Rome 2: Rule of Cool > Realism/accuracy?

[EmperorBatman999]

Hello everybody. I usually don't partake in discussions on this part of TWC (particularly the debates over sandals or other trifling things), but I thought it was time I chimed in.

I'm not talking about simply aesthetics, but also other things such as visuals, mechanics, and the general direction of production. I think many can agree that so far Napoleon was probably the most visually-accurate Total War game, although becasue of obvious hardware contraints it cannot match the entire size and depth of Napoleonic Battles. That is fine. But since Shogun 2, I've noticed that there is more of a focus on legends (well, you could say it started with NTW - the legend of Napoleon) and also mythology in the form of hero units. At least a great deal of the Sengoku Jidai's figures are shrouded in their own mythologies to make it acceptable in combination with the Romantic image of the samurai warrior. With this legion legacy, the focus on heroic commanders and leaders, this legendary attitude seems to continue. In addition, there is more of a focus on pop culture's image of the ancient world (although Rome 1 wasn't much better) and I also hear about catapults accurate enough to take out an entire legion in one shot. Is it me, or is this production decision not working? It fit fine with Japan, but now that it's the classical Meditteranean its a little grating.

I have no idea why this is. It seems they've been shied away from building up a nation that was so prominent in Empire and prior and now just focus on the personalities like its an HBO series. Anybody else noticing this?

[ptoss1]

Cleopatra = Arabian accent prostitute dancer
Romans = speaks English without accent
Sparta = strong infantry
Barbarians = barbaric
Iceni = Bouddicea

[Miszel]

TW series were always pretty "pop", i see nothing wrong with this stylization

[empr guy]

TW series were always pretty "pop",

^

TW has never been that accurate. Pretty much everything in the trailer was designed to be eye grabbing 'cool' stuff (nothing particularly realistic about chariots throwing people straight up or giant ballistas using some sort of high explosive laser guided missile), as was the one for S2, and the game before that...

[ptoss1]

^

TW has never been that accurate. Pretty much everything in the trailer was designed to be eye grabbing 'cool' stuff (nothing particularly realistic about chariots throwing people straight up or giant ballistas using some sort of high explosive laser guided missile), as was the one for S2, and the game before that...

Hence SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAA, GARRRRRRR.

[Sir Sesshaku]

Hello everybody. I usually don't partake in discussions on this part of TWC (particularly the debates over sandals or other trifling things), but I thought it was time I chimed in.

I'm not talking about simply aesthetics, but also other things such as visuals, mechanics, and the general direction of production. I think many can agree that so far Napoleon was probably the most visually-accurate Total War game, although becasue of obvious hardware contraints it cannot match the entire size and depth of Napoleonic Battles. That is fine. But since Shogun 2, I've noticed that there is more of a focus on legends (well, you could say it started with NTW - the legend of Napoleon) and also mythology in the form of hero units. At least a great deal of the Sengoku Jidai's figures are shrouded in their own mythologies to make it acceptable in combination with the Romantic image of the samurai warrior. With this legion legacy, the focus on heroic commanders and leaders, this legendary attitude seems to continue. In addition, there is more of a focus on pop culture's image of the ancient world (although Rome 1 wasn't much better) and I also hear about catapults accurate enough to take out an entire legion in one shot. Is it me, or is this production decision not working? It fit fine with Japan, but now that it's the classical Meditteranean its a little grating.

I have no idea why this is. It seems they've been shied away from building up a nation that was so prominent in Empire and prior and now just focus on the personalities like its an HBO series. Anybody else noticing this?

I disagree, napoleon wasn't at all visually accurate, the artillery for instance leaved holes on the ground that gave defensive bonus to units there. They were not howitzers.

For me...the most visually accurate was Medieval 1 total war. It felt medieval in all aspects.

[Dan113112]

I disagree, napoleon wasn't at all visually accurate, the artillery for instance leaved holes on the ground that gave defensive bonus to units there. They were not howitzers.

For me...the most visually accurate was Medieval 1 total war. It felt medieval in all aspects.

Are you saying that cannon balls don't leave craters? Because they do. The cannon balls weren't that big and they weren't giant shell craters.

30 men died? OMG! Not even in ETW or Napoleon the casualties from 1 shot of artillery was so great. And you people are fine with it? I am afraid that I will not buy Rome 2 until there are serious realism mods made for it.

If you fired canister shot in ETW at close range you could decimate an enemy unit.

artillery is supposed to be useless vs infantry. horribly inaccurate, and even when it did miraculously hit, a boulder would not cause a lot of casualties. should be used almost exclusively for sieges.

obviously CA wants to make it have some sort of practical use in battles, as to cater to the 'pop' crowd as Miszel referred to it as, but they simply went over-the-top and made it too powerful. artillery in Rome 1 was perfect; inaccurate but when hit could take a decent chunk out of a unit (although nowhere near the decimation of the artillery we were shown in Rome 2)

Ballistae were used against infantry as well. To be fair, those were large ballistae and the Roman unit was hit by multiple shots. The chariot coming down hill had optimal conditions for crashing through and enemy unit.

