romans suffered less than 100 casualties and killed 5,000+ Gauls or Germans.

In a pitched open order battle, with the Romans fighting in standard formation, say 2 Roman legions + auxiliaries against 30,000 Germans attacking head-on, it would not be unreasonable for expected Roman losses to be less than 500 killed/wounded, with the enemy losing 20,000+ killed/wounded.


Romans seldom lost pitched battles when fighting in open order.

[Patronus86]

There are historical accounts of battles where the Romans suffered less than 100 casualties and killed 5,000+ Gauls or Germans.

In a pitched open order battle, with the Romans fighting in standard formation, say 2 Roman legions + auxiliaries against 30,000 Germans attacking head-on, it would not be unreasonable for expected Roman losses to be less than 500 killed/wounded, with the enemy losing 20,000+ killed/wounded.


Romans seldom lost pitched battles when fighting in open order.

Mostly true, but Romans did regularly lose running, multi-day battles to armies of similar numbers or higher. Pitched battle was a Roman legion's forte, but dealing with hit-and-run and forest ambushes ( Teutoburg Forest) or battles against large cav forces which isolated and cut off their supplies (Carrhae) the Roman armies struggled, at least until they started to develop auxiliary forces and cav that countered such threats. And therein a major problem with CA's development of the most recent Rome game; they haven't figured out a way to portray and put into gamplay those type of asymmetrical, multi-day battles. They still rely on unit and faction balancing techniques to make the factions somewhat enjoyable for the player. The reality is, man-for-man, a roman legion would have no problem defeat or atleast holding off a similarly-sized german band of warriors. Or in a fixed siege with good supplies they could easily hold off Parthian foot soldiers. Those groups that prevailed over Rome's legions did so because they avoided the legion's strength (infantry-focused pitched battle) and wore them down through other tactics. CA has yet to build a game that accurately depicts that. Some of Rome I's mods (Rome Total Realism and Europa) did a half decent job of trying to build that sort of gaming experience. In RTR, the Roman infantry were vastly superior to the infantry of most other factions; the only way for a player to win with those other factions was to have a bigger army and to repeatedly hit and retreat from the Romans until you had caused enough attrition for a full-out attack to be successful.

The mods attempt to replicate that kind of tactical gameplay, but the underlying TW game has always failed at that aspect.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Mostly true, but Romans did regularly lose running, multi-day battles to armies of similar numbers or higher. Pitched battle was a Roman legion's forte, but dealing with hit-and-run and forest ambushes ( Teutoburg Forest) or battles against large cav forces which isolated and cut off their supplies (Carrhae) the Roman armies struggled, at least until they started to develop auxiliary forces and cav that countered such threats. And therein a major problem with CA's development of the most recent Rome game; they haven't figured out a way to portray and put into gamplay those type of asymmetrical, multi-day battles. They still rely on unit and faction balancing techniques to make the factions somewhat enjoyable for the player. The reality is, man-for-man, a roman legion would have no problem defeat or atleast holding off a similarly-sized german band of warriors. Or in a fixed siege with good supplies they could easily hold off Parthian foot soldiers. Those groups that prevailed over Rome's legions did so because they avoided the legion's strength (infantry-focused pitched battle) and wore them down through other tactics. CA has yet to build a game that accurately depicts that. Some of Rome I's mods (Rome Total Realism and Europa) did a half decent job of trying to build that sort of gaming experience. In RTR, the Roman infantry were vastly superior to the infantry of most other factions; the only way for a player to win with those other factions was to have a bigger army and to repeatedly hit and retreat from the Romans until you had caused enough attrition for a full-out attack to be successful.

The mods attempt to replicate that kind of tactical gameplay, but the underlying TW game has always failed at that aspect.

The game would be far too easy for the Roman player, and far less enjoyable for non-Roman players, if every time the Romans had a pitched infantry battle in open order against an infantry heavy force of enemies, the Romans cut through the entire enemy force, inflicting 90-95% casualties on the enemy, while suffering 2-3% casualties on their side.



A game that really replicates mid-late Imperial Rome should have a lot of internal tension, internal instability, plots, intrigues, disloyal generals, civil wars, etc.


I hate how an agent can delay an entire army for an entire turn. It is far more historical, realistic, and plausible, that a Roman Emperor is leading 3-4 legions on some campaign, and suddenly a general declares himself Emperor with 2-3 of his own legions, and a civil war begins.

