Thoughts from the House of Hannover
My arrogant opinion about Total War: Rome II
I understand that my wall of text seems rather unattractive, so I structured it in a way that you can skip the indifferent parts.
Battles
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:BAI
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:It's not especially stupid, but I can't say that I was amazed by its abilities. From time to time, it pretends the Napoleon. but this, positive impression is quickly evaporated by the usual glitches and defficiencies (hesitating, losing formation, unresponsiveness to missile fire etc. However, the siege battles, where the AI is either the attacker or the defender, are totally broken, plauged with awkward deployment, no use of siege weapons and childish/anarchist tactics.
Landscapes
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:That's probably the brightest spot of Rome II. Realistic depiction of trees, sea or mountains, as well as an admirable variety certainly contribute to the immersion, whose presence is pretty neglectable, in the game. On the negative side, there was not a breathtaking improvement from Shogun II and CA was a bit lazy, as the lack of forests and the pleathora of deserts suggest.
Units
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:Well, in that section, CA was surprisingly rather historically accurate, as the followed the Osprey Books obediently, with only minor details missing. Of course, there are some mistakes, mainly regarding the Lagid Kingdom, but some sort of progress is undisputable. However, in what concerns their variety and stats, the situation is less idyllic. The statement about 700 units is a bit misleading, considering the inexistence of major differences, while some balancing (e.g. cataphracts) is necessary. I forgot to mention the lack of officers, especially in what conncerns the cavalry units, which is really frustrating
UI
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:Frankly, I was disappointed. The unit cards occupy a great portion of the PC screen and the lack of certain abilities becomes even worse, when I have to deal with the magical buffs. About the art style, well, I found it well tasted, but I admit that it's not as practical as the previous ones.
Time
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:Probably the worst element of battles. The ships' speed is simply ridiculous and the killing rate makes WWI seem like a joyful excursion. I suspect that the reason for this absurd decision was to make the AI look smarter, but it completely kills any immersion or amusement during the military engagements.
Actual Battle
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:The fighting animations are good (not fantastic) and the blood is better adapted (when compared to Shogun II) and the ridiculous graphic glitches (zombie/porcupine soldiers) add a spicy flavor, but the notorious blobs manage to turn the battles into hooligan brawls. Moreover, major improvements are definitely needed in pursuing routing units.
Naval Battles
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:Unfortunately, they are worse than their land counterparts. Apart from the rocket speed, tactics are extremely difficult to be realised and the overpowered transport ships make the creation of an actual fleet a discouraging task
Campaign
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
CAI
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:CA attempted to reduce its idiocy, by adding the armies limit, but she actually managed to make things worse! CAI's ultimate goal is to reach the armies' limit, so it keeps spamming 3 units armies, which it usually sends overseas to colonize the barbarians. As a result, I keep fighting settlement battles (the small scale of the map has also played a role on this), while the open field battles represent a tiny portion of my campaigns.
Map
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:Considering the positives, it has the expected size, stretching from Ireland to the Indus river, and I personally have no problem with the cartoony look or the arbitrary positioning of the cliffs. However, its scale is rather small (Iran is actually compressed and the map is zoomed in) and the corridors created by "high attrition" areas, forests and mountains make it look even smaller. Also, I wholeheartedly despite the new province system. The region capitals are pretty unimportant and they make me think of the farms or ports in Empire or Napoleon. Finally, the cities' expansion may be impressive, when you watch it for the first time, but their excessive growth is not without disadvantages.
Diplomacy
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:There is a real progress in this domain, which is, unfortuately, reduced by several unreasonably imposed limitations. The AI doesn't hate me anymore and it tends to negotiate cleverly, but in harder difficulty levels it's practically impossible to sign the simplest treaties, like trading agreements. Furthermore, the lack of certain options, as well as the broken "Protectorate" mechanic make it look quite swallow.
Politics
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:Politics are the game's section, about which I was disappointed the most after the release, in spite of being a whiner during the marketing phase. To put it simply, they are pointless, boring and unexplicable, not to mention the laughable spamming of armies, when a generic Civil War breaks out. The whole procedure seems like a desperate attemt to prevent the player from blitzing the Mediterranean too fastly.
UI & Encyclopedia
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:Both of them are pretty dysfuntional. They present numerous, useless information, while they keep the more essential one thinly veiled under a mist of pixels.
Tech Tree and Traits System
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:I have no problem with the tech tree, although some additions would be welcome. However, I literally despise the traist system. It throws immersion out of the window, by enforcing the generic "aura" of the generals/agents.
