Does Total War really need to be total war?

[Oberbefehlshaber]

What I mean by that question is that every Total War game I have played, which is every single one, I am always at war with someone. Its always endless battle after battle, with no goal, or end to it until you conquer the whole map.

Ill get to my point. CA should implement the idea that you can actually have a sustainable peace if you wanted to. A period where you can end a war and admire your accomplishments, and focus on building and administration. Empire management is also something CA should expand on for Rome II. Make the campaign map aspect have more features, so the majority of Rome II does not have to be a race to conquer every settlement just so you can be at peace.

I play alot of Crusader Kings II. I am not saying Rome II should have the same conditions for war as the aforementioned game, but perhaps somewhere in between. Hopefully CA can figure something out to make Rome II more of an empire building game, rather than being a game like the first Rome where you had to completely destroy an enemy to have peace, and where no other nations will tolerate you just because you are more powerful than them.

[Larkin]

Unfortunately I think they are doing the opposite, focusing less on empire building micromanagement and more on war.

[magpie]

Some good thoughts there Oberbefehlshaber. They may appeal to the more mature minded player? I cannot see the young bloods wanting to be deprived of their total mayhem though?

[Oberbefehlshaber]

I did hear CA say that they wanted battles to be more significant, so that is a start.

[Sir Bum]

Some good thoughts there Oberbefehlshaber. They may appeal to the more mature minded player? I cannot see the young bloods wanting to be deprived of their total mayhem though?

Got that right!


Personally, peace for any more than 10 turns would bore me into starting a war just for something to do. (Unless, say, I was busy recovering from a previous war)

[Arvedui01]

Theres nothing more I can really add to the discussion because you already said it, lets leave it at I like your idea.
Not only is it realistic, but it would provide for better gameplay, less repetitiveness. Nice

EDIT: if the battles are more significant, there should be fewer of them than in the past.

[Colgate]

I think this would be a great addition, and I completely support it.



You should also be able to share techs, and give gifts, like in N:TW

[Tritus]

I would really like a lot more campaign aspects. Peacetime in Shogun 2 felt rather dull. I hope that changes in Rome II.

[-FrOzeN-]

I completely agree with you Oberbefehlshaber. About what magpie said; they can still start wars themselves. So you will only have peace if you wish it!

[maximusdecimusm]

All that is needed for this to work is an improved diplomacy system which would allow reasonable
interaction with other countries. Shogun 2's was already a lot better than previous titles. Sometimes
I would be amazed to find myself at peace for a couple of years.

[The Unknown General]

Especially on VH/VH every other turn you would be attack, and trying to negotiate peace was out of the question.

[Larkin]

Yeah, the AI is built to want war, when in reality hardly anyone wants war. It'd be nice to have a campaign where war is only the last option after diplomacy fails.

Then again, we can always hope that something like this can be modded so everyone is pleased.

[Durnaug]

Yeah, the AI is built to want war, when in reality hardly anyone wants war. It'd be nice to have a campaign where war is only the last option after diplomacy fails

Why does it have to be one or the other? AI factions could become more aggressive depending on the aggressive traits of their ruling elites. Sometimes you get "status quo" leaning rulers; other times you could get expansionist rulers.

Plus it would be great if other elite groups could influence AI direction, a bit like the mercantile party in the Roman Republic urging the complete destruction of Corinth - an act Rome never contemplated in earlier relationships with Greece.

[BeastG33]

Well, I mean, the game is called Total War. I don't think most players go into it expecting much sitting around and empire administration. Yeah, it's fun to build roads and buildings for a few turns, but well, I don't know. I guess I like the idea but I also feel like it just doesn't have its place in this franchise.

Plus, was there much peace during the time period Rome 2 will be covering?

