Current problems of Rome II and what needs to be changed before release?

[LemonySniffit]

The only real problems I have observed from the released footage of the game are the following:

-the in battle physics are rediculous.
-the unit speed is off.
-the faces of the diplomats/generals/family members are all the same.
-in all the demos we have seen there is a clear lact of unit diversity for one faction, with there being only a handful of unique unit cards present for the Teutoburg battle and campaign map footage from Rezzed.
-the map seems very barren and empty with all the little armies gone.
-the diplomacy is pretty much the same as in the previous TW games except with a few features missing and NAPs added.
-the UI is minimalist and ugly to look at.
-units cards could be a lot nicer to look at.
-still no saddles or reins.
-AI is still as unreasonable and stupid as it was in previous titles.*

The CA now has about 69 days till the game gets released, I hope that these aspects will be fixed or changed.

* = In the Rezzed footage the Roman player controls half the campaign map and has a 'large' army in Egypt on the doorsteps of the Egyptian capital and asks them to surrender and become a vassal state, the Egyptian AI just goes 'lol no' and the campaign continues.

This is to me is very reminiscent of every TW I've played in the past where you could control 90% of the map, have one faction down to one territory (which is completely surrounded by your elite armies) without money or resources, and when you ask them to surrender or become a vassal they would just refuse time after time again. Eventually forcing you to eliminate them. Seems like in the demo of Rome 2 this was no different, and so probably won't be different in the final game neither.

[Spartanss300]

I have grown to like the unit cards and the UI, but unfortunately for people who don't like it CA has stated that they have no plan to change them.

[-=PHX=-Hades]

* = In the Rezzed footage the Roman player controls half the campaign map and has a 'large' army in Egypt on the doorsteps of the Egyptian capital and asks them to surrender and become a vassal state, the Egyptian AI just goes 'lol no' and the campaign continues.

This is to me is very reminiscent of every TW I've played in the past where you could control 90% of the map, have one faction down to one territory (which is completely surrounded by your elite armies) without money or resources, and when you ask them to surrender or become a vassal they would just refuse time after time again. Eventually forcing you to eliminate them. Seems like in the Demo of Rome 2 this was no different, and so probably won't be different in the final game neither.

Have you played Shogun II? Cuz the AI will surrender to you in Shogun II. I've done it many times.

And how many more threads do we need for people to complain what they don't like about Rome II when the game isn't out for another 2 months?

[Tim_Ward]

Ok, let's do this.

-the in battle physics are rediculous.

I concur, the dudes being thrown miles into the air looks ridiculous - however there is a semi-legitimate gameplay reason for it, when you're playing normally, i.e. zoomed most of the way out, more subtle clues that your unit just got pwnd by a unit that has disrupted the formation might easily go unnoticed. I wish they'd come up with something that looks obvious from 100ft in the air but doesn't look quite so silly, though.

-the faces of the diplomats/generals/family members are all the same.

Don't care.

-in all the demos we have seen there is a clear lact of unit diversity for one faction, with there being only a handful of unique unit cards present for the Teutoburg battle and campaign map footage from Rezzed.

Very dubious conclusion to draw from such limited evidence.

-the map seems very barren and empty with all the little armies gone.

Uh, yeah, it's a map that's for displaying armies. If you take away the armies, it's going to look at little empty.

-the diplomacy is pretty much the same as in the previous TW games except with a few features missing and NAPs added.

Good.

-the UI is minimalist and ugly to look at.

It looks like an excellent UI to me. Good UIs generally *are* minimalist.

Now that I think about it, the Total War series is perhaps the only grand strategy game I've played where the UI *hasn't* sucked balls.

-still no saddles or reins.

Since you play the game from 100ft in the air, I don't really care and honestly have no idea why so many people obsess over minutiae of uniforms and kit and so on when you can't even see the damn things when you actually play the game. Having said that, I believe someone from CA has said there will be saddles for some cultures and saddle clothes for others.

-AI is still as unreasonable and stupid as it was in previous titles.*

* = In the Rezzed footage the Roman player controls half the campaign map and has a 'large' army in Egypt on the doorsteps of the Egyptian capital and asks them to surrender and become a vassal state, the Egyptian AI just goes 'lol no' and the campaign continues.

This is to me is very reminiscent of every TW I've played in the past where you could control 90% of the map, have one faction down to one territory (which is completely surrounded by your elite armies) without money or resources, and when you ask them to surrender or become a vassal they would just refuse time after time again. Eventually forcing you to eliminate them. Seems like in the Demo of Rome 2 this was no different, and so probably won't be different in the final game neither.

This is a completely absurd conclusion to draw from such limited evidence. We know from Shogun 2 that AI players will offer peace or become vassals if they're sufficiently down on their luck, so it hardly likely that they wouldn't be reusing that code, even if they haven't improved upon it.

Meanwhile, it does not follow at all that a smaller empire should always and automatically capitulate to a larger player, for either gameplay or realism reasons. From a gameplay point of view, it would be very exploitable. Once you get past a certain size, you can force smaller factions to become your vassals, which would then make you even more powerful, allowing you to gain more vassals and so on, until you pretty much control the entire map.

