Rome II VS EB II, EB II WINS

[Basket of Warm Kittens]

At least they did an effort on the unit's historical accuray this time. Compared to Rome 1 it's day and night. Look at their gauls of carthaginians, for example, their unit rosters are close to what you'll find in EB2. Too bad the good is still mixed up with the bad (barbarian ballistas, marian legionaries in the samnite campaign...). But who can blame them ? Look at the mods, the first thing many modders did was to add corinthian helmets to many units...

However, Beside the units, the game is really flawed in my opinion and I cannot understand some of their design choices. Armies that turn into fleets, really ? Time will tell if their patches and the mods can make this game good, for now I don't really have fun playing it.

Well Ballistae are basically nukes in Rome 2 so again barbarians cannot be without them unless they're nerfed heavily.

And the armies turning into ships is different but not more ridiculous. In older games you could load an entire army including war elephants into a single ship for transport. That would be a wee weird in Rome 2 with tactical water battles

Perhaps if you wanted realism with it, make it so you can only ship armies out through ports and it costs some coin to outfit them with transport boats, maybe more for war boats for your infantry so they can help out if attacked. Big silly rafts for the seasick elephants too!

[Dago Red]

And the armies turning into ships is different but not more ridiculous. In older games you could load an entire army including war elephants into a single ship for transport. That would be a wee weird in Rome 2 with tactical water battles

Perhaps if you wanted realism with it, make it so you can only ship armies out through ports and it costs some coin to outfit them with transport boats, maybe more for war boats for your infantry so they can help out if attacked. Big silly rafts for the seasick elephants too!

The concept might not be more ridiculous than whole armies on a single trireme, but the current state is by far, more ridiculous. The repercussions are widespread and essentially game - breaking. Any landlocked backwater with no historical capacity to sack cities all the way across the known world, now can do just that. The result is a carnival of farce, played out with swirling army boat tornadoes rushing all over the map, sacking, and then losing cities to rebellions (because they are always off to another destination), over and over again. I've had Carthage and Egypt destroyed and re-emerged multiple times in every game I've started so far.

You're right though -- a possible workaround is heavy, heavy limitations on when/where an army can do this. ONLY from a damn port is a good start.

[Samraat Mahendra Maurya]

At least they did an effort on the unit's historical accuray this time. Compared to Rome 1 it's day and night. Look at their gauls of carthaginians, for example, their unit rosters are close to what you'll find in EB2. Too bad the good is still mixed up with the bad (barbarian ballistas, marian legionaries in the samnite campaign...). But who can blame them ? Look at the mods, the first thing many modders did was to add corinthian helmets to many units...

However, Beside the units, the game is really flawed in my opinion and I cannot understand some of their design choices. Armies that turn into fleets, really ? Time will tell if their patches and the mods can make this game good, for now I don't really have fun playing it.

Yeah, Rome II is just boring, halfway through campaign it just becomes boring, and the AI sucks, id rather play Rome 1 than Rome 2, but they have come a long way from Rome 1, at least the berserkers don't paint themselves with woad!

[Dago Red]

Rome II is an idea.

What they delivered was only a turd.

[Canaris]

EB2 is not even out yet.

And yet its still better than RTW 2 .... suprise suprise

Im honestly interested : Did anyone thought that RTW 2 have any chance of being better than EB II ??
I knew from the start that how awesome R2 would not be its still gonna suck when compared to even EB 1 not to mention II ....

[Darios]

I hope that EB II ends up sucking just so I can watch the public outcry to end all public outcries take place on TWC))))

You guys really get up your hopes too much.

[Canaris]

I hope that EB II ends up sucking just so I can watch the public outcry to end all public outcries take place on TWC))))

You guys really get up your hopes too much.

Dont let your CA fanboy heart worry. EB2 cant be worse than RTW 2 coz its pretty much impossible.

