Improving combat AI is not the most important aspect of Rome 2.

[oneah]

I know that total war games are all about the grand scale battles, but i’m gonna come out and say that, although having a improved combat AI would be nice, to me the most important aspect is improving the very dull and simple campaign map. I mean, there is no excuse for CA to not take inspirations from games like Crusader Kings 2, Europe Univer, etc…
That’s my biggest complain when it comes to total war games, its that the campaign is there to serve the battles and not the other way around…
Typical CA campaign:

1. You always start at war with somebody, because you know not having a battle in turn 2 is gonna make the player fall a sleep apparently.

2. Diplomacy is completely random, everyone eventually wants to declare war on you.

3. No point in having allies because they will just prevent you from achieving the main boring goal in the game which is total domination and also point 2.

4. Everyone could be just one big faction because there’s no differences from behavior. All clans in shogun 2 could very well just be 1 because they would all just end up as the next target for your conquest and they all reacted the same way.

5. Last and most important, which kinda involves the other points is that.. there’s never any justification for wars. In total war games wars have little consequences and have no justification. The game never gives you a reason why your suddenly attacking everybody.

I don't know how many people feel this way but.. Can we have a total war game that is not about total domination? I want engaging diplomacy and city management combined with grand scale battles.. I'm tired of having to play different games for those experiences that could coexist.

If CA does not change the campaign Rome 2 will just be Shogun 2 in a different time frame, like Shogun 2 was Empire in a different time-frame. (note that i'm not talking about bugs and AI, i'm talking about the campaign itself)

[Asgaroth]

I am always especially annoyed by 2. and 3.

I would like that to change so you can have more then one type of alliance with someone. This really needs to change. I don't want to be at war with everybody in the game, especially now that in Rome II will be around 60 factions.

[Baldos]

I am always especially annoyed by 2. and 3.

I would like that to change so you can have more then one type of alliance with someone. This really needs to change. I don't want to be at war with everybody in the game, especially now that in Rome II will be around 60 factions.

I agree 100% ..the worst thing about this issue is that the solution is very easy..one of the start game victory conditions options could be that allies count for victory total! i.e. allies, vassals and conquests all count for the victory total od say 40. Those who want "total conquest" can have the existing way i.e. only conquests count.

[Adreno]

to me the most important aspect is improving the very dull and simple campaign map. I mean, there is no excuse for CA to not take inspirations from games like Crusader Kings 2, Europe Univer, etc…

ehh what? and make it even more duller?

[oneah]

ehh what? and make it even more duller?

Well if having more character interaction, more diplomatic engagement and more expansive realm management is dull and the absence of it fun then i guess your right. Why not swamp the campaign map with a "Next Battle Button"? You basically just create a army and replenish it, learn more army tactics and click queue for next random battle.

[BunnyPoopCereal]

ehh what? and make it even more duller?

more duller

[Larkin]

Well I'd like for there to be multiple campaigns. So you can do a total domination campaign which ignores history and is just kill kill kill.

And a realistic one with accurate historical relationships and diplomacy that actually makes sense, where war is only the most extreme option - being able to resolve trade disputes etc without war would be cool.

Then again, it is Rome. Rome did conquer everyone. Their Empire's economy was founded on the spoils of war and looting.

[akkakk]

whilst i love the Paradox Games, Total war should not in any way try to be them.

Total War shouldn't try to be as in depth military or espionage wise as EU or Hearts of Iron, it shouldn try to be as Economically, population or empire management oriented as Victoria, as Character/bloodline/espionage/plot based as Crusader Kings, although parts could be taken, such as plots and inspiration for traits.

Total War, in short, shouldn't try to copy Paradox.

[Shocked]

Reason for war you say? REASON? Rome conquers all in its reach, for the simple reasons of greed and power

[oneah]

Reason for war you say? REASON? Rome conquers all in its reach, for the simple reasons of greed and power

Whence why Rome 2 will have the same arcade feel to it as the previous games and simply be a big skin/model overhaul.

I mean.. its fine, i love total war games. I just really wish the series would evolve a little.

[Anna_Gein]

I really hope Total War evolve from a grand scale battle game to a more exhaustive experience.
It should be more about controlling your faction leader during trouble times. War would remain important but become far more tragic. The player shouldn't feel it as the normal of the campaign.
Instead you should focus on the management of your faction as a living identity and no a completely united one. Your order would remain obey but you would deal with character rather than directly with province or building.
Diplomacy, Economy, Research, Law, recruitment of your army should all gain far more importance and complexity.

Not only the campaign map experience would be better but this way the game cloud then gain fewer more important battle.
A well paced charge of cavalry should be able to decide the fate of empires .... for the future decade. (but this weakened empire could rise again if well managed)

And CA should take a look to others grand strategy game to find new idea if they hadn't any interesting instead of focusing on some shiny implement only useful to impress so journalist on a review.
A new camera from where you can not give new order isn't that much interesting while so much can be add on the campaign map.

[akkakk]

I really hope Total War evolve from a grand scale battle game to a more exhaustive experience.
It should be more about controlling your faction leader during trouble times. War would remain important but become far more tragic. The player shouldn't feel it as the normal of the campaign.
Instead you should focus on the management of your faction as a living identity and no a completely united one. Your order would remain obey but you would deal with character rather than directly with province or building.
Diplomacy, Economy, Research, Law, recruitment of your army should all gain far more importance and complexity.