[Hannibal2001]

Mostly true, but Romans did regularly lose running, multi-day battles to armies of similar numbers or higher. Pitched battle was a Roman legion's forte, but dealing with hit-and-run and forest ambushes ( Teutoburg Forest) or battles against large cav forces which isolated and cut off their supplies (Carrhae) the Roman armies struggled, at least until they started to develop auxiliary forces and cav that countered such threats. And therein a major problem with CA's development of the most recent Rome game; they haven't figured out a way to portray and put into gamplay those type of asymmetrical, multi-day battles. They still rely on unit and faction balancing techniques to make the factions somewhat enjoyable for the player. The reality is, man-for-man, a roman legion would have no problem defeat or atleast holding off a similarly-sized german band of warriors. Or in a fixed siege with good supplies they could easily hold off Parthian foot soldiers. Those groups that prevailed over Rome's legions did so because they avoided the legion's strength (infantry-focused pitched battle) and wore them down through other tactics. CA has yet to build a game that accurately depicts that. Some of Rome I's mods (Rome Total Realism and Europa) did a half decent job of trying to build that sort of gaming experience. In RTR, the Roman infantry were vastly superior to the infantry of most other factions; the only way for a player to win with those other factions was to have a bigger army and to repeatedly hit and retreat from the Romans until you had caused enough attrition for a full-out attack to be successful.

The mods attempt to replicate that kind of tactical gameplay, but the underlying TW game has always failed at that aspect.

Rome did had an exceptional infantry in Europe for a long time but that doesent mean it was unbeatable.The Carthaginians and the Greeks managed to beat them back with their combined hoplites and cav/elephant forces.Even if Rome was so op as you say why would anyone play against it in a game?I support CA in balancing the factions with whatever methods like making the Gaul states a little stronger and other weak factions.Idk why everyone considers Rome II to be so bad.I mean at the beggining when it was released yeah it SUCKED because it was unfinished but now i think its really good comparing it to the boring Attila

[The Wandering Storyteller]

I must admit, while I am not a big fan of how downscale some of the cities were, lets not even mention the infamous city, RII is actually addictive in playing. I love the way the factions are so diverse, and while I wish the cities were far bigger, the Greek and Roman ones are a delight to view. RII's biggest strengths is the visual aspect which I felt ignored. The battles are addictive, and I preferred the previous bright colours tbh. While RII didn't end up the way like many fans would have wanted it, with mods its even perfect. Attila is a good game no doubt, an much needed improvement, but somehow the time frame is too addictive for RII. I find myself playing more battles, the Nile is my fav and Tuetoberg Forrest. Those are awesome battles.

I daresay that in the next ten years it will actually be the best game in the total war series. Why, because the battles/campaign map are the best. But look at it, RII was just an upgrade, RTW didn't involve necessary complex politics. The Pryamids of Giza in RII are beautiful. Although RII has its flaws from suffering from lack of unique maps, and some you can't even play in historical battle.

DEI improves RII a lot, quite a lot really but it takes time getting used too. CAC, Imperium Anterum, Hegemonia, 500 BC, Cyrus the Great, Arians unity are awesome.

I would like to see RII getting larger settlements.

I really want to see a Cleopatra DLC for Rome 2. That was advertised but never given. A Germanic campaign focusing on Tuetoberg forrest would just be awesome.

And a upgrade for Ambush maps, because they really need improving. They're not even proper ambush maps.

Have to give credit to the developers, they spent a huge amount of time on the building roster/art etc. Can't believe it, in 2013 I would have not seen this game as great...but now with mods and all, its actually a really good game. For old fans, it won't be. For new fans, it is actually a great game to introduce in the Total War series. The battles are awesome, and the cinematic editor camera is the best feature in the total war game. And I am disappointed that CA didn't involve politics to a much greater extent as they should have, loyalty, it seemed like they were trying to bring in the Shogun 2 mechanics but due to rushed development it never prospered.

Although Rome as a unique city in RII...not to my liking.

This game has everything, except for depth of politics, small cities in some cases, and lack of unique maps. I actually think RII might be a lite version of Shogun 2 and a heavy upgrade from RTW 1 in terms of graphics.

[AnthoniusII]

To answer to OP question:
Is RTW2 realy that bad?
Go to TWC's main page.
See how many members visiting each TW section.
1st is M2TW/Kingdoms
2nd is RTW 1
and the rest of TW sections have too few visitors. That says it all.

[Daruwind]

To answer to OP question:
Is RTW2 realy that bad?
Go to TWC's main page.
See how many members visiting each TW section.
1st is M2TW/Kingdoms
2nd is RTW 1
and the rest of TW sections have too few visitors. That says it all.

Nope. TWC is mostly for modders and people discussing mods. Were are pretty small number in whole TWs base. Majority of players don´t even know about TWC at all...

[Patronus86]

The game would be far too easy for the Roman player, and far less enjoyable for non-Roman players, if every time the Romans had a pitched infantry battle in open order against an infantry heavy force of enemies, the Romans cut through the entire enemy force, inflicting 90-95% casualties on the enemy, while suffering 2-3% casualties on their side.

