Total War: Rome 2 Looking Awesome

[Seanakk]

There are a similar number of settlements with siege battle mpas as Shogun 2. There is also the greatest variety of siege maps of any Total War game.



Seasons are still in the game. The reasons for one turn per year have been explained many, many times.



Yes Generals will be alive for a shorter period of time but will gain skills more quickly.



There is more depth and more features in the campaign than any previous Total War game.



That is an artistic choice to make it clear where players can and cannot land their armies. The tiny islands have nothing on them so have been made impassable.



No they're like a region from Shogun 2. Multiple buildings slots, can raise armies and have happiness factors of their own.



There are sieges. There are forts. There are deployable defences.



There are a variety of skin tones used, some Romans are portrayed as more tanned than others. They're not black.



That is not what the AI will do. that would be a huge step back for it and we continue to work hard on making it better and play better.



Capture points are for the attackers to take, and are one way of winning a battle along with the old ways of you know beating the enemy army. They are implemented to help removed some exploity tactics used by players such as corner camping.



See above. Tactics are still important, that has not changed.



We have always adjusted movement speeds for gameplay and we always will. That has been true of every game we have made.



We colour code units to help with easy identificaiton of which units belong to each faction in a battles. Again we have always done that and always will.



Artillery works just like in previous games where you recruit them as part of your army and they move around with it. Their primary use will still be for sieges.



The battle is not a strict reproduction of the Battle of Nile.



The unit card images are based on the look of the unit in the game and infact make it easier to see which unit you are selecting.



The length of battles will be longer than Shogun 2 but still in line with the length we've aimed for in all Total War games.



The campaign is designed to last around 300 turns, which is longer than Shogun 2, Empire, Napoleon and Medieval II. There is also no time limit. You can take as long as you want to finish it.



We have gone for a more even distribution of settlements. If we went just for the ones mentioned in ancient writings (which are all Roman and Greek), we'd have a huge amount of settlements which each required sieging in a very small area. That would be terrible for gameplay. We will always go for what plays the best.

And that's why Jack Lusted is great.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Sorry Jack but it should come a time when a developer team sits and stops for a second to reflect on why so many people are complaining about what they are showing , listen to the criticism and eventually consider a change of direction .

Now on the specific :

There are a similar number of settlements with siege battle mpas as Shogun 2. There is also the greatest variety of siege maps of any Total War game.

Undoubtely there might be more variety , but DE FACTO are LESS siegeable settlements than ROme TW with its 107 regions .. the 60 of Shogun are still more than RTWII .

Also Shogun was based on an Island while in Rome you are portryaing a war theater spanning from Iberia to Indian borders .

Seasons are still in the game. The reasons for one turn per year have been explained many, many times.

We know that but still most of the people disliked that idea and concept and the explanations did not justify anything since were based merely on "its better for gameplay at out opinion"

Yes Generals will be alive for a shorter period of time but will gain skills more quickly.

And? you won't have any great campaign with a favoured general couse he will die after some turns , there will be no way to reproduce a grand civil wars scenario or other historical ones because of the short life of those and the short lenght of the campaign itself .

Making 3 separate starting ages with proper season division per year it would have helped a lot the imersion and the gameplay as a lot of people onthose forums sugested , the simple answer was it woudl take too much to alter the stats and balancements ... when probably a simple variable and slider linked to the lenght of the years in turns woudl have made the trick .

then nothing stopped to have also a grand lenght campaign with 1tpy , this would have made everyone unconditionately happy .

There is more depth and more features in the campaign than any previous Total War game.

Like? some diplomacy more ? any atrition based on seasons ? any decision made by AI on the general abilities? any focused campaign for strategic manouvering in enemy territory? Any defence and pillow states constructions by large empires like the Roman one? I see a lot of missing features instead like the impossibility to defend properly borderline regions without a siege system for their cities ...

That is an artistic choice to make it clear where players can and cannot land their armies. The tiny islands have nothing on them so have been made impassable.

that again limits the "choices" of the player and the strategic possibilities offered by the game ... with the Only in certain points you can go . logic .

