Gameplay issues that MUST be fixed

[ChairmanCrassus]

After investing over a hundred hours in both campaign and multiplayer there are a few things that still need to be fixed either by CA or modders. After fixing bugs, graphics, AI, and performance issues, gameplay needs to be the next thing that is fixed and this thread deals with that.

They are:

• The user interface in battles needs to be smaller and more compact so that I can have it open all the time. I shouldn't have to open and close it all the time. One reason I still haven't memorized the unit cards is because I have barely seen them (they are always hidden).
• The ability to build roads and highways. This has been in every TW and removing it destroys depth. You should have the ability to develop the infrastructure of your province without actually improving the provincial capital or towns. A new building chain in the provincial capital called "trails" > "roads" > "highways" should do the trick. All this building chain has to do is increase the army movement distance significantly.
• Army, agent, and navy movement distance in friendly territory needs to be increased dramatically. This is linked to point two and armies within their own territories should be able to travel across their own empire within at most three/four turns. Army movement distance within enemy territory is modeled fine.
• Pila firing infantry (such as spearmen and swordsmen) need to fire at will automatically if enemy infantry is within range. A fire-at-will button would do good here because sometimes you want this to happen and sometimes not.
• In multiplayer battles team chat should automatically display itself. It is annoying when someone isn't listening because they have their chat window closed.
• A team chat button in multiplayer battles because I shouldn't have to type "/team" every time I want to chat. One button that locks chat to "team" or "all".
• A internet ping and PC strength meter needs to exist so that hosts can identify players who lag. Take a note from Men of War games which displays ping as a number (in milliseconds) and computer strength as a bar:
  Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  
• More building slots because I shouldn't have to choose what I want my city to be. Why can't a city be everything? I shouldn't have to choose between producing cav or infantry or archers, I should be able to construct all the buildings that can be built.
• A guard stance button so that units can either chase after another unit or hold formation. Units should either chase or return to the formation they had before. They shouldn't do this: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...lding-The-Line.
  Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  
• An option for banning artillery in multiplayer battles. Artillery is still OP and I see many hosts "banning" artillery and people bringing it anyway.
• The ability to change faction capital. Historically factions changed their capitals and in the game if you start off with a town as a capital you are stuck with it for the rest of the game, which just sucks. The capitals of empires are generally the capitals of that region.
• In a civil war your own armies and territories should rebel. Armies should not just spawn a crap load of units, instead it should be one of your generals who automatically gets adopted by a rival family and then immediately rebels against you. He should automatically gain access to some territories and part of your treasury should be lost. He then uses these territories to produce more units.
• Trade shouldn't all flow in and out of your capital city before moving on to other parts of your empire. Honestly I don't know what to say about this because it makes no sense.
• The recruitment cap of armies should be more than three units per turn (4 or 5 would be better). It shouldn't take more than six years to raise an army.
• An option for more turns per year. Although it is possible to change turns per year in the programing (I have done it for all my campaigns), it is not specified whether it is summer or spring or fall so you end up with many turns in the same year which is confusing when you save. But personally I don't need to see snow on the campaign map, so just text saying which time of year it is would be fine.
• Finally, although it might be too much to ask, a WORKING family tree would be nice but it needs to be more than just a record. Working means it looks like this:
  Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  
• A visual representation of the senate/nobile support would also be nice.

Part deux:

• Increase draw distance because draw distance isn't far enough and as a result it is difficult to see if a pike unit is in phalanx formation unless you zoom in.
• Small towns should have wooden walls just like in Rome 2. This would allow the AIs units to break line of sight and hide behind their walls instead of me just lining up my slingers and shooting them while they just sit there. To eliminate the need for a seige just automatically give the attackers battering rams at the start of the seige, a fight for the front gate should then ensue. Towns almost always had walls of some sort so I don't understand why they would remove them.

IMHO fixing these issues would make Rome 2 a great game worth at least an 8.5 Metacritic user rating, not the 3.8 it currently scores.

I understand mods can fix this, but the fixing really should be done by CA. I shouldn't have to search for these things or fix them myself.

Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?

[wulfgar610]

"MUST"?

