Everything Rome 1 had that Rome 2 doesn't

[alQamar]

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.

Good post daelin.

[Shaio]

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.

I found the new system horrible, for 1 the ai cant handle it, for the second... It removes well developed cities as being important in the game, rome 1 had its flaws, and you could max out any city theoretically given enough time... but there were rich and powerful provinces in the game at the start, they were vastly better then other cities would be ahead of those cities till very late game, taking the large citys in egypt or Italy was a serious boost to anyone's economy...

But rome 2... only the slots count, you need to burn every city to the ground when u take it and rebuild it in a sane manner to make it work, and lowlevel builds are more profitable then higher level buildings as they don't have crazy food requirements or public order penalties, you could go the ai route and build nothing but barracks in the knowledge that the garrision troops will then negate any possible rebellions but thats just silly, not to mention invokes endless boring rebel sieges.

The other thing is the appearance of the map around cities, they supposedly grow bigger as u get more slots, which I've not personally noticed, its certainly not as immersive as rome1 where you could spot a rich Provence easily,... its roads were full of trade and the Provence was filled with farmland, this was particularly noticeable in egypt in both rome and med2 with that wonderful looking strip of green along either side of the nile, actully watching farmland get more spread out and developed while roads got better and more filled with traffic was nice.

so much nostalgia for rome1.

Where is my mad bloodthirsty whore loving drunkard of an emperor?!?!?!?

[crzyrndm]

and lowlevel builds are more profitable then higher level buildings

Not really, it's just easier for people to do. Focused provinces are superior due to province wide bonus stacking that you can enact, for both financial and military focus.

I do wish the all the external activity that occured in Rome/Med2 still existed, although internal trade is no longer possible (and never really made sense that you as a faction profited from it)

[Duncan III]

Not really, it's just easier for people to do. Focused provinces are superior due to province wide bonus stacking that you can enact, for both financial and military focus.

I do wish the all the external activity that occured in Rome/Med2 still existed, although internal trade is no longer possible (and never really made sense that you as a faction profited from it)

It makes perfect sense that your faction should profit from internal trade, it's called taxation and is the same mechanism that brings revenue from international trade.

[The Noble Lord]

1000th post! Happy Guy Fawkes night everyone

As a return to this site after a busy month when I haven't been able to post, I thought I'd like to weigh in on an ongoing debate that I've seen since the release of Rome 2: whether Rome 1 was more feature-rich or deeper. Most of the arguments I've seen are quite subjective, or made by assertions, like 'Rome 2 has way more stuff' or 'it's massively streamlined now'.

Though there were some good arguments on both sides, particularly in these threads: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-II&highlight= and http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-is-it-just-me I haven't yet found conclusive answers

So finally, in a slightly different direction to those threads, (please don't merge this with them) to bring some conclusive evidence to show what the series has lost, this is an attempt to definitively list everything that was in the original 'Rome Total War' and is not in Rome 2 (features not units or buildings). The counterpart thread for everything in Rome 2 but not Rome 1 can be found here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-Rome-1-didn-t. I personally find the older TW games to be a deeper (if somewhat less historically accurate, but don't make that the subject of this thread) experience, but there are valid reasons to prefer today's games, not least the graphics.

This is a comparison between vanilla RTW and vanilla R2, no mods

If I have missed anything please post it as well as debate and I will put it in the OP (I have added some of the ones in blackberryalpha's post and alQamar's which were not in mine). Also, please post, I'd like to know what people think! If you disagree with me then especially do post, it will make the thread more interesting.

Here goes:

-taxation controls for every individual province

-roads of differing sizes and qualities were build-able on the campaign map (after all, what the real Rome was famous for)

-trade happened between settlements within a faction as well as between factions, this internal trade giving the map a more 'living' feel as your empire's commerce circulated

-unique faction intro videos

-city view for every settlement

-new engine for the game

-a range boost for missile troops on high ground

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

-guard mode and loose formation for all units

-seasons

-set capital

-family tree and set heir

-permanent forts that looked like a fort on the campaign map, not a ring of spikes

-watchtowers

-towns rioted a few turns before rebellions or revolts, and rebels would be unhappy citizens, not just slaves

-some of the wounded on the winner's side recovering after each battle

-formation fighting instead of blobbing

-% of each side that were dead displayed by hovering over the balance of power bar

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

-you could set the exact amount of money offered or demanded in a diplomatic transaction

-all buildings constructed shown on the battle map

-building sites on the battle maps of towns in the process of constructing something

-senate missions, with rewards including money, gladiator games or races, public offices, senate standing, naval and land units

-politics had more of an impact on the campaign (in my experience you can ignore Rome 2 politics with no adverse effects)

-contextual and lengthy pre-battle speeches

-characters last long enough to become useful before they die

-immersive deep traits system with unlimited traits to give detailed characters, all traits came from experience not rpg-levelling

-nicknames 'the brave', 'the mad', 'the great' etc.

