I Don't Mind Flying Soldiers

[The Juggernaut]

I really don't! And here's why:

1. It's visible. If I'm focused on one side of the battle, and my men are under onager fire, I'd like to know! The disruption to the formation is visible, and easily shows a commander "Hey, your men are getting shot at, you should move them behind something."

2. It's productive. By that I mean, it disrupts the formation, which is what the enemy is trying to accomplish. And when a big boulder comes crashing down on you, people are going to jump out of the way! Except for the Roman supermen, they die with honor.

3. It's realistic. Sure, a falling rock doesn't throw men around like an explosion. But people are going to run, jump, or try to take cover. A chariot going at full speed should throw men around, and again, soldiers are going to be trying to get out of the way!

While I think the animations could look better TBH, it's not game breaking or immersion killing for me. Anyone else agree?

[Sorceleur]

Happy for you.

[a tw player]

Just been thinking of any films I've seen that would fire projectiles in a more realistic way...It's not usually a good idea to cite LOTR from a realism point of view, but go to 1:44. No random implausible explosion, just a crushing of men. This disrupts the formation by crushing those underneath, and also from a few getting out the way. Not sure why you need the power of a high-explosive shell to disrupt the formation like you ask. Of course, if you have the rock coming in at a shallow angle, it would be plausible to take the few soldiers directly in its path off their feet following the path of the rock, not flying off randomly ahead.

The mind boggles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH2xdCShQpw for if the embedding doesn't work

[sleepyx732]

Well I do..

love your signature by the way.

[Zipzopdippidybopbop]

1/10 troll harder.

Seriously, the flying animation is deliberate to appear Hollywood-esque and arcadey, probably to appeal to the new audience (or the COD generation as its usually called).

[Augustus Scipius]

1/10 troll harder.

Seriously, the flying animation is deliberate to appear Hollywood-esque and arcadey, probably to appeal to the new audience (or the COD generation as its usually called).

Seriously, the people crying about "console kids", "CoD generation", or any other nonsense are making me feel depressed. No Total War game has ever had realistic physics, historically accurate uniforms/armors nor realistic-as-pain gameplay in the base game. Mods are the ones to thank (or blame) for that.

For example, the reason RTW has practically became a legend among TW players is because of mods. Mods like Europa Barbarorum, Roma Surrectum II or Rome Total Realism have taken realism and historical accuracy to a whole new level. People tend to forget about the critical flaws of the base game. It had terrible historical inaccuracies, like the infamous Egyptian units, Barbarian factions depicted as savage cavemen hurling heads, or the ridiculous units that were either blatantly out of context or even completely made up. It was extremely Rome-centered, and portrayed that faction better than the others combined. Furthermore, it had game-breaking elements, such as the ridiculous phalanxes that were basically impenetrable walls of doom that killed anything they touched, chariots that decimated everything from horses to infantry without even slowing their speed, and godlike cavalry. When you compare it to Shogun 2, you can see how much Total War has evolved. In fact, unmodded Shogun 2 is in the same level of historical accuracy and realism as some RTW realism mods were back in time.

I seriously cannot see why anyone would bash the entire game three months before release, their entire opinion based on one six-minute-long demo clip from an unfinished game showcasing a scripted battle, shown in an event the purpose of which is to attract buyers and make the game known to the masses. If CA wanted to make an arcade game appealing to younger audiences, they would drop the rating to Pegi 12+ and implement cartoony graphics combined with an action-oriented gameplay with minimum thinking required. Rome II will be a great strategy game, but it won't be Europa Barbarorum II, which is what some people apparently thought it would be. Even though I am disappointed myself about certain aspects of the game I have seen, I remain hopeful since there is still time left before release.

[Zipzopdippidybopbop]

Seriously, the people crying about "console kids", "CoD generation", or any other nonsense are making me feel depressed. No Total War game has ever had realistic physics, historically accurate uniforms/armors nor realistic-as-pain gameplay in the base game. Mods are the ones to thank (or blame) for that.

