Petition: Faction Balancing - Please Read!

[Jarvisimo]

Hello all,
In Rome 1, the whole game was clearly balanced in Rome's favour. This was so that the player found it easy, and if AI played Rome, they'd eventually conquer the map.
Please, change this for Rome II.
I want to play as Carthage, and destroy Rome! Sure, I can do that, but factions need to be more balanced. Even if that's just the major factions.
I want to play as Parthia, and watch as Carthage burns Rome to the ground, and I want to fight the huge Carthaginian empire upon the banks of the Euphrates.
Surely, CA, this would make the game tremendously fun, especially seeing as you're aiming for 'A different campaign each time'. Seeing history changed and reversed in such a way is, let's face it, what Total War is about!

In one campaign, Rome progresses with history, becoming the fearsome Empire. But, in the next, it fares not so well, and is destroyed in it's very birth throes.

If you support this argument, post replies in green.
Hopefully, CA will read this and, if we have enough people, heed our call.

Cheers! I'll be adding signatures, and a list of names, if this is well supported.

[Shocked]

I'm sure they'll balance factions... They are a professional company after all and a lot has changed since then

[Jester]

no, factions were never been balanced in any TW game. forced balancing would just feel wrong and it s also completely unnecessary. you can win with every faction and if not just lower the difficulty level. on the other hand good players could choose a "weaker" faction plus highest diificulty level and get some extra challenge.


also, not Rome but Egypt was by far the easiest faction in Rome I. or any other faction which was close to Egypt and could conquer them quickly


and the only reason why the northern factions had a slightly more difficult start was just because the northern regions were bad

[emperor77]

Kinda makes sense that Rome would be one of the stronger factions in game, nay? They did eventually conquer the entire Mediterranean ergo they must have been quite strong compared to others.

[CptAustus]

Kinda makes sense that Rome would be one of the stronger factions in game, nay? They did eventually conquer the entire Mediterranean ergo they must have been quite strong compared to others.

Unfortunately, Germania kept Rome at bay for a lot of years AFAIK and in Rome I they didnt even have an anti cav unit.

[Lacedaemon]

Unfortunately, Germania kept Rome at bay for a lot of years AFAIK and in Rome I they didnt even have an anti cav unit.

Do phalanx spearmen no longer count as anti cav ?

[CptAustus]

Do phalanx spearmen no longer count as anti cav ?

If you look closely, those dont even have a bonus vs cavalry.

[Chris Death]

If you look closely, those dont even have a bonus vs cavalry.

This is because they already got it hardcoded while other units where it makes sense did not.
So this is where the bonus vs xxx is comming from me thinks.

Talking about the way it was in RTW1 btw - not sure how this works out in S2TW to be honest.

~S~ CD

[DaVinci]

If you look closely, those dont even have a bonus vs cavalry.

Vanilla phalanx units? Iirc. they have. It's the "spear-bonus" which works as anti-cav bonus (it is designed as anti-cav bonus, nothing else). If a unit has ie. 2+ cav attributed, then this code is meant for non-spear units, ie. polearmed units or long-axe or range units. This is the default vanilla system.

[Anibal at portas]

the factions must be realistic and historical in power.
for example if CA make a game about II world war.
is absurd that all factions are balanced equally.
poland not have the never have the military and economic capacity of invade germany.
or finfand never have the military and economic capacity of invade soviet union,but can defeat to the soviet union army in a local war in his territory,historically occurred,finland defeat to union soviet in the Soviet attempt to invade Finland.
the gauls never can invade rome but can defeat to rome in his territory in a tribes confederation.
the campaign objectives that CA put the game for every faction must be historical and according to its historical possibilities military, economic and political of the epoch.

[emperor77]

Unfortunately, Germania kept Rome at bay for a lot of years AFAIK and in Rome I they didnt even have an anti cav unit.

Unfortunately, rock paper scissors don't necessarily work in real life, i doubt Germanian tribes had tons of heavy medieval knight-esque cavalry to throw at romans.

[CptAustus]

Unfortunately, rock paper scissors don't necessarily work in real life, i doubt Germanian tribes had tons of heavy medieval knight-esque cavalry to throw at romans.

In no moment I said RPS works in real life.

[Chris Death]

In no moment I said RPS works in real life.