Battles rarely resulted in such lopsided casualties. And like I said, CA should strive to build that sort of gaming experience where the player can choose to fight using one of several strategies or styles (hit-and-run, pitched battle, ambush, defensive). As it stands CA's games (including the most recent TW games) rely on rock-paper-scissors unit balance techniques which gets old and is not realistic. Finding a way to diversify the gameplay and incorporate more realistic strategy would not only be more historically accurate but would also liven up the whole franchise.

[Welsh Dragon]

Well I've played it a lot (1,000+ hours, 99% without mods) and I've had a lot of fun, and I'm still coming back to play it again nearly 4 years after release. So for me, it's a good game, and a good Total War (having been playing them since Medieval 1.)

I also like many of the changes made in Rome 2 (province system, limited building slots, Imperium and army/navy caps, need a General/Admiral to lead an Army/Navy, recruiting from said General/Admiral, using stylised/symbol based unit cards and building cards instead of photos etc.)

But I respect others feel differently.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Anthropoid]

Rome Total War with Roma Surrectum mod for the win . . .

[Leonardo]

Rome 2 isn't the evolution of Rome 1 that many expected it to be, and it certainly wasn't worth the $60-$70 CA was initially asking for it when it first came out (not even counting all the stupid DLS BS). It was buggy, poorly tested and optimized, and it took away many of the great features from previous games (family tree management, senate mechanics, optional city micromanagement, formation flexibility) and added completely pointless features (ahem...anyone up for some capture the flag anyone).

I know the gameplay has improved with Atilla and follow-up patches, but the fact remains that there were high expectations for this game (which was reasonable given CA's past titles) and CA really dropped the ball on this one. As well, no matter how much patching and updates are done, the game engine of Rome 2, while it looks better than earlier games, is inherently flawed and not as optimized for melee combat as were the game engines for Rome 1 and Medieval 2. The unit collision sucks in this game, even in the modded versions. Whereas in Rome 1 and Medieval 2, you got a very immersive experience with how the units collided and maintained formations during battle, Rome 2's unit movements just don't look as realistic (they tend to glide about in order to get in position for the stupid kill animations).

I applaud the modding community for trying to make lemonade out of lemons, but the core of what they're modding is inherently flawed IMHO, and the blame for that falls purely on CA's shoulders, who it seems went out of their way to dumb down the game mechanics (which is the opposite of what most TW loyalists want) and did absolutely jack squat in terms of testing their game prior to release. What's even more atrocious is how so many of the so-called "game review" websites gave this product, at initial release, such decent reviews...it's almost as if they were being paid to give positive feedback on a game that the gaming community ultimately lambasted...it shows you far the professional game review websites have fallen from their earlier days.

I hope CA does a better job with the next TW game and uses a much better game engine. People get emotional about the TW games; they used to be standard-setters among the strategy game category. The past few have been horrible to lackluster. Go look at the # of people viewing the Medieval 2 and Kingdoms section of this forum....it's just as much, if not more, than the # of people viewing Rome 2 and Atilla....that should tell you something about how many TW enthusiasts view the most recent TW games.

I agree with everything you said. Although, I didn't bought Atilla, so I cannot comment how it was in Atilla.

The worse mistake CA did with Rome 2 TW, in my opinion, was to add new features into the game, features that I think most people doesn't give a damn about. So no thanks, no more capture the flag concept in newer TW game titles.

Also, CA should really think twice about replacing the current Warscape game engine before releasing another game title in the future, because the Warscape game engine has way too many bugs. Bugs that will destroy playing a great game and Empire TW, Napoleon TW are both great games, but due to engine bugs which CA doesn't seems to care about they lost me as a fan for the Total War games series. And Rome 2 TW was my first and last pre-ordered game I ever bought and will never buy another TW game.

[Welsh Dragon]

Really CA is damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they don't try new ideas and add new features, they're accused of standing still and trying to sell the same game over and over. When they do try new ideas and features, people don't like it because it's different to how it used to be. They can't win.

As for Warscape, while yes I think it's time for a new engine, there's no guarantee that will solve everything. Warscape is at least a known quantity, whilst a new engine brings with it new bugs to try and find, isolate and solve. If the next historical has a new engine, then we'll likely face new bugs and problems on launch day, maybe even as many as Rome 2 did (though I hope not.) Because no matter how much testing they do before launch, things will slip through. These games are so complex "under the hood" they can't possibly not do.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Ygraine]

I don't ever recall anyone accusing CA for "standing still", on the contrary all I've seen is complaints about them removing or dumbing down beloved features from previous games.

I know you like the province system, Welsh - but I'm still baffled how anyone thinks that it makes any sense. Example: having a dignitary spreading latin culture in Bruttium somehow magically converts the population in western Sicily into latin as well. But at the same time culture doesn't spread between adjacent provinces and adjacent regions belonging to different kingdoms (like it did between adjacent regions in Shogun 2).