For example, the reason RTW has practically became a legend among TW players is because of mods. Mods like Europa Barbarorum, Roma Surrectum II or Rome Total Realism have taken realism and historical accuracy to a whole new level. People tend to forget about the critical flaws of the base game. It had terrible historical inaccuracies, like the infamous Egyptian units, Barbarian factions depicted as savage cavemen hurling heads, or the ridiculous units that were either blatantly out of context or even completely made up. It was extremely Rome-centered, and portrayed that faction better than the others combined. Furthermore, it had game-breaking elements, such as the ridiculous phalanxes that were basically impenetrable walls of doom that killed anything they touched, chariots that decimated everything from horses to infantry without even slowing their speed, and godlike cavalry. When you compare it to Shogun 2, you can see how much Total War has evolved. In fact, unmodded Shogun 2 is in the same level of historical accuracy and realism as some RTW realism mods were back in time.

I seriously cannot see why anyone would bash the entire game three months before release, their entire opinion based on one six-minute-long demo clip from an unfinished game showcasing a scripted battle, shown in an event the purpose of which is to attract buyers and make the game known to the masses. If CA wanted to make an arcade game appealing to younger audiences, they would drop the rating to Pegi 12+ and implement cartoony graphics combined with an action-oriented gameplay with minimum thinking required. Rome II will be a great strategy game, but it won't be Europa Barbarorum II, which is what some people apparently thought it would be. Even though I am disappointed myself about certain aspects of the game I have seen, I remain hopeful since there is still time left before release.

I remember the earlier Totalwars all too well. You appear to forget Medieval 1, which was a fantastic wee game (and no extreme inaccuracy from what I know).

And the reason for arguing so much is simply because those mods we all love are becoming harder to create due to the design of the games they produce themselves..... not overly modder friendly.

If people make major mods for the game I will happily sit back and smile about the game itself (albeit while playing RSIII)

[King_Porus]

Seriously, the people crying about "console kids", "CoD generation", or any other nonsense are making me feel depressed. No Total War game has ever had realistic physics, historically accurate uniforms/armors nor realistic-as-pain gameplay in the base game. Mods are the ones to thank (or blame) for that.

For example, the reason RTW has practically became a legend among TW players is because of mods. Mods like Europa Barbarorum, Roma Surrectum II or Rome Total Realism have taken realism and historical accuracy to a whole new level. People tend to forget about the critical flaws of the base game. It had terrible historical inaccuracies, like the infamous Egyptian units, Barbarian factions depicted as savage cavemen hurling heads, or the ridiculous units that were either blatantly out of context or even completely made up. It was extremely Rome-centered, and portrayed that faction better than the others combined. Furthermore, it had game-breaking elements, such as the ridiculous phalanxes that were basically impenetrable walls of doom that killed anything they touched, chariots that decimated everything from horses to infantry without even slowing their speed, and godlike cavalry. When you compare it to Shogun 2, you can see how much Total War has evolved. In fact, unmodded Shogun 2 is in the same level of historical accuracy and realism as some RTW realism mods were back in time.

I seriously cannot see why anyone would bash the entire game three months before release, their entire opinion based on one six-minute-long demo clip from an unfinished game showcasing a scripted battle, shown in an event the purpose of which is to attract buyers and make the game known to the masses. If CA wanted to make an arcade game appealing to younger audiences, they would drop the rating to Pegi 12+ and implement cartoony graphics combined with an action-oriented gameplay with minimum thinking required. Rome II will be a great strategy game, but it won't be Europa Barbarorum II, which is what some people apparently thought it would be. Even though I am disappointed myself about certain aspects of the game I have seen, I remain hopeful since there is still time left before release.

THIS! Miles Invictus, did you ever play Rome TW vanilla? It was the least realistic game in the series, but it was the best. They aren't deliberately making it arcadey just for the "COD generation", it has ALWAYS been arcedey and unrealistic, mods have always been the things that make them realistic, so your conspiracy theory is definitely false.

