Something Missing That Made Rome I So Good (And mods might not fix it)

[agent 47]

I just cant get into this game at all as the Romans. I couldn't put my finger on it but then i realised.

The way the "civilized" nations act on the battlefield is simply no different to the barbarian factions. Whats worse is the game is made in a way that you just cant use them like in Rome I.

In the first Rome i used to always play defensively in battle, conserving fatigue and keeping order with guard mode, unleashing hails of javelins on the approaching enemy. This was the most effective way to play the Romans and to some extent the other civilized nations and it gave them a unique flavour.
It gave playing as the civilized factions, a feeling that your troops were cold, professional machine like soldiers, who felt no emotion in battle and were just following orders, grinding through the enemy like it was their days work.

As for the barbarians, they would throw all they had at you and rightfully so because to some extent this was the most effective way for them to fight, taking into account things like charge bonus and lower defensive stats and as such they would tire over the course of the battle because they weren't fighting defensively (Using guard mode essentially).

These two contrasting styles in fighting are what made Rome 1 for me, it looked beautiful seeing order against chaos like that, cold professional soldiers against emotional and tougher men, but still prevailing. On the other hand as the barbarians it felt great to get the better of the civilized nations because your men looked and played like they were fighting for a cause, each man trying to prove himself in battle.


Now, after playing quite a bit of Rome 2, i feel this is completely missing. The civilized factions units don't keep formation at all and you cant fight defensively without losing the ability to throw your javelins. Essentially now everyone fights like the barbarians in Rome 1, there's no strong contrast to their fighting styles on the battlefield. Sure, there might be in stats but the visual appeal just isn't there. Theres no neat, almost sterile look to the roman approach to war contrasted against the older traditional ways of fighting. IT ALL LOOKS THE SAME.

[universalmind]

I also used to do that in Rome 1, and this is my biggest problem with Rome 2.

[BeastG33]

Agreed 100%. This isn't even possible in Rome 2:

[cherryfunk]

Agreed 100%. This isn't even possible in Rome 2:

For starters, Rome 2 can't have that many men in a unit.

[zbeck008]

Agreed 100%. This isn't even possible in Rome 2:

Oh man....that brings tears of joy to my eyes!!! I miss those days....
I FULLY AGREE! Battles have gone from a beautiful orchestration to a horrible mushy soup. Ill bet they fix this though as it has come up a lot on the forums. We'll see.

[Otherdude]

Agreed 100%. This isn't even possible in Rome 2:

It wasn't possible in vanilla Rome: Total War either. It was a promo screenshot like many others that this community condemned as false advertising. The promo screenshots showed units notably larger than the game actually allowed without mods. Let's not forget the hate CA received for mob-like barbarian units that were later changed into more regimented formations prior to release.

Well I'm not sure if you are 100 percent correct here but id imagine you aren't. Surely situations arose where the Roman infantry would be standing their ground? If they had pila wouldn't they have thrown them to soften the enemy charge?

He's right, it was an offensive weapon. The legions had other missile weapons for generic outreach, but a cohort deployed for battle was an aggressive offensive force and it was very un-Roman to sit back and wait for the enemy. They built elaborate defenses because it was the smart thing to do for the night in enemy territory, not because they preferred fighting from behind walls. Disciplined /= Statue. Of course they could use them in a pinch and I wish the option was there, but I feel it's better portrayed as it is than how we all used to use them in RTW.

[jtfjtfjtf]

I agree. I remember in the stats file for the units they would have a line based on discipline. Really disciplined almost always maintained a squared formation. The peasants would have the lowest discipline setting and they'd be a spread out mass. It's like everyone in Rome 2 has the 2nd to lowest discipline setting from Rome 1. I seriously think CA just expects players to throw units at each other with the lack of a guard button and also lack of tight and loose formations. Bad CA! Bad!

[Swerg]

It's certainly true. I remember a major thing for Rome in particular was holding a line. As long as you kept your men organized, a couple units of Hastati could hold off a barbarian horde ten times their size. In this game...it doesn't matter. Units just devolve into blobs after initial contact.

