Everything Rome 1 had that Rome 2 doesn't

[Riekopo]

What do you mean by this? -much less distorted map projection

[GussieFinkNottle]

What do you mean by this? -much less distorted map projection

I mean that this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Is a much more geographically accurate image of the world, and a better projected one, than this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Which is a weird projection, ignoring the curvature of the earth and making Eastern areas e.g. Arabia in particular, much smaller than they really are.
Accurate projection:

[Dago Red]

I mean that this:

Is a much more geographically accurate image of the world, and a better projected one, than this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Which is a weird projection, ignoring the curvature of the earth and making Eastern areas e.g. Arabia in particular, much smaller than they really are.
Accurate projection:

The distortions blow my mind. When I first played Egypt and saw what the Arabian Penn looked like, I just had to shut the game off. I was praising the map at first in some ways (its dead and devoid of all the info Rome I had, but I thought it was well drawn), but then I saw that it was comically inaccurate. Comical is the only word for such huge liberties. Again, the "living room gamers" crowd. We know CA is smart enough to know how to make a real map. They did it this way so console gamers could conquer the world without having to travel too far in 'boring' Arabia.

[PeonKing]

The distortions blow my mind. When I first played Egypt and saw what the Arabian Penn looked like, I just had to shut the game off. I was praising the map at first in some ways (its dead and devoid of all the info Rome I had, but I thought it was well drawn), but then I saw that it was comically inaccurate. Comical is the only word for such huge liberties. Again, the "living room gamers" crowd. We know CA is smart enough to know how to make a real map. They did it this way so console gamers could conquer the world without having to travel too far in 'boring' Arabia.

So the fact that it didn't look like the map you're used to meant that you had to turn the game off? Why was adherence to a type of distortion so important That region of the map is already a pain to conquer because there's a lot of open land between settlements, and that's with distorting it to make it smaller. It's not that big of a deal, it's not like they were pretending central Asia was a tundra or something because they wanted more wintery areas.

It just seems weird, out of everything, the fact that the Persian Gulf isn't big enough ruins the game for you or something? I mean I noticed it and everything, but it's pretty obvious they made the distortion for gameplay reasons. Even with the distortion, getting to Muscat in the game takes forever, if the map wasn't distorted it would take even longer.

[GussieFinkNottle]

The distortions blow my mind. When I first played Egypt and saw what the Arabian Penn looked like, I just had to shut the game off. I was praising the map at first in some ways (its dead and devoid of all the info Rome I had, but I thought it was well drawn), but then I saw that it was comically inaccurate. Comical is the only word for such huge liberties. Again, the "living room gamers" crowd. We know CA is smart enough to know how to make a real map. They did it this way so console gamers could conquer the world without having to travel too far in 'boring' Arabia.

I don't like the map either but your statements start to get a bit silly in this post, particularly when you say 'They did it this way so console gamers could conquer the world'.
Not every 'streamlined' feature is for the benefit of 'console' players, in fact Rome 1 included a short campaign for more casual sessions, and I must remind you that Rome 2 has not been, and likely never will be, released on a console (Steam OS doesn't count, being basically a PC by other means).

[Dago Red]

I don't like the map either but your statements start to get a bit silly in this post, particularly when you say 'They did it this way so console gamers could conquer the world'.
Not every 'streamlined' feature is for the benefit of 'console' players, in fact Rome 1 included a short campaign for more casual sessions,....

I'm not talking about short or long campaigns -- I almost always played the short campaigns, because the late games got repetitive and only the most thoroughly well done mods ever made interesting late game experiences, usually with scripted events.

I'm talking about making Arabia the size of Spain in Rome II. I was agreeing with your post about how absurd it is. You have a strange way of responding to people who agree with your core statements.

Now ask yourself why they did things like this? What audience are they catering to with this? Certainly not historians. Not adults who want to play a game that simulates the world's classical empires and learn something from it. Definitely not realism enthusiasts or anyone of the tens of thousands of people who supported mods like RTR or EB for Rome I (and thus were among the earliest big fan supporters of CA). What other demographic are they catering to if not the dumbed down console crowd who has no interest in spending several turns marching across Arabia or caring about real geography? Just take a look at the rest of the game and how shallow it is.

