Come on then!, who else thinks Rome Total War or its mods is better than Total War: Rome 2 is it just me ?.

[barry12]

The graphics in rome 1 actually offend me so no, rome 2 is better in every single way for me. That said, I do have a monster computer so Im not witnessing many of the glitches or any lag. But seriously, rome 1 is nothing on this game. Makes me laugh to think people are putting rome 2 down for rome 1... people should never believe a games company when it releases "minimum requirements" for PC specs on games, especially Total War games.

[tobi_808]

The graphics in rome 1 actually offend me so no, rome 2 is better in every single way for me. That said, I do have a monster computer so Im not witnessing many of the glitches or any lag. But seriously, rome 1 is nothing on this game. Makes me laugh to think people are putting rome 2 down for rome 1... people should never believe a games company when it releases "minimum requirements" for PC specs on games, especially Total War games.

the Graphics offend you, really ? And you are happy because you experience no lags or CTDs ?
Play Crisis or GTAIV then, and have fun with your "monster computer", really laughing my ass of ...

... there are at least 20 issues in ROME II that truely offend me and all other Die Hard Fans of the series, but hey form over content, i get it ... ^^

Of course there are some new core features of Rome II, I would like to enjoy, But how shell I if CA messed up all former core mechanics of the game
and also added twice as much "features" which are completely streamlining the game and stripping it of all of the important key mechanics that are
simply necessary to get the feeling of fighting and ruling and a AI that does its job - so i n the end to enjoy the game ???

[JohnChurchill]

Get a grip.... Sick to death of all the haters, get over it. If you don't like Rome II don't play it! it really is pathetic now!

[stradar1]

Get a grip.... Sick to death of all the haters, get over it. If you don't like Rome II don't play it! it really is pathetic now!

Typical fanboyism tisk tisk

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

In many ways Rome 1 was better.If you were to put the graphics from Rome 2 into Rome 1 you would have the perfect game.

[Metallistic]

In many ways Rome 1 was better.If you were to put the graphics from Rome 2 into Rome 1 you would have the perfect game.

I don't even know know where to begin.

[karamazovmm]

Simple and a resounding no.

[Vilkas09]

Yes. Vanilla Rome 1 plays and even looks better in terms of art design than Rome 2.

[UselessPoster]

I do not hate Total War: Rome 2.

I just prefer playing Rome 1 + RS Mod then vanilla Rome 2 .

[BigEl_nobody]

Rome 1 is not better than Rome 2. And it can´t be, the difference between those two games are 9 years....

Things that are better in Rome 1: Family Tree, Messages about important Events in European history, More buildings in Cities (Although you builded every city the same), working Siege Battles.
Things that are worse in Rome 1: Everything else (Really, stop being nostalgic, I tried Rome 1 again after I played Rome 2 and I ragequitted as soon as I realized you can only build 1 Unit per Round in a city, doesn´t matter how big this city is....)

And it is not fair to compare Rome 1 with RS2 against Rome 2, how can you really think that way? The development of Mods like RS2 is seperately from the vanilla devs of CA and it takes way more time, in which you cannot compare R1 + RS2, that took for example 7 years of development against a Rome 2 that only had 2 years of development (don´t know the exact times of development).

@TiberiousCarpet
At the moment I play RS2 and Rome 2, and I am not even sure if I like RS2 more. The Music is better, the game is harder, but it all feels really stiff and unpolished, and it is so damn unfair it spits you in the face (When you start as Romans you can barely defeat the Invasion of Hannibal, when you play as Carthage you cannot properly invade, because suddenly full stack spawn everywhere. And when you autoresolve it is always against you, even when the odds should be even. That is especially a problem to naval battles, who can only be autoresolved...)

[Vilkas09]

Rome 1 is not better than Rome 2. And it can´t be, the difference between those two games are 9 years....

so? Diablo 2 is far better than D3, original Xcom is far better than Xcom:EU, same with Fallout 1,2 vs Fallout 3, HMM 3 vs HMM 7. Old games had much bigger focus on gameplay.

Things that are better in Rome 1: Family Tree, Messages about important Events in European history, More buildings in Cities (Although you builded every city the same), working Siege Battles.

what about music, ui, amount of content(historical battles, etc), map?

[AnthoniusII]

In order to answer the primary question we must define what issues or features each one of us think that are crusial to determine which game is better.
We can not compare the two games in the grafics features. This would be unfair for Rome TW 1 that was a revolutionary game in in-battle grafics too in its time!
No game had such detailed enviroment or units with warriors and settlements etc...
In the gameplay both games have their strong points.
The evolution of animations and scripting now allows naval battles , horsemen that can dismount from their horses...etc!
But in a strange way CA seams that FORGOT RTW1 features that are still on top on every TW release after it...
Carthaginian cyrcle for horsemen.
Tunnels to bring down walls.
Walled settlements
Settlement size increase that was not in direct connection with walls themeselves.
Legioners that use their pilla in defence and not only when they are going to attack!!!
Nice artistically building and unit UIs.

Things look even stranger when CA has in its ranks one of the 1st RTW modders. How he has forgoten all these features that made RTW1 revolutionary and NEVER overcomed by better features...?????

[McCarronXLD]

I think Roma Surrectum 2, a Rome 1 mod, is better than Rome 2. I do not think vanilla Rome 1 is better than vanilla Rome 2.

