Unit Diversity: Is there a problem and can it be fixed?

[archone]

Rome 2 features a plethora of cultures each with unique backgrounds and fighting styles. One of the most interesting things about the period is taking your Roman legions and campaigning around the world, seeing how they stack up against all kinds of foreign armies.

What alarmed me, however, is how strikingly similar the seemingly diverse Rome 2 rosters are. Let's look at the basic breakdown of a unit roster for a typical faction, playable or non-playable:

Lowly spearmen
Basic swordsman
Elite spearman
Elite swordsman
Skirmisher
Slinger
Archer
Light cavalry
Heavy cavalry
Shock cavalry
Missile cavalry
Ballistas
Onagers

Some factions will have a few other units, but most of them fit one of these categories. I've crushed countless AI factions and I've yet to notice the difference between eastern spearmen and Italian spearmen or the difference between noble numidian swordsmen and noble illyrian swordsmen. Well, I suppose that can't be helped. Swords and spears are very universal weapons. Furthermore, Shogun 2 had a very similar setup but as anyone who's played the multiplayer will know, there was no shortage of new strategies despite the very limited roster.

So why does Rome 2 feel so repetitive by comparison? I played some S2 earlier today and it was immediately obvious.

Gone are the devastating no-dachi banzai charges. Gone are the flanking rapid reload elite matchlocks. Gone are those reliable monks, who could turn the tide of a huge battle with a single warcry or keep other archers at arm's length with their absurdly annoying range. Units simply do not play differently, there's 1 way to use pikes and 1 way to use swords. Each faction in Rome has 1-3 viable army compositions that's basically set in stone from the moment you start the campaign. The only faction that even comes close in flexibility to any S2 faction is Rome, due to their auxiliaries. For any other faction, it's very hard to play to the strengths and weaknesses of your individual units, you have to stick to your core. Greeks are committed to a pike based army from turns 1-1000 while you won't get far with Parthia without your cavalry.

Every unit in R2 seems to be methodically generated, with no thought other than the numbers that go into their stat tables. In my Egypt campaign, I finally got to the last level of barracks and fielded the elite royal thorax swordsmen. To my disappointment, the only thing royal about them was their fancy helmet. Hell, the normal thorax swordsmen even yell "royal thorax swordsman!" when you select them. There's no real excitement or pride in fielding them and that feeling of watching your "elite" units carve through the opposition quickly fades away. You merely accept that their power levels are higher and hire them, you'd have to be an idiot not to. Every unit is just a collection of numbers and every unit is just as replaceable as the last, provided a unit with better numbers becomes available.

Here are some ideas I had about how to improve the current system:

1. The costs and upkeeps of units should be adjusted to better reflect their stature: If nothing else, elite units should be more expensive than levies to give the latter a role even in the late game. Elites don't feel like the best amongst the best, merely the next step above your slightly less elite units.
2. Each unit should be functionally distinct: I couldn't tell you a reason to use javelinmen over peltasts. I could tell you a myriad of reasons to use matchlock ashigaru over matchlock samurai or bow samurai over bow monks, from armor to unit size. Even a light touch, say, giving javelinmen significantly higher firing rating in exchange for shorter range, lower armor, and lower morale, would make a big difference in gameplay. Units of the same type should not be strictly better than one another; the current Spartan roster might as well just be good hoplite, ok hoplite, and bad hoplite.
3. Give units more varied specials and abilities: I know some people really hate abilities, but if they're in the game, they should be interesting. Right now we have encourage on every elite, pila on every swordsman, and use the whip on just about every infantry unit. How about taking away some of those abilities to make the others feel more unique? Make trample an exclusive, powerful ability of companion cavalry and cataphracts, not a staple on every single unit of shock cavalry. Sword masters might not stand up to oathsworn in toe to toe combat, but they would feel just as powerful if they could warcry or intimidate.
4. Each faction should have a couple of truly unique units: Berserkers and night hunters are really cool. Galatian royal guards, on the other hand, are just reskinned hastati with nearly identical stats with the other tier 4 Egyptian sword infantry, the royal thorax swordsmen. Wouldn't it be cool if Galatian royal guards were the only unit in the game with inspire or had the highest charge of any non-barbarian infantry? It would certainly give you a reason to play Egypt and something to distinguish your Egypt campaign from that of any other Hellenic faction. It's not all about quantity, I know I for one would gladly give up siege units for barbarian factions to make gate burning an exclusive ability of barbarian infantry.


Do you think the current diversity in unit rosters is lacking? Is this something that CA should address or is this the territory of mods?

[raest]

agreed on pretty much all counts. it's rather telling that CA somehow managed to make factions in the ancient mediterranean feel less varied than sengoku jidai clans. out of "700 units" there's like 500 (hyperbolic number, of course) that are only reskinned versions of others. i really really wish they hired the EB or RS2 unit designers/creators 'cause they're infinitely better at that, and more historically correct to boot!