[Eofor]

Seriously, the people crying about "console kids", "CoD generation", or any other nonsense are making me feel depressed.

As I've said before and will likely continue to say there should be a filter that replaces words and phrases like those with "I have absolutely nothing worth to say or listen to and everything that I type should be ignored". If that happened maybe people would put some actual thought into their arguments instead of just banging out the same snarl words and knee jerk rants over and over and over again.

[Serger989]

I don't mind them either, it is actually one of my favorite things from the new video. I like seeing the power, it helps to feel it as well, especially when it comes to siege weapons. It's really cool how they don't all die at all, the majority just get back up and re form.

[Dumanthis]

I don't mind them either, it is actually one of my favorite things from the new video. I like seeing the power, it helps to feel it as well, especially when it comes to siege weapons. It's really cool how they don't all die at all, the majority just get back up and re form.

It worries me that the people fly in the air exactly the same way they did almost a decade ago. It makes me wonder that if anything truly has been bettered in the series

[CheesyFreak]

1/10 troll harder.

Seriously, the flying animation is deliberate to appear Hollywood-esque and arcadey, probably to appeal to the new audience (or the COD generation as its usually called).

what do you mean with new audience? young people or people new to the games? because 3 friends of mine(we are 16-17) want to buy rome 2(their first total war) and they didnt even notice the flying soldiers as in they dont care if its in or not.

but yeah in my opinion it should atleast be toned down a little, still want it to be visible when im zoomed out though.

[DogSoldierSPQR]

As long as only two or three die, I don't care. I just don't want to lose half a unit to these things.

[JankoMega]

We have 3 freaking months till the game comes out. It will most likely be heavily changed until then, as they mentioned. Worry about something else, far more important in life...

[Ariovist]

We have 3 freaking months till the game comes out. It will most likely be heavily changed until then, as they mentioned. Worry about something else, far more important in life...

Not really, at latest end of july nothing could be changed, because of the manifacturing of the discs.

[Onyxja]

Not really, at latest end of july nothing could be changed, because of the manifacturing of the discs.

That is circumvented by day 1 patch.

[Lord Cornwallis]

Why do they have to use the same stupid anaimation from 9 years ago? it's the same one from RTW!

How about some ragdolls effects for the impacts?

[Rhomphaiaphoros]

I agree with you, OP.

At the risk of becoming unpopular on this forum: I quite honestly don't get all the fuss about the ridiculous flying of soldiers. I mean, it's just graphics. Rather silly graphics, I admit, or even ridiculous, as I already said, but my point is that It's. Just. Graphics. It doesn't exactly affect the game mechanics or gameplay in any way, you know.

I mean, come on. There's a badly mauled Greece on the campaign map, and there are sarissa phalanxes with only 3 ranks of pikes directed at the enemy. The former is a large-scale blunder, and the latter can potentially butcher game mechanics and/or tactics. And yet, people are complaining about a purely visual thing of some guys flying too far when hit by artillery. Sheesh.

Hey, wait; maybe those aren't sarissa phalanxes, and they just decided to give the Hellenic pikemen Medieval pikes instead, because, as every layperson knows, if it's Medieval, it's INFINITLEE MOAR AWWSUMMMM than some dusty thing from antiquity? And maybe that map isn't supposed to represent Greece at all, and instead we're finally getting the fantasy world Total War some of us have been asking for? Oh, but I'm actually fine with all of this, as long as my soldiers only fly 179.3 cm when hit and not a nanometre more! [/sarcasm]

Rant over, Rhomp out.

[caissus]

Lord of the Rings had more realistic physics than this game. And that's actual fantasy.

[petertel123]

Lord of the Rings had more realistic physics than this game. And that's actual fantasy.

well lord of the rings had exactly the same physics as this world (except for the escape from goblin town scene in the hobbit maybe)