Rome 2: Total War @ E3 & REZZED - discussion page

[HigoChumbo]

I actually thought the auto-resolve question was a good question. Now, I at least, know that auto resolve will be more in depth and actually have options for the battle. It was a good show. You guys have also got to remember just some of the TWC community is not the entire Total War community (in fact just a little fraction), or the potential newcomers to the series.

I am a TW fan before a TWC member, and i think i was a member of the official totalwar forums even longer. I'm sorry to say it, not meaning to be harsh, but if you play TW just for the campaign and skip battles you are probably playing the wrong game. There are far better options if the part you like is the management.


And anyways, that's not the point... the point is that this is a new game and there are a lot of uknown things and also known things that require a clarification... and that's what questions are for. (really, still not a single question about how will armies interact with such big cities, or how the problem of the cities being so close to each other is resolved).

The first question was the best about the scale of the battles. It is obviously reduced because of the dramatic increase in the quality of the graphics.

I highly doubt they reduce the scale of battles. If anything, they will increase it. They just won't make "the biggest total war yet" with smaller battles. That battle is smaller because it is a scripted historical battle, they are often medium sized and not using the biggest unit size (which you can change in the options)




*I think they are using early code on purpose just to get the good stuff later and "wow" the easily-hyped audiences. If this is actually all they got they are in serious trouble.

In any case, i liked the detail of the roman "marines" boarding the egyptian flagship despite crashin in a weird angle and having an height disadvantage (althought i hope that does not mean that all the crashes will be in prefixed spots).

[Keyser]

Look here http://youtu.be/dPQCn7beqew?t=31m9s Roman soldiers pass through the wood to get on the ship. It reminds me of the cheat code in the game DOOM where we could pass through walls. Do you think its a bug ?

It's probably a clipping pb because not all the ship have the same prow from wich the roman soldier are entering the ship.

[xernoxis]

I really liked the sand tornadoes in Afrika

[SturmChurro]

I am a TW fan before a TWC member, and i think i was a member of the official totalwar forums even longer. I'm sorry to say it, not meaning to be harsh, but if you play TW just for the campaign and skip battles you are probably playing the wrong game. There are far better options if the part you like is the management.


And anyways, that's not the point... the point is that this is a new game and there are a lot of uknown things and also known things that require a clarification... and that's what questions are for. (really, still not a single question about how will armies interact with such big cities, or how the problem of the cities being so close to each other is resolved).

Again, you do not represent the entire Total War community like many here think they do.

Just because you play a game one way doesn't mean other's don't play it another way. Your way is not the only way to play the game. Some people enjoy certain aspects while others enjoy other aspects.

[Greve Af Göteborg]

If this was supposed to impress me about the battles it has failed. Where's all of the formation warfare?
This stuff:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The battle was just a mess, no formations, no proper fighting, just a mess.

[Boicote]

The phalanx’s animation is weird: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPQCn...tu.be&t=34m18s. Al Bickham noticed that and he quickly changed the camera view.
BTW, I like Al Bickham's presentations. He is very professional when speaking about TW games (unlike other CA’s members ).

[Lockcaps]

Hardwaremaster has a few comments about this : http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...-Rezzed-battle

It seems like CA is, for some inexplicable reason, constantly changing the versions of the game they use and show. While they have already confirmed that this battle -is- sped-up to let as many people as possible play it.

Honestly i think this is one of the most important questions: Which version of the game are you using to show us this? How old is that version? Why are you not using the same version all the time?

[Sabre120]

Perhaps one version has the diplomatic, political elements in place, but the battle code is still quite rudimentary? I'm just taking a shot in the dark really, but it'd interesting to know why the versions appear to consistently change.

[Raikou]

Hardwaremaster has a few comments about this : http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...-Rezzed-battle

It seems like CA is, for some inexplicable reason, constantly changing the versions of the game they use and show. While they have already confirmed that this battle -is- sped-up to let as many people as possible play it.

Honestly i think this is one of the most important questions: Which version of the game are you using to show us this? How old is that version? Why are you not using the same version all the time?

This. If people actually compared videos we've been shown you can tell somethings off on what theyre showing in the nile (carthage gameplay looked and played alot better yet was using old shogun 2 audio) so maybe the nile battle is in fact older code of the game than carthage? who knows

It raises very good questions when you can hear better audio on what seems to be newer gameplay (you could hear the arrows glancing off armor in Al's playthrough) with crappy clipping and then you have carthage gameplay which is like 10 times better but supposedly older with sohgun 2 audio still in it.

[Dan113112]

If this was supposed to impress me about the battles it has failed. Where's all of the formation warfare?
This stuff:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The battle was just a mess, no formations, no proper fighting, just a mess.

Honestly, the same **** happened it RTW. Even in mods. Some battles I fought were quite organized where others were not. An army won't be that organized when going up a steep slope and there were elephants, chariots, and fireballs disrupting formations. Al wasn't the best strategist either. When the Romans were first advancing they looked to be in good order.

[super_newbie_pro]

It's probably a clipping pb because not all the ship have the same prow from wich the roman soldier are entering the ship.

We see the water in the ship. they climb into the ship by these holes.

[Anna_Gein]

Honestly, the same **** happened it RTW. Even in mods.

I kinda agree but I am surprised to not see any grand scale formation combat as Greve Af Göteborg posted in the pictures or trailers released so far. And we all know how much problematic have been melee formation combat on every Warscape TW.

[HigoChumbo]

Again, you do not represent the entire Total War community like many here think they do.