... and I must remind you that Rome 2 has not been, and likely never will be, released on a console (Steam OS doesn't count, being basically a PC by other means).

Sure, the machine is not a straight "console" But again, it really doesn't matter that the machine itself is more pc than nintendo when it's designed to be played with a controller on a living room couch does it? The last consoles were more PC than console already, having some serious hardware and dedicated cards in them, doesn't' change the fact that they are designed for a certain style of arcade / sports / "living room gamer" kind of play.

CA themselves have said this is the crowd they are targeting. I don't know why others have to keep spelling it out. If this extremely dumbed down offering doesn't make it abundantly clear now that we even have them saying so, at least when we pile up all the details -- from this cartoon map, to missing depth of features across the board -- it is crystal clear as the glass once made in Carthage -- for which in Rome I you got a historical event message about. But the console crowd doesn't care about historical messages, or reading. They just want to smash hordes of units into each other and keep clicking end turn until the map is their color.

[GoTW Kubee]

Obviously it comes down to what you as an individual look for in a good TW game, but I personally think that RTW is miles better than R2 in every important aspect. This is both for SP and MP.

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]

They even mentioned prior to release they distorted the map there for gameplay reasons.

[Audacia]

I have yet to weigh in on any Rome II threads because, frankly, I have not had time to play the game. But having played the game for a few hours and gotten a better idea of how it works, I simply cannot share the sentiment that others feel so strongly that the game is so horrible and broken. Rome I, vanilla, may have been a fun game to play, but there were issues in it that were just as bad, if not worse, than in Rome II. Take the blaring historical inaccuracies, for example. Can you imagine the response on this forum if the Roman faction had once again been split into Julii, Brutii, and Scipii? The Brutii were not even a real family but a tribe in southern Italy! How about the fact that absolutely zero tribes were represented? What about the fallacious portrayal of barbarians?

Are we to somehow believe that because Rome was released seven or however many years ago that that somehow excuses the blaring historical inaccuracies? It is not like we have learned more about Roman political families since then. CA may not have made the best game. I concede that. But they most definitely made a better game than Rome I. It may not be what everyone expected, but it is a better overall game, despite the fact that it lacks some features. I mean, the fact that I can actually have a real alliance in a Total War game is enough to keep me placated for at least a little while. How well did that work in Rome I?

[stackero]

I have yet to weigh in on any Rome II threads because, frankly, I have not had time to play the game. But having played the game for a few hours and gotten a better idea of how it works, I simply cannot share the sentiment that others feel so strongly that the game is so horrible and broken. Rome I, vanilla, may have been a fun game to play, but there were issues in it that were just as bad, if not worse, than in Rome II. Take the blaring historical inaccuracies, for example. Can you imagine the response on this forum if the Roman faction had once again been split into Julii, Brutii, and Scipii? The Brutii were not even a real family but a tribe in southern Italy! How about the fact that absolutely zero tribes were represented? What about the fallacious portrayal of barbarians?

Are we to somehow believe that because Rome was released seven or however many years ago that that somehow excuses the blaring historical inaccuracies? It is not like we have learned more about Roman political families since then. CA may not have made the best game. I concede that. But they most definitely made a better game than Rome I. It may not be what everyone expected, but it is a better overall game, despite the fact that it lacks some features. I mean, the fact that I can actually have a real alliance in a Total War game is enough to keep me placated for at least a little while. How well did that work in Rome I?

Man, do I smell cherry or?. You're way off on almost everything, but I do hope you continue to find the game fun. That's what matters in the long run.

[Prince Regent George]

Can you imagine the response on this forum if the Roman faction had once again been split into Julii, Brutii, and Scipii?

I suppose that they would have been identical with the reactions concerning the invention of factions like Nova Carthago, Cyprus, Sardis, Sagartia, Media, Drangiana, Media and etc. All of these, totally imaginary factions have been created with the intention to serve gameplay purposes. In other words, CA was incapable of limiting the power of factions, such as the Seleucid Empire, the Republic of Carthage and Egypt, in a realistic way. So, I believe that there was no progress in this domain, actually quite the contrary, I'm afraid.