I think another thing that's lacking is 'set up' time for the formations. All that awkward shuffling in Rome I for units to get into place when you clicked testudo or phalanx is gone...OK, it was annoying, but the current system where units instantly zap into formation is worse (to me, anyway.)

Somehow, I don't see CA fixing either of these problems...I hope that the 'most moddable TW ever' features some resources to help modders put things right.

[universalmind]

Some units in Rome 2 have an attribute that causes them to stay in formation while fighting, but the fact that battles end in 2-3 minutes means this is more detrimental to their fighting ability than anything else. The point of staying in formation is to outlast the enemy so you can either out maneuver or preserve your unit's overall strength, but when everything has such high attack everyone will die in a small amount of hits anyway so what's the point? Right now it's just about making sure you charge for the spear throw, and press every cool down as fast as you can.

[Evan MF]

I've banged on about it everywhere I can. It's the Warscape engine. It completely fails at depicting proper unit cohesion, has awful collision mechanics in melee and gives no sense of weight to units. On the RTW engine you had a much better intuitive sense of what was going on by just looking at the unit's physical state, that is not the case in Warscape Total Wars, it's just a flimsy mess that relies on shiney 'visual aids' to tell you what's going on, coupled with gimmicky 'strategic' add-ons in the form of magical 'special abilities' that are somehow meant to enhance the innately detaching experience. Total War is far from it's soul in Rome 2. It's about time Warscape was trashed and a new engine that is actually designed for melee with intuitive and informative particle collisions is developed.

[Ac3]

I've banged on about it everywhere I can. It's the Warscape engine. It completely fails at depicting proper unit cohesion, has awful collision mechanics in melee and gives no sense of weight to units. On the RTW engine you had a much better intuitive sense of what was going on by just looking at the unit's physical state, that is not the case in Warscape Total Wars, it's just a flimsy mess that relies on shiney 'visual aids' to tell you what's going on, coupled with gimmicky 'strategic' add-ons in the form of magical 'special abilities' that are somehow meant to enhance the innately detaching experience. Total War is far from it's soul in Rome 2. It's about time Warscape was trashed and a new engine that is actually designed for melee with intuitive and informative particle collisions is developed.

So which engine would be better for this? I've heard Blizzard and Unreal Engines, along with the Quake engine. As a near total newb to what engines are best for what game, both in mechanics and graphics, which one would be best for this? I'm curious. Perhaps someone would have preferred Flash for maximum compatibility across all platforms for RTW2...

[agent 47]

So which engine would be better for this? I've heard Blizzard and Unreal Engines, along with the Quake engine. As a near total newb to what engines are best for what game, both in mechanics and graphics, which one would be best for this? I'm curious. Perhaps someone would have preferred Flash for maximum compatibility across all platforms for RTW2...

Ca have always made their own engines. Warscape is the engine they created for Empire. I agree with many others that it just doesn't handle melee combat well at all compared to the older games. Its pretty (They even messed the pretty part up for Rome II) but it seems massively flawed in doing anything other than simulating the physics of projectiles. Unless the means are there and CA are just incompetent. Part of me hopes its the former.

They got lucky with Shogun 2 because of the nature of the combat, 1-1 lightly armoured warriors etc. It just doesnt cut it for Rome II, the feeling of mass isn't there. The collision is completely messed up and there is no push from the units as a whole. A heavy unit or phalanx should have some weight behind them to say, a unit of light spearmen, but this isn't in warscape. In Rome 1 you could push back weaker units with heavier mass units, it actually had gameplay repercussions and played a big part.