From a realism perspective... well, just read some history. Any history. Powerful nations could not just dictate terms to smaller nations or assimilate them on a whim. Just look at the Anglo-Zulu war. Britain controls a quarter of the earth, the Zulu Kingdom controlled a small section of Africa. Britain presents an ultimatum, and yet the Zulu's refuse to comply. Stupid and unreasonable AI, or is it actually that perhaps there's more to this whole diplomacy/war thing than who has the biggest power rating? Like the fact that these mighty global empires, because of logistics and their numerous other commitments, cannot actually bring all that force to bare at one point and might not actually enjoy such overwhelming superiority locally, or that the smaller faction might be operating under internal political constraints that makes surrender impossible? Or that the smaller faction might be being run by a stubborn idiot? Or that it's being run by someone who is neither stubborn nor an idiot, but has bad information? Or advisor's who only tell him what he wants to hear, rather than the truth?

Being about to lose their capital doesn't imply that their whole military situation is hopeless, either.

[Babri]

Ok, let's do this.

I concur, the dudes being thrown miles into the air looks ridiculous - however there is a semi-legitimate gameplay reason for it, when you're playing normally, i.e. zoomed most of the way out, more subtle clues that your unit just got pwnd by a unit that has disrupted the formation might easily go unnoticed. I wish they'd come up with something that looks obvious from 100ft in the air but doesn't look quite so silly, though.

I think the unit cards should flash red to give the player a clue that the unit is under heavy attack by a cavalry unit, disrupting its formations.

[Babri]

Sorry, double post

[DogSoldierSPQR]

Most of the things you just mentioned have been said before countless times and will be changed, especially since that code we saw is obviously not the final version.
Do not worry.

AI will not change for a long time, we're not at the SkyNet level yet with any kind of AI anyway, never mind games.

Pretty sure CA mentioned something about the faces of the family and characters before. Besides, they don't look that bad anyway.

When it comes to unit diversity, there's only so much you can do with certain factions. For example, the Romans, they were an organised, cohesive unit who dressed in the same manner. You just wouldn't find any kind of variation on them in any way at all. However, with the Suebi and Berserkers etc. you can see a lot of variation on them.

The unit speed is there for gameplay reasons. You may not agree with it but it seems good to me. How productive can slow units be?

The battle physics are going to be toned down, that was mentioned during the Rezzed gameplay.

Jack has already mentioned that there will be different types of saddles and cloths that different factions will have. No reigns. Hardly game-breaking though.

The map is obviously a work in progress, hence, why they showed it so late. You know there's more going into that.

To be honest, too many people on here doubting CA's ability to make Rome 2 good. They will do a good job, I can promise you that.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

The only real problems I have observed from the released footage of the game is the following:

-the in battle physics are rediculous.
-the unit speed is off.
-the faces of the diplomats/generals/family members are all the same.
-in all the demos we have seen there is a clear lact of unit diversity for one faction, with there being only a handful of unique unit cards present for the Teutoburg battle and campaign map footage from Rezzed.
-the map seems very barren and empty with all the little armies gone.
-the diplomacy is pretty much the same as in the previous TW games except with a few features missing and NAPs added.
-the UI is minimalist and ugly to look at.
-units cards could be a lot nicer to look at.
-still no saddles or reins.
-AI is still as unreasonable and stupid as it was in previous titles.*

The CA now has about 69 days till the game gets released, I hope that these aspects will be fixed or changed.

* = In the Rezzed footage the Roman player controls half the campaign map and has a 'large' army in Egypt on the doorsteps of the Egyptian capital and asks them to surrender and become a vassal state, the Egyptian AI just goes 'lol no' and the campaign continues.

This is to me is very reminiscent of every TW I've played in the past where you could control 90% of the map, have one faction down to one territory (which is completely surrounded by your elite armies) without money or resources, and when you ask them to surrender or become a vassal they would just refuse time after time again. Eventually forcing you to eliminate them. Seems like in the demo of Rome 2 this was no different, and so probably won't be different in the final game neither.

as well as ...
And one turn per year
3/4 of the cities unsiegeable
Animations of romans are the same as sordmen swingers
no unit cohesion
no mutatio ordinis
the testudo looks crap
Caesar strat unit looks like a black african
many historical mistakes
Important cities not even present
etc etc etc

Forget about all of them .
they are probably right now just preparing all the packages of the game and sending around the world , RTWII its done and we will get what we saw .
there is notime to change anythng of the many disapointments this game will bring us all so we either have to live with an arcadey , new comers oriented game or just don't buy it .
too bad that this had to be their masterpiece and instead is resulting more in a fly catcher for new players .

[DogSoldierSPQR]

as well as ...
And one turn per year
3/4 of the cities unsiegeable
Animations of romans are the same as sordmen swingers
no unit cohesion
no mutatio ordinis
the testudo looks crap
Caesar strat unit looks like a black african
many historical mistakes
Important cities not even present
etc etc etc

Forget about all of them .
they are probably right now just preparing all the packages of the game and sending around the world , RTWII its done and we will get what we saw .
there is notime to change anythng of the many disapointments this game will bring us all so we either have to live with an arcadey , new comers oriented game or just don't buy it .
too bad that this had to be their masterpiece and instead is resulting more in a fly catcher for new players .