No they're like a region from Shogun 2. Multiple buildings slots, can raise armies and have happiness factors of their own.

Not according to what the interviewed CA member said on E3 ... some cities will be specialized and won't be able to develope a full city that is instead reserved for the Main capital , so cutting out a region from the possessions of a province will cause serious missings to the capital just like it did when a resource or a settlement was occupied or sacked in previous game ... To me it just looks like a way to have an imporved settlement ( with some building abilitiees in it ) but with beeing defenceless is not a city itself ... Even in previous games you coudl set garrisons on the resources , that didn't made them a city .
so basically the number of regions had been drastically reduced from the RTWI 107 to the RTWII 53 , with the addition of Improved resource/settlements serving as collateral support to the capital .

There are sieges. There are forts. There are deployable defences.

Deploayble defences we saw, the sieges only for 1/4 of the total cities , as for forts as long as I understood there will not be the possibility to build fort defence lines as in the previous RTW I but perhaps just a camp ?

There are a variety of skin tones used, some Romans are portrayed as more tanned than others. They're not black.

Now this is really a joke?

That is a comparative picture of the roman legionary there and the Egyptian (Native) army ... the first is clearly a Black race and the second a white one ...

This is not only historically totally wrong but I find it even insulting , based perhaps on some racist and deprecable hollywood american clichets on Sicilian peoples ( that btw some are from Phoenician and arab descent ) and have nothig to do with Roman and Italic population of the time and even the actual italian one . I myself am wither than my german gf

That is not what the AI will do. that would be a huge step back for it and we continue to work hard on making it better and play better.

So you call an improvement that the AI will focus on the Banner instead of defeating the foe? well I do not call this an improvement .

Capture points are for the attackers to take, and are one way of winning a battle along with the old ways of you know beating the enemy army. They are implemented to help removed some exploity tactics used by players such as corner camping.

So nw all the battles on this game ( since there is awlays an attacker and defender ) are turned into Capture the flag ...

If a stupid unit of peasants slips under the vigilance and occupy the flag for a certain time , you loose the battle even if your whole army massacrated the 99% of the attackers.
Still I wouln't call this an improvement but an Arcade transformation !

See above. Tactics are still important, that has not changed.

Like what? stack a massive number of men on a flag so that the enemy cannot take? Not beeing able to circmumvent and use further tactics without considering the Flag place?
To lose a whole battle just because you loose a flag even if your have win every battle on field?
This is called capture the flag in most games , and king of the hill

We have always adjusted movement speeds for gameplay and we always will. That has been true of every game we have made.

The length of battles will be longer than Shogun 2 but still in line with the length we've aimed for in all Total War games.

Ok ? so whats with all customers asking and begging for slower death speed and coherent movement speeds?

We colour code units to help with easy identificaiton of which units belong to each faction in a battles. Again we have always done that and always will.

Yes and I agree with that but some of the units we saw on the trailer were just PLAIN BLUE .

Artillery works just like in previous games where you recruit them as part of your army and they move around with it. Their primary use will still be for sieges.

Apart the fact that such large ballistas historically couln't be used as a scorpio for anti close range troops .

The battle is not a strict reproduction of the Battle of Nile.

then shouln't even be called historical battle ... we see late empire legionaries instead than republican ones of Caesar .

The unit card images are based on the look of the unit in the game and infact make it easier to see which unit you are selecting.

this doesn't mean that they are completely confusing , historically wrong ( prehellenistic pottery has nothing to do with the roman age ) , and even plain Ugly sorry .

The campaign is designed to last around 300 turns, which is longer than Shogun 2, Empire, Napoleon and Medieval II. There is also no time limit. You can take as long as you want to finish it.

While the Original Rome tw I was 600 turns and more , and also those periods were Waay shorter than the 4 centuries you are willing to represent of the Roman history ...
So it makes really sense that someone cannot have the 600 turns of game time to develope at a proper decent pace and historically correct one , with reasonable season alternations ( even 2 per turn like RTWI ) , to have the time to make their moves, their sieges, their plans , have and see their generals live a decent length life instead than having short timed campaign that if you take too long you will end playing in middleages ???