[McCarronXLD]

agreed on pretty much all counts. it's rather telling that CA somehow managed to make factions in the ancient mediterranean feel less varied than sengoku jidai clans. out of "700 units" there's like 500 (hyperbolic number, of course) that are only reskinned versions of others. i really really wish they hired the EB or RS2 unit designers/creators 'cause they're infinitely better at that, and more historically correct to boot!

This. All of this. I wish they had hired the EB or RS2 unit designers. The units in these mods look infinitely better than Rome 2's! I suppose maybe they didn't have to time to spend on making units look better? No matter what it is I don't think the point can be argued that this isn't the most visually diverse (vanilla) Total War to date.. it's just that it could have been so much better considering all the work that modders did in Rome 1 that CA could have expanded upon in Rome 2.

[Frost, colonel]

This. All of this. I wish they had hired the EB or RS2 unit designers. The units in these mods look infinitely better than Rome 2's! I suppose maybe they didn't have to time to spend on making units look better? No matter what it is I don't think the point can be argued that this isn't the most visually diverse (vanilla) Total War to date.. it's just that it could have been so much better considering all the work that modders did in Rome 1 that CA could have expanded upon in Rome 2.

Whilst I agree, it would of being great, CA have improved massively in this are from RTW1.
How realistic is it to expect a games company to go further than they have?

[Sir_Pee_Alot]

CA will fix it with DLC,s so within a year or so you have your
Unit Diversity!

[General Sherman]

I think the diversity is lacking in the tactical side of things. The list of units you provided is pretty expansive, its just that so many units that should be different play almost identically. Barbarian infantry and Roman infantry is the best example; these two should play very distinctly from one another, in fact they are almost identical. Special abilities wouldn't help either, mostly because they are a terrible concept that clashes with what should be the core game mechanics, but also because barb inf and roman inf already have quite different abilities, and they still play almost identically.

That said, even armies that force you to rely on a basic "core" can be quite flexible. In my recent Macedon campaign I had quite the shock when I faced a steppe style horse archer faction for the first time. My pike/hoplite heavy army went down hard in the first encounter. Afterwards I immediately and radically altered my base army composistion to include more cav and ranged units. I still had a "core" of pike units, but it was half the size of my original army comp, and I actually found myself using slingers to great effect (I though my days of training slingers were done when I unlocked the ability to train archers; but slingers have longer range and can be very effective against horse archers).

For me the Achilles heel of the whole game is the unit blobbing. I've recently tried lustik's battle mod, and it seems to be helping; but for the vanilla game the blobbing is the one major obstacle I don't see the game ever overcoming.

So in summation, I would say any problem with unit diversity is more a problem with subpar battle mechanics themselves.

[Szlachta]

Unit diversity is awesome and probably the best seen in any TW. Guess whiners will whine about anything after patches have fixed most of the issues that actually warrant criticism.

[TheSavage]

I agree with the OP. Really, the list looks like this:

Heavy Infantry (Sword/Axe)
Spearman / Hoplites
Light Infantry (Peltasts/Javelinmen)
Pikemen
Heavy Cavalry (Shock or Melee)
Light/Missle Cavalry
Ranged Units (Archers/Slingers)

Really, you can fit any unit into one of these 7 types, and within each type there is little differentiation other than "better/newer vs. worse".

Like in RTW and M2TW, I would usually include at least one light cavalry in my army to chase down routers or move about the battlefield quickly, because the heavy infantry was soooooo slow. Both heavy and light had a role. In R2TW, the speed and maneuverability difference isn't that great, so you are just better off drafting all the cavalry with the best stats.

A few things I think would help:
-Create a role for Light/Medium Infantry (non-Peltast) by making it significantly faster and better at hiding than Heavy, and also give it lots more stamina
-Differentiate Light vs. Heavy Cavalry more... light should be much faster and more maneuverable, and Heavy should be slowed further
-Slingers and archers should be differentiated further... Perhaps slingers have better range but archers fire faster?
-In prev titles Axe units had the advantage of penetrating armor more effectively. Not sure if that is still the case. (Don't think it is.) But it should be.

[Szlachta]

Most unit and most diversity than any other TW. Only thing missing is flaming pigs and Lime head throwers.

[raest]

Most unit and most diversity than any other TW. Only thing missing is flaming pigs and Lime head throwers.

blind fanboy. the original shogun had more diverse units than rtw2, despite having numerically less units ("700 units! that means it's the most diverse tw yet!" learn to think with your own brain...).

[Szlachta]

blind fanboy. the original shogun had more diverse units than rtw2, despite having numerically less units ("700 units! that means it's the most diverse tw yet!" learn to think with your own brain...).

Sorry, but simple math has already proven you wrong. More units, more abilities than any other Total War. Hilarious how you can't even form an argument, other than trying to redefine how math works. Now you know the whiners have ran out of legitimate criticism if they are going to try to bash the one thing CA got right from launch, diversity.

[cahtush]

Just changing the equipment of hellenistic so that each unit had a tendency towards of a specific design, for example 75% of thorax swordsmen have thracian helmets and so on.
Would make the elite pikemen more diverse.
Less generic units (like eastern spearmen and hoplites) and more local and unique ones, and giving all of them different design tendencies. Yea they would all be the same but would make at least feel more diverse.

