Everything Rome 1 had that Rome 2 doesn't

[Petroniu]

Thanks for input, I'm afraid all your points are already in the OP, except for replayability which I can't add because of its subjectivity. I would, however, dispute your claim that the Rome 2 map takes fewer turns to conquer: It is physically larger and so are your enemies' armies. My record for taking the whole map in Rome 1 was 31 turns (vanilla). The best I have managed so far in Rome 2 is 86, 31 would be physically impossible without cheats. I believe the Total War record is 14 turns for Medieval 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1pfi...0dsLIRCOj8jvP_

The replayability thing is indeed subjective but I for one do not see how fun it is to have almost the same campaign objective (literally with every faction you need to conquer 75% of the map for a military victory) which resonates absolutely none of their actual historical points of interests.

I mean, Epirus never meant to conquer Spain and Judea - how does that fit in? Seriously now, I find a lot of things that I do not like about the game but it is playable now (they have fixed a lot of the technical problems that existed before) but the lack of short or at least somewhat historically plausible campaign objectives kind of holds me off. They meant to make the game so that many people finish their campaigns now but having no short option for casual players is bad. I mean, playing with Epirus, after going past the initial challenge I feel I could take on pretty much everyone now that I took out the Romans and I have 2 power bases in Greece and Italy. Also, the implausability of Epirus building such a large empire considering its historical objectives - to say so - makes it hard for me to pick a fight with barbarians in Europe or to sail for Spain or Judea.

I picked Epirus as an example because I was playing it recently but you could expand on factions like Sparta who's political rigidity never allowed them to control a large empires and the only way they maintained a rule over a confederation of city states was because of the fear they instilled with the military might of their aprox 10.000 citizen warriors, that is all. With Athens, you might go for a economic victory controlling Greece, Thrace and Asia Minor but beyond, again, impossible because of the way Athenians ruled things with them always discriminating the minor city states leading to constant rebellions. Pick the Iceni - except for the particularities of their culture because they developed rather separately on the British islands they never were a power faction.

Basically, what I am saying is that they should do some sort of short campaigns for casual players that relate to historical plausibility too - which would make the game more fun, I consider.

Again, this is a subjective opinion.

On the subject of fast conquering the map, I was talking from the point of view of a casual gamer that takes his time and enjoys the game, not of the hardcore gamer that tries to beat the game and set a record. Also, even with that, you get to another thing that Rome 1 had and Rome 2 does... well not does not but rather has with a severe unbalancing - AI cheats. What I mean is that in Rome 1 the AI cheated but never cheated so bad that you could not beat it while in Rome 2, considering that after you get to be strong the campaign AI acts as one and sets all the remaining 50 factions on the map against you - all with at least 1 full stack armies.

Also, diplomacy fails at hard levels which in warscape TW is a considerable part of the game, not like in Rome 1. Plus, the battle bonuses that the AI gets in warscape on VH vs earlier games is absolutely SICK! I mean, in ETW, I had a full unit of elites with 3 xp chevrons shooting from a hill at a unit of militia with no xp benefiting from no tech advances and by the time the militias routed my elites were down to 45 men from 120! That is ABSURD!

Plus, in warscape games, on VH the way the campaign AI spawns armies is INSANE! 2 turns for a full stack of experienced medium quality infantry - that, combined with the sever handicaps you get equals in a very nasty TW experience. The problem is that instead of making the game act smarter while being a little "helped" by background algorithms to compensate for the human brain's capabilities on harder levels CA has just made a simple code that turns everybody against you while severely reducing your potential and call it late game challenge.

That is called Realm Divide in S2 and Empire Rebellions in Rome 2. Although they are nice mechanics for late game the way they function shows extreme laziness from CA = think of Shogun 2 how in 5 turns the entire map came at you and you lost ALL your allies in 10 turns getting also severe diplomatic penalties that made it very difficult for you to win the campaign if you did not manage to overcome the AI after the initial RD impact. All campaigns were great in S2 until you grew too strong and then all hell broke lose. Stupid mechanics, really! Realm Divide could have been cool if the factions from Japan chose between you and the existent Shogunate and have a historically plausible Realm Divide and a really cool civil war in a 2 sides split Japan with constant treacheries happening on both sides. But CA's game designers were too lazy to come up with this. I have to do it in a silly post in a thread 10 people read.

That is why the TW series is going bad now. They shoot for the flashing lights and quick money and they think like a corporation rather than a fan appeasing company although they have dedicated employees that actually try to do it like Will, Craig, Jack and Trish - but oh well, not the TW I was looking for, that is for sure.

Also, here is a potato for the long post:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

P.S. Also, yeah, I use "also" a LOT!

[GussieFinkNottle]

The person who posted this on the official forum was permanently banned and I bet they will close the thread too.

You really are walking on ice on that forum. Any criticism is treated as spam and they ban people practically on a whim, the moderators are like the Stasi.