[stackero]

Rome 1 is not better than Rome 2. And it can´t be, the difference between those two games are 9 years....

Things that are better in Rome 1: Family Tree, Messages about important Events in European history, More buildings in Cities (Although you builded every city the same), working Siege Battles.
Things that are worse in Rome 1: Everything else (Really, stop being nostalgic, I tried Rome 1 again after I played Rome 2 and I ragequitted as soon as I realized you can only build 1 Unit per Round in a city, doesn´t matter how big this city is....)

And it is not fair to compare Rome 1 with RS2 against Rome 2, how can you really think that way? The development of Mods like RS2 is seperately from the vanilla devs of CA and it takes way more time, in which you cannot compare R1 + RS2, that took for example 7 years of development against a Rome 2 that only had 2 years of development (don´t know the exact times of development).

@TiberiousCarpet
At the moment I play RS2 and Rome 2, and I am not even sure if I like RS2 more. The Music is better, the game is harder, but it all feels really stiff and unpolished, and it is so damn unfair it spits you in the face [B](When you start as Romans you can barely defeat the Invasion of Hannibal, when you play as Carthage you cannot properly invade, because suddenly full stack spawn everywhere. And when you autoresolve it is always against you, even when the odds should be even. That is especially a problem to naval battles, who can only be autoresolved...)

[/B]

Oh yea, bring it on, Hannibal. What the hell is auto resolve. Roma Surrectum 2.5 rules.
To bad CA after all these years doesn't at least use some of the good things from the many mods for Rome vanilla.
Nice post. Good Gaming.

[BigEl_nobody]

[/B][/U]

Oh yea, bring it on, Hannibal. What the hell is auto resolve. Roma Surrectum 2.5 rules.
To bad CA after all these years doesn't at least use some of the good things from the many mods for Rome vanilla.
Nice post. Good Gaming.

I went back to Rome 1 vanilla for a while and I maybe enjoyed it more than I did Roma Surrectum 2 Problem with RS2 is, besides the point I already mentioned, that the games becomes easy fast if you surpass somehow the early game ( Like Rome2? ), because you make a freakin Fortune super fast and after a while it doesn´t even matter what kind of army you build up. The Gameplay based on massive stack attacks lacks complete tactical composition of armies. Just build armies of your most expensive unit type and steamroll the world.
In Rome 1 army composition mattered because money was scarce and battles were not often bigger than 1 - 2 stacks. In addition it was pretty hard to maintain happiness in your cities, especially the ones you captured from other cultures, and it became strangly harder the farther you proceed in the campaign.

[stackero]

I went back to Rome 1 vanilla for a while and I maybe enjoyed it more than I did Roma Surrectum 2 Problem with RS2 is, besides the point I already mentioned, that the games becomes easy fast if you surpass somehow the early game ( Like Rome2? ), because you make a freakin Fortune super fast and after a while it doesn´t even matter what kind of army you build up. The Gameplay based on massive stack attacks lacks complete tactical composition of armies. Just build armies of your most expensive unit type and steamroll the world.
In Rome 1 army composition mattered because money was scarce and battles were not often bigger than 1 - 2 stacks. In addition it was pretty hard to maintain happiness in your cities, especially the ones you captured from other cultures, and it became strangly harder the farther you proceed in the campaign.

Sounds like we played two different games, the one thing that I tired of in vanilla Rome was the spamming of armies. I wanted a few battles that mattered and would be hard to recover if lost. Rome Surrectum 2.5 there's little spamming of armies.

But I will agree on one thing, if you blitz early in any Roman mod I've played, especially as the Romans most of the time the result will be a steamroll. But in RS 2.5 if when starting out you try to play historical to at least a small agree, building up your cities and giving the AI time to build itself up, you'll find yourself fighting interesting campaigns.

Of course we're taking about the R1 CAI. I played RS 2.5 many times and in some games the Ai is aggressive sometime not. As for the difficulty of keeping cities happy with different cultures the farther and farther away from the Capital, that is intentional, to prevent a steamroll, you have to slow down some, to build the right buildings to quell unhappiness in recently conquered cites or garrison them instead. a realistic situation.

The Battles are epic and the BAI the best I ever experienced in any other R1 mod. Maybe you should give RS 2.5 another go, but beware if you chose the Romans. On the first turn Hannibal is in Italy preparing an ambush of a Consular Army. if you're at least playing on hard you'll have to be a veteran player to win that battle.

The city buildings are all redone and very immersive. Yea, the naval part still not interesting, but usable.


Good Gaming

.

[TheOnlylars]

Rome is better then Rome 2 but that is becouse Rome 1 is still the best Total war game.

[aidenhall]

I completely agree Rome 2 is a waste of time in fact I have gone back to Rome 1. One of the biggest bug bears is this idea games are on Steam. This is happening so much with PC Gaming that I have started playing most game now on playstation 3. I feel that Steam is a rip off and you have to open an account just to play your game is completely wrong. Then the added con is that you can only download patches and updates through Steam is something unfair. I am looking to see if I can play the game without going through all this procedure. Still the problem of patches. Just feel customers are being ripped off.

[daelin4]

To be fair, Rome2 introduced some features that would work really well.

The downside is that "would" part.

[Hetman Khmelnytsky]

They're both good games, but the sequel needs some work. Good thing there are mods you can tweak with