[TiagoJRToledo]

^^You clearly aren't familiar with the amount of detail and effort that the modders put into EB

[Darios]

^^ ...and clearly you aren't that familiar either. The Romans got shafted in EB, and be even more so in EBII. Good luck with your Camillian troops wearing little bronze heartpieces as they get cut to pieces by overpowered SuperCena naked Celts) ^.^

[Menestheus]

^^ ...and clearly you aren't that familiar either. The Romans got shafted in EB, and be even more so in EBII. Good luck with your Camillian troops wearing little bronze heartpieces as they get cut to pieces by overpowered SuperCena naked Celts) ^.^

You need to start using more missile troops, they absolutely butcher most Celtic units, especially Gaesatae. Some Kretan archers, Celtic slingers, and skirmish units of your choice, will work wonders.

[gustave]

I hope that EB II ends up sucking just so I can watch the public outcry to end all public outcries take place on TWC))))

Wow that was a very constructive post.

[Darios]

That's a very fair point, but that is indeed my biggest gaffe with EB I - that a Roman campaign is impossible to win without using non-Roman troops. No other faction forces you to use non-native troops in such a manner. Every other faction tends to get their elite troops very early into the campaign while the Romans are struggling to get Polybian troops. It has led to times where I would have to recruit phalanxes and use my Roman troops as flanking troops just in order to defeat Epeiros or Makedonia. Gameplay wise it doesn't really bother me (I'm a KH/Baktra/Saka fanboy anyway) but for a game that preaches historical accuracy, the Romans are arguably the worst faction to play with.

[yuezhi]

So what? The Romans as history attested were the same. They couldn't have conquered Gaul without their Germanic and Celtic allies. Lusitania was not taken by force solely comprised of legions.

[Brihentin13]

Somebody isn't spamming Pedites Extraordnarii as much as the AI likes to. While early Rome is very limited in recruiting options, post-marian Rome can recruit factional units all over the damn place. And on the "I must recruit pike phalanxes to fight pike phalanxes" issue, I think everyone does that sometimes. I love adding Macedonian mercs as a Celtic faction. At some point, most factions out-Hellen the Hellenic system of warfare simply because the pikes are a bit unbalanced, at least IMO.

[Thuycidides]

Somebody isn't spamming Pedites Extraordnarii as much as the AI likes to. While early Rome is very limited in recruiting options, post-marian Rome can recruit factional units all over the damn place. And on the "I must recruit pike phalanxes to fight pike phalanxes" issue, I think everyone does that sometimes. I love adding Macedonian mercs as a Celtic faction. At some point, most factions out-Hellen the Hellenic system of warfare simply because the pikes are a bit unbalanced, at least IMO.

Yes! Those Pedites were a handful.

The big issue with phalanxes (in my view):

1) Almost invulnerable to missiles from the front. You can rain thousands of arrows (and shot) down on some of the elite units and maybe one guy will die. I was told that was to prevent the phalanxes from being cut to pieces by missile troops, but then isn't that the point of supporting your heavy infantry with your own missile troops? It got tiresome to see the AI spam full stacks that were 50% pikemen.

2) Instead of a knife as a sidearm, the secondary weapon was a sword or even an armor piercing ax. That takes away the historical importance of protecting the phalanx's flank and rear. Even units attacking a phalanx from the rear could take heavy losses from it.

----------

Oh well, I am still hoping for EB2.

[Balbor]

Comparing R2 to EB2 isnt really fair, Rome 2 should be compared to the original Rome. With 1 turn per year armies building transport ships isn't too unrealistic. It would be nice is troops in transport ships automatically started loosing striengh at sea.

Given time I'm sure the modders will improve Rome 2 like they did with RTW and M2TW.

