Everything Rome 1 had that Rome 2 doesn't

[Arbitrary Crusader]

A lot of those who love Rome 2 (and just to make clear, I like it a lot, just not nearly as much as Rome 1) never played the original Rome. Is there anyone here who didn't, or has altered their opinion of R2 having seen what they are missing? Just curious, no agenda.
If so, I really recommend trying the original game; if you can't stand older graphics (though they're not terrible, just last-gen) then mod it to Roma Surrectum 2.5 or Rome Total Realism. If you need a map as big as Rome 2 mod it with Europa Barbarorum (though I won't let this thread derail into cheerleading for mods). My favourite game, that I spent the most time on, is vanilla (yes I said it) Rome Total War

I enjoy Rome II more than Rome I.

While in my earlier youth Rome I was awesome, however, playing it a week ago, I don't feel that same feeling.

Rome II, while flaws it has, I find better than its predecessor.


Plus I can run Rome II ok, unlike RSII, which really run like ; due to Rome I single processor limit.


Edit: You edited your post, why?

[TheCenturion24]

I'm just going to point out that if you're one of those people constantly blaming 'apologists' and 'fanboys' and 'haters' etc etc, then you're no better than each other. Frankly, you're not the smart, intelligent person you think you are unless you are able to look at it from both sides.

I agree Rome II feels somewhat more empty than Rome I. Rome I has kept me engaged for days on end, Rome II lasts a few hours on me before I become bored. I like to think I can see both sides of Rome II- the good and bad. Don't be fooled, there is a good and bad. If you honestly feel that Rome II has zero greatness to it, then you really should avoid posting at all. I for one:

- Don't mind the character system. Simplified, yes, but not intolerable. Does have some interesting concepts.
- Like the strict legion/army system. Sure, it CAN be frustrating not being able to detach a small force to deal with another small army, but it makes more sense. Adds more character to each army. I've done research on the topic, and I can say that individual forces rarely traveled apart from their host legion.
- Province system. It's different and adds a different perspective to campaigns.
- The diplomacy works well, despite what people say. AI makes more sense, and is more active. It's fun watching AI form leagues and confederations- I watched the Spartans form a league and conquer all of Greece, before coming after me.
- The vast amount of factions ensure that campaigns are usually different.
- When they're not glitching up, sea battles are fun. It's quite enjoyable ramming through another ship, though it seems a bit crazy that each ship appears to be coated in super glue...

On the other hand, there's stuff I really don't like:

- The battle system stuffs it for me. Shogun II had more structure to it dammit. THIS IS THE MAJOR PROBLEM OF ROME II. The AI is... pathetic. We all know that. It cant defend, it cant attack, it just sits there and enjoys my javelin rain. Oh, and it can't use siege equipment if its life depends on it.
- The sieges. I much, MUCH prefer Rome I's. The old square based cities were funner, more straight forward and could actually work as a reused scene. Rome II's are TOO detailed and are ridiculous for reuse. AI can't attack them at all, not intelligently anyway. Just mosh em at the gates.
- I don't know who thought of burning down gates. Oh wait.

"The intent behind burning gates was that this action would be a last resort for the attacking army, a last ditch attempt to breach the walls at great cost when all else fails."

AT GREAT COST?! I can steamroll a wall with only minimal casualties. My ladders tend to take more damage because they're so SLOW.

"But we didn’t want a huge army without siege equipment to have literally zero chance of capturing a city (especially a near-defenceless one). "

WHY NOT?! Rome I, an AI army would charge your city with whatever equipment. If you managed to take out their equipment, they'd run for it. RETREAT. What was wrong with that?! The POINT of walls is to keep out a large attacking force. Sure did a great job of that, didn't we CA?

- Turn times. Gets really, really bad. Sorry, but that's one of the major things that kills my interest.

While it's all my opinion, I've given up crying that it's not Rome I all over again, even though that would be awesome; the problem is that many of their INTENDED features don't work. They're not entitled to include every little thing from previous games. I admire that they attempted something different. But they really stuffed it up, because much of that (mostly battle related) doesn't work.

[Arbitrary Crusader]

I'm just going to point out that if you're one of those people constantly blaming 'apologists' and 'fanboys' and 'haters' etc etc, then you're no better than each other. Frankly, you're not the smart, intelligent person you think you are unless you are able to look at it from both sides.

Agree, I'll rep you just for that.

- Don't mind the character system. Simplified, yes, but not intolerable. Does have some interesting concepts.

Agree.

