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

[stackero]

I'd have to say that anything I would post here might be seen as 'slanted', but I'm gonna post anyway. It is true that Vanilla Rome1 was not, in itself, a very polished game. As a coder, I began to discover almost immediately a virtual ton of mistakes in CA's coding of that game that made it unstable and crash-happy. And eventually, I got the knack for fixing those mistakes, and ultimately could produce a coding work of genius that you can play for a hundred years without a single crash. But that's in a game that was easy to modify, easy to understand (with a little study), and basically kinda fun to modify and polish.

Rome2? I have no clue what to change or how. The coding has passed me by, I'm afraid, and I've pretty much decided I'll let the younger more new 'tech-savvy' folks have a crack at Rome2. So for me, RTW1 wins hands down for ease of modding for the 'simple' guy with a desire to change a few things without jumping through firey hoops.

The graphics of Rome2, by far, are better than RTW1....at least I can see this now after three patches to the game. But are they greatly superior to the environment of RS2? Well, perhaps in the WAY things are rendered...which is an important difference for newer games. But not necessarily in WHAT is rendered. We basically put an M2TW environment into RTW1, and it's probably as good as this old game ever gets. So I'd give a slight edge to Rome2 simply because the way the environment is rendered is superior, and made to use all the bells and whistles of newer machines.

Historical accuracy? As much input as Rome2 could've used from mods like EB, RTR7 and RS2 I find it impossible to believe that CA\Sega much cared about this issue. RTW1 was more accurate because it didn't even TRY to be accurate. Rome2 is a historical mess. RTW mods win here hands down and by a mile or two. Why CA didn't use the resources of its greatest fans is a mystery to me.

Strat map and UI. The Rome2 strat map is awesome. City models and the way they change is great. The visual impact and the 'feel' you get from the angle of view is really nice. The UI is ugly. What's up with the aztec unit cards, or stuff lifted from old Greek vases? A cheap 'magic marker' way of rendering units because they have so many different looking guys in them? Can probably be changed, but shame on CA for the lazy look of it all. RTW1 wins here, because at least it was sort of artistic, and the Strat map was almost as good.

Immersion, city management, buildings and the overall 'impression' the game leaves on you. Here, I feel betrayed. Rome2 went in a totally different direction than almost ALL modifications of RTW went. Where we tried to increase immersion and make the game more like 'Civilization with battles', CA basically lobotomized the Strat portion of the game in favor of simple, meaningless building trees, almost non-existent character depth.....I won't go on. It's just too disgusting. This portion of Rome2 gets a resounding 'F'.

Personally, I think Rome2 is a 'decent' game for the crowd CA is probably try most to sell it to....people who don't care about depth or history, and just want to play a game, beat up opposing armies, 'win' all the time and never be mentally challenged by any of it. I don't mean that as an insult....it's just that a LOT of games are like that, and people play them just for the fun of it. What remains to be seen is whether CA was EVER serious about ROME2 being a 'realistic' update and replacement for RTW1. IF they provide modding tools, and IF the game can be altered like RTW to at least the degree that people who want more from this type of game can enjoy it, then Rome2 will survive. But if not.....well, here's the deal, and I still think this is kinda funny. You can often go to a store and buy RTW Gold, and you can easily find M2TW. But anything beyond that? Start searching the internet, because they don't sell. Why? Popularity, I suppose, of the time frames. But mostly it's because you get what you get, and you ain't gettin' much more. Very few mods. Very low potential. If Rome2 goes that route, it will be because there is no (or very low) potential to make it better.

Making a lot ot sense, got to rep ya +1

[BigEl_nobody]

Historical accuracy? As much input as Rome2 could've used from mods like EB, RTR7 and RS2 I find it impossible to believe that CA\Sega much cared about this issue. RTW1 was more accurate because it didn't even TRY to be accurate. Rome2 is a historical mess. RTW mods win here hands down and by a mile or two. Why CA didn't use the resources of its greatest fans is a mystery to me.

Ok while the rest of your judgement is debatable and subjective, this point doesn´t make any sense at all and seems to be just an argument to bash Rome 2 in another way. Why?

1. Nobody should ever care about historical accuracy in a Total War Game, because Total War aren´t designed to be historical accurate. The ability to conquer the whole known world with a little african tribe is a far from historical accuracy as the existence of a Client State called Nova Carthago and as far away as Green and Blue Romans who can use Flaming Pigs in Battle.