It's like going to a restourant order appetizer , main dish , contourn , wine , fruit and dessert and beeing it served all into a single dish mixed together .

We have gone for a more even distribution of settlements. If we went just for the ones mentioned in ancient writings (which are all Roman and Greek), we'd have a huge amount of settlements which each required sieging in a very small area. That would be terrible for gameplay. We will always go for what plays the best.

It maight be even , and I might agree on that , but you have sacrified horribily any historical worth of the game ... No sieges of Syracuse and Jerusalem ? Are we kidding?

How can be the siege of Lupfurgium beeing more relevant than those?
Nobody said that those regions shouln't have a gameplay wise and fantahistorically plausible alternative direction of development on countrary of what was historically , just to favour the gameplay and difficulty ...

but removing the sieges from 1/4 or 1/5 of the whole set of regions of the game is totally inaceptable sorry ... especially in a game that Likes to use so many times the Word "HISTORICAL"!

[pericles_plato]

I realy do not want to go through the trouble of quoting every sentence you have and refuting it.

You will still have a grat campaign with your general. Two or three if you're lucky, maybe more.
Once again what we saw and know are in Alpha, can you read that? I will capitalize it for you because it seems you are not
THE GAME IS IN ALPHA!
I am not yelling btw.
The Roman in the picture is obviously a taned white guy. Roman had black hair and it looks more orange to me than black. I agree it looks bad, but it is in Alpha it'll be fixed. If it's not? Oh bloody well, it won't ruin the game.

The point of the strategic points, if you did not read, is so that you do not camp and what not.
You are complaining about a lot of the things that C.A. will iron out. Like the units being all blue.
About the unit cards, the same was said about Shogun 2 and now no one is complaining. You will get use to it.
If a unit was not used for a purpose, it does not mean you can not use it for a purpose. I will use the balista for close range, you d not have to.
They did not sacrifice any historic part of the game! It is a work of historical fiction. Treat it as such. You are treating the demo as if it was fine wine, it's not. Let it age for three more months.
It is in Alpha right now, it is in alpha right now. Do you understand? A lot of what you are arguing about will be ironed out. It is a game of the genre historical fiction. It has some historical sides to it, not 100%. This is called historical fiction.


Edit: It is a white man. He looks like he went to a tanning bed up in New Jersey *bad joke* Look at people who are very tanned same skin color.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

...
THE GAME IS IN ALPHA!
I am not yelling btw....

no its not .

Pls look at the screenshot where you can see caeser and the black guy with the leopard on... than you will be able to see, that caeser isn't black...

Yeah not every italian is darker... but the average skin is darker than it is in austria or in german... i sometimes work in italy...

that other is a Dark african , not all black people are of the same color .

Caesar ( if is Caesar ) is clearly portrayed as a black man , considering even the comparison with the white Egypitans close ... Wich make no sense .

Also Ancient Romans were even pale skinned, often blue eyed , and many did have also blond hairs and red ... so it has nothing to do with Black people .

He is said to have been tall of stature with a fair complexion, shapely limbs, a somewhat full face, and keen black eyes;

12 Caesars , Live of Julius Caesar 45 , Svetonius

I want to see what the people would say to see "Arminius" portrayed in the same color? Or Black Boudicca ?

And AUstrians are no whiter than Italians , let's stop with those bad taste stereotypes .

[pericles_plato]

no its not .





that other is a Dark african , not all black people are of the same color .

Caesar ( if is Caesar ) is clearly portrayed as a black man , considering even the comparison with the white Egypitans close ... Wich make no sense .

Also Ancient Romans were even pale skinned, often blue eyed , and many did have also blond hairs and red ... so it has nothing to do with Black people .




12 Caesars , Live of Julius Caesar 45 , Svetonius

I want to see what the people would say to see "Arminius" portrayed in the same color? Or Black Boudicca ?

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/06/12/to...ga-booth-tour/

Approaching does not mean at.