[Shmanky]

Ballistae were used against infantry as well. To be fair, those were large ballistae and the Roman unit was hit by multiple shots. The chariot coming down hill had optimal conditions for crashing through and enemy unit.

Ballistae never fired large projectiles, which further increases the historical inaccuracies. The unit was not 'hit' by multiple shots; to be hit by a stone you have to be directly hit by the stone. They do not explode and cause damage from yards away.

[-FrOzeN-]

Ca really need to realise that it's not: Cool > Realism/accuracy but actually Cool = Realism/accuracy:/

[PeonKing]

Ca really need to realise that it's not: Cool > Realism/accuracy but actually Cool = Realism/accuracy:/

I disagree with this. Personally I enjoy the stylization as long as it's not something outlandish, and also adds to the depth of the gameplay. I feel like if everything was completely realistic, first you'd probably have to spend a lot more time than the do nitpicking sources, and then it would remove any artistic license which most of which serves to make the game more varied. It's a balance, you can't throw out all of the realistic aspects, or else you lose the historic feel, but on the other hand it's not just a history simulator, it's a strategy game based on history.

[nicknitro]

CA has never said this is meant to be a historical simulation..it's meant to be a game with entertainment value. If you're looking for a historical simulation with complete realism you need to look else ware.

[atheniandp]

Ca really need to realise that it's not: Cool > Realism/accuracy but actually Cool = Realism/accuracy:/

Quoted for truth. Even the Gamespot interviewer pointed out his distaste for the "gamey" qualities of Rome II. That says a lot about what people want from the Total War series...

[Eien]

I think we should all go back to chess/chinese chess/go, best realism ever.

[ashbery76]

No such thing as a realistic game.We only play perceived realism.

[Templar Spartan]

Seems fine to me. Also if you watch the video you'll see that they were "Great Ballistas" (not catapults), the enemy was pretty close and bunched up, and that only around 30 men died from a direct hit (nowhere close to a legion. Did you mean a cohort?). Let's have less hearsay people, come on.

[Shmanky]

Seems fine to me. Also if you watch the video you'll see that they were "Great Ballistas" (not catapults), the enemy was pretty close and bunched up, and that only around 30 men died from a direct hit (nowhere close to a legion. Did you mean a cohort?). Let's have less hearsay people, come on.

30 men being killed by 1 artillery shot is absurd. The entire cohort (literally) was scattered/killed which just looked completely stupid.

[ptoss1]

30 men being killed by 1 artillery shot is absurd. The entire cohort (literally) was scattered/killed which just looked completely stupid.

Personally, I think it's an internal balance issue.
The cost of great ballistae might be really pricey, so CA has to justify its cost by making it really strong.
Historically I don't think there's any incident that specifies how much casualties ballistae actually caused, so I'm fine with that.
Also there were 160 men in the cohort, so that's less than a fifth of the unit. It's not as op as you think it is.

[gamerwill253]

Personally, I think it's an internal balance issue.
The cost of great ballistae might be really pricey, so CA has to justify its cost by making it really strong.
Historically I don't think there's any incident that specifies how much casualties ballistae actually caused, so I'm fine with that.
Also there were 160 men in the cohort, so that's less than a fifth of the unit. It's not as op as you think it is.

I agree, in Rome I onagers with flaming projectiles would demolish entire units on contact.

[Templar Spartan]

Personally, I think it's an internal balance issue.
The cost of great ballistae might be really pricey, so CA has to justify its cost by making it really strong.
Historically I don't think there's any incident that specifies how much casualties ballistae actually caused, so I'm fine with that.
Also there were 160 men in the cohort, so that's less than a fifth of the unit. It's not as op as you think it is.

Exactly. It's pretty safe to say that Great Ballistae are late-game, top-of-the-line artillery units. How is 30 men absurd at all? Did you see the size of the projectile? And it rolled downhill on top of everything else. As to the scattering, I know that if I see one of those heading remotely my way I'm diving the hell out of the way (not to mention the poor devils that get hit a glancing blow and survive).

Please do us a favour and go out, get a stone, and drop it on your foot. If we're correct, it'll hurt. But if you are correct it'll blow your legs off.
It's a stone, not a bloody meteor they are firing

Yes Frozen, because the ballistas just dropped little pebbles on the romans. That's exactly what happened.
YOU do me a favor. Pick up a 20lb rock and drop it on your foot. After you're done hopping around in pain, think of what a massive rock forcefully propelled towards you while it rolls downhill would do.

[Clock]

30 men being killed by 1 artillery shot is absurd. The entire cohort (literally) was scattered/killed which just looked completely stupid.

Watch the video again, the unit gets hit BY ALL THREE ballistas at once. Well, one shot lands a little to the left, but still causes a small impact. But two other hit the unit direct. It still only causes 30 casualties though and I bet the reload time is a *****.