2. "RTW1 was more accurate because it didn't even TRY to be accurate". This doesn´t make sense. The fact how historical accurate the game is has nothing to do with the Intention of the game to be historical accurate or not. And besides that neither Rome 1 or Rome 2 wan´t to be historical accurate. CA stated that, and it´s a wise decision because if they would try to make it historical accurate, there would always be some arrogant nerds who think they know it better than everyone else, even if they don´t.

3. "Rome2 is a historical mess. RTW mods win here hands down and by a mile or two. Why CA didn't use the resources of its greatest fans is a mystery to me"

Rome 1 is an even greater historical mess. It starts with the faction names, symbols and colours and it ends with the avaliable units you can recruit in the game. You mention Mods, yes they might be more historical accurate, but 1. this thread is about Rome 1 Vanilla Comparison and 2. like said before the game is not even designed to be historical accurate, so it´s not even a bad point for Rome 1 in comparison to Rome 2, because it has nothing to do with the gameplay and it is a complete subjective preference. I personally have no problems with Rome 1 and Rome 2 being not historical accurate for example.
And the greatest fans? So the people that blame CA for their Games not being historical accuarte enough are their greatest fans huh? When there can be even "the greatest fans", it´s the people how give constructive critiscm that relats to the GAMEPLAY, because this is a GAME!

Sorry, but to even consider "historical accuary" as a discussion point in a Total War critique or comparison is just dumb...

[cahtush]

Right now, as a game, Rome 2 is probably superior to Rome 1. Rome 1 has aged a lot.
Though i think the core mechanics and the engine of Rome 1 are far superior to Rome 2, especially how your cities traded with each other.
Made the world feel alive. Rome 2 just feels sterile, dead.

[Duncan III]

Right now, as a game, Rome 2 is probably superior to Rome 1. Rome 1 has aged a lot.
Though i think the core mechanics and the engine of Rome 1 are far superior to Rome 2, especially how your cities traded with each other.
Made the world feel alive. Rome 2 just feels sterile, dead.

So why you think RII is 'superior'?

[Zipzopdippidybopbop]

Rome 1 hands down; nostalgia, and the ease with which I can modify it. Also the immersive factor is just so... much better. Especially with the RSII graphics.

In fact, disillusioned with RTW1, I am currently in the middle of porting my mod to Medieval II for improved tidbits and AI behaviour. Getting it to works the hard part =P

[TheCenturion24]

Rome I still keeps me engrossed. You can't compare the graphics QUALITY; however, I for one prefer the less realistic STYLE of Rome I over the drab soldiers in Rome II. Rome I's combat, even vanilla, is still better, simply because it's more solid. Rome II's engine just doesn't work as well for me, the campaign and battles LOOK great but since I can win the game by just charging forward, well, it leaves little need or use for strategy.

As it's own game, I think Rome II could be something if the issues were fixed. It'll never be a true successor to Rome I, it just isn't the right sort of game.

[stackero]

Rome I still keeps me engrossed. You can't compare the graphics QUALITY; however, I for one prefer the less realistic STYLE of Rome I over the drab soldiers in Rome II. Rome I's combat, even vanilla, is still better, simply because it's more solid. Rome II's engine just doesn't work as well for me, the campaign and battles LOOK great but since I can win the game by just charging forward, well, it leaves little need or use for strategy.

As it's own game, I think Rome II could be something if the issues were fixed. It'll never be a true successor to Rome I, it just isn't the right sort of game.

I Agree.

[Roboute Guilliman]

I don't get people coming out here saying Rome2 is the better game. Of course graphic wise, but all the rest sorry. Rome 1 made you addicted to the game, the mods came later and made it even greater.

Rome2 is lacking in all departments making its superior graphics and its more historical accuracy useless(well they tried).

- No family trees, how am I supposed to indentify myself with my leader, with my generals etc, when they just come and go.
- The campaign ui is terrible, especially unit and building cards. Everything looks the same from the temple of zeus to the peltasts barracks. From Joe the slingers to the heroes of spartans. (on quick glances)
- Limited Armies, pretty much expose the AI than making them a challange on the campaign map, why bother making beautiful cities for Rome, Carthage, when they just leave them with Garrison forces.
- Siege engines useless, get your troops to burn down the gate, zerg to the city center and you outbrained the AI, who is unable to coordinate an actual defence.
- Admirals useless, generals can be used for naval invasions.
- Boring ancialliaries, do your family members actually get any negative ones? Where is the family member nobody likes, who is drunk all the time and likes his sister? Where is your dread general everybody fears. Where is the useless governor whoring himself to death?
- Army specialisations are useless. Legio III Pia Whatever apparently specialised in melee, yet bring the same results as Legio II Fretensis who excell in raising donkeys.
- Limited building slots, if I want a freaking city with peltast, hoplite and cavalry barracks, then I should be able to raise down my plebs houses for space. And why do some cities have agriculture why others dont? Making interesting building trees is what I would have liked instead of this nonsense.
- Why do only Carthage and Rome get multiple family houses? Ran out of time inserting families for the 6 other playable factions?
- A rome centered game with no roads... Really...