Nor are all white people white, what is your point?
Not all of them were pale. If you are accounting over the entire people it is impossible to actually know. The game is coming up on Beta, so it still in Alpha, so it will be fixed, so what is your problem? It will be fixed. Your only option is to wait. To complain only makes people more mad at you.

You are like watching the beginning part of a painting, and complaining about how the paper is white. That is how I see it at least.

[oOIYvYIOo]

We have gone for a more even distribution of settlements. If we went just for the ones mentioned in ancient writings (which are all Roman and Greek), we'd have a huge amount of settlements which each required sieging in a very small area. That would be terrible for gameplay. We will always go for what plays the best.

This is just a small example to show how CA is wrong in is politic.

Terrible to who ? You must be talking to another forum or to the new players that might come to play Rome 2 or the "player" that play 200 hours per year ? Is those ones that CA is concerned ?
The new kids that only concern about zombies,arcades,fantasy games ?
Where is our TW before SEGA ?
Where is the interest from CA to please people that play TW for 13 years ?
You know the modds that exists on this forum for RTW right ?
You know that there is ,with huge sucess, modds with 10 times the cities Rome 2 will have and people love it .

Jack ,seriously,why dont you say, we are only concerned in making TW a more easy and appealing (fantasy) game for the new generations ?

Dont judge me wrong i love TW and will continue to play only TW as i have been playing ,till the day i see that im no longer playing a TW as i have been playing .
I know there is a small chance to get a response but im not concerned with it .See ya .

[Jungle Rhino]

This is just a small example to show how CA is wrong in is politic.

Terrible to who ? You must be talking to another forum or to the new players that might come to play Rome 2 or the "player" that play 300 hours per year ? Is those ones that CA is concerned ?
The new kids that only concern about zombies,arcades,fantasy games ?
Where is our TW before SEGA ?
Where is the interest from CA to please people that play TW for 13 years ?
You know the modds that exists on this forum for RTW right ?
You know that there is ,with huge sucess, modds with 10 times the cities Rome 2 will have and people love it .

Jack ,seriously,why dont you say, we are only concerned in making TW a more easy and appealing (fantasy) game for the new generations ?

Dont judge me wrong i love TW and will continue to play only TW as i have been playing ,till the day i see that im no longer playing a TW as i have been playing .
I know there is a small chance to get a response but im not concerned with it .See ya .

CA have now included all of Persia, Media, and the fertile cresent. THIS is where civilisation existed in ancient times. The Greeks were fringe, and the Romans virtual unknowns until their explosive conquest of the Mediteranean. I would much rather have ALL of the new territory than half a dozen rubbish little cities in Greece that didn't count for squat and rolled over when the Romans showed up.

[ISG01]

This is just a small example to show how CA is wrong in is politic.

Terrible to who ? You must be talking to another forum or to the new players that might come to play Rome 2 or the "player" that play 200 hours per year ? Is those ones that CA is concerned ?

I am sorry, but why shouldn't CA be concerned about people that play 200 hours per year? That is most definitely A LOT of time to play one game. Maybe it is not even close to the amount you like to spend on a Total War title, but when someone has spent 200 hours in a game, they are not some idiot to be disregarded, nor for that matter is someone who has played 50 hours or is a new player. Stop this nonsensical elitism, please. This game is made for all who like it. I have been a long time fan of Total War, but I do not think I have played Napoleon or Shogun more than 200 hours each. So now I am not allowed to have an opinion anymore? Or I am not the person CA should be thinking about? I will be buying Rome II, I know the series and by the looks of it, I will probably be playing it much more than just 200 hours, so as far as I am concerned they are listening to the right people and making the right decisions. Also, have some trust in the gameplay choices made by a group of people that professionally makes games. If you want complete letter by letter historical re-enactment, you should not play this game, or most others, for that matter.

The new kids that only concern about zombies,arcades,fantasy games ?

Really? If I enjoy a fantasy game, or perhaps a little Left4Dead (great game, you should try it!) I am suddenly no longer part of CA's or Total War's target audience? People can have more than one interest. Even if their only gaming interest is Total War, they might like to read science fiction, does that invalidate them as customers or players?