How about the fact that absolutely zero tribes were represented?

I think that the Iberians, Gauls, Britons and Germans could be considered as confiderations of barbarian tribes. However, the Scythians and the Dacians are certainly barbarian tribes.

What about the fallacious portrayal of barbarians?

Well, I agree. Actually, in my opinion, the depiction of the military units, as well as the augmentation of factions, are the only progress from Rome I to its successor, in what concerns history. Unfortunately, the laughable choice of names, such as christians for the Greeks (Cosmas, Agapios) or Semitic for the Iranians (Tiglath-Pilleser or Ekourzakir) and the neglected geography makes me doubt about how much effort was dedicated to researching. Rome I was also disappointing, but using the name of Byzantine aristocrats (Cinammus) for Persian generals is just sad.

[Dago Red]

Just played my 2nd night battle in RII. Just a joke... Another thing to auto resolve. 10 years later and it actually looks worse because no one finished the lighting in night time environments.

[dvk901]

Well, if that was not what RTW1 looked like, how is it pertinent? And I apologize if that seemed like a rant....it just comes from how disappointed I am that Rome2 isn't a heck of lot better than it is.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Well, if that was not what RTW1 looked like, how is it pertinent? And I apologize if that seemed like a rant....it just comes from how disappointed I am that Rome2 isn't a heck of lot better than it is.

I don't blame you for that. I post that just to make a point. When people posted how great Rome 1 was it usually as if they discovered the game when it's fully developed, patched and as a bonus mods has sprung out like mushrooms. Some goes to the extend of claiming that Rome 1 graphics are superior than Rome 2. Yes I know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder but that's too much in my opinion. I just remembered how hostile the crowd was when Rome 1 was released. Granted it was not as bad as Rome 2 but I'm guessing it's because of the market changes.

p/s: we are seriously getting off topic now. Not sure what else to add regarding what Rome 1 has and Rome 2 hasn't which is not already listed.

[alQamar]

Thanks for finding the correct quote Lestat. I just wrote it down from what I recalled. Well at the end I still think it will end up the same.

I believe it will either never been patched or just partly. On the other hand we just can sit and wait. They said many times one patch won't be able to solve all issues present.
What concerns me is the delta between acknowledged bugs on .com and the actual patch logs.
Some issues like unit size replays. It would be cool to know the status. Things are acknowledged but then there is no progress feedback. So we left with guessing and uncertainty of time when acknowledged bug will be fixed.

I personally do not want to read the fine prints and neither reading between their lines.


I am just unhappy that literally all my bad hopes for this game come true which I forecasted back in 2012. Yet I grasped their deceptive marketing very early, still I was fascinated about an successor for Rome 1.

It was literally the same as with Duke Nukem. The huge gap opens to much expectations. And who ever thought a game could be developed backwards and streamlined.

[Inhuman One]

I'd gues that the only sequel to a game that disappointed me more was Neverwinter Nights 2.

Left out the stuff that I liked about the first game, a toolset in which it took an entire afternoon to do the same what you could do with NWN1 in an hour, logging into any server online using a costum module required downloads (not even counting mods) while NWN1 did not require this, terribly black and white campaign where they force a background on your character instead of letting you create your own, no new gameplay elements, ugly character models and more bugs than the entire total war series (minus rome 2) combined.

Sure, theres more bad sequels like Dungeon Siege 3, Dragon Age 2 and empire earth 3. But for those games, I saw it coming from miles away. It simply gets frustrating when you expected a sequel to a great game to be good right up to its release, only to be disappointed.

For me personly, there really aren't many games of which I eagerly anticipate their release. Not anymore. Rome 2 was pretty much the only game I've been looking forward to since it was announced. I'd gues the last one before that was Skyrim. I looked forward to GTAV and enjoyed it a lot, but wasnt too impatient about getting to play it.

[♞Rogue General♞]

-a range boost for missile troops on high ground

Hold on, there is no range boost for missile troops on high ground? Are you sure?
When I use ballistae, the projectiles seem to have a higher range if I have the high ground.