-more variation in portraits: it was very unlikely you would have two generals with the same face, even though you would have many more generals

-character portraits aged and there were traits to do with age

-more building freedom, with the ability to construct as many buildings as you liked in towns (up to about 30) and not limited to 5 in Rome itself, or 3 or 4 in minor settlements

-buildings that should be easy to construct don't require 30 turns' research, so you are less constricted in your building options

-more period-inspired HUD (not gonna get involved in the row over the unit/building cards though)

-historical event messages, and historically timed natural disasters

-plagues that made sense (from squalid places) and that occurred more often to liven the campaign map up as did all natural disasters

-more detailed breakdown of income with lots more factors in income per settlement

-more trade resources, multiple trade resources per region

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

-all three of the post invasion options gave tangible benefits, as opposed to occupy being the only viable option in R2: slaughter gave public order as they were terrified of you and instant money; but destroyed the population size, occupy gave a large population but had potential public order problems, enslave provided long-term money and trade resources so was kind of a half-way house

-no crippling attrition when besieging (subjective whether this is a good thing or not, but encouraged you to build lots of siege engines for epic battles)

-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 - this one is up for debate as to whether it is a good thing, but it is a fact that you couldn't heal your armies as quickly or at no cost in Rome 1)

-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

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

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

-tunnelling under town walls to bring them down (sap points)

-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

-religion (especially in Barbarian Invasion)

-all buildings in towns were flammable, and those destroyed had to be repaired on the campaign map

-unit merging to refill units or balance casualties

-slower paced battles (though patches have made this much better than at R2 release)

-numbers on unit cards (same as above)

-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

-no limits on armies

-military forces not glued to generals

-not broken up into piecemeal dlc

-pirates as actual naval forces that can be fought not percentage penalties on income (an Illyrian pirate queen is one of the R2 loading screens, and fighting pirates was the main occupation of the Roman navy - where are the pirates?)

-no automatic transports, so navies more useful

-pikemen that use their pikes

-bonuses not measly ('5% better melee attack')

-needed siege weapons for town assaults, gates couldn't be burned down by infantry, bigger walls required better siege engines

-abilities that could come from training e.g. formations and attacks, not magical stat boosts

-more land battles (as opposed to settlement battles)

-civil war actually against the other families not generic 'senate loyalists', a particularly annoying term if you want to preserve the republic

-ongoing cutscene to show senators' reaction to you

-brigands appeared on the map on rich trade routes

-scorched earth from armies in hostile territory, devastation shown on map and had public order and income consequences

-units stayed together when routing, not turning into weird massive long single-file lines, and chasing routing units was not a micromanagement-fest

-routing enemies were shown on the minimap ('radar map') so didn't require the chore of searching the battle map and examining the landscape to find them

-marginally bigger units: infantry 160 standard/240 largest, missile 160, cavalry 108 compared to infantry 160 standard/200 largest, missile 120, cavalry 80

-full page displays when needed (settlement details, diplomacy) and not obstructive when not needed (R2's massive tall empty unit cards box)

-population (and the ability to do migration tactics by recruiting units and disbanding them elsewhere)

-a more dynamic base for modding: it will be much harder to change core game mechanics with R2

-units could disengage without massive casualties or men 'locked into' time-consuming combat animations that ensured they would be caught and killed

-a video showing you the death of the general on either side, and a video showing wall and gate breaches

-more spaced units so you can see the fighting

-lots of (orangey-yellow) torches in night battles, not one weird bright white spotlight on the unit commander like in R2

-horse sound effects

-smoke trail behind torches and fire arrows

-horses try to leap over spears and shields when charging

-artillery is (realistically) less accurate

-there are 10 historical battles, compared to the 4 in R2, 3 of those 4 have the Romans in them

-more populated cities have related problems, like squalor, and related benefits, like a large recruitment pool, unlike R2 where settlement size and squalor are not linked