- Like the strict legion/army system. Sure, it CAN be frustrating not being able to detach a small force to deal with another small army, but it makes more sense. Adds more character to each army. I've done research on the topic, and I can say that individual forces rarely traveled apart from their host legion.
- Province system. It's different and adds a different perspective to campaigns.

Agree on both, although some of the "capitals" places are an odd choices.

- The diplomacy works well, despite what people say. AI makes more sense, and is more active. It's fun watching AI form leagues and confederations- I watched the Spartans form a league and conquer all of Greece, before coming after me.

Agree, Rome I had no or Barely diplo, any faction borders your lands, they will attack you.

- The vast amount of factions ensure that
campaigns are usually different.
- When they're not glitching up, sea battles are fun. It's quite enjoyable ramming through another ship, though it seems a bit crazy that each ship appears to be coated in super glue...

Agree, however, I hadn't play enough sea battle to make a personal opinion.

- The battle system stuffs it for me. Shogun II had more structure to it dammit. THIS IS THE MAJOR PROBLEM OF ROME II. The AI is... pathetic. We all know that. It cant defend, it cant attack, it just sits there and enjoys my javelin rain. Oh, and it can't use siege equipment if its life depends on it.

Yeah, the AI isn't this game strong suit, then again, CA never did made a great AI. They are tweaking AI, I heard, so I'll wait and see.

WHY NOT?! Rome I, an AI army would charge your city with whatever equipment. If you managed to take out their equipment, they'd run for it. RETREAT. What was wrong with that?! The POINT of walls is to keep out a large attacking force. Sure did a great job of that, didn't we CA?

I thought, they just stand there with their mounts open when one destroys their equipment, my memories is a bit fuzzy or I am thinking of one instance in MTW2.

- Turn times. Gets really, really bad. Sorry, but that's one of the major things that kills my interest.

I find the turn times reasonable, I have a low end comp.

When the game first came, it WAS UTTERLY , however, they released patches, and it was good .

[GussieFinkNottle]

I'm just going to point out that if you're one of those people constantly blaming 'apologists' and 'fanboys' and 'haters' etc etc, then you're no better than each other. Frankly, you're not the smart, intelligent person you think you are unless you are able to look at it from both sides.

I agree Rome II feels somewhat more empty than Ro. I like to think I can see both sides of Rome II- the good and bad. Don't be fooled, there is a good and bad. If you honestly feel that Rome II has zero greatness to it, then you really should avoid posting at all.

While it's all my opinion, I've given up crying that it's not Rome I all over again

At no point did I say I have no liking for R2, and I acknowledged in the OP the other side of the argument that I intend to make another thread for. I am not 'crying' for Rome 1 back, I do not want that, I merely feel the sheer volume that has been cut shows that the games have lost some of their appeal. I know you gave arguments both for and against R2, but your opening and closing rhetoric was somewhat over the top and unfair

[Red River]

I'm just going to point out that if you're one of those people constantly blaming 'apologists' and 'fanboys' and 'haters' etc etc, then you're no better than each other. Frankly, you're not the smart, intelligent person you think you are unless you are able to look at it from both sides.

I agree Rome II feels somewhat more empty than Rome I. Rome I has kept me engaged for days on end, Rome II lasts a few hours on me before I become bored. I like to think I can see both sides of Rome II- the good and bad. Don't be fooled, there is a good and bad. If you honestly feel that Rome II has zero greatness to it, then you really should avoid posting at all. I for one:

- Don't mind the character system. Simplified, yes, but not intolerable. Does have some interesting concepts.
- Like the strict legion/army system. Sure, it CAN be frustrating not being able to detach a small force to deal with another small army, but it makes more sense. Adds more character to each army. I've done research on the topic, and I can say that individual forces rarely traveled apart from their host legion.
- Province system. It's different and adds a different perspective to campaigns.
- The diplomacy works well, despite what people say. AI makes more sense, and is more active. It's fun watching AI form leagues and confederations- I watched the Spartans form a league and conquer all of Greece, before coming after me.
- The vast amount of factions ensure that campaigns are usually different.
- When they're not glitching up, sea battles are fun. It's quite enjoyable ramming through another ship, though it seems a bit crazy that each ship appears to be coated in super glue...