Other than that, great list. I especially miss the roads and the trade visuals within your own faction.
Graphics are beautiful, true, but all these things you listed added life into the original Rome, and they are lacking in Rome II.

Edit: Rep to you, good sir, for a great post.

[GussieFinkNottle]

Hold on, there is no range boost for missile troops on high ground? Are you sure?
When I use ballistae, the projectiles seem to have a higher range if I have the high ground.

You can shoot further with artillery if you are manually controlling them, however other than that there is zero range boost for missile units on high ground. JL explained that this is because warscape simulates projectiles in a completely different way to before, with set fields of fire which means range cannot change within a battle. To compensate for this, and to simulate the advantage of high ground, missile troops above their targets are instead given an attack stats boost.

[Shaio]

-Interesting generals with a leveling mechanic that makes sense. (biggest most noticeable missing component for me.)


-traits < << << << << << need these back.... desperately... there what made rtw and m2tw so damn good..... lacking them is one of the things that makes rome2 as bleh as it is.

[daelin4]

I do wish for being able to control the taxation levels of individual regions, or even provinces. That you can decide to not tax a province already sort of makes it a logical end on that regard. Taxing a few areas while taxing others in lesser amounts might make it a bit more micromanagement, but how far we willing to go to avoid "micro"?

Roads were definitely a feature I miss, they had a lot of meaningful functions besides trade and movement speed for armies, they sort of indicated the "progress" of the region.

Not sure what OP meant by internal trade, I am guessing he meant the little guys and carts shuffling around the map. Guess the campaign map was too small to accommodate them.

I am a little bit understanding of not using faction intro videos, I guess it was because they felt it was an unnecessary use of resources for what are ultimately one-time things, but we all remember good moments. Personally I think videos like the ones we have for Rome1 act as persistent advertisements. I certainly would not feel like I am showcasing a good game if I used Rome2's intro.

I can't say I care much for the city view: it was just the battle map with no armies. You kind of do that once you enter the actual battle mode for the siege anyways. I prefer if there was a sort of top-down overview of the city layout you can see when selecting settlement details or something.

I'm kind of mixed on the idea of range boost on high ground. On one hand it seems obvious but on the other it would simply promote camping. I'd rather other effects like increased morale or damage due to high ground be used, so at least armies that try to dislodge campers can at least be shooting at them for the effort.

I agree that guard mode should have been make a toggle-able option; too many times my units stop fighting and cheer as the unit they just routed starting running away, running past all of them as they high five each other. I think however part of the problem is the engine itself.

Seasons I took as more of an aesthetic difference than having any big impact on how I play; in most cases I usually had enough troops and tactical advantages that even if my men had penalties in show and theirs had bonuses I could still win: seeing snow instead of grass or whatever was just a change of scenery to me. Seasons only really had a powerful deciding factor in Shogun2, where climate really mattered. That's not to say I liked how Rome2 handled it though.

Changing capitals is a good idea because it allows you to relocate certain things to certain places. Seeing as how capitals are where a lot of new characters spawn it makes sense to be able to choose a new location so the time it takes to get somewhere be closer. Having a risk-reward system in place (like in Rome1, where areas further away gain more corruption) would make up for it and discourage players from constantly trying to abuse the system: cost, unrest and time could be things that are affected every time you move capitals.

Family Tree at this point of the game is pointless and would at best act as a bandaid to the gaping wound that is the politics system. It would only serve as a placebo and make us feel like we are immersed into the game...for a little while.

There are no longer any need for watchtowers when it comes to Line of Sight, as the effects are always on now for wherever you control a region.

Not sure what the OP intends to say with revolts: if anything I like how it works in Shogun2/Rome2 where revolts spawn an army somewhere and they aim to take the city. It's a bit repetitive though and I was hoping for some variation like different types of revolts (gladiators, aristocratic rebels, peasant revolts, cultural rebellion) that had different effects on different aspects of the region. Rome2's rebellion system wasn't really a step forward though, as rebel armies hardly made a difference to you if they loitered around- there are no assets like farms to attack and make a headache for you.