Not only the campaign map experience would be better but this way the game cloud then gain fewer more important battle.
A well paced charge of cavalry should be able to decide the fate of empires .... for the future decade. (but this weakened empire could rise again if well managed)

And CA should take a look to others grand strategy game to find new idea if they hadn't any interesting instead of focusing on some shiny implement only useful to impress so journalist on a review.
A new camera from where you can not give new order isn't that much interesting while so much can be add on the campaign map.

so you're saying you want the player to have no control over recruitment, building, research, Law etc and be limited to interacting with AI who control these various aspects?

And that the player should have only limited control in battles?

question: do you WANT to suck all the fun out of the Total War games?

[Anna_Gein]

so you're saying you want the player to have no control over recruitment, building, research, Law etc and be limited to interacting with AI who control these various aspects?

And that the player should have only limited control in battles?

question: do you WANT to suck all the fun out of the Total War games?

No.
"Your order would remain obey but you would deal with character rather than directly with province or building"

For example all your province should have a governor. He could have some influence to represent his skills.
The player would continue to control the province as he with shogun 2.
Now what if this governor think it's time for him to create his own kingdom by declaring his independence.
Same thing with a general. What if at the death of your emperor, your most famous general is acclaimed imperator and decide to take control of your empire.

Note I didn't talk about the battle map.

This way the game would finally be able to represent real civil war.
So there would be more than our average rebel stack.

[oneah]

so you're saying you want the player to have no control over recruitment, building, research, Law etc and be limited to interacting with AI who control these various aspects?

And that the player should have only limited control in battles?

question: do you WANT to suck all the fun out of the Total War games?

You got her all wrong. She is not limiting the player control, she is just making it more authentic.
Imagine instead of being the lord of all things and manage every single detail, you have designated characters with specific traits and personality who do those things for you and the way you would interact with those aspects of managing would be by communicating with these characters as the ruler.
This would allow for internal political intrigues. Which is one of the aspects that total war games lack. The only thing that can happen internally in total war games is rebels showing up because your population tolerance meter is "flashing red".
Imagine having internal conflicts between your lords/council men. Where they would rage wars inside your own territory.
We just had Shogun 2 total war, imagine if that was just one country in a big campaign map and shogun 2 was happening to your country as you played japan.

[akkakk]

You got her all wrong. She is not limiting the player control, she is just making it more authentic.
Imagine instead of being the lord of all things and manage every single detail, you have designated characters with specific traits and personality who do those things for you and the way you would interact with those aspects of managing would be by communicating with these characters as the ruler.
This would allow for internal political intrigues. Which is one of the aspects that total war games lack. The only thing that can happen internally in total war games is rebels showing up because your population tolerance meter is "flashing red".
Imagine having internal conflicts between your lords/council men. Where they would rage wars inside your own territory.
We just had Shogun 2 total war, imagine if that was just one country in a big campaign map and shogun 2 was happening to your country as you played japan.

no thanks.

I want to be able to control every part of my country. If i wanted to f*nny about with vassals and other leaders then i'd play Crusader Kings 2.

And having a governor in every settlement isnt possible unless you can recruit them (which you couldn't in Shogun 2).

[Anna_Gein]

So you should be able to recruit them or the game should represent your ruling class.

Are you not interest at all by the Romans internal struggle ? Or to face the will of power of your satraps as a Seleucid king ?
I hope the choice between the Republic and the Empire will be more than a stack appearing next to Rome.

[akkakk]

So you should be able to recruit them or the game should represent your ruling class.

Are you not interest at all by the Romans internal struggle ? Or to face the will of power of your satraps as a Seleucid king ?
I hope the choice between the Republic and the Empire will be more than a stack appearing next to Rome.

Let me tell you what i do to the ones who rebel in Crusader Kings:

I kill the whole lot of them.

There is nothing enjoyable about watching your hard build empire get divided - with you unable to stop it - between some ars.ehole generals just cos they dont like some young faction leader.

Sorry, that's not my idea of fun.

and if it was in, i'd just end up executing all my generals and governors anyway and ruling directly.

[bushranger]

As annoying as certain aspects of the CAI is,it's never been a game breaker for me.The BAI on the other hand has been so bad in the last 3 games i cant stand single player and have been pushed to MP.So i hope CAs main focus is improving the battle AI.

[Ichon]

As annoying as certain aspects of the CAI is,it's never been a game breaker for me.The BAI on the other hand has been so bad in the last 3 games i cant stand single player and have been pushed to MP.So i hope CAs main focus is improving the battle AI.

ETW the BAI was pretty bad but I find with patches that NTW is acceptable because I like the era and the map. Shogun 2 BAI at first seemed improved but then I realized it was just a mirage and without dropin battles or MP I would never play Shogun 2 and I still play it less than MTW2 and NTW.

[Baltizar]

They should have a system where you were responsible for making sure your troops are well fed and payed promptly..failure to do so would mean that your respect would suffer and if it goes below a certain level your army will mutiny