On the other hand, there's stuff I really don't like:

- The battle system stuffs it for me. Shogun II had more structure to it dammit. THIS IS THE MAJOR PROBLEM OF ROME II. The AI is... pathetic. We all know that. It cant defend, it cant attack, it just sits there and enjoys my javelin rain. Oh, and it can't use siege equipment if its life depends on it.
- The sieges. I much, MUCH prefer Rome I's. The old square based cities were funner, more straight forward and could actually work as a reused scene. Rome II's are TOO detailed and are ridiculous for reuse. AI can't attack them at all, not intelligently anyway. Just mosh em at the gates.
- I don't know who thought of burning down gates. Oh wait.

"The intent behind burning gates was that this action would be a last resort for the attacking army, a last ditch attempt to breach the walls at great cost when all else fails."

AT GREAT COST?! I can steamroll a wall with only minimal casualties. My ladders tend to take more damage because they're so SLOW.

"But we didn’t want a huge army without siege equipment to have literally zero chance of capturing a city (especially a near-defenceless one). "

WHY NOT?! Rome I, an AI army would charge your city with whatever equipment. If you managed to take out their equipment, they'd run for it. RETREAT. What was wrong with that?! The POINT of walls is to keep out a large attacking force. Sure did a great job of that, didn't we CA?

- Turn times. Gets really, really bad. Sorry, but that's one of the major things that kills my interest.

While it's all my opinion, I've given up crying that it's not Rome I all over again, even though that would be awesome; the problem is that many of their INTENDED features don't work. They're not entitled to include every little thing from previous games. I admire that they attempted something different. But they really stuffed it up, because much of that (mostly battle related) doesn't work.

he's not comparing two games. the title is clear: Everything Rome 1 had that Rome 2 doesn't
he's not talking about new features in R2 but about features that were removed or really dumbed down...

[TheCenturion24]

he's not comparing two games. the title is clear: Everything Rome 1 had that Rome 2 doesn't
he's not talking about new features in R2 but about features that were removed or really dumbed down...

I know- I probably ranted a little too much.

However, my point really is that players tend to focus too much on what has been removed and dumbed down, rather than stuff that has been added and works well. Such a post makes one feel as if the community hasn't opened their eyes completely yet. Rome II has bad and good points, certain things that need to be fixed and others that work well as its own game.

[General Maximus]

The walls-tied-to-settlement-size system appeared with Medieval II, where it actually made sense. Then it disappeared with Empire and Napoleon, again leaving the player free to build outer forts around his cities according to his choice. Shogun II has an entirely different procedure with the main areas being castle-towns, so not counting it.

With Rome II, we have...what, settlements with walls already built. Both low-level cities and high-level metropolises have the same walls with same layout. The only difference is the density of buildings inside the walls. Player has no choice on what type of walls to build, and no choice for building walls at all or not (province capitals and unwalled towns, for example). This system is neither realistic, nor immersive, it is just plain laziness and "we automatically do things for you so that you don't have to yay" behaviour CA shows these days.

[jamreal18]

For me, CA should not cut those wonderful contents such as...
Historical Battles
Fire at will
Guard Mode
Mini-Movies
Faction Intros


I hate:
Magical Abilities
Blobbing
Short Combat Speed

[Shaio]

- unique and interesting generals.

-deplete-able family trees.

-being able to use multiple generals in one army, IE using your nobles and there bodyguard as emergency elite troops.

-large developed citys being worthwhile and very profitable to capture.(In r2 you have so few buildings and you need to tear them all down and rebuild them in sane combinations, so any Provence or city is basically the same as any other. In rome 1 if you took a large or huge city it was meaningful.)

- a building system a ai has the ability to cope with.

-generals that become specialized based on there actions, ie a system that makes sense and is highly immersive.

they basically mayaswell have removed generals altogether and just had an army cap.

[machaladoz]

There's a lot better uses for 20Gigs of disc space.

[stackero]

There's a lot better uses for 20Gigs of disc space.

Definitely. Rome 1 + mods. (running away, never to return)




(maybe)

[Sean951]

Personally, I would say streamlined rather than dumbed down (over all) because what did City View really add? Or altering taxes for every province, beyond the temporary PO relief? There are a few features I miss, but not most.

[Pontic Pontus]

One thing, isn't guard mode AI group defend?

[Condottiere SOG]

Everything Rome 1 had that Rome 2 doesn't

...except swords for hoplites and other spear infantry...(not including spearmen - which use only spear/shield - like the Unsullied)

[Gicusan]

Congratz on the comprehensiveness. You actually got some tears from me. Other than that, I gave up on Rome 2 for weeks already due to boredom. Still, I come here almost every day as I still cannot believe how far we have fallen.

[perifanosEllinas]

Very good opening post.Deserves a rep.

