Will there be anything truly new and different for Rome 2?

[Bellus88]

Over the years I have noticed every Total War game has followed the same formula, the only addition has been been naval battles but other then that all there has been was new graphics, different settings/eras and units. What will Rome 2 introduce to truly set itself apart from the rest? I think they should have a world wide campaign map option that includes china since Rome did trade with china along the silk road trade route.

I think they should add a new game mode that allows you to fight in a first person view as a soldier ne the map, this feature would be limited to all infantry and ranged units. It would document your life as a Roman soldier, the AI would be the general and your faction would go to war. Inbetween battles you would be-able to walk around the city/town you are stationed at and train with your comrades. You would also have the option to go out on patrols to kill any marauders or small scouting parties of an enemy faction. Inbetween battles there would be quests to do for local people like defend a farm from raiders. You could earn money and help upgrade the unit your in like armor and weapons.

This mode would also be a multiplayer game mode with about 5 people controlling an individual soldier on the team while the Strategic player controls the rest and gives orders.

[Maizel]

Personally, I think the drive to make the game prettier all the time is working against it. I think Shogun II looks great. Heck, apart from the animations, even Medieval II looks fine to me. I just want more units onscreen.

The game never seemed to be able to recapture the sense of scale the original medieval had, since, if not the engine, most decent gaming PC's at the time of release stareted slowing down badly at about 15K units.

I just wish they kept it on a Shogun II scale of graphical prowess, and spend more time opimizing the whole game for 64 bit, multicore, SlI, crossfire, and whatnot.

I want my 60K battles back.

[He111]

Personally, I think the drive to make the game prettier all the time is working against it. I think Shogun II looks great. Heck, apart from the animations, even Medieval II looks fine to me. I just want more units onscreen.

The game never seemed to be able to recapture the sense of scale the original medieval had, since, if not the engine, most decent gaming PC's at the time of release stareted slowing down badly at about 15K units.

I just wish they kept it on a Shogun II scale of graphical prowess, and spend more time opimizing the whole game for 64 bit, multicore, SlI, crossfire, and whatnot.

I want my 60K battles back.

This. I really think they should focus on improving the AI and getting the Engine running better. Besides this, bigger Armys ( why have an engine which could support 20k+ units, but limit the stack amount to 20/40 ? )

[Shocked]

This. I really think they should focus on improving the AI and getting the Engine running better. Besides this, bigger Armys ( why have an engine which could support 20k+ units, but limit the stack amount to 20/40 ? )

Because Total war games have poor CPU optimisation so computers can't exactly run 20 k units

[SykoTiNe]

But controling an individual unit is worthless, combat revolves around animations so you can't simply go around hacking and slashing.

But I think a town-view button would be nice for all the city building enthusiasts.

Also wouldn't an AI general commanding your troops ruin the game's essence?

[Britannia's Finest]

Basically, the bit about fighting in a unit is not too far from Mount & Blade, I suggest you check it out if you haven't already.

[Maizel]

Basically, the bit about fighting in a unit is not too far from Mount & Blade, I suggest you check it out if you haven't already.

I'm pretty good at M&B, if they did anything like this, I look forward to see how many units I can plow through with my lone dude.

[DarthRuanek]

I think they should add a new game mode that allows you to fight in a first person view as a soldier ne the map, this feature would be limited to all infantry and ranged units. It would document your life as a Roman soldier, the AI would be the general and your faction would go to war. Inbetween battles you would be-able to walk around the city/town you are stationed at and train with your comrades. You would also have the option to go out on patrols to kill any marauders or small scouting parties of an enemy faction. Inbetween battles there would be quests to do for local people like defend a farm from raiders. You could earn money and help upgrade the unit your in like armor and weapons.

While this could be fun, it isn't what the total war franchise is. If you want this, you can play Mount & Blade. But there's no reason for CA to develop their own version of that and in doing so send fewer resources to improving the existing things in the total war franchise.

[dom385]

If it aint broke don't fix it! I like total war because of what it is now, if I wanted to play a game like that I'd go play mount and blade. It would be kind of ridiculous to spend another year (atleast) creating this game mode which is completely the opposite to what made total war so popular.