Which doesn't mean that this isn't the case;

A single bomber crew could kill lots of enemies from their plane while a single
sniper could take out many cew members when trying to enter their bomber.

~S~ CD

[Chris Death]

I'd say - balance the battle map - calulate the auto-resolve correct this time
but don't make the history guys cry by allowing thrace or numidia rule the world.

Maybe make the campaign a little bit more random so that the outcome is not predictable
always when playing certain factions but don't make it only random at all.

This is not "risk" or chess where all participants do start under the same terms.

There are no forests in the desert - there are no saltwater fishes in the mountains -
there is no sunlight in the night - hope you get what i mean by that.

Oh yeah - almost forgot;

BALANCE the game for battles so that everybody gets a chance in multiplayer but please
don't balance it like empire total war (this won't happen in R2TW anyways i'm pretty sure).

~S~ CD

[alQamar]

guys i dont think it is really wished that factions are balanced any way. there is no balance in no TW game yet. if you consider historical things rome was one of the best faction these days. Rome or TW at all is not a game that is designed for being played on professional multiplayer level or even e-sport ladders. it was more or less possible to "balance" things in classical game mode and using rules. you of Sith clan should know better as it is one of the longest clan on RTW

@OP: not that you think i am just talking your ambitious petition down. have a look in Roma Surrectum 2.5 and tell me if you find any balanced factions there please. this is one of the most popular mods by the way.

if you dont refer to multiplayer but campaign you should take it as a challenge to play with another lower faction like Dacia or sorts and win the campaign. dont forget that also without modding playing all factions with campaign was not intended for RTW1 by them.

[Lacedaemon]

I would only like to see rome be toned down a little bit. While they did in general hand out beatings, they worked pretty damn hard to expand the way they did and the current system doesnt quite do them justice. Perhaps the AI though could have a few more benefits to give it that historical push.

[Asgaroth]

Hello all,
In Rome 1, the whole game was clearly balanced in Rome's favour. This was so that the player found it easy, and if AI played Rome, they'd eventually conquer the map.
Please, change this for Rome II.
I want to play as Carthage, and destroy Rome! Sure, I can do that, but factions need to be more balanced. Even if that's just the major factions.
I want to play as Parthia, and watch as Carthage burns Rome to the ground, and I want to fight the huge Carthaginian empire upon the banks of the Euphrates.
Surely, CA, this would make the game tremendously fun, especially seeing as you're aiming for 'A different campaign each time'. Seeing history changed and reversed in such a way is, let's face it, what Total War is about!

The should really balance that as much as they can and as you say not that every time Rome is the strongest and eventually conquers everyone. At least they can make Rome to conquer slower or better to say harder the surrounding area.

I agree with you.

[Anna_Gein]

Not sure of what you mean by balanced faction.
But I partially agree.

In RTW Roman faction felt clearly overpowered. A bit too much at my opinion as they had the best infantry, one of the best cavalry, really good skirmishers/archers and strong artillery. They just lacked elephant.
Every faction should have its force and its weakness. It's not to make every heavy infantry as powerful as the Romans but just to avoid too much difference in every area.

If it was possible a system of AoR would offer a little more balance. That would also reflect how much homogeneous is one faction.
So if you desperately lack one type of unit you could recruit native troop if possible but get malus for the management of the region.
This could provide more balance while keeping the advantage of each faction.

I understand why the devs want to make Rome becoming the super power as they did it in reality but a few more diversity would be welcome on the outcome of the campaign.
So Rome wouldn't always conquer every neighbour until you meet them if you play an other faction.

[Humble Warrior]

I`m sorry, but balance is the greatest mistake in warfare games based on reality. Factions are not balanced. Never are. Never were. You get the strong, the stronger and the strongest. Then you get the weak. Whoever has what must make do with what he has to the best of his Faction`s ability and, if he does well, his weak or just strong Faction becomes stronger and maybe the strongest.

If you are a Roman faction, chances are you will be the stronger. If you are a Gaulish state or Briton, chances are you will be weaker. But if you`re smart, you can still beat back the Romans- As Vercingterox(sp) nearly did.

And yes, I know, it`s not fair if you`re a weak faction and he`s already strong. Deal with it.

[JankoMega]

I`m sorry, but balance is the greatest mistake in warfare games based on reality. Factions are not balanced. Never are. Never were. You get the strong, the stronger and the strongest. Then you get the weak.

This.