After completing the Rome campaign on Legendary, one thing is clear- bug fixes will NOT fix this game.

[Guardian112]

As a TW fan, I am already used to buggy crappy AI and stuff. This is not the problem with the game. The problem with it is in its core design features, something no amount of little bug fixes will ever change. There is no family tree, so we have no connection to our generals. The events, the political system, the missions, all have absolutely no meaning to the game. The civil war is random (I tried reloading a save and it worked, you can avoid a civil war each time by just reloading a prior save) and doesn't really make sense given what is happening in your game (none of your generals betray you- just new armies showing up).

Diplomacy is pretty much bare bones making the only thing interesting to do with another nation=invade it.

And so on. These are major problems with the game. There is only so much "Move legion A to X location, invade, auto calc, wait for rebellion, kill, move on" that a person can do before getting bored. In past titles, we had other stuff that kept us busy.

Examples:

Medieval 2- the relationship with the Pope, the princesses, the choice between what sort of kingdom you could be, the kings and princes. Those were all features that kept us busy. It was exciting leading X leader to great battlefield victories that would even get recorded on the map (Rome 2 records them but doesn't record the names of the Generals who fought the battles).

Rome 1- We had the 3 Roman factions that were actually different and seperated, as opposed to the joke we have right now (hmmmm should I be Julii to get Caesar or the +3% bonus in public order? Oh wait...wtf...Caesar isn't a Julii in this game!!!). When civil war broke out, IT MADE SENSE. Each Roman faction had its own control over certain provinces. This in fact was in line with history much or less (e.g., when Octavian and Antony and Lepidus split up the Roman Empire into territories they each individually controlled). They fought each other with the armies and territories they already had at the time. Nothing magically appeared out of nowhere.

Now, I was never a fan of Realm Divide in Shogun 2 (it's stupid), but at least it was something. Your relationship with the Shogun, while bare bones compared to the previous games, was interesting.

Didn't say much about Empire only because it's a pretty crappy game, but I must say even Empire had at least a family tree to keep myself invested in the game, and the colonial system etc... was pretty well done.

/end rant

[bigfootedfred]

There is only so much "Move legion A to X location, invade, auto calc, wait for rebellion, kill, move on" that a person can do before getting bored. In past titles, we had other stuff that kept us busy.

Now we got ICBM torches.

Seriously though, i agree. What rome II truly lacks is not polish like many older titles, but depth.

[crazyguy1916]

It's a big letdown, honestly. Beneath all the problems you mentioned I do see a potential successor to the first Rome: Total War, though the manner of execution was completely horrendous. For shame, what a sequel Rome 2 could have been.

[Hazbones]

I think a lot can be done with Rome II once the modding tools and Assembly Kit is released like what happened with Shogun II. Unfortunately, that is more than a year from happening the way things are going.
If all of the tables from Shugun II which controlled the family tree are still there in Rome II, we can create a tree. Will be a lot of work, but it would be feasible.

[yutterh]

The way they were talking about the civil war I expected one of my generals or maybe most to betray me. I was expecting something like rome total war or medieval rebellion uprising. something like the farther a city is the higher chance of them joining the civil and generals that were not part of your family to sieze whatever city they are in(yes even your capital) and now your generals who may have fought together or soldiers must now become enemy and slay their brothers in arms. But who am I to make awesome game designs. CA obviously has it on lock with full stacks popping up on your capital. Not like this would make you think twice about leaving a non family member to watch your cities or balance out between your family being killed in battle and how many non family members you have. Of course not caus ethen that would add depth to the game and CA couldn't have that.

[krisslanza]

I don't get the big fuss about family trees. Sure it's nice to go "Oh that's the son of so and so" but... who cares? If the son is crap, I'm not going to use him just because his dad was cool. Generals are only as useful as their traits are anyway, and not magically better just because they had a blood relation to someone important. I guess there's the RP aspect, or for ARR uses, but you can just do those anyway without needing some in-game function to do it.

Personally while I liked Medieval 2, the Pope was about the worst thing with it. Mainly because he'd force you into bad situations simply because your bloodthristy Christian neighbors would fight you, and if you defended yourself he'd excommunicate you unless you've bothered to put your own Pope in place.

I don't see how Rome 1 is any 'better' then Rome 2. You do all the same things, only there's less tedious features (like squalor), you don't have to have Rome split three ways (though Roma in Rome 2 is playing just like Rome in BI), naval battles are actually not annoying and a RNG affair, the units all have a distinct purpose and use rather then just flavor units that have none... the list just kinda goes on.