All the above is making Rome 2 pretty much a 10 hour game like most other games out there(and one of those crappy ones, and I must say there are actual good 10 hour games). Medieval 2 was enjoying the success of Rome 1, as most features were kept and evolved. Why make a u-turn on things that worked?

And you can damn well compare mods like RS2 with Rome2, a couple of modders working hard in their garage for free in their FREETIME, pulled off somthing more playable and addicting than CA, a group in beautiful offices (I seen those interview vids) who are paid to actually produce what we see in RS2.
At least they made the game somewhat moddable, yet I get the feeling, they pretty much handed modding tools out saying: ''Hey, we messed up badly, here are some tools and fix the game to make it more interesting.''

I remember days, pondering my whole day during school hours, which region I would invade next, how I would counterattack my enemy. Those were Rome 1 and Medieval 2 days (and yes even vanilla).
Now I get back from work, stare at steam and think seeing Rome 2 in the library: ''Should I?''

[stackero]

I don't get people coming out here saying Rome2 is the better game. Of course graphic wise, but all the rest sorry. Rome 1 made you addicted to the game, the mods came later and made it even greater.

Rome2 is lacking in all departments making its superior graphics and its more historical accuracy useless(well they tried).

- No family trees, how am I supposed to indentify myself with my leader, with my generals etc, when they just come and go.
- The campaign ui is terrible, especially unit and building cards. Everything looks the same from the temple of zeus to the peltasts barracks. From Joe the slingers to the heroes of spartans. (on quick glances)
- Limited Armies, pretty much expose the AI than making them a challange on the campaign map, why bother making beautiful cities for Rome, Carthage, when they just leave them with Garrison forces.
- Siege engines useless, get your troops to burn down the gate, zerg to the city center and you outbrained the AI, who is unable to coordinate an actual defence.
- Admirals useless, generals can be used for naval invasions.
- Boring ancialliaries, do your family members actually get any negative ones? Where is the family member nobody likes, who is drunk all the time and likes his sister? Where is your dread general everybody fears. Where is the useless governor whoring himself to death?
- Army specialisations are useless. Legio III Pia Whatever apparently specialised in melee, yet bring the same results as Legio II Fretensis who excell in raising donkeys.
- Limited building slots, if I want a freaking city with peltast, hoplite and cavalry barracks, then I should be able to raise down my plebs houses for space. And why do some cities have agriculture why others dont? Making interesting building trees is what I would have liked instead of this nonsense.
- Why do only Carthage and Rome get multiple family houses? Ran out of time inserting families for the 6 other playable factions?
- A rome centered game with no roads... Really...

All the above is making Rome 2 pretty much a 10 hour game like most other games out there(and one of those crappy ones, and I must say there are actual good 10 hour games). Medieval 2 was enjoying the success of Rome 1, as most features were kept and evolved. Why make a u-turn on things that worked?

And you can damn well compare mods like RS2 with Rome2, a couple of modders working hard in their garage for free in their FREETIME, pulled off somthing more playable and addicting than CA, a group in beautiful offices (I seen those interview vids) who are paid to actually produce what we see in RS2.
At least they made the game somewhat moddable, yet I get the feeling, they pretty much handed modding tools out saying: ''Hey, we messed up badly, here are some tools and fix the game to make it more interesting.''

I remember days, pondering my whole day during school hours, which region I would invade next, how I would counterattack my enemy. Those were Rome 1 and Medieval 2 days (and yes even vanilla).
Now I get back from work, stare at steam and think seeing Rome 2 in the library: ''Should I?''

Bases loaded, and you hit the ball out of the stadium. Got rep ya +1

'Don't piss down my back and tell me its raining'

[stackero]

All I will say, I'm having a blast with Rome Surretum 2.5 modded from a 10 year old design, vanilla Rome. Where does modern Rome 2 stand with its advanced graphics, pretty maps and dismal CAI and BAI and still counting problems no human can yet perceive?