On the note about graphics, I think Etw was the best looking, I think that the rome 2 screens actually look more similar to that than Shogun 2.

[Maizel]

If it aint broke don't fix it! I like total war because of what it is now, if I wanted to play a game like that I'd go play mount and blade. It would be kind of ridiculous to spend another year (atleast) creating this game mode which is completely the opposite to what made total war so popular.

On the note about graphics, I think Etw was the best looking, I think that the rome 2 screens actually look more similar to that than Shogun 2.

I can agree to this.

But I think it's mostly because of less awe inspiring atire, (copper breastplates vs awesome samurai outfits), than actual detail on the textures itself.

if I had to guess, the half naked peasants in the screenshots we've seen so far, will probably put a bigger dent in the system resources than Shogun II samurai do.

[Meraun]

If it aint broke don't fix it! I like total war because of what it is now, if I wanted to play a game like that I'd go play mount and blade. It would be kind of ridiculous to spend another year (atleast) creating this game mode which is completely the opposite to what made total war so popular.

On the note about graphics, I think Etw was the best looking, I think that the rome 2 screens actually look more similar to that than Shogun 2.

i'am with you there, why change the very core of TW Franchise? I mean its waht TW Games are about. Rule an Empire, Lead battles... etc.
if they add an big working (take a look at CKII) diplomacy part it woud be great. But please
dont ruin TW games by trying to change the very Core of the game.

If you wanna have nice Swordfight, you might try War of Roses. Beta is running (i'am in. its great) release is next month.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Looks like region system and scale of battle will have a major upgrade at least.

[atheniandp]

I'd like to see a pauseable (and speed-slided) real time campaign. No more silly half year turns. No more first turn advantage. No more predictable, frozen AI. Other than that, I'd like so see much much managerial depth in the campaign game. Deeper economic, social, military and religious features. Something similar to the Paradox games; just more refined in Total War fashion.

[Maizel]

I'd like to see a pauseable (and speed-slided) real time campaign. No more silly half year turns. No more first turn advantage. No more predictable, frozen AI. Other than that, I'd like so see much much managerial depth in the campaign game. Deeper economic, social, military and religious features. Something similar to the Paradox games; just more refined in Total War fashion.

I agree to that.

As far as the campaign game goes, CA could learn alot from Paradox Interactive.

[DarthRuanek]

Making TW real-time instead of turn-based would be a huge change. It would change one of the fundamental parts of the game. I agree that it could be awesome, but if it wasn't done well it would be disastrous for the franchise.

[Ciciro]

I agree to that.

As far as the campaign game goes, CA could learn alot from Paradox Interactive.

If only Paradox and CA would make the total war games together.

[Ultra123]

I'd like to see a pauseable (and speed-slided) real time campaign. No more silly half year turns. No more first turn advantage. No more predictable, frozen AI. Other than that, I'd like so see much much managerial depth in the campaign game. Deeper economic, social, military and religious features. Something similar to the Paradox games; just more refined in Total War fashion.

personally for me thats a terrible idea, just like the op suggesting m+b style combat 'side mode', that chanbges the essence of total war, other games specialise in those areas.

i especiallly do not want to see real time campaign, i purposefully do not buy games with that format since im find them dull, tw's turn based game provides for better thought of strategy, the turns are addictive ('just another turn before bed! ' clock goes past 3am...) and the format works and it works well.

[HauptmanT]

The only thing CA needs to change/work on/fix is AI. Flesh out the ai and leave everything identical to rome 1, and people will be happy.

[DarthRuanek]

The only thing CA needs to change/work on/fix is AI. Flesh out the ai and leave everything identical to rome 1, and people will be happy.

Eh, I think people would be disappointed to not see all the innovations made to the series since RTW. But they're obviously going to influence this game, anyway.

[Zimmy]

Rome's AI was spoons-for-trousers-retarded. If you attacked the AI in a battle, they would NOT move towards you, and would constantly change formation every two seconds