Let me refer specifically to some points.I agree with the rest.

-unique faction intro videos

I miss those very much.They made the factions feel unique and important and really immersed me in their culture and general atmosphere.They made me want to play as these factions.

-city view for every settlement

This is not an eye candy feature as some people say.I used this feature strategically in RTW.When the money is not enough to build walls in every settlement you have to choose carefully where you build walls.I used the city view to examine the streets of each city and see which one can be effectively defended by using the streets as defensive passes and which one needs walls.I really miss that feature too.

-fire at will for all units with missiles, including legionaries

I actually prefer it the way it is in Rome 2.Fire at will made the Roman units way overpowered in RTW.

-guard mode and loose formation for all units

In RTW it was wrong that the barbarian units could fight in formation with the guard mode,because they basically fought exactly like the Romans.There was no difference.

In TWR2 it is wrong that there is no guard mode at all because the "civilized" units cannot fight in loose formation and surround the enemy if the player wishes.

I think that the passive ability in TWR2 should be replaced by the guard mode,but only for the units that have this passive ability already,not for the barbarians.

-contextual and lengthy pre-battle speeches

I loved those.I can't even describe how much I miss them.

-no limits on armies

I prefer it the way it is in TWR2 really.It takes more planning and strategic use for the armies.Of course more planning and strategic use for the armies in TWR2 doesn't happen,because the AI is braindead,but whatever.It could work right in future titles.

-military forces not glued to generals

Before release I wasn't sure how I was going to feel about that,but after playing the game this feature didn't bother me much and stopped the "1 unit running aimlessly around the map" situations,so I would say that it's better this way.The useless and generic generals are a completely different story however.

-culture-specific advisers

I can't even describe how stupid it is that every faction has a Roman advisor now.It makes no sense at all and it breaks the faction's atmosphere.The people at CA have been really lazy on that one,haven't they?It's so lame.

I too would spend all night barely going 2 turns during some sessions of RTR: AE. There was so much to do, so much rich history to learn and read about and so many plans to hatch.

If you can't understand that, then you just don't value what's there -- which is already pretty apparent from some posters here. It's a sad day when you realize how backwards things have become. CA decided to cater to an audience that doesn't think too deeply in order to generate more sales.

It backfired harder than any game release in my lifetime thus far. These lists spell it out how vapid and hollow this series has just become very clearly.

And the huge irony is that those people that TWR2 was aimed for don't even give a sh@t about the TW franchise.They will probably be like "Oh,funny game.Alright,back to League Of Legends now."

While those people that have been loyal fans to the franchise for years and truly care for this kind of game have been totally let down,disappointed and mistreated.

I'm not a game developer,but reason suggests that a healthy company should firstly aim to keep the loyal fans satisfied and then attract new fans/customers.CA has totally ignored the fans with TWR2 and that is the saddest thing about this game for me.It's made for those that don't care about it,not for those who do care.And that's one of the most major reasons as to why the fans feel so disappointed by it in my opinion.It doesn't appeal to them,since it was not made for them.While playing it,it is damn obvious that it was not made for the fans,so the fans can obviously not connect with it and they get bored really fast.

[Killerbee]

This whole thread is so ing biased. I mean, seriously ?

diplomatic options: give region, map information, attack faction, threatening diplomacy (accept or we will attack)

And none of them worked. People tend to forget the only time AI used this was the famous

"Please do not attack - Accept or we will attack" ass-retarded non-sensical time-wasting diplomatic . Diplomacy pretty much revolved around such nonsense as "Give me 20000 denarii - Become protectorate", then being attaked again by that faction next turn. Rinse and repeat for infinite money. Or the classic allies betraying you for no reason.

-better breakdown of public order with more factors for both positive and negative

Entirely subjective as well as untrue. I would create every stinking happiness building in Rome 1, as well as destroy some of those that caused negative bonus and still all of my settlements would revolt late-game. Only solution was puprosedly losing the city, then recapturing and exterminating it for infinite money. Another one of those retarded Rome1 mechanics.

-casualties actually mattered as you couldn't just stand in your territory for a turn or two to replenish them for free (and replenishment is much faster now than in NTW or S2)

-unit experience decreased when fresh recruits were used to refill it, making casualties matter even more

-retrain was available in every town with the relevant barracks

Basically these all come down to replenishing units, only you split it up into 3 arguments to make the list look longer. Not only that, but casualties actually do matter a lot in R2 because of the fact that you have less armies, so every single army is woth more. Also keep in mind that you get attrition in enemy territory (not in R1), and that your replenishment rate decreases based on your food income, to the point where you actually lose soldiers because of food shortage.