Where is our TW before SEGA ?

SEGA has been presiding over the franchise for years and has mostly done a very good job. Total War is bigger than it ever has been. It is one of those series you can show to a console gamer and they will feel that they are missing something. SEGA is doing a fine job for now. I am not saying we should worship any publisher blindly, but put SEGA next to some of today's other publishers and the company looks saintlike.

Where is the interest from CA to please people that play TW for 13 years ?

I have been playing Total War for about 11 years now, is that long enough to warrant a valid opinion? I know some might see this as something a fanboy would say, but the one thing CA has done right is to keep changing and developing their games, while sticking with some solid basics that make Total War what it is. That is the policy I as a slightly younger veteran than you support, so yes CA seem to be pleasing me (no euphemism intended). We can always go back and play the old games. Let's not turn the Total War series into a stale cloning machine that simply gets new graphics every year. This is Total War, not a cheap sports game.

You know the modds that exists on this forum for RTW right ?
You know that there is ,with huge sucess, modds with 10 times the cities Rome 2 will have and people love it .

You do know that every single mod is built on the massive foundation of the base game? I have huge respect for the modders, but I find a lot of people here lack the respect and kudos they should give the vanilla game developers for building solid foundations. Also, Jack explained that they tried to find a balance between gameplay and history. There are far more glaring inaccuracies when it comes to economy, but we accept those because we understand the need for there to be some form of appealing gameplay. I have no doubt CA tries to make the game as historical as possible without turning it into an animated military history documentary, because that's not what a game should be. Also, the mods might turn the game into what you want it to be, most players still play the normal game most. Seems like the best of both worlds.

Jack ,seriously,why dont you say, we are only concerned in making TW a more easy and appealing (fantasy) game for the new generations ?

Maybe he will not say that because it is simply not true. Not everyone in the world is out to con you or rob you, you know?

I personally think this game at the moment looks much more authentic than Rome I ever did. It is never easy to balance history (or received history, let's be honest, it was over 2000 years ago) and gameplay and in my opinion CA does it well enough. Let's step back from the basic military and political accuracy and look how they try to design the game to make the actual history plausible too. They did a great job in Empire by sowing the seeds of potential Enlightenment and Revolution. The same goes for the civil war in Rome I. And if Rome I's civil war shows anything, it's how far Total War has improved in trying to make events plausible and the actual history still possible.

To me, this game looks less easy than Shogun II did, though of course we cannot tell yet and if you really are the 2000 hour per game player you seem to be, do you think any iteration of Total War, however brilliant it might be, could keep challenging you into submission for those hundreds of hours? It is still a game, on computers from the early twenty-first century and not a real general able to beat you forever.

Dont judge me wrong i love TW and will continue to play only TW as i have been playing ,till the day i see that im no longer playing a TW as i have been playing .
I know there is a small chance to get a response but im not concerned with it .See ya .

We all love Total War, the developers most of all, it's their life and livelihood for goodness sake. At least reserve your judgement or insinuations that these people are only out to get rich in the worst way possible and keep in mind it is not a book of (military) history, but a massively expensive pc game that has to sell to a reasonably sized audience. Maybe, if we are very lucky, in 50-60 years time all 9 billion citizens of this planet will be able to read and write and play games and then there might be a big enough audience for exactly the game you wish to play. Until that time Total War is the absolute best you can get in this segment for sheer scale, size, epicness and good old fun.

Sorry for this semi-coherent piece of text, but I felt the need to reply. There is a Dutch saying, 'Zoals de waard is vertrouwt hij zijn gasten', that roughly translates to 'ill doers are ill deemers'. In other words: the innkeeper is untrustworthy himself, so he treats everyone as if they are too. Food for thought.

[kamikazee786]

forts will be in the game, prometheus raised alot of questions and jack answered most of them and while doing so, he confirmed the existence of forts of some kind

There are a similar number of settlements with siege battle mpas as Shogun 2. There is also the greatest variety of siege maps of any Total War game.

