Faction perks for Rome 2

[MonkeyD]

I loved the added perks that different factions got in Shogun 2 so I started thinking what type of perks we'd like to see in Rome 2?

Examples I thought might be good

Carthage: Rulers of the sea (bonus to sea trade), bonus in ship building, discount hiring mercenaries.

Germanian tribes: Donar's rage (Charge bonus), "berserk" ability (boost in moral and charge), bonus in iron working.

Scythian tribes: Nomadic march (20% extra movement for units), accuracy bonus for mounted archers, bonus gold when sacking cities.

Greek city states: Hellenistic rule (bonus in converting captured provinces), Greek phalanx ability, bonus to diplomatic relations.

Rome: Glory of Rome (bonus in constructing buildings), discipline (+2 experience for armies raised), Extra tribute from vassal states

Parthian Empire: Wealth of the East (starts with trade nodes to China and India), bonus in trade routes, lower maintenance cost for mercenaries.

I'm not sure what would be good for say Gaul, Britons, Spain, Numidia, Egypt, ect. since I'm not as familiar with those cultures. Does anyone have a list of perks they feel would work?

[Iunius_Iaponici]

For Egypt more income from farming and for the Gauls a cavalry bonus?

[Wowwars]

Please make this moddable if possible CA for your fans who hate bonuses

[Tarsus999]

I like this idea, it would make me want to play with new factions i otherwise would never have tried.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

See some problems there. Carthage had only the superior of the sea at the begin of the first punic war. After that they regain this never again. One reason why Hannibal was marching over the alpes and he couldn't get reinforcements.

A Ironwork bonus for Germans is problematic because they use Celtic swords like many romans too. Celts should get this bonus because they were the masters of ironwork. The germans should maybe Boni like the Hattori for Hiding and Ambushes and a Bonus marching on woods.

Cavallery should be for Carthage because on the main conflict with rome, this was their strengh.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

There could be bonuses from holding certain regions, not necessarily tied to factions. For example, you could have trade and farming bonuses for holding Egypt or quality wood for ship building by holding Phoenicia.

[ByeNow]

There could be bonuses from holding certain regions, not necessarily tied to factions. For example, you could have trade and farming bonuses for holding Egypt or quality wood for ship building by holding Phoenicia.

Like Rhodes colossus etc in Rome total war? Sounds like a good idea

[RexImperator]

Bonuses are less important in RII because the factions are much more different than they are in Shogun. If there are any bonuses they should be small and have nothing to do with units or the battlefield because that's where unique (mostly) unit rosters come in to play.

Carthage could have a merc hiring bonus or Rome could have a road building bonus but what's the point in them having bonuses to Numidian Cavalry or Legionnaires when nobody else (or at least very few other factions) will have them.

[Maklodes]

I don't know how likely this is, but one approach I'd like to see would be to give factions themselves a "character" with shifting traits, much like individual generals. Factions would start out a certain way, but they could change in response to events (within and outside player control).

For instance, the Carthaginians could start out being very good at hiring mercenaries, but if they decide not to hire many mercenaries over a few centuries, and put more focus into developing their own armies, then over time their mercenary-management abilities atrophy and their indigenous military prowess improves. Other factions which hire lots of mercenaries might get better at it.

A faction which only uses spies once in a while, for instance, just has an ad hoc group of freelance secret agents resporting to local commanders. A faction which uses a lot of spies, though, might develop something like a real intelligence agency, with a coordinated system informants, safe houses, etc.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

I'd say just different morale bonuses for different types of units in different factions. Romans get a morale bonus for heavy infantry, pikemen for Greek factions, naval units for Carthage, cavalry for the Parthians. I don't think any other nations should get bonuses, as those particular ones had particularly disciplined footsoldiers/sailors/heavy cavalry respectively. I second what Manuel says about the regions. I also think that the Romans should get a bonus for their ships if they take all of Sicily, as they reverse-engineered Carthaginian ships in the First Punic War.