Artillery is still OP

That one I'll agree with.

[ChairmanCrassus]

"MUST"?

Not this must: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must

[krisslanza]

Just going to nitpick this one right now, don't feel like touching on the rest right now.

• An option for more turns per year. Although it is possible to change turns per year in the programing (I have done it for all my campaigns), it is not specified whether it is summer or spring or fall so you end up with many turns in the same year which is confusing when you save. But personally I don't need to see snow on the campaign map, so just text saying which time of year it is would be fine.

This just isn't really feasible for a patch. They would have to rebalance the entire game's pacing to pull this off. Rome 2 has no end date, but the campaign is assumed to take 300 turns or 300 years. If you change it to even 2TPY, the campaign now becomes a 600 turn ordeal - a 4TPY? Now it's 1200. You would quickly have upgraded everything possible and finished every tech LONG before the campaign is supposed to be done. It would have huge pacing issues, and is unlikely to change unless a future DLC has a new campaign that is taking place in a significantly smaller timeframe of maybe 50 years.

[wulfgar610]

Scaling more reality in means a much more detailed and complex game. Meaning they'd have an even smaller clientele of Nerds, who are more hardcore. But that doesn't sell more copy. The game is a compromise.

Replace "must" with "I'd like".

[Praetorian_BGX]

Scaling more reality in means a much more detailed and complex game. Meaning they'd have an even smaller clientele of Nerds, who are more hardcore. But that doesn't sell more copy. The game is a compromise.

Replace "must" with "I'd like".

If only problem that you have with RTW2 is OP Arty then you "MUST" start thinking about your standard level. Current one is not competent for further discussions.

[acm_no1]

The recruitment cap of armies should be more than three units per turn (4 or 5 would be better). It shouldn't take more than six years to raise an army.

as Carthaginian Republic, I am able to recruit more than 10 units per year, I dont think the current system should be changed =\

[Shawn1066]

I agree with the family tree change. If there's one glaring thing that feels incomplete in the game, its the fact that you have absolutely no real control over the faction that you pick. There was clearly the intent of having a detailed faction system created for the game and it seems like it was heavily curtailed in order to get the game pushed towards release. Unless I'm missing something, when you pick Rome you choose a major family to support, like the Julii for instance. Then, in anywhere from 1-30 turns the main family dies out so quickly you'd think that they all decided to go visit the Senate at once. Why? Because it's an unwritten rule that Roman men never, ever plan their own marriages.

I love the game, but this is a glaring problem.

[krisslanza]

I agree with the family tree change. If there's one glaring thing that feels incomplete in the game, its the fact that you have absolutely no real control over the faction that you pick. There was clearly the intent of having a detailed faction system created for the game and it seems like it was heavily curtailed in order to get the game pushed towards release. Unless I'm missing something, when you pick Rome you choose a major family to support, like the Julii for instance. Then, in anywhere from 1-30 turns the main family dies out so quickly you'd think that they all decided to go visit the Senate at once. Why? Because it's an unwritten rule that Roman men never, ever plan their own marriages.

I love the game, but this is a glaring problem.

You actually pick a House, not a Family. The key difference mainly being a House is made up of people all belonging to some particular goal or some such. It's a bit different from a Family, mainly in that it's not well, just family. It's anyone who joins the House. It can just be assumed that when there are no Julli in the House of Julii, it just means none of them are actually important at this time.

[Shawn1066]

While that's true, it really doesn't change things You start off as the head of the family and you should have some control, at least, over whether or not your family line continues. Lets say that, unlike the historical Julii until the time of Julius Caesar, you want to be a long-standing influential family. It's pretty standard that once one member of the family serves the Republic admirably, that the name will have so much authority that the sons will automatically be important when they come of age.

Honestly though, I don't mind non-Julii being being the head of the faction or for the same thing in other factions. What I don't like is that a Roman man of rank can go his entire life without being married. It just doesn't make any sense. He would not just wait for somebody to offer. As best as I can tell, nobody in the game ever offers. That's the problem. The fact that you have absolutely no control over your faction in any real sense.

It's the bare bones of what might be a great, engaging system once it gets fixed.