Someday, Rome 2 may get to where it needs to be, but I have great doubts.

Good Gaming




The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill

[LordInvictus]

I don't have Rome 2, so I can't speak for it. But here is a list of all the problems in Rome 1:
1. OP Romans
2. OP cavalry
3. OP cavalry that died when charging units from the rear for no reason.
4. Historically inaccurate barbarians
5. Historically inaccurate Egyptians
6. Historically inaccurate units (gladiators, camel cataphracts, etc)
7. Neon color coding (pink Parthians, blue Britons, Christmas Gauls, etc)
8. Horrible BAI
9. Horrible CAI
10. Apocalyptic squalor
11. Sprinting legionaries (and armoured units in general)
12. Fast battles

These are just off the top of my head (I'm sure there are more) As far as I can tell Rome 2 is a bad game, but Rome 1 isn't nearly as great as most people in this thread think it is.

[stackero]

I don't have Rome 2, so I can't speak for it. But here is a list of all the problems in Rome 1:
1. OP Romans
2. OP cavalry
3. OP cavalry that died when charging units from the rear for no reason.
4. Historically inaccurate barbarians
5. Historically inaccurate Egyptians
6. Historically inaccurate units (gladiators, camel cataphracts, etc)
7. Neon color coding (pink Parthians, blue Britons, Christmas Gauls, etc)
8. Horrible BAI
9. Horrible CAI
10. Apocalyptic squalor
11. Sprinting legionaries (and armoured units in general)
12. Fast battles

These are just off the top of my head (I'm sure there are more) As far as I can tell Rome 2 is a bad game, but Rome 1 isn't nearly as great as most people in this thread think it is.

Your assessment of vanilla Rome is more right than wrong, but the difference between vanilla Rome after two patches and vanilla Rome 2 with 3 patches is, Rome 1 despite its defect was a blast to play for several years, unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Rome 2, not even close.

Good Gaming.


'Don't piss down my back and tell me its raining' -

'Domestic policy can only defeat us, foreign policy can kill us' -John F. Kennedy

[Yukari Yakumo]

I would take vanilla Rome 1 over the huge steaming pile (Rome 2) CA tells us is a game, any day.

[Cougman21]

"Better" is definitely subjective. Rome 2 looks better and has some better mechanics than vanilla Rome 1, but I still found myself playing hundreds...if not thousands of hours of Rome 1. I also added hundreds of more hours with RS over the last year or so, yet I maybe put 15-20 hours in to Rome 2 and I really don't want to play anymore...why? IMO, Rome 1 has better immersion features and mods like RS just added on to that. Rome 2 was also streamlined quite a bit with battles, campaign strategy, etc. But maybe this is the future of gaming? Perhaps gamers like me who enjoyed the original MTW/STW and Civ are a dying breed. I honestly think if Rome 2 didn't have technical issues most people would consider it a decent game. We old schools TW fans may just have to wait for major mod overhauls (like RS) which will surely come to light in the next few years.

[Capitane]

Actually in many way Rome 2 Total War is far better then Rome 1 Total War.

It just Rome 1 Total War have a huge impression at the time compare with Rome 2 Total War. Rome 1 Total War at the time is like an eye opener, while now, people already have some boredom to the Total War franchise and it affect people judgement over Rome 2 Total War.

[GnaReffotsirk]

The experience back in those days were superior to this one in comparison. Given the history of CA, Rome 1 was good. I played it for years and hours on end without complaint. It wasn't even modded. When it was, more hours was poured on it and I had no regrets.

Based on expectation, given CA had a shot multiple times to up their game in terms of gameplay, I am disappointed. They spent too much time and money on graphics, rather than actually developing the game from the inside.

It is pretty, but it's only the beard on a chin. It wags, but is superficial.

New features look promising, and could get more treatment, but I believe they should have given more attention to the core parts that aren't quite there yet, and then made an effort to perfect those things.

So, yeah, I had better times with Rome I, but unfortunately, we must move on. But then, how far have CA gone for Rome? Well, maybe not far enough.

[TheCenturion24]

The experience back in those days were superior to this one in comparison. Given the history of CA, Rome 1 was good. I played it for years and hours on end without complaint. It wasn't even modded. When it was, more hours was poured on it and I had no regrets.

Based on expectation, given CA had a shot multiple times to up their game in terms of gameplay, I am disappointed. They spent too much time and money on graphics, rather than actually developing the game from the inside.

It is pretty, but it's only the beard on a chin. It wags, but is superficial.

