Rate Roma Surrectum II

[Timefool]

1 being the worst and 10 being the best.

To see who voted, click here.

*this poll is about the mod, while the other poll on page 1 is about the devs.*

[Nordmann]

Heh, that's easy... 11.

[Timefool]

Lol you got in before I even put the poll up.

[Nordmann]

Ah, so I did. Well, I voted 10.

Edit: Who the hell voted 4? What's that about?

[Timefool]

Ah, so I did. Well, I voted 10.

Edit: Who the hell voted 4? What's that about?

BlackWood voted 4.

[Nordmann]

BlackWood voted 4.

*Grabs pitchfork* Get 'im lads!

[Chicken]

1
































voted 10

[Praetorian_Mossop]

I would say around a 7. The game hasn't really grabbed me yet but there are pretty units. The launcher is a bit fiddly as well.

[Praefectus praetorio]

Great mod!! I say 10 (I voted 1 accidentally, oops).

[Hunyadi Mátyás]

10, yeah!

[The Noble Lord]

Can't believe somebody actually voted 1, who is that heretic.

[Chicken]

Great mod!! I say 10 (I voted 1 accidentally, oops).

@Space Wolves reading the thread might help.

[Space Wolves]

@Space Wolves reading the thread might help.

I'm quick to judge


I still reserve the right to use the quote for anyone who votes 1

[Timefool]

I'm quick to judge


I still reserve the right to use the quote for anyone who votes 1

Plus if you read the thread you could see I made the voters public. That way we know who loves it and who hates it.

[scipions23]

Very good!!! 9

[Siegfriedfr]

7. The mod is graphically wonderful, i'm starting to appreciate the economy, but i dislike some features.


> Very very pretty in every aspect
> High Quality launcher
> bloom effect is wonderful
> lots of work has gone in the building trees
> the economy is entirely different from any other mod
> wonderful swan song for Rome Total War modding
> beautiful music

I'll get flamed for the following critics but ... :


> units get tired too quickly compared to the lenght of the battles - because of the very high defense of all units compared to their attack. fatigue should have been deactivated by default;
> cavalry is very weak in the western mediteranean, so i fail to see why there is such diversity for them
> too many different units for the greeks
> modfoldered campaigns for every faction with tiny tweaks (as far as the compare tool of notepad++ has shown me) in the EDU and EDB feels like unnecesary clutter and a ffuture pain for submodding each 0-turn campaign as a complete package
> some annoying shortcomings regarding accuracy, for the sake of a supposed "game balance" (no paved roads in the middle east and anatolia for the persian royal road, arbela badly placed...etc)
> the "Free greeks" faction could have been made more "normal" with a focused starting position
> high res units are very demanding... can't run on my comp ;(

As a conclusion, i'm preparing my own submod for 1-turn to change what i didn't like, because the graphical part of RS2 is truely amazing and a perfect base for submodding.

Execellent work guys.

[dvk901]

7. The mod is graphically wonderful, i'm starting to appreciate the economy, but i dislike some features.


> Very very pretty in every aspect
> High Quality launcher
> bloom effect is wonderful
> lots of work has gone in the building trees
> the economy is entirely different from any other mod
> wonderful swan song for Rome Total War modding
> beautiful music

I'll get flamed for the following critics but ... :


> units get tired too quickly compared to the lenght of the battles - because of the very high defense of all units compared to their attack. fatigue should have been deactivated by default;
> cavalry is very weak in the western mediteranean, so i fail to see why there is such diversity for them
> too many different units for the greeks
> modfoldered campaigns for every faction with tiny tweaks (as far as the compare tool of notepad++ has shown me) in the EDU and EDB feels like unnecesary clutter and a ffuture pain for submodding each 0-turn campaign as a complete package
> some annoying shortcomings regarding accuracy, for the sake of a supposed "game balance" (no paved roads in the middle east and anatolia for the persian royal road, arbela badly placed...etc)
> the "Free greeks" faction could have been made more "normal" with a focused starting position
> high res units are very demanding... can't run on my comp ;(

As a conclusion, i'm preparing my own submod for 1-turn to change what i didn't like, because the graphical part of RS2 is truely amazing and a perfect base for submodding.

