Historical accuracy and realism.
Don't worry about this being a long post, only the top half is the real post.
There have been ALOT of posts on here about people urging for historical accuracy and realism. But I just want to express that there are also alot of people out there who dont necessarily want a 200 B.C. simulator game. Personally im all for historical accuracy and realsim. But to much of that will make the game dull and boring.
It's important to find a balance between accuracies and fiction. On the spectrum of Original Rome to Europa Barborum I think it needs to be just about in the middle. As far as the names, and starting positions of the factions they need to be as accurate as possible. There were alot of factions that would have been in europe in real life that they left out in the first Rome (the more factions the better in my opinion)...
...But when it comes to look of the units and the cultures and ect., there has to be just a touch of hollywood and the original rome. Because if you are the history buffs that you claim to be then you would know that although ancient europe DID have lots of interesting cultures, it wasn't quite as interesting and diverse as what Rome TW made it out to be ( more so interesting than diverse, because ancient europe really did have a wide variety of cultures).
I think the reason so many people online are calling out for historical accuracy is because the only people dedicated enough to the game to chat online about it are people interested in the time period.
But lets keep in mind that the game is about strategy, not really simulating ancient rome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The actual post is done know but just so i can express some other thoughts without making a million posts...
Some people were asking for the romans to speak latin, I think your own army should speak english just so you can feel more personally attached to them.
Blood in the game: I think there should be some blood like in the Shogun 2 Blood pack, but the decapitations, blood squirting everywhere and mists of blood, and blood on the screen are just obnoxious. Blood on the soldiers armour and on the ground is enough. Also enough with the camera shaking...
The main thing they should should be working on for Rome 2 is definitly the AI, make the AI make as many tactical decisions as possible to make the battles more interesting and teach new players how to play properly.
The REAL key to making the total war games fun is diversity, diverse factions, unit types, and stratigies used by those factions.
The buildings that you had to capture in Shogun 2 MP to get what were basically "power ups" was obnoxious, who wins should be decided solely on army composition and tactical manuevers.
I liked how in shogun 2 the MP match making set you up with a random person based on skill level and the type of match you wanted. That allows you to feel some what annonymous in the community and encourages new player to try MP instead of playing campaign all the time.
I hated how the bodies disappeared at lower setting levels in Shogun 2, if bodies arent strewn across the battlefeild after a fight it doesn't even feel like a proper Total War game, even if it slows the game down some.
The battles shouldnt be too arcade-ish and fast...enough said...
I think there should be:
4 turns in a year
up to 30 unit cards in an army
at LEAST more than 20 different factions in the game
The region sizes shouldn't be quite so big
The naval battle should mean something more than just pointless disputes, make whoever controls the mediterranean naval game controls the trade.
Theres really no reason you shouldnt be able to play as ALL the factions (except to make money grubbing DLC's).
Why did I type this? because I have nothing else to do today!
thats pretty much it...feel free to give me honest feed back on anything on here, even though only the top half is what this post is really about about.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Anna_Gein