Balance between Factions
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:Although I probably belong to a neglectable minority, I must say that I like the game's tendancy to completely disregard a faction's importance through history. It's kinda funny having to deal with the Great Pharaoh of the Nassamones or the Drangianean Shahanshah. My only complaint concerns the roster of the minor factions, because fighting (during the last stages of the campaign) medium-skilled infantry/cavalry is dull and very easy.
Campaign Experience
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:Rather surprisingly, the campaign information is less complicated (I mean it as a negative) than the one of Rome I. Public order, profits, expenses and population growth are now influenced by a small amount of factors. No more do slaves, agricultural production, sanitarian infractures, buildings etc, play a role on the game. All the aforementioned aspects make my experience boring, by making the game look empty.
Others
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
1 Turn per Year
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:I was greatly frustrated, when the CA announced its intentions about the specific element of the game. It forces you to fasten your gaming rythm (because sandbox mode is quite irreliable) and gives another blow to the immersion, by preventing you from being attached to your generals, not to mention the inevitable lack of seasons. The CA's manoeuvre is simply not sufficient to overcome this unacceptable mistake.
Agents
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:I was totally satisfied with the agents mechanism, as it has beein in Shogun II, so I share the same opinion about the one of Rome II, too. It's deep enough and encourages the player to spend time thinking about his nest manoeuvres. My unique complaint concerns the overpowered dignitaries.
Family Trees
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:I still can't believe that CA neglected one of the best features of the past. I understood the special cases of ETW and NTW (when the dynasties didn't participate in battles), but in the Hellenistic Period, it is just ridiculous and an incredibly immersion-breaking decsion. It's a pity, but I suppose I have to deal with it.
Historical Battles & Wonders
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:There is only one problem, there, their number. Two Wonders and four historical battles are the most credible indication about how rushed the game is.
Historical Accuracy
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:I am aware that it's not a crucial subject for the majority of the members, but, being a nitpicking historian, I will express my opinion. As I have already mentioned it, the units are represented pretty accurately, but that's not the case for the depiction of the political status quo and the characters' names. I understand that if Iran/Mesopotamia/Asia Minor, Southern Spain and Cyprus were controlled by the Seleucid Empire, Carhage and the Lagid Kingdom respectively, there would be problems concerning the balance between the factions. However, CA is supposed to be an experienced developper of strategy games, so I would expect a more creative solution than this lazy job. Furthermore, Iranians with Assyrian names, Greeks baptized christians (Cosmas, Agapios etc.) or with African names are a perfect example of neglect and ignorance.
Graphics
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:They are amazing. The landscape, the soldiers, the ships etc. are all depicted very realistically, with respect to even minor details. If it wasn't for the poor optimization and the abundance of bugs, I would have given CA a 10/10, in this domain.
Morality
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:It's hardly an aspect of the game, so I am not going to consider it in my final conclusion. The lack of optimization and the undisputably misleading and rather aggressive marketing campaign make CA look like a bloodthirsty exploiter, although, in my (cynical) opinion, it's just typical behaviour of a company aiming to profit. The worst part are the Greek (the bribery to pre-order) and the Nomads DLCs, which, being given the fact their release date, are definitely cut out content. The four patches are positve for CA's reputation, but only the future will show us the sincerity of her claims.
Conclusion
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:It's bad. Certainly it's not an abomination, but I would consider it as one of the worst Total War titles and generally a medium scored game. Although it has some positive points, the negativity easily prevails over the few encouraging signs. The reasons for this unhappy situation is the premature release (numerous glitches, missing features like the Wonders or the lions in the Persian warships etc.), a desire from CA to attract a bigger audience (less sophisticated management, easiness, focusing on fanciness etc.) and lack of creativity (arbitrary presentation of the political situation, army limit, no wallled cities etc.)
Consequently, I would rate the game as a 4/10, with a potential for an optimist 5/10.
However, numbers say nothing, so here is how I scored the rest of the Total War franchise:
Shogun I Total War: Never played it.
Medieval I Total War: 9/10 (The best Total War game, yet).
Rome I Total War: 8/10 (a nice game, too).
Medieval II Total War: 5/10 (I still dislike it, so, go on and crucify me).
Empire Total War: 3/10 (Laughable, just laughable).
Napoleon Total War: 7/10 (a great progress, when compared to Empire).
Total War: Shogun II: I rarely played it, so I am not going to score it, but I must say I was pleased about it.
P.S. Let me know if I forgot soemthing.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by craziii
POSTER AKAR