Just because you play a game one way doesn't mean other's don't play it another way. Your way is not the only way to play the game. Some people enjoy certain aspects while others enjoy other aspects.

Don't twist my words. I never pretended to talk for anyone else besides myself.

It's not a matter of taste, its a matter of design. You can try to play American Football with fifa... and sure, whatever makes you happy... but you would have an easier (and probably a much better) time just playing Madden.

It's jsut like people talking about Paradox games and saying their graphics suck or that their battles are bad... don't you think they should just be playing other games that actually offer what they are looking for?

I can safely tell you that The History Channel's Battle for the Pacific game (an fps) is a piece of ****, and that you have better options in that field (the hell... just go play the old call of dutys or something)... Sure there are people who enjoy it. Good for them, you wont see me stopping them from playing. There are also people who have fun throwing themselves downhill in a shopping cart and that's fine with me. And it will still be absurd (in my opinion), as much as they enjoy it. But they are as free to do it as i am to think whatever i want of their actions.

And again, interesting as you may find the auto-resolve, i hope that at least you agree that there are far better questions to be asked about new features that we actually don't know **** of. You know autoresolve will work better or worse, but you know how it works, there is no mistery to it (and i doubt they are putting much interest into changing that at this point).

In any case, this is my personal, non-transferrable opinion, so please don't put words i never said in my mouth.

My personal recommendation is that you do a quick search for other games if you like the management part and skip battles, since there are better, deeper options, and i make this recommendations same as i would recommend you to play football with an empty round ball rather than with a square ball filled with hard concrete, but it's up to you what to decide and what to do with your life (and your foot, for that matter). I have personally discovered Anno 1440 now and im rather enjoying it. If you want the empire management thing, Civilization V and Europa Universalis 3 are good entry points (accesible to new players while not as complex and overwhelming as other similar games, while still being miles deeper -and funnier- than TW in the management part. And let's be honest, TW is just a bad, extremelly simplistic and very lackluster game if you isolate the campaign and only judge it by that).


That said, again, do whatever makes you happy, but please don't imply that I'm trying to force anything (opinion, taste, way of playing a game) upon you because I just never did. When some of you guys go white-knight you forget that the opinions of people who have oppossed opinions to you are also actually opinions and are to be respected as much as yours, may you eventually share them or not.

[ashbery76]

If this was supposed to impress me about the battles it has failed. Where's all of the formation warfare?
This stuff:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The battle was just a mess, no formations, no proper fighting, just a mess.

Indeed because all RTW1 battles were fought in perfect formation like that pre baked screenshot..Hahaha holy nostalgia..

[caratacus]

If this was supposed to impress me about the battles it has failed. Where's all of the formation warfare?
The battle was just a mess, no formations, no proper fighting, just a mess.

I was disappointed that they used the same battle demo as at E3 , as I really want to see more of the actual unit engagement. The two battles so far haven't impressed me on this aspect. Despite all the effort gone into recreating the fighting animations, the actual battle formations engagement looks very artificial. Perhaps they should have undertaken these animations collectively as units instead of individually with one guy fighting another, as that was not the fighting style of the legions.

[Greve Af Göteborg]

Indeed because all RTW1 battles were fought in perfect formation like that pre baked screenshot..Hahaha holy nostalgia..

They're only examples, I just wanted CA to focus more on formation warfare rather than the gimmicks like focusing on chariots, elephants, ballistaes and fire balls. I wanted to see big formations of troops clashing, not this erratic mess where units are running around everywhere like headless chickens. I saw no tactics in that battle. Hopefully I am wrong and we will see tactical combat with proper formation warfare, but it doesn't look very good at the moment.

[chadwicknight]

Words I can think of: awesome, cool, AMAGAD, can't wait, epic, rome 2, ancient warfare, epic. Did I say epic? Epic.

[Lockcaps]

They're only examples, I just wanted CA to focus more on formation warfare rather than the gimmicks like focusing on chariots, elephants, ballistaes and fire balls. I wanted to see big formations of troops clashing, not this erratic mess where units are running around everywhere like headless chickens. I saw no tactics in that battle. Hopefully I am wrong and we will see tactical combat with proper formation warfare, but it doesn't look very good at the moment.

Keep in mind that it depends a lot on the player. Let's be honest, all of the demos we've seen have been played by people that aren't that good at TW, it's incredibly obvious to anyone who has played them for a long time. He doesn't seem to use any sort of long-term strategy for the battle, it's very much "move this unit there! and this one here! and now randomly charge the chariots even though they could be used to far bigger effect later on!"

[Dan113112]

I was disappointed that they used the same battle demo as at E3 , as I really want to see more of the actual unit engagement. The two battles so far haven't impressed me on this aspect. Despite all the effort gone into recreating the fighting animations, the actual battle formations engagement looks very artificial. Perhaps they should have undertaken these animations collectively as units instead of individually with one guy fighting another, as that was not the fighting style of the legions.

If by formation you mean two blocks of men engaging each other then you are correct. In reality it was a little different. Formations were also never as cohesive as people on TWC like to believe. Best movie example I can find: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbSa9ZvSMaQ

What's this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSiTTnqiTYg

[jtfjtfjtf]

The menus on the campaign map look very sterile and cold. The ballista/chariot grenade explosions are still way over the top. I did like the Romans jumping on the egyptian ship after they were rammed. And Al killing the chariots with his own fireballs. I was looking forward to the legionnaires vs. phalanx and then the elephants ruined everything by runnning in and crushing the romans. Happy gamespot guy!?!