[Americanus Supremus]

I don't get the big fuss about family trees. Sure it's nice to go "Oh that's the son of so and so" but... who cares? If the son is crap, I'm not going to use him just because his dad was cool. Generals are only as useful as their traits are anyway, and not magically better just because they had a blood relation to someone important. I guess there's the RP aspect, or for ARR uses, but you can just do those anyway without needing some in-game function to do it.

Personally while I liked Medieval 2, the Pope was about the worst thing with it. Mainly because he'd force you into bad situations simply because your bloodthristy Christian neighbors would fight you, and if you defended yourself he'd excommunicate you unless you've bothered to put your own Pope in place.

I don't see how Rome 1 is any 'better' then Rome 2. You do all the same things, only there's less tedious features (like squalor), you don't have to have Rome split three ways (though Roma in Rome 2 is playing just like Rome in BI), naval battles are actually not annoying and a RNG affair, the units all have a distinct purpose and use rather then just flavor units that have none... the list just kinda goes on.

Actually in prior TW games, RTW and MTW2, fathers passed down traits and anti traits to their sons. So yes indeed there was a point to family trees in prior games other than the oh wow factor you speak of.

[Medina]

I have played 80 hours on two campaign. 60 on the second. And although I am not done yet I don't feel like playing anymore. The stuff you mention above is just very bad. I am always doing a savegame load on rebellion. Not only because its plain but also the way the rebellion is manufacterd. I mean, 15 armies at your capital, just at once? That is realistic.

Even if I fight them all of it would just be the same battles with the same stupid AI...

[Steedward]

Actually in prior TW games, RTW and MTW2, fathers passed down traits and anti traits to their sons. So yes indeed there was a point to family trees in prior games other than the oh wow factor you speak of.

In my current game, my main family line are savage War Bastards who hate drink. None of the family has a clue how to run a settlement, but they're all damn fine commanders. A couple of adpotees or married girls have started pumping out more rounded managerial chaps (and the odd War Bastard), and over all it's going pretty well. This is Medieval 2 btw, where you can have that general who Hates the Scots or Hates the French go and manage one of those settlements for a laugh

When I played Rome 2, I had random generals just dying for no reason, or disappearing and then popping up with a message like 'Barry Swiggings is in the General's Hottub' - well that's great, but because I was forced to choose another random general, he can't go back to his old army. Not that I know which army he came from, or who he was, or what he was like... I'm not sure it even tells you the name, just that a general has returned to the pool. It really is .

[Octavius Vatco]

I don't get the big fuss about family trees. Sure it's nice to go "Oh that's the son of so and so" but... who cares? If the son is crap, I'm not going to use him just because his dad was cool. Generals are only as useful as their traits are anyway, and not magically better just because they had a blood relation to someone important. I guess there's the RP aspect, or for ARR uses, but you can just do those anyway without needing some in-game function to do it.

Personally while I liked Medieval 2, the Pope was about the worst thing with it. Mainly because he'd force you into bad situations simply because your bloodthristy Christian neighbors would fight you, and if you defended yourself he'd excommunicate you unless you've bothered to put your own Pope in place.

I don't see how Rome 1 is any 'better' then Rome 2. You do all the same things, only there's less tedious features (like squalor), you don't have to have Rome split three ways (though Roma in Rome 2 is playing just like Rome in BI), naval battles are actually not annoying and a RNG affair, the units all have a distinct purpose and use rather then just flavor units that have none... the list just kinda goes on.

Concerning the Pope, that is politics and real life. It brought the game to life and so did the tri-faction in Rome 1. Rome 2 seems like a sandbox game for little kids.

[kronpas]

The only thing Rome I was better was the logic and presentation of civil war against other 2 houses. Naval in Rome 2 is bad, but it was non existent in Rome 1. Diplomacy in Rome I was way worse than Rome II, there werent 1/2 map alliance/strapy like I had with my current game, past mid game were a slaughter snore-fest. Grand campaign map micro/macro management was pathetic, the most you can do mid-game and later is to spam build top tier buildings and elite troops, unlike Rome 2 where you actually have to think what to build to balance out PO (although in the end both game are boring as fk past a certain threshold). Rome 2 politics is half baked, but there werent massive difference in past titles either, I couldnt care less to marry this prince to that princess. Pope, SPQR, family tree were good for RP, but they added no depth to the game. The only game that made sense in regards to family trees and 'respected' NPC was Shogun 2.