Execellent work guys.

I hope you aren't flamed for this, as you certainly have a right to post both your likes and dislikes. The fact is that we KNEW beforehand that RS2 wasn't going to make everyone happy, and in particular, those who like to play faster blitz type campaigns. There is nothing wrong with preferring that, it's just a personal preference, and one we really didn't address.

As for some of the things you didn't like, they really fall under trying to be historically accurate, or a 'perception'. For example, Western cavalry WAS quite weak compared to Eastern and horse culture cavalry. Roman cavalry, in fact, was known for being weak and 'outsourced' from other nations\cultures. A lot of RTW mods give people the impression that cavalry was awesome and like the 'Charge of the Light Brigade' or something, but historically, it was only eastern cultures that developed ways to really use cavalry to their advantage. We tried to portray this in RS2, and if it is a weakness, it's because it was.

A couple people have apparently went through files and decided that modfoldering was a waste of time and over-complicates things. However, what you may 'perceive' as a small difference is actually a very large difference when it comes to each faction. The one setting that makes ALL the difference is the 'base tax bonus' for each faction in it's home territories. Another big difference is that building requirements are placed on the player in these modfoldered campaigns, but not the AI. They may be subtle and small differences, but they have a big impact on how difficult it is for the player. Giving the player less money, and making him\her build things the AI doesn't have to is just part of what makes each campaign harder.

Your comment about 'supposed game balance' regarding the east and it's lack of development is a little cruel It isn't 'supposed'...it just IS. I know, we know, that the east was far more developed than we portray. But in this case, we have to remember the limitations imposed by this being a 'game', and compromise history a bit. Seleucid is a huge Empire at the start of all campaigns. They hold more regions than any faction on the map, and to historically portray them, you HAVE to give them those regions. Now, if you give them all those regions PLUS build them up the way they were historically with roads, infrastructure and whatnot....what you have is an economic powerhouse that NO amount of tweaking could control. Because, in RTW, roads, forums, population, and all the things that should be there would give them a huge economic base over every other faction. That in itself would then destroy another thing we were trying to portray, which is that Seleucid was in decline. Although Antiochus III did a heroic job trying to hold it together, after him the empire slid into chaos and eventually fell to Parthian and Roman pressure. We were determined that Seleucid NOT become the big gray monster everyone remembers so well in RTW, but also that in AI campaigns they fell slowly and methodically to the Parthians or other factions in that area. In my mind, we did a pretty good job of that. And for the player, it is also a better challenge because you start with a real challenge to keep what you have....Beta Testers all reported that usually they had to abandon regions to be successful. So yeah, it's 'inaccurate' in one sense to be accurate in another.

And, you are right. The Free Greeks 'could have been more focused'. Our choice was that they be what they are.


Also, for those who feel the Launcher is too much, or they don't like it, or whatever.....there are three Batch files included with RS2 that get placed in the directory where the RTW exe's are. They are called:

RS2_alex.bat
RS2_BI.bat
RS2_RTW.bat

I know they work in Windows XP and Windows 7, so they'll likely work in Vista. They are very utilitarian...double click the one for the EXE you want to use, type a number or letter for the campaign you want to play, and away you go. There are no choices offered otherwise.

[The Noble Lord]

> some annoying shortcomings regarding accuracy, for the sake of a supposed "game balance" (no paved roads in the middle east and anatolia for the persian royal road, arbela badly placed...etc)

Yeah, but if you play as the Romans you can build the road network when you conquer the region of the Middle East!

EDIT:

Can somebody please tell me what these three are??

RS2_alex.bat
RS2_BI.bat
RS2_RTW.bat

Thank you.

[Falco]

Its what RTW should have been plus more.

[Taelok]

I think it's a little early to say