Seasons are still in the game. The reasons for one turn per year have been explained many, many times.

Yes Generals will be alive for a shorter period of time but will gain skills more quickly.

There is more depth and more features in the campaign than any previous Total War game.

That is an artistic choice to make it clear where players can and cannot land their armies. The tiny islands have nothing on them so have been made impassable.

There are sieges. There are forts. There are deployable defences.

There are a variety of skin tones used, some Romans are portrayed as more tanned than others. They're not black.

Capture points are for the attackers to take, and are one way of winning a battle along with the old ways of you know beating the enemy army. They are implemented to help removed some exploity tactics used by players such as corner camping.

Artillery works just like in previous games where you recruit them as part of your army and they move around with it. Their primary use will still be for sieges.

The battle is not a strict reproduction of the Battle of Nile.

The unit card images are based on the look of the unit in the game and infact make it easier to see which unit you are selecting.

The length of battles will be longer than Shogun 2 but still in line with the length we've aimed for in all Total War games.

The campaign is designed to last around 300 turns, which is longer than Shogun 2, Empire, Napoleon and Medieval II. There is also no time limit. You can take as long as you want to finish it.

We have gone for a more even distribution of settlements. If we went just for the ones mentioned in ancient writings (which are all Roman and Greek), we'd have a huge amount of settlements which each required sieging in a very small area. That would be terrible for gameplay. We will always go for what plays the best.

here's the link for the thread: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...2#post12933202

[ptoss1]

There are a similar number of settlements with siege battle mpas as Shogun 2. There is also the greatest variety of siege maps of any Total War game.



Seasons are still in the game. The reasons for one turn per year have been explained many, many times.



Yes Generals will be alive for a shorter period of time but will gain skills more quickly.



There is more depth and more features in the campaign than any previous Total War game.



That is an artistic choice to make it clear where players can and cannot land their armies. The tiny islands have nothing on them so have been made impassable.



No they're like a region from Shogun 2. Multiple buildings slots, can raise armies and have happiness factors of their own.



There are sieges. There are forts. There are deployable defences.



There are a variety of skin tones used, some Romans are portrayed as more tanned than others. They're not black.



That is not what the AI will do. that would be a huge step back for it and we continue to work hard on making it better and play better.



Capture points are for the attackers to take, and are one way of winning a battle along with the old ways of you know beating the enemy army. They are implemented to help removed some exploity tactics used by players such as corner camping.



See above. Tactics are still important, that has not changed.



We have always adjusted movement speeds for gameplay and we always will. That has been true of every game we have made.



We colour code units to help with easy identificaiton of which units belong to each faction in a battles. Again we have always done that and always will.



Artillery works just like in previous games where you recruit them as part of your army and they move around with it. Their primary use will still be for sieges.



The battle is not a strict reproduction of the Battle of Nile.



The unit card images are based on the look of the unit in the game and infact make it easier to see which unit you are selecting.



The length of battles will be longer than Shogun 2 but still in line with the length we've aimed for in all Total War games.



The campaign is designed to last around 300 turns, which is longer than Shogun 2, Empire, Napoleon and Medieval II. There is also no time limit. You can take as long as you want to finish it.



We have gone for a more even distribution of settlements. If we went just for the ones mentioned in ancient writings (which are all Roman and Greek), we'd have a huge amount of settlements which each required sieging in a very small area. That would be terrible for gameplay. We will always go for what plays the best.

ah mah gawd

Where have you been all my life?

[Captain Arrrgh!]

There are a similar number of settlements with siege battle mpas as Shogun 2. There is also the greatest variety of siege maps of any Total War game.


Seasons are still in the game. The reasons for one turn per year have been explained many, many times.


Yes Generals will be alive for a shorter period of time but will gain skills more quickly.


There is more depth and more features in the campaign than any previous Total War game.


That is an artistic choice to make it clear where players can and cannot land their armies. The tiny islands have nothing on them so have been made impassable.


No they're like a region from Shogun 2. Multiple buildings slots, can raise armies and have happiness factors of their own.