-music composed by Jeff van Dyck (matter of opinion as to whether he is better, but he did win awards, including a Bafta)

Seriously, this is an argument ? What's the next thing, unit design by Vincent Van Gogh ?

-music that reacts to events on the battlefield for immersion and 'hollywood' drama

Which lost its effect because after a while you just knew which music would occur at what moment. "Before battle : Calm music, nothing going on. Order a unit to slightly adjust formation BOOM OMINOUS BATTLE MUSIC THEY HAD BEST GET IN FORMATION QUICKLY." (which actually reminds me of the dreaded circling units in phalanx formation always decided to do at the very last moment before enemy contact).)

-wall sizes were not automatically changed with settlement sizes: they were built independently, so large cities could have meagre defences, and smaller ones (if maxed out) could get decent ones e.g. stone walls. This led to more diversity and different challenges between cities

Yes but smaller cities could still only build wooden walls so you would never fight a small city with a stone wall, and when you upgraded your city you automatically had better walls (well I never saw a huge roman city with wooden walls in my game in any case)

-numbers on unit cards (same as above)

Also possible in Rome2 I believe, but I don't miss this as it comes over very artificial and it's obviously very unrealistic to know the exact number of units fighting for every unit.

-no limits on armies

Again subjective, I personally like this. Can't begin to describe how ridiculously boring and repetitive these late-game siege battles in R1 were. Fighting off Roman stack after Roman stack in a small, depopulated German village with a handful of cleverly placed phalanx units became so tiresome because every battle was exactly the same. Put phalanx units in the center of your town (or in "triangles" against the wall) and let the enemy charge itself to death. Rinse and repeat every singly ing turn. Also for those who played TATW, remember the endless Mordor stacks in Osigiliath you had to fight off every turn. 1 autoresolve was enough to destroy an entire campaign.

· The UI is historical and period specific.

I personally think the R2 unit and building cards give a much more authentic feel than Rome1's UI. But obviously this is subjective as well.

Blah blah, the list goes on for what seems to be an eternity and when you get such retarded crticisms like

-general can be seen ordering the units about with every command you give: signalling with his sword for movements and rearing up to order a charge. Rallying also caused him to rear his horse

you basically get the point as to why this thread is so full of crap.

[GussieFinkNottle]

This whole thread is so ing biased. I mean, seriously ?



And none of them worked. People tend to forget the only time AI used this was the famous

"Please do not attack - Accept or we will attack" ass-retarded non-sensical time-wasting diplomatic . Diplomacy pretty much revolved around such nonsense as "Give me 20000 denarii - Become protectorate", then being attaked again by that faction next turn. Rinse and repeat for infinite money. Or the classic allies betraying you for no reason.



Entirely subjective as well as untrue. I would create every stinking happiness building in Rome 1, as well as destroy some of those that caused negative bonus and still all of my settlements would revolt late-game. Only solution was puprosedly losing the city, then recapturing and exterminating it for infinite money. Another one of those retarded Rome1 mechanics.




Basically these all come down to replenishing units, only you split it up into 3 arguments to make the list look longer. Not only that, but casualties actually do matter a lot in R2 because of the fact that you have less armies, so every single army is woth more. Also keep in mind that you get attrition in enemy territory (not in R1), and that your replenishment rate decreases based on your food income, to the point where you actually lose soldiers because of food shortage.



Seriously, this is an argument ? What's the next thing, unit design by Vincent Van Gogh ?



Which lost its effect because after a while you just knew which music would occur at what moment. "Before battle : Calm music, nothing going on. Order a unit to slightly adjust formation BOOM OMINOUS BATTLE MUSIC THEY HAD BEST GET IN FORMATION QUICKLY." (which actually reminds me of the dreaded circling units in phalanx formation always decided to do at the very last moment before enemy contact).)



Yes but smaller cities could still only build wooden walls so you would never fight a small city with a stone wall, and when you upgraded your city you automatically had better walls (well I never saw a huge roman city with wooden walls in my game in any case)



Also possible in Rome2 I believe, but I don't miss this as it comes over very artificial and it's obviously very unrealistic to know the exact number of units fighting for every unit.