[Darios]

Agreed Balbor. It is very unfair to compare R2 to EB2 because they're not really the same thing. Rome 2 is full of flaws but I am shocked how everyone jumped on the hate wagon from day one. I'm not sure how many of you guys played Shogun 2 but both games have very similar interfaces, research, and city construction styles. I knew months ago that R2 was going to be vastly different from the original RTW (I only bought S2 cuz it was on sale one day and I was curious to get a taste of the direction CA was going to go for R2). Therefore when R2 was released last month, I was not surprised by the look and the feel of the game at all because I was already accustomed to Shogun 2's interface. What I was impressed with was the vastly improved detail to the units, they look like they were taken straight from EB 1, and I love that. Wait until the Baktran faction becomes DLC - I have a friend who pirated the game and got the all factions mod, and their units look absolutely amazing. Alot of other factions (particularly the Thracians and Dacians with their *screams* Celtic units) still need ALOT more work, but CA seems really cool about patching up the game so I have a lot of hope for that. With time, modders are going to do some special things with that game.

As much as I am enjoying R2, I am an even bigger fan of EB. I love the insanely huge details so much that I have a few campaigns going that I have been slowly playing with for the past 2-3 years, every so often taking a turn or two just to breathe in the game's massive depth. My only real gaffe with the game is that it seems to be a heavy handed vendetta to handicap the Romans (I enjoy playing games where they are the most powerful faction so that if I play a campaign as Greeks, Carthage, Gauls, etc then I want to be very fearful of a Roman invasion), but I am patiently awaiting EB2.

For you R2 bashers out there, let's be realistic - would you rather play R2 or vanilla RTW right now?

[Samraat Mahendra Maurya]

Agreed Balbor. It is very unfair to compare R2 to EB2 because they're not really the same thing. Rome 2 is full of flaws but I am shocked how everyone jumped on the hate wagon from day one. I'm not sure how many of you guys played Shogun 2 but both games have very similar interfaces, research, and city construction styles. I knew months ago that R2 was going to be vastly different from the original RTW (I only bought S2 cuz it was on sale one day and I was curious to get a taste of the direction CA was going to go for R2). Therefore when R2 was released last month, I was not surprised by the look and the feel of the game at all because I was already accustomed to Shogun 2's interface. What I was impressed with was the vastly improved detail to the units, they look like they were taken straight from EB 1, and I love that. Wait until the Baktran faction becomes DLC - I have a friend who pirated the game and got the all factions mod, and their units look absolutely amazing. Alot of other factions (particularly the Thracians and Dacians with their *screams* Celtic units) still need ALOT more work, but CA seems really cool about patching up the game so I have a lot of hope for that. With time, modders are going to do some special things with that game.

As much as I am enjoying R2, I am an even bigger fan of EB. I love the insanely huge details so much that I have a few campaigns going that I have been slowly playing with for the past 2-3 years, every so often taking a turn or two just to breathe in the game's massive depth. My only real gaffe with the game is that it seems to be a heavy handed vendetta to handicap the Romans (I enjoy playing games where they are the most powerful faction so that if I play a campaign as Greeks, Carthage, Gauls, etc then I want to be very fearful of a Roman invasion), but I am patiently awaiting EB2.

For you R2 bashers out there, let's be realistic - would you rather play R2 or vanilla RTW right now?

Id rather play Vannila RTW because my comp cannot run Rome II Just joking!!
The Romans in EB is justifiable, after all you could say auxiliaries had a major affect on the army, and may have been the reason that led rome to greatness, and in 272 BC rome was not a superpower, there was Carthage, i don't know why in EB 1 the Romani is considered medium difficulty, it is so hard, i think Carthage is the easiest, but it would be more fun living in fear from a roman invasion, perhaps it will be better in EB II

[kambiz]

This battle soundtrack alone is enough to beat Rome 2 !

Full list of EB's soundtrack is Here. Enjoy

[Samraat Mahendra Maurya]

This battle soundtrack alone is enough to beat Rome 2 !

Full list of EB's soundtrack is Here. Enjoy

I really like the rasa dance, it totally reflects buddhist and hindu teachings, such a peacfull song, oh and by the way, what does Sols/dons Nua mean anyway, i searched the internet but cannot find anything?