[DisgruntledGoat]

That is one thing I would like to see, wars that have a purpose other than "just because." While total war games can really be boiled down to games about territory acquisition I think if CA would depart from this base concept the game would become MORE fun. But this doesn't really play well in a Rome game as for Rome territory acquisition was what drove the economy. Start a war, conquer and loot a territory, use the loot to finance massive building programs and public works, begin the process again. I would just hope that the diplomacy and AI are set up such that I don't have random allies betraying me, or random neighbors invading me for no other reason than its Total War and war is the point of the game.

[Oberbefehlshaber]

That is one thing I would like to see, wars that have a purpose other than "just because." While total war games can really be boiled down to games about territory acquisition I think if CA would depart from this base concept the game would become MORE fun. I would just hope that the diplomacy and AI are set up such that I don't have random allies betraying me, or random neighbors invading me for no other reason than its Total War and war is the point of the game.

Yeah, the AI is built to want war, when in reality hardly anyone wants war. It'd be nice to have a campaign where war is only the last option after diplomacy fails.

Very good points guys, hopefully CA has realized these concepts.

But this doesn't really play well in a Rome game as for Rome territory acquisition was what drove the economy. Start a war, conquer and loot a territory, use the loot to finance massive building programs and public works, begin the process again.

While I was writing the op, this was one thing that was on my mind. The Romans were at war with at least someone for nearly a thousand years. How else would you have an empire that large? However, there are concepts like pax romana that could give justice to my ideas. I will just have to have faith CA will find a way to implement our ideas in a way that works.

Well, I mean, the game is called Total War. I don't think most players go into it expecting much sitting around and empire administration. Yeah, it's fun to build roads and buildings for a few turns, but well, I don't know. I guess I like the idea but I also feel like it just doesn't have its place in this franchise.

Part of my point is that there will be more things to build and admin, more roleplaying aspects, rather than just building the same few buildings, every turn, every settlement.

[Rorarii]

That is one thing I would like to see, wars that have a purpose other than "just because." While total war games can really be boiled down to games about territory acquisition I think if CA would depart from this base concept the game would become MORE fun. But this doesn't really play well in a Rome game as for Rome territory acquisition was what drove the economy. Start a war, conquer and loot a territory, use the loot to finance massive building programs and public works, begin the process again. I would just hope that the diplomacy and AI are set up such that I don't have random allies betraying me, or random neighbors invading me for no other reason than its Total War and war is the point of the game.

sounds good.

And if a AI is defeated in a major battles, they shouldn't just say ho-hum, lets send another army! there must be repercussions of defeat. (loss of population, generals influence lower, war party lose of power etc etc)

R

[Drtad]

That is one thing I would like to see, wars that have a purpose other than "just because." While total war games can really be boiled down to games about territory acquisition I think if CA would depart from this base concept the game would become MORE fun. But this doesn't really play well in a Rome game as for Rome territory acquisition was what drove the economy. Start a war, conquer and loot a territory, use the loot to finance massive building programs and public works, begin the process again. I would just hope that the diplomacy and AI are set up such that I don't have random allies betraying me, or random neighbors invading me for no other reason than its Total War and war is the point of the game.

Another mechanic I'd like to see is a more robust local nobility for some of the outer provinces that were incredibly difficult for the Romans to administer, let alone in a direct manner... i.e. the East, North, etc. This local nobility needed to be pandered to in order to control the province effectively to a meaningful degree. It's also why a lot of Trajan's eastern conquests were able to leave the direct Roman sphere rather quickly.

[RandarKal]

Now, I don't play on hard or very hard, so i don't know the diplomacy there, but I do know that playing on normal in both ETW and Shogun2 I have manage to get long lasting peace...

Example: As Spain, I managed to have peace for the majority of a short campaign, aside from one early war with the British-Dutch-Austrian alliance and Morocco the only wars i fought included my personal goal of the conquest of Portugal and the destruction of Savoy for the benefit of the Italian States.

though this generally requires minimal territorial ambitions, limited conquest and the gifting of territories you don't want to other factions (in other words, not following the campaign goals the game gives me)

[SonOfCrusader76]

No. War all the time is a pain - periods of peace enable you to catch your breath!