To be fair, Prom, the one turn per year is not all that bad.
In my RS2 campaign, I'm only 120 turns in and it feels like I've invested half my life to this campaign. R2TW campaign is 300 turns long. Plenty!
Can see the problem with a lot of settlements not being siege-able, but am reserving judgement until I have tested it out myself.

Yeah, but you only see that from the Romans who were not in formation. Look at the Rezzed gameplay, at the Romans who made their way up the hill and were in formation fighting against the archers. They were holding the archers back with shields and thrusting with the Gladius. I'm guessing you never saw that?

Cohesion is there, however, the AI never knows how to use it and when Al was playing the Teutoberg gameplay video, he wasn't exactly taking his time. He was rushing everywhere and was so uncoordinated. Plenty of situations where he could've showcased the unit cohesion. Romans are not meant to attack enemies, enemies are supposed to come to the Romans. Al did not show this.

mutatio ordinis? No clue what that is...

Most likely a temporary testudo. I'm guessing there is an option for the proper one somewhere. If not, it's not a big loss, it does it's job very well.

Caeser just picked the wrong tan shop to go to, he's very much European.

CA doesn't strive for historical accuracy, you know this, Prom.
It's a pretty big sacrifice missing out certain cities, but again, we have to reserve judgement until we have played. CA don't make gambles, they do something because they know it'll work.

[IlluminatiRex]

mutatio ordinis? No clue what that is...

Googling it didn't provide many answers except one. I think it means "Battle Line Rotation" or something of that nature where they would rotate troops in and out of the front line of men. Something like that.

[Kissaki]

as well as ...
no mutatio ordinis

That's entirely up to you. You send fresh centuries to relieve the ones in combat. Or, after they have fought off one group of enemies, rotate one centuria with a fresher one. The latter is far more likely, as this is the sort of thing best done when not engaged in combat. If you want a rotation system like we saw in HBO's Rome, that is completely ahistorical and would be silly for a number of reasons. And if you listen to the commentary from the pilot episode, where you see the rotation within the ranks, you'll even hear the director say he simply got it off the internet.

many historical mistakes

Surprised? This is a Total War game, after all. Since the first Total War title, there has been established a tradition of historical inaccuracies. Surely you don't want them to break with tradition?

[Arcani 4 Ever]

My only real complain is the physics, which CA said they are adressing, so hopefully that will get fixed by September.

I really don't use diplomacy except for trade agreements. I wouldn't mind if they fix it for those that want to use it alot. But CA also stated at the Rezzed confernce that their playthough as the romans has been very war-like and unfriendly, so diplomacy is bound to fail. Perhaps if you take another route, diplomacy will work better.

And finally this is my one and only complain i have yet seen CA to fix. Please make the mini-map more rectangle-like...it looks way too square-ish the eastern part of the map looks squashed. Also it is unpleasant looking as it doesn't look as the other bigger map you made.

[Sharpe]

Reserving judgement until I actually have played the game - it's like reviewing the potential merits and faults of a book having read 2 pages and the synopsis.

[tungri_centurio]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz same complains every day
look at the good things
roman era game
awesome graphics
big map
big armys(on the last panoramic)
they give a modding summit
lot of factions to fight
free dlc(even if it had to be in the game)

[rohirrimelf]

U dont have a clue at this point at how good the AI is. Wait for the rally point next weak to get some info (maybe). Everything could be scripted at this point. A lot of things u mentioned like unit cards and UI are a matter of taste. I dont have an opinion about that after i played for a while. U are right about that the generals faces are the same but this is not a huge deal. Probably they have made a huge amount allready as there are 12 and probably more playable factions developed already. It was just a quick glance of a demo that was outdated when it was shown at rezzed probably. So not much you said made me worried about the game.

[Pour Some Sugar On Me]

All the footage we have seen is subject to change, give them a break. You can't criticise something you haven't played yourself. + the peeps who played it, were mostly very excited! I'm being a fanboy here (i don't care) but damn too many peeps are complaining a bit too much...

[Tim_Ward]

FWIW, I don't set much store in people having a quick go either. Flaws (and there *will* be flaws, the perfect game doesn't exist) will likely only make themselves apparent after a campaign or two.

I thought Empire was excellent at first, until it dawned on my that the AI wasn't actually doing anything.

[Knight of Heaven]

= In the Rezzed footage the Roman player controls half the campaign map and has a 'large' army in Egypt on the doorsteps of the Egyptian capital and asks them to surrender and become a vassal state, the Egyptian AI just goes 'lol no' and the campaign continues.

You are nitpicking too much. They had a bigger army then the romans in Eggypt, why would they surrender?
I have done it many times in shogun 2, when their military is weaker then yours, specialy after a defeat, they usualy surrender and become vassals. I just did this as the Mori for instance.

[Chris1982]

For me just some minor things: "flying" animations of soliders are too exaggerated, currently no real African elephants in game (?), ballistae feel too overpowered, there should be unit numbers on unit cards.

[Greve Af Göteborg]

Uhm, I found some reins.