Again subjective, I personally like this. Can't begin to describe how ridiculously boring and repetitive these late-game siege battles in R1 were. Fighting off Roman stack after Roman stack in a small, depopulated German village with a handful of cleverly placed phalanx units became so tiresome because every battle was exactly the same. Put phalanx units in the center of your town (or in "triangles" against the wall) and let the enemy charge itself to death. Rinse and repeat every singly ing turn. Also for those who played TATW, remember the endless Mordor stacks in Osigiliath you had to fight off every turn. 1 autoresolve was enough to destroy an entire campaign.



I personally think the R2 unit and building cards give a much more authentic feel than Rome1's UI. But obviously this is subjective as well.

Blah blah, the list goes on for what seems to be an eternity and when you get such retarded crticisms like



you basically get the point as to why this thread is so full of crap.

Look, this was an attempt at a comprehensive list. Whether or not you liked features or thought they worked or thought they were insignificant, I am only trying to list them all e.g. your points on generals giving orders, music and diplomatic options. Whether or not you felt diplomacy worked, Rome 2 could do with these options. Also, I take issue with your 'full of crap' biased point. This thread is clearly made to list everything lost (see the title) and while I try to be fair by acknowledging the other side in the OP, I clearly state those arguments will be put in a different thread.

Also, some of your points are just wrong e.g. walls for big cities were never upgraded automatically, 'minor cities' were allowed 'stone walls' and just try attacking Sparta for a large city with no walls

[Condottiere SOG]

This whole thread is so ing biased. I mean, seriously ?



And none of them worked. People tend to forget the only time AI used this was the famous

"Please do not attack - Accept or we will attack" ass-retarded non-sensical time-wasting diplomatic . Diplomacy pretty much revolved around such nonsense as "Give me 20000 denarii - Become protectorate", then being attaked again by that faction next turn. Rinse and repeat for infinite money. Or the classic allies betraying you for no reason.



Entirely subjective as well as untrue. I would create every stinking happiness building in Rome 1, as well as destroy some of those that caused negative bonus and still all of my settlements would revolt late-game. Only solution was puprosedly losing the city, then recapturing and exterminating it for infinite money. Another one of those retarded Rome1 mechanics.




Basically these all come down to replenishing units, only you split it up into 3 arguments to make the list look longer. Not only that, but casualties actually do matter a lot in R2 because of the fact that you have less armies, so every single army is woth more. Also keep in mind that you get attrition in enemy territory (not in R1), and that your replenishment rate decreases based on your food income, to the point where you actually lose soldiers because of food shortage.



Seriously, this is an argument ? What's the next thing, unit design by Vincent Van Gogh ?



Which lost its effect because after a while you just knew which music would occur at what moment. "Before battle : Calm music, nothing going on. Order a unit to slightly adjust formation BOOM OMINOUS BATTLE MUSIC THEY HAD BEST GET IN FORMATION QUICKLY." (which actually reminds me of the dreaded circling units in phalanx formation always decided to do at the very last moment before enemy contact).)



Yes but smaller cities could still only build wooden walls so you would never fight a small city with a stone wall, and when you upgraded your city you automatically had better walls (well I never saw a huge roman city with wooden walls in my game in any case)



Also possible in Rome2 I believe, but I don't miss this as it comes over very artificial and it's obviously very unrealistic to know the exact number of units fighting for every unit.



Again subjective, I personally like this. Can't begin to describe how ridiculously boring and repetitive these late-game siege battles in R1 were. Fighting off Roman stack after Roman stack in a small, depopulated German village with a handful of cleverly placed phalanx units became so tiresome because every battle was exactly the same. Put phalanx units in the center of your town (or in "triangles" against the wall) and let the enemy charge itself to death. Rinse and repeat every singly ing turn. Also for those who played TATW, remember the endless Mordor stacks in Osigiliath you had to fight off every turn. 1 autoresolve was enough to destroy an entire campaign.



I personally think the R2 unit and building cards give a much more authentic feel than Rome1's UI. But obviously this is subjective as well.

Blah blah, the list goes on for what seems to be an eternity and when you get such retarded crticisms like



you basically get the point as to why this thread is so full of crap.

Keep in mind, Killerbee, that many of the counters you make were added after release...some in the last week. Don't be such a fanboy champ and a dupe. He isn't full of crap...and you'd do better defending your own self-worth, maybe, than defending CA...

[Inhuman One]

It can all be summed up in a single word: Immersion.

Rome 2 lacks that completely. Now I dont care how they do it, if it works it works, but whatever they did isnt working to add immersion.

To me its about the experience, not about winning. If the experience is bland, why would I care about winning? As it is it could be called Rome 2: total bore.