Does anyone feel that Rome 2 is...

[kikokyle]

Does anyone feel that Rome 2 is trying to be Civilization 5? Like with armies now taking a turn to turn into a ship to cross seas? And armies now apparently having normal stances, ambush stances, defensive stances, and forced marched stances?
Rome 2 we already have a Civilization 5, it's called Civilization 5. Rome 2 be Rome 2. (Reference there I hope someone gets it.)

[Bearnation54]

Nope **** that civilalation 5 game super gay compared to rome II, rome II is badass and civ 5 is well.... Super dumb just sayen

[Sharpe]

super gay

[kikokyle]

Nope **** that civilalation 5 game super gay compared to rome II, rome II is badass and civ 5 is well.... Super dumb just sayen

Very good, here's a cookie.

[Bearnation54]

Very good, here's a cookie.

Id love one thanks Jesus

[kikokyle]

Id love one thanks Jesus

You're welcome my son, walk into the light.

[Markas]

Does anyone feel that Rome 2 is trying to be Civilization 5? Like with armies now taking a turn to turn into a ship to cross seas?

No... in fact the example you mentioned is the only one I can think of.

And armies now apparently having normal stances, ambush stances, defensive stances, and forced marched stances?

To my knowledge this is not in Civ 5.

Rome 2 we already have a Civilization 5, it's called Civilization 5. Rome 2 be Rome 2. (Reference there I hope someone gets it.)

You need to present more evidence.

[kikokyle]

No... in fact the example you mentioned is the only one I can think of.



To my knowledge this is not in Civ 5.



You need to present more evidence.

Those were the only examples I had thought if, but even the community has offered some (I.e. People wanting to build their own cities, etc...)
It is in Civ5, you can have your units in like a defensive stance, normal stance, etc.
And lastly, do you mean to the reference, or my statement? If the latter, I fail to see where I could produce evidence, as what would I be proving? That Civ5 is Civ5?

[Markas]

Those were the only examples I had thought if, but even the community has offered some (I.e. People wanting to build their own cities, etc...)

As far as we know you can't build your own cities so that's a moot point. I'm still struggling to see more than one example of your premise, tbh.

It is in Civ5, you can have your units in like a defensive stance, normal stance, etc.

Those are unit stances and are limited to 'defend' and 'sentry' like most Civ games. Don't see the comparison that much.

And lastly, do you mean to the reference, or my statement? If the latter, I fail to see where I could produce evidence, as what would I be proving? That Civ5 is Civ5?

That Rome 2 is trying to be like Civ 5. Isn't that the premise of this thread?

[kikokyle]

As far as we know you can't build your own cities so that's a moot point. I'm still struggling to see more than one example of your premise, tbh.



Those are unit stances and are limited to 'defend' and 'sentry' like most Civ games. Don't see the comparison that much.



That Rome 2 is trying to be like Civ 5. Isn't that the premise of this thread?

Then there is only one or two points. I feel that is enough to give merit to this thread; to point out something I had noticed. I am sorry that it has not been enough to "convince" you, or at least spark, what I have, a tad of speculation.
There are several more stances in Civ5 such as fortify, for example. If you can't see the correlation between both units in games having several stances, and can't see that I've pointed out such in my mock thread, then I am sorry again. I simply saw a relation.
And lastly, as I see more I shall show more. However, I did see the slight relation between the games and created this mock thread. Time shall tell. And if you do not agree that the stances and naval movement system is enough to point a relation between both games to justify said satiric thread, then, well,
SSHHHHHIIEIEEEEEEEET

[Markas]

And lastly, as I see more I shall show more. However, I did see the slight relation between the games and created this mock thread. Time shall tell. And if you do not agree that the stances and naval movement system is enough to point a relation between both games to justify said satiric thread, then, well,
SSHHHHHIIEIEEEEEEEET

A relation does not imply emulation. On the other hand, I can't say whether on or not CA decided to copy the naval transport system of Civ 5 but it quite possible they did.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Uh oh, one or two things look similar between the games.


THIS IS JUST GOING TO BE A ****ING CIV V CLONE.

[kikokyle]

Uh oh, one or two things look similar between the games.


THIS IS JUST GOING TO BE A ****ING CIV V CLONE.

CA is certainly an incompetent studio, they should just use all my game ideas because I am such a genius.

[Altimis]

The hell? Civic 5 is not way same as TW games have

[wolfshart79]

Are the kids out tonight...or just the trolls? The OP sounds too young to remember but Shogun 1 and medieval 1 both used sea regions so this is in no way related to some civ 5 crap. If I would have to guess this sea system will be more like large areas of control than a complete throwback to the first two titles.

[a_wizard]

i'm hoping for something similiar, like the sea is divided up into regions and by moving into one you instigate battle

the free boats for unit troops is a bit lame , i thought that cw originally said that they wanted military units not to be able to cram armies into a single boat, by having them auto create troop carrying boats, it is doing the same thing./

hopefully it will be quite different to that.