[krisslanza]

While that's true, it really doesn't change things You start off as the head of the family and you should have some control, at least, over whether or not your family line continues. Lets say that, unlike the historical Julii until the time of Julius Caesar, you want to be a long-standing influential family. It's pretty standard that once one member of the family serves the Republic admirably, that the name will have so much authority that the sons will automatically be important when they come of age.

Honestly though, I don't mind non-Julii being being the head of the faction or for the same thing in other factions. What I don't like is that a Roman man of rank can go his entire life without being married. It just doesn't make any sense. He would not just wait for somebody to offer. As best as I can tell, nobody in the game ever offers. That's the problem. The fact that you have absolutely no control over your faction in any real sense.

It's the bare bones of what might be a great, engaging system once it gets fixed.

I will admit marriage seems bugged. You can't actually have marriages done to your faction leader, or anyone in your own faction I think - only to those outside it, which is a bit odd. It would probably be less unusual if the other Houses would extend marriage offers, but they do not - they seem content to only spend their time on killing your own people off.

Admittedly, this more bothers me because I know it's a missing "bonus" I could have but cannot get because the AI wants to murder me instead.

[ChairmanCrassus]

Just going to nitpick this one right now, don't feel like touching on the rest right now.[/LIST]
This just isn't really feasible for a patch. They would have to rebalance the entire game's pacing to pull this off. Rome 2 has no end date, but the campaign is assumed to take 300 turns or 300 years. If you change it to even 2TPY, the campaign now becomes a 600 turn ordeal - a 4TPY? Now it's 1200. You would quickly have upgraded everything possible and finished every tech LONG before the campaign is supposed to be done. It would have huge pacing issues, and is unlikely to change unless a future DLC has a new campaign that is taking place in a significantly smaller timeframe of maybe 50 years.

Well my main issue with one turn per year is that the travel distances are not historically accurate. If travel distance and troop recruitment can be made more accurate then I don't have a problem with the 1TPY. But if travel distance and troop recruitment are both increased dramatically then it makes a very volitile game--which I actually like.

as Carthaginian Republic, I am able to recruit more than 10 units per year, I dont think the current system should be changed =\

Do you mean throughout your entire empire and to be merged later or by only one general?

[acm_no1]

Do you mean throughout your entire empire and to be merged later or by only one general?

by 1 general, there are many buildings that allow you to have more recruitment capacity, edicts give more capacity too, and being a Republic means you have 2 more slots to recruit per year

[wulfgar610]

Well my main issue with one turn per year is that the travel distances are not historically accurate. If travel distance and troop recruitment can be made more accurate then I don't have a problem with the 1TPY. But if travel distance and troop recruitment are both increased dramatically then it makes a very volitile game--which I actually like.

A march from Rome to Gades was about 3 months and by boat only two weeks. But it would require an immensely detailed campaign map scenario and the large map is already busting CPU's.

[karamazovmm]

ah btw wanna how you can make your armies march faster the campaign map? upgrade your cities. that where the roads building are and the walls for the capital

its interesting what I really want is to have the ability o upgrade the weapons and armour of my units in a more non click intensive way, much like upgrading from hastati to legionaries select and a single click.

my tunnel carp is screaming

[ChairmanCrassus]

by 1 general, there are many buildings that allow you to have more recruitment capacity, edicts give more capacity too, and being a Republic means you have 2 more slots to recruit per year

Interesting. I haven't played with Carthage yet or any large faction, only Arveni, Suebi, Iceni, Pontus, Macedon, and Athens. I want to keep the best (Rome, Carthage, Egypt) until most of the patching is finished.

ah btw wanna how you can make your armies march faster the campaign map? upgrade your cities. that where the roads building are and the walls for the capital

But I don't want to necessarily upgrade ALL my cities to build better roads, I just want to build better roads, and sometimes highways travel through the middle of nowhere IRL.

[wulfgar610]

But I don't want to necessarily upgrade ALL my cities to build better roads, I just want to build better roads, and sometimes highways travel through the middle of nowhere IRL.