There are sieges. There are forts. There are deployable defences.


There are a variety of skin tones used, some Romans are portrayed as more tanned than others. They're not black.


That is not what the AI will do. that would be a huge step back for it and we continue to work hard on making it better and play better.


Capture points are for the attackers to take, and are one way of winning a battle along with the old ways of you know beating the enemy army. They are implemented to help removed some exploity tactics used by players such as corner camping.


See above. Tactics are still important, that has not changed.


We have always adjusted movement speeds for gameplay and we always will. That has been true of every game we have made.


We colour code units to help with easy identificaiton of which units belong to each faction in a battles. Again we have always done that and always will.


Artillery works just like in previous games where you recruit them as part of your army and they move around with it. Their primary use will still be for sieges.


The battle is not a strict reproduction of the Battle of Nile.


The unit card images are based on the look of the unit in the game and infact make it easier to see which unit you are selecting.


The length of battles will be longer than Shogun 2 but still in line with the length we've aimed for in all Total War games.


The campaign is designed to last around 300 turns, which is longer than Shogun 2, Empire, Napoleon and Medieval II. There is also no time limit. You can take as long as you want to finish it.


We have gone for a more even distribution of settlements. If we went just for the ones mentioned in ancient writings (which are all Roman and Greek), we'd have a huge amount of settlements which each required sieging in a very small area. That would be terrible for gameplay. We will always go for what plays the best.

Gotta say, even though I disagree with some of them, these are very level-headed and reasonable answers. I'm slowly starting to come around to being a CA supporter again. Their DLC shennanigens from Shogun 2 have all become par for the course in the industry, and even though they're still disgusting, they're not nearly as bad as the majority of other franchises. Their reasons for most of their decisions are very clear and agreeable, and, as with all titles, they've stayed true to making very attractive looking games that run well on even low end pc's. Rome 2's initial release is not what will decide my future purchases; it's what happens afterwards. Shogun 2's release was one of the smoothest of the franchise, but it was the constant flim flummery afterwards that made the experience sour.

[rogergargantua]

Ok a few of these things make the game sound very sucky indeed.

Dude, dont listen to his crap! It's a video game, not a history book! I'm pretty sure Rome2 will please most people. If someone starts nitpicking on all the little things, then he's definately lost imo. He shouldn't game at all. Becausing gaming is imo all about fun and entertainment. And I am pretty sure Rome 2 will be very entertaining.

Just take a look of all the combat you can do, you can ambush and set up some really cool traps (rolling flame balls), amphibious warfare....do real naval invasions this time! Go look at the movie Troy, watch the beach scene.....and now imagine you can also do all that!! So epic!!

And then all the huge cities you can explore and start sieges in. Man, Carthage looked way awesome! Imagine Athens, Rome....Alexandria! Each city with a unique feel and design. It will be like big boss battles every time. The more I type and the more I think about this game, the less I can wait! The scope is so friggin cool! All the coolest nations are represented and you are in the middle of it.

[Lionheart11]

Dude, dont listen to his crap! It's a video game, not a history book! I'm pretty sure Rome2 will please most people. If someone starts nitpicking on all the little things, then he's definately lost imo. He shouldn't game at all. Becausing gaming is imo all about fun and entertainment. And I am pretty sure Rome 2 will be very entertaining.

Just take a look of all the combat you can do, you can ambush and set up some really cool traps (rolling flame balls), amphibious warfare....do real naval invasions this time! Go look at the movie Troy, watch the beach scene.....and now imagine you can also do all that!! So epic!!



And then all the huge cities you can explore and start sieges in. Man, Carthage looked way awesome! Imagine Athens, Rome....Alexandria! Each city with a unique feel and design. It will be like big boss battles every time. The more I type and the more I think about this game, the less I can wait! The scope is so friggin cool! All the coolest nations are represented and you are in the middle of it.

Yeah, but im one of those guys who wants(loves) more micro manage, hate's the idea of 1 tpy and loathes my generals dying like flies.