[MathiasOfAthens]

This isnt a ing RTS game.


Bonuses should be available to every faction depending on the players preferences. For example. Say you want better trade... well the player can choose to construct buildings that promote trade. There could be an option in a tier to build this building or that building. If you choose one the other would be off limits so you would be investing resources into whatever the other was. There could also be a middle ground route will you get a moderate dose of both.

[Maklodes]

This isnt a ing RTS game.

Presumably, it will be a game with both RTS and TBS components, as it has been since the original Shogun: Total War. It's not a pure RTS game (maybe "ing" meant "pure," though, so that's what you were saying all along).

[atheniandp]

This isnt a ing RTS game.

This kind of thinking is why the idea of a real time campaign is met with such hostility in these forums.

So what, RTS games are inherently unrealistic, and a turn based game somehow is?

What you mean to say is: "Total War is realistic. F off with this unrealistic crap". Which I wholeheartedly support.

[MonkeyD]

I'm surprised that people would be completely against faction perks. All they do is offer a possible path to victory by letting players decide to play to their strengths. Doesn't mean you have to follow that path, it's just an option.

But this is why I hope CA makes modding available because there are plenty of people on this forum that will feel Rome II would be the most amazing game ever.....except for that one little feature they could do without ect.

[Wowwars]

@^ Agreed i bloody hate inequal bonuses atleast ones that stick to you all game. Commander traits and legion traits are fine.

[Anna_Gein]

Faction perk only made sense in Shogun 2 because without it all faction were the same.

For Rome 2 I would prefer a system of government, law and doctrine. So for example a military doctrine concentrate around heavy infantry could offer a bonus to your infantry. Law could offer bonus and minus to offer more importance to your choice. The system could also use major and minor doctrine, law to offer more versatility so you would not have to go for all infantry army but choose what is best for a given situation. That could represent your effort to improve your cavalry as a Roman ruler while you face the new Parthian threat. All effect could go stronger the longer you use it to represent your mastership in a particular area. This kind of system could also improve the meaning of the technology tree that would then be more involved with idea needed to unlock new law or doctrine rather than flaming arrow or good stables. Finally that could offer more dynamism for the possible reform of each faction. So your Pontic Kingdom would not end up with legionary imitation if the Roman faction was ripe out on a early stage of the game but would rather prefer a different evolution of its army if that could provide more advantage for its actual situation.

[Sol Invictus]

Something a litle more flexible and unpredictible than a set faction bonus would be better. Either through the Tech Tree or Buildings. I also like for Provinces to enable a certain bonus.

[Anna_Gein]

Well it would be better if you could fully decide what path to victory you use instead of choosing if you want to use the one offered to you or do without it. It would be better if different system would let every faction start with something similar of perk but allow the player to completely change it if he want latter.

Perk as they were in Shogun 2 would only offer a limited number of path that wouldn't even make sense rather than provide more.

[Bringer Of Storms]

Well it would be better if you could fully decide what path to victory you use instead of choosing if you want to use the one offered to you or do without it. It would be better if different system would let every faction start with something similar of perk but allow the player to completely change it if he want latter.

Perk as they were in Shogun 2 would only offer a limited number of path that wouldn't even make sense rather than provide more.

Exactly, if I want to run a mainly Infantry army, but my faction perks give me cavalry bonuses, the game is kinda steering me in a different direction than I want to take. We don't need perks to differentiate the factions. The units already do that.

[CptAustus]

Exactly, if I want to run a mainly Infantry army, but my faction perks give me cavalry bonuses, the game is kinda steering me in a different direction than I want to take. We don't need perks to differentiate the factions. The units already do that.

The past TW games did that already and I never saw complaints. On Shogun 2, I liked Uesugi despite not using monks, or Takeda and ignoring cavalry. On Emprie, I played Maratha and never bothered with elephants or Sikh warriors. On Rome, I played Parthia and Seleucid and got tired before unlocking Cataphracts.