[Muffin Top]

Especially the barbarian factions!
Is it me or do most of the barbarians look like they've had their wisdom teeth pull out?

[Szlachta]

No, but a lot of Iceni look like Guy Fieri. Anyway, it's a mathematical fact that there's more diversity in Rome II than any other TW (and not just in units, but the map, abilities, bonuses and traits, building, cultures and techs). Anybody that hasn't noticed a difference between this unit and that unit is either lying, or hasn't played the game enough to comment on it.

[Zenky]

1. I hope CA wont touch this before they fix the game
2. Check the mod forum there is plenty if new unit
3. Give me a list of all unit missing in game i am kinda curious (for the playable faction)

I can blame CA for many thinsg but the lack of different unit is not exactly one of them.

Are you really saying S2 had more unit diversity then Rome 2 ??? or im not reading it right I guess.

[Szlachta]

Are you really saying S2 had more unit diversity then Rome 2 ??? or im not reading it right I guess.

Yes, people actually have the nerve to say this. It makes me wonder if they've ever played a Total War game. And pretty much tells me that they are just here to complain about any random thing that pops in their head.

[archone]

Hey Szlachta can you tell me the difference between these units? What are they and how should they be used properly? Can you read and refute the points I made before spamming your discontent?


@Zenky: Yes S2 has more variety than this game, believe it or not. Every unit in R2 is a reskin of a generic unit while every unit on the S2 roster was functionally different. S2 strategies and compositions are very diverse while they are just "get the best heavy infantry" in R2. Look at Naginata Hero vs Naginata Monk vs Naginata Samurai, each have their own strengths and weaknesses despite each one being a higher tier than the next. You can't say the same for Praetorians vs Evocati vs Legionaries vs Principes.

@TheSavage: That's a really good point. "Light" in this game is just a synonym for worse, there's no reason to use light hoplites or light cavalry unless you don't have other options. If light infantry actually had a purpose, it would make other aspects of the game more diversified and balanced. For example, archers and slingers are visually different but functionally more or less the same. Archers should only be good against light infantry while slingers should be weaker overall but have the ability to penetrate armor. CA nerfed archer armor pen but changed it back because without armor pen they were completely useless against 99% of units. Every unit in the roster should have a role in army composition instead of every tier obviating the last.

[Zenky]

Hey Szlachta can you tell me the difference between these units? What are they and how should they be used properly? Can you read and refute the points I made before spamming your discontent?


@Zenky: Yes S2 has more variety than this game, believe it or not. Every unit in R2 is a reskin of a generic unit while every unit on the S2 roster was functionally different. S2 strategies and compositions are very diverse while they are just "get the best heavy infantry" in R2. Look at Naginata Hero vs Naginata Monk vs Naginata Samurai, each have their own strengths and weaknesses despite each one being a higher tier than the next. You can't say the same for Praetorians vs Evocati vs Legionaries vs Principes.

@TheSavage: That's a really good point. "Light" in this game is just a synonym for worse, there's no reason to use light hoplites or light cavalry unless you don't have other options. If light infantry actually had a purpose, it would make other aspects of the game more diversified and balanced. For example, archers and slingers are visually different but functionally more or less the same. Archers should only be good against light infantry while slingers should be weaker overall but have the ability to penetrate armor. CA nerfed archer armor pen but changed it back because without armor pen they were completely useless against 99% of units. Every unit in the roster should have a role in army composition instead of every tier obviating the last.

Are you serious ? you are comparing 3 roman unit that are only upgrade from the other and then you compare 3 very different unit type Swordsman/spear man/monk ( I don't recall reading about monk fighter in 300 BC but I can be wrong) from S2, to be fair you should compare Preatorian Vs hoplite vs axeman vs ...... they are 3 different unit. I forgot to add Roman ( in real life) tried to have a very homogenize army beside auxiliary people would get mad at CA if they started to give Roman phalanx , Hoplite , Elephant has core army unit.

[archone]

@Zenky: I'm comparing the same type of unit from different tiers. I realize that Roman infantry are very similar, but they should not completely obviate each other.

Monk:Samurai is not the same as Swordike, Naginata:Katana is the S2 equivalent of Swordike. In S2, however, there were multiple viable Naginata unis and multiple viable Katana units, ashigaru, samurai, monks, heroes, etc. In R2 you only have strictly better upgrades for each unit. It makes the game very stale because there's no reason to not replace all your legionaries with Praetorians if you can build them, it greatly diminishes the number of viable choices.

Praetorians should have unique restrictions (unit size, replenishment, etc) to make Legionaries useful in army compositions and turn Praetorians into a niche elite unit rather than a spammable unit. This is the S2 system and it worked very well.

[Szlachta]

Can you link pics that I can actually see? Also, you made no point. You just spouted ignorance that's super easy for simple math to refute.

Yes S2 has more variety than this game, believe it or not.

"

So you haven't actually played either game. Got it.

"Light" in this game is just a synonym for worse, there's no reason to use light hoplites or light cavalry unless you don't have other options.

Welcome to the Total War series.