Dont talk about your personal opt as fact. Legendary in this game is not hard anyways, since it takes more than one turn for AI to capture your settlement, unlike S2, so you wont lose to AIs stealing castles like in S2.

[kuceraht]

what a sequel Rome 2 could have been.

[Kraut]

There is much in the OP which I do not agree, but the core message is correct, IMO: patches might iron out bugs, but several design flaws in R2 will stay, as they would require a deeper rework. SO, at the end of the day, R2 will not be as great as it could have been, or as many of us would have expected.

[Holger Danske]

ETW and Rome II are worlds apart. With ETW there was a logical reasoning behind all the problems since it was an entirely new engine - not that it's acceptable that CA has done nothing to really fix the problems there was. With Rome II there is no excuse. CA has had enough time to perfect Warscape or scraped it for one they knew was better suited. Rome II was simply a money grab title that proved a specific strategy right... Hype -> Pre-orders -> $$$$... Which is why the next TW will be entirely the same as Rome II, just with a different setting.

[Kraut]

With Rome II CA should (...) have perfected the engine

THIS was what I expected, after all.

[Szlachta]

Diplomacy is almost non existent? Er, other than tech and settlement trading this TW's diplomacy is one of the best and most feature filled.

Civil War is random? No, it's not. Sometimes you can get lucky with a reload, but at a certain point in Imperium and or a general with 3 ambition will make CW inevitable.

[Wicked Moose]

ETW and Rome II are worlds apart. With ETW there was a logical reasoning as it was an entirely new engine. With Rome II CA should either have perfected the engine or scraped it for one they knew was better suited. Rome II was simply a money grab title that proved a specific strategy right... Hype -> Pre-orders -> $$$$

Indeed. And they took a too big risk with introducing new features.
Up to S2TW, everything was logical: Empire was the launch of the warscape engine and a test to see how big they could go with the scale of the game. It was buggy and bad performing, both of which are fixed in NTW, plus it added some useful features such as attrition, replenishment and liberate nations. Shogun2 was the opposite: small scale game with lots of detail and balancing. Perfect for trying out new features such as agent/character skill tree (which I don't like), family tree with assigning titles, reworked technology tree, and making recruitment/buildings dependent on resourcs, very useful for modding imho. FOTS goes even further with good performance and some extra features such as the flexible unit caps, again a very useful feature to modders imho.

Then they announced R2TW, I expected a fully optimised engine that can handle the big ETW scale with the performance of FOTS. They made such a hype of the big successor to RTW, so I thought, trying new controversial features is a big risk, they will take the best of all new features from ETW to S2 and improve them further, maybe adding some new daring features with an expansion.

Wrong. They went with capture the flag, no seasons, no family tree, no region exchanging, armies that can float on water, ...
IMHO, they should have saved these features for expansions, to see how they work out. Now they just threw in everything they could think of. Result: 50% of the features are a fail, 40% is promising but too shallow (internal faction politics, war targets etc), and maybe 10% is actually good (LOS etc). And some good features where quietly left out, where is that surrender button for besieged settlements?

[AngryTitusPullo]

Don't let a good thread be derailed with off topic comments and personal remarks that do not contribute to the discussion.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

I liked sending trade ships to trade nodes Also made Faction choice matter for that too, distance to major trade nodes

Imagine Parthians power of trade raid if everyone had trade routes to the silk roads going through there!

[Katsumoto]

I really want to like this game but it's pretty tough. I've done about three campaigns now on Hard up to turn 100 at least and every time I just get bored. I gave up on my Rome campaign as Carthage, Arveni and Egypt all got destroyed. I did a Macedon campaign where I just streamrolled everyone because nobody had any serious armies. I did a Carthage campaign which was initially pretty interesting but ultimately a game of 'whack-a-mole' with my enemies zapping around the Mediterranean capturing my undefended cities only for me to have to recapture them. Rome died in this campaign too. Then, with the arrival of Patch 4, I started an Arveni campaign - started off interestingly enough, fighting the local tribes and eventually forming a confederation comprised of the whole of Gaul. Got set up to wait for Rome to become a powerhouse for me to fight against, only for them to be destroyed by some African tribe. Had a spy in Italy - Rome had a single half-stack army, the Africans invaded with three full stacks. Bleh.

I really don't know if this can be fixed. I find that the game is either annoying or boring. I don't think CA (or SEGA) really understand their target market. The people who play Total War want more depth, not less, and the people who don't play Total War will always find it too in-depth regardless of how much you 'streamline' the game.