I think I'll I respect CA's method. The quality of the roads and town development walk hand in hand. Part of the reason Gaul was so easily conquered is the urban development was already advanced when the Romans got there. Where as Germany proved near impossible due to the lack of development. Lowland Britain proves a relatively easy conquest and yet Severus suffers 50,000 casualties in a peanut like Caledonia.

[acm_no1]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

not only Carthage, Parthia has 5 recruitment slots per year too (no mod included in my game)

[archone]

• The user interface in battles needs to be smaller and more compact so that I can have it open all the time. I shouldn't have to open and close it all the time. One reason I still haven't memorized the unit cards is because I have barely seen them (they are always hidden).

Works fine on higher resolutions but I agree

• The ability to build roads and highways. This has been in every TW and removing it destroys depth. You should have the ability to develop the infrastructure of your province without actually improving the provincial capital or towns. A new building chain in the provincial capital called "trails" > "roads" > "highways" should do the trick. All this building chain has to do is increase the army movement distance significantly.

Nah this isn't a must have, roads already upgrade with the main building line

• Army, agent, and navy movement distance in friendly territory needs to be increased dramatically. This is linked to point two and armies within their own territories should be able to travel across their own empire within at most three/four turns. Army movement distance within enemy territory is modeled fine.

Again, not mandatory, forced march and transports already exist for this. I think it's fine.

• Pila firing infantry (such as spearmen and swordsmen) need to fire at will automatically if enemy infantry is within range. A fire-at-will button would do good here because sometimes you want this to happen and sometimes not.

A nice feature, yes, but not the highest priority.

• More building slots because I shouldn't have to choose what I want my city to be. Why can't a city be everything? I shouldn't have to choose between producing cav or infantry or archers, I should be able to construct all the buildings that can be built.

Absolutely not, the new system is fine, there's no reason why you shouldn't have to choose how to specialize your cities. Number tweaks should be enough.

• An option for banning artillery in multiplayer battles. Artillery is still OP and I see many hosts "banning" artillery and people bringing it anyway.

No, this is just inane.

• The ability to change faction capital. Historically factions changed their capitals and in the game if you start off with a town as a capital you are stuck with it for the rest of the game, which just sucks. The capitals of empires are generally the capitals of that region.

This is incredibly minor and not a must-fix at all, capitals don't even mean much in this game.

• In a civil war your own armies and territories should rebel. Armies should not just spawn a crap load of units, instead it should be one of your generals who automatically gets adopted by a rival family and then immediately rebels against you. He should automatically gain access to some territories and part of your treasury should be lost. He then uses these territories to produce more units.

Agreed, the civil war is currently broken and needs a rehaul.

• Trade shouldn't all flow in and out of your capital city before moving on to other parts of your empire. Honestly I don't know what to say about this because it makes no sense.

Again this is incredibly minor and doesn't matter that much.

• The recruitment cap of armies should be more than three units per turn (4 or 5 would be better). It shouldn't take more than six years to raise an army.

Completely disagree, armies are already too easy to recruit, units should actually take multiple turns to recruit.

• Small towns should have wooden walls just like in Rome 2. This would allow the AIs units to break line of sight and hide behind their walls instead of me just lining up my slingers and shooting them while they just sit there. To eliminate the need for a seige just automatically give the attackers battering rams at the start of the seige, a fight for the front gate should then ensue. Towns almost always had walls of some sort so I don't understand why they would remove them.

Because walls aren't fun and there are too many sieges already. Maybe some minor cities should get walls, but definitely not all of them.

I agree with the rest of your posts but most of them aren't very high priority IMO. The core of the game needs to be playable and fun before minor details should be addressed.

[krisslanza]

I actually like the new building slot system. They give you enough slots to do things, but you always feel you're missing something. Which I think is excellent design - it's the reason why the Etrian Odyssey series has a 5 member party limit. 4 was too little, and 6 made parties feel too "complete". They picked 5 because it "always makes you feel you're missing that one last piece to be finished", and it forces you to really decide on what you can do without.

The building limits in minor and major settlements really does this. Major settlements can only build certain things, but there's only so many slots you can potentially spare. You really need to pick and choose what you think works best - or if you can spare an army to sit there to maintain order.