[craziii]

Ca have always made their own engines. Warscape is the engine they created for Empire. I agree with many others that it just doesn't handle melee combat well at all compared to the older games. Its pretty (They even messed the pretty part up for Rome II) but it seems massively flawed in doing anything other than simulating the physics of projectiles. Unless the means are there and CA are just incompetent. Part of me hopes its the former. They got lucky with Shogun 2 because of the nature of the combat, 1-1 lightly armoured warriors etc. It just doesnt cut it for Rome II, the feeling of mass isn't there. The collision is completely messed up and there is no push from the units as a whole. A heavy unit or phalanx should have some weight behind them to say, a unit of light spearmen, but this isn't in warscape. In Rome 1 you could push back weaker units with heavier mass units, it actually had gameplay repercussions and played a big part.

those are very good points. I remember how I used to park the heaviest units directly into front of a breach to seal it. or rush them into breaches to widen it.

[Plan C]

It just doesnt cut it for Rome II, the feeling of mass isn't there. The collision is completely messed up and there is no push from the units as a whole.

...despite numerous remarks from CA specifically to the contrary, i.e. "we are giving units proper weight this time". That was around the time of the Teutoburg Forest footage release. I can forgive a compromised release but I cannot forgive underhanded treatment of the audience and some outright, fat lies that duped so many into pre-orders.

[Modestus]

I've banged on about it everywhere I can. It's the Warscape engine. It completely fails at depicting proper unit cohesion, has awful collision mechanics in melee and gives no sense of weight to units. On the RTW engine you had a much better intuitive sense of what was going on by just looking at the unit's physical state, that is not the case in Warscape Total Wars, it's just a flimsy mess that relies on shiney 'visual aids' to tell you what's going on, coupled with gimmicky 'strategic' add-ons in the form of magical 'special abilities' that are somehow meant to enhance the innately detaching experience. Total War is far from it's soul in Rome 2. It's about time Warscape was trashed and a new engine that is actually designed for melee with intuitive and informative particle collisions is developed.

I agree , I could see no way that Warscape could have worked for RTW2 but I also believe that CA knew this and that many of the game design decisions that some people find so perplexing were actually made to try and disguise as much as possible the limitations of the Warscape engine.

I believe RTW2 is a result of using an engine that was never going to be suitable combined with game design intended to disguise this fact.

For example CA clearly knew the BAI was incapable of handling fortifications but also realised that they needed to have at least some of the major cities with walls so we got a half baked compromise, some regions have walled cities but most have no walls and even in those the BAI gets confused.

I was going to make a few more points but its a waste of time.

[Eikki]

Has anyone figured out how to avoid friendly fire when charging in your legionaries from the flanks in a melee where your troops are already involved? Because for me I've managed to kill and rout my own troops due to the unavoidable charge javelin spam.

[keldor]

Im on my 3rd nation, just doesnt feel like total war. Plus Some of the factions start out in minor regions, you dont even control the provincial capital. For instance Parthia or Pontus. And no Family tree. And on top of that the other stuff that was taken out that people already said. Cant even zoom out on campaign map that far, a cheap trick to make it look like its a big map.

This game should be called Rome II King Arthur. More similarity with that game than a total war game.

[AngryGiant]

Cant even zoom out on campaign map that far, a cheap trick to make it look like its a big map.

I don't care how far you can zoom out, the map is big, even if there is a bunch of impassable terrain. I would love to be able to zoom out, and then have the strategic overview be past a certain point. Would have made a lot of sense to integrate them that way instead of just putting a button. Then again, with the FPS drops from selecting a unit, I'm sure half the map wouldn't be able to be rendered on most peoples computers so they made it so you couldn't.

[kiwimaster]

RotS did what you're talking about just fine on the same engine, though. Not sure why CA got rid of standard features present in all previous games like guard mode, tight formation, and loose formation just for Rome 2, however.

[bumblebee]

If it's accessible, wouldn't modding the discipline, health, attack, and defense values of the units in game give us more of the Rome I feeling you're looking for? It wouldn't get you the squared formations that are shown in the picture that's posted, but fights would become more drawn out, allowing for more maneuvering on the battlefield.

I'm not a fan of combat being over too quick, which is what soured Shogun 2 for me.