New features look promising, and could get more treatment, but I believe they should have given more attention to the core parts that aren't quite there yet, and then made an effort to perfect those things.

So, yeah, I had better times with Rome I, but unfortunately, we must move on. But then, how far have CA gone for Rome? Well, maybe not far enough.

I've come to begin to accept Rome II as its own game. Not the best, but its own. It's been quite hard coming to terms with the fact that is isn't a true sequel to Rome I.

Also, your signature made me lol. A little too much.

[Yerevan]

I really loved EB and RS2, I played them more than any other game(except chess). But RTW1 was a dull game. THough I saw it as a brilliant concept and the game I've ben dreaming to play since I was 4.

Now, when R2 went out I felt it wasn't superior to EB at all, but I know memory is tricky and human brain is great at self deception. Grass is not only greener in your neighbour's place but also in your former garden. (sorry 4 my english)

I played DBM for one month and I had some epic battles with it, but the game seemed just flat compared to RTW 2. And about RTW 1, I don't want anymore to fight endless waves of headless stacks with no generals and then just one stack with all the AI's faction members that would commit suicide by charging directly into my pikemen, neither I miss this feeling of senseless mechanical expansion from the center to the rim when the territories you conquer only identity is linked to the last faction which possessed them, nor to share the world at mid game with 3 huge empires and no small factions but only grey anonymous rebels.

I'm not good for pros and cons lists , but who actually erased his RTW 2 local content in order to re-install RTW 1 ?

[stackero]

I really loved EB and RS2, I played them more than any other game(except chess). But RTW1 was a dull game. THough I saw it as a brilliant concept and the game I've ben dreaming to play since I was 4.

Now, when R2 went out I felt it wasn't superior to EB at all, but I know memory is tricky and human brain is great at self deception. Grass is not only greener in your neighbour's place but also in your former garden. (sorry 4 my english)

I played DBM for one month and I had some epic battles with it, but the game seemed just flat compared to RTW 2. And about RTW 1, I don't want anymore to fight endless waves of headless stacks with no generals and then just one stack with all the AI's faction members that would commit suicide by charging directly into my pikemen, neither I miss this feeling of senseless mechanical expansion from the center to the rim when the territories you conquer only identity is linked to the last faction which possessed them, nor to share the world at mid game with 3 huge empires and no small factions but only grey anonymous rebels.

I'm not good for pros and cons lists , but who actually erased his RTW 2 local content in order to re-install RTW 1 ?

Vanilla Rome has never left my pc since it came out, because I use mods to play it. Roma Surrectum 2 being the most advanced and fun for me, but there's many other mods to suit your needs, even the late period, all the way up to the of the Hun invasions and the Age of Julian the Apostate.

R2 is no longer on my pc and I suspect if it ever is it'll be over a year of modding to make playable if even that's possible. In by opinion Roma Surrectum 2.5 blows R2 away in the fun factor. RS2 rarely spams armies to the extent Rome 1 does. But RS2 advances so many things that it almost looks like a different game. Battles are epic, but there's so much more I could go and on, give it a try.

Good Gaming



'The great questions of the day will be decided not by speeches and majority votes... but by iron and blood' -Otto Von Bismarck

"If all the world were just, there would be no need of valor."~~Plutarch

[stackero]

I really loved EB and RS2, I played them more than any other game(except chess). But RTW1 was a dull game. THough I saw it as a brilliant concept and the game I've ben dreaming to play since I was 4.

Now, when R2 went out I felt it wasn't superior to EB at all, but I know memory is tricky and human brain is great at self deception. Grass is not only greener in your neighbour's place but also in your former garden. (sorry 4 my english)

I played DBM for one month and I had some epic battles with it, but the game seemed just flat compared to RTW 2. And about RTW 1, I don't want anymore to fight endless waves of headless stacks with no generals and then just one stack with all the AI's faction members that would commit suicide by charging directly into my pikemen, neither I miss this feeling of senseless mechanical expansion from the center to the rim when the territories you conquer only identity is linked to the last faction which possessed them, nor to share the world at mid game with 3 huge empires and no small factions but only grey anonymous rebels.

I'm not good for pros and cons lists , but who actually erased his RTW 2 local content in order to re-install RTW 1 ?

Wise choice, plenty of mods for it.RS2 and EB! are the most advanced mods and it has its on personality. Although, there are many worth while mods,RTR to name one.

Your legions await, or you tribes beat their shields at your approach, do you hear the call of empire? Go now, your destiny beckons.