So I do see both point of views, I think a few of his gripes are legit or atleast intended to be positive in a round about way.

The game looks awesome(graphically)

I was disappointed with STW2 so I don't want that again. I guess we all have to wait and see.

[Lionheart11]

You are absolutely right someones opinions is absolutely leggit I expect prometheus to no the best what prometheus likes.

But prometheus doesn't understand that his opinion is somehting different then the absolute truth. Also the continuing diminishing of other peoples opinions and the lying about confirmed features in order to push his opinion trough other peoples throats really is disgusting.

True and its a bit early to jump the start gun, my pre-order is still there but I do want more confirmed info.

[pericles_plato]

Amazing how some people in thei blund defence of CA game at all costs not only refuse to see the truth but want even other people to shut up and not listen to any critic pressing thei hands on their ears. And the only way they have to counter criticism is just plain insulting and personal addressing. In the hope to make vanquish all the critics to the. Game. Thats the kind of players that CA could serve a card game , call it chess and they would believe.

I do not give a crap about the card game. I'm buying it through steam, I do not want the card game. I do not mind complaints, just the overabundance of them for a game not even completely done. If you do it a lot it can become personal. Imagine a new sports team is being made, in your home town *There were previously no sports teams in your hometown* They released a video and you love the style of play they have. Some one comes around and says how bad it is gives you reason by reason. They keep doing so over and over again. Pretty soon it will be taken a personal offence and emotion takes over all forms of logic and reason. Complaining/ criticism is not a bad thing. It is when you do it in excess.

You have your list of complaints and issues. When it is September 3, 2013 you will have all your answers. Your issues will either change or stay. Serious question. Are you going to buy the game? Do not judge just by the Alpha content alone.

The only thing thing I ask of ye is that you calm down on the complaints, maybe give a praise or two no and then, unless you truly truly hate this and will not buy it or play it at all. Though if that is the case I fail to see why you are complaining in the first place, it will be going to the dog park *Rome II forum part of TWC* and kept on saying how you hate dogs and what not * the dog is the game itself* though it could be a better analogy it's all i can think of right now.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Amazing how some people in thei blund defence of CA game at all costs not only refuse to see the truth but want even other people to shut up and not listen to any critic pressing thei hands on their ears. And the only way they have to counter criticism is just plain insulting and personal addressing. In the hope to make vanquish all the critics to the. Game. Thats the kind of players that CA could serve a card game , call it chess and they would believe.

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.

[Richard III]

No we criticize not on opinions but on stated facts by CA and solid videos dhowed us that at 2 months from release show what the game is like in its final stage.

How can you draw any kind of solid conclusions from a scripted battle, and before said scripted battle a campaign that was most definitely set up to mirror history circa ~56 BC

[AngryTitusPullo]

No we criticize not on opinions but on stated facts by CA and solid videos dhowed us that at 2 months from release show what the game is like in its final stage.

It's not in the final stage yet Prom. They're barely approaching beta and the ones they've showed yesterday and today was not base on the status of the game as of 3 days ago. Before they bring something to show to public there's many levels of stuff that a company have to go through before something can be made available.

It's not like mods we created last night and show to public today.

[Rhaegar1]

Well some people will refuse to see no matter whTat proves u bring to thei eyes.
Also I am not making up anything , I just summed up what they showed and said.

The only things I've seen from you are lies, misdirections and lots of noise just because you don't like some things, that's something different then proof.

For example I've spotted you multiple times lying about the time limmit in the campaign, there is none, that has been stated by Jack Lusted multiple times in forums where you participated actively in the discussion. Even after these statements you kept trying to convert people to your 1TPY=evil crusade by saying everyone is limited to 300 turns and everyone is rushed to finish the game in time.

[pericles_plato]

What you think of unit diversity, all the nations....and what is the absolute thing you are looking forward too? Me? I look forward to do a big beach landing....kinda like Troy!

I want to have a massive beach landing war. An ancient d-day kind of thing. I do want to have a go with navy battles. The crew of the ship, when they land the army, are they going to join in the land fight or are they going to just chill on the ship?