I thought some of the wounded did heal after battles? Wounded were very rare though: you'd have like at a good day 3% of wounded recovered, maybe 4 if you had the Chirugeon retainer that helped raise the percentage.
I also found it very annoying how you couldn't gauge your losses or kills in the power bar. It was really fun to watch allies duke it out and sustain tons of losses. Surely displaying the number is just another way of represented the bar?

Some diplomatic options I don't really mind like giving regions, but that's really because in many ways they only really work if you gave them tons of cash in return or gifted them away. Really the gripe is more towards how the AI handles them rather than the options themselves. Even with the War Coordination Target thing allies tend to dawdle or drag their sandals in getting it done, often too slow to do it before someone else takes the target, in which case any progress they might have made were wasted. To me it was more often a placebo.

Exact amounts of money often meant nothing since 1 denarii often didn't make the difference anyways. Exceptions come from when you demand money and they will only accept what they can possibly give, so if they only had 99 gold and you could only demand 100 gold than it could never be possible simply on that virtue alone.

I did like how they had all buildings shown on the battle map so if stray projectiles hit them they become damaged and must be repaired after. It could really affect how you approach the city with your bristling arsenal of engines. Of course since the AI doesn't use engines and there isn't much point in using artillery in general when it comes to the practical, this is hardly an issue that everyone misses.

Ever since MTW2 onward missions no longer had any relevance to your progress: they just acted as isolated, detached opportunities to generate extra money or spawn extra units. In RTW, you lost standing if you failed missions and you suffered appropriately. In Rome2 however they were just extra quests with a timer. In many cases they were too bothersome to complete. The fact that they lacked punishments for failures also didn't give me reason to focus on them, even if I wasn't frantically fighting off large numbers of African armies as Carthage, or being hounded by like 5 new Celtic factions because I made one of them not like me.

Speeches I think happened a lot like the intro videos: CA didn't seem to think it was very important and thus didn't put much time and money toward them. To be fair I thought most of the speeches in MTW2 pointless, but in RTW they were generally informative like indicating how many certain unit types they had. They were however rather repetitive and the information you could otherwise get from just looking at their unit cards in the Conflict Phase did the same job. Still, it felt like it was more about not having the time or interested in getting that part done rather than having to decide what they could do.

In RTW family members acted as generals and governors depending on where they were, and if a character had better stats in one than others they took command. It was really fun to salvage a horrible general because he had better governing potential. In Rome2 though your generals are just generals. In reality generals often were or are serving public offices of a governing capacity. They DO sport the occasional bonus to trade or tax income and happiness, but ultimately you are gearing your general to be generals, and doing anything else means trading progress towards that goal. The lack of developing traits in exchange for a RPG skilltree mechanic is also something I think was a mistake for Total War: surely mixing the best of both would be preferable for ditching one for the other?

I honestly find the idea of 3D portraits terrible. First they look horrible, second they are an unnecessary drain on the ability to produce a campaign map screen with good FPS (sure not important for all us supergaming rigs but its not like everyone else welft wanting have other options) and third they do nothing but are 3D solely to make the 3D brag. Portraits with distinguishable differences in colour, clothing, expressions and angles of the shots, not to mention difference in age, work far better than constantly recycling bland shifting blank-staring faces.

I like the idea of limited lots for buildings, but I didn't like how the options were so limited and not very well thought out in Rome2. I was hoping for a bit more diversity. A total of six in a capital (some can't be duplicated) doesn't really make it seem like a big city. That's what happens when you divvy up the map into large chunks of provinces. Bad move in that regard, IMO.
I can understand how certain buildings require research, but the issue is largely in the tech itself as well as the way buildings were handled. I prefer if certain tech merely reduced turn times or construction costs so they played a large incentive for diverting time spent on that tech, rather than a mere black and white can-or-cannot option.

Agreed, the UI is ultimately horrible. Too many problems to give it any points. Frequently obstructive than not and makes it hard to easily look for information.

Breakdown of public order is as specific as it gets: there just isn't much things going on in the game.

Indeed the options of how to treat a city are rather pointless, you're going to keep the settlement anyways so the options of sacking and extermination aren't very meaningful and just there for the realism.

Anyways thats all I am willing to put into how this game sucks.