-elephants have more animations and throw men into the air with tusks and trunk

-mounted units have more impact, and units look like they have more weight: the men sent flying from cavalry charges flail like men, rather than flying 10 feet like a paper doll

-there is more room for tactics: usually you can manoeuvre with infantry and skirmishers and deploy cavalry in flanking attacks, and battles progress in stages. In R2, once one line breaks somewhere, the whole battle line routs quickly and there is little room for tactics (admittedly this one is quite subjective, feel free to dispute if this is not your experience)

-banners stay on routing units so you can track them down and see their numbers and the factors affecting them

-agents have more distinct roles, less crossover between them (for me roles were more intuitive but that is only my opinion, not a fact)

-you have the option of a short campaign as any faction which is less of a long-term commitment, and can be completed in a few hours, or 1-2 days. Thus Rome 1 also catered to the casual gamer, ironically it addresses more directly than R2 both the casual and the hardcore player

-videos for capturing a wonder

-much less distorted map projection

-distance to capital

-map areas: sahara desert, tip of Sweden, modern day Belarus, Lithuania and Latvia, more of modern-day Ukraine and Russia

-you could zoom out much further on the campaign map

-fertility varying between regions, and the ability to get a good or bad harvest instead of a set income

-the year and faction displayed when loading a campaign

-cities with more than one culture's buildings in them

-units visibly pushed siege engines to the walls

-save battle replay saved exactly what happened

-culture-specific advisers

-campaign map animations for natural disasters: volcanoes erupted, floodwater could be seen on the map, and the ground convulsed in earthquakes

-far longer unit and building descriptions, with historical information


As a little aside, I'd also like to remind you of the things that have been removed that were in Medieval 2:

-agent videos

-armour cleanness deteriorated over the course of a battle, troops did not start out filthy

-armour and weapon upgrades visibly changed the appearance of units' equipment

-prisoner count displayed on in-battle UI

-diplomatic options e.g. marriages






And here is the full text I posted in the other thread as the opposite balance to this list:

''Right, as a counterpart to this thread: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...Rome-2-doesn-t
Where I listed all the Rome 1 features not in Rome 2, as I stated I will do, this thread is an effort to go through everything that is in the new game but wasn't in the original, to show why many prefer it. There is an impressive array of features added, even if a lot has been cut. I also here endeavour to combat the flak aimed at me in the other thread as not able to see both sides

Please contribute if you see things I've missed out (I have added some that Pontic Pontus and Dunadd suggested), or discuss the relative merits of the two games

To highlight what is completely new, features that have not been seen before are unformatted, those that have been in TW games since Medieval 2 are in bold, features that have been in since Empire/Napoleon are underlined and features that were in Shogun 2 are in italics

So here, all in one place is my comprehensive 'in Rome 2 but not in the original Rome' feature list:

-Legions and legion legacy/history

-Army naming and banner customisation

-Cinematic camera without HUD

-Line of sight

-Stances: forced march, muster, raiding, fortified (though RTW had forts separate from armies, that could be garrisoned by different armies)

-Transports (debatable benefit)

-Wonders not included in original 7 e.g. Stonehenge

-Political parties

-Territorially unified Rome

-Ability to select upgrades, specialise armies

-117 factions plus rebel and slave emergent factions

-More playable factions: every playable Rome 1 faction (3 Romans, 1 Carthage becomes 3, Gallic tribe, German tribe, Brittanic tribe, Seleucids, Egypt, Greek cities, though DLC, are 3 playable factions (Athens, Sparta, Epirus) and 3 non-playable ones (Syracuse, Rhodes, Pergamon) instead of 1, Parthia) plus Macedon, Pontus and 3 steppe tribes in dlc (and future ‘Northern Tribes’ pack discussed on the grapevine)

-Playable barbarian factions are real tribes: Iceni, Suebi, Arverni instead of Britannia, Germania and Gaul

-Families and civil wars for all factions

-Carthage a republic

-More units (around 3x as many)

-200 naval units

-Integrated diplomatic AI and campaign AI

-More factors affect diplomacy e.g. you were nice to my ally/you had a war with my trade partner

-Ability to give general orders to AI-controlled allies e.g. ‘defend here’

-Edicts

-Province/region system to aid management

-New formations, such as shieldwall (but this was in BI) and defensive testudo

-More city variants and 5 unique cities based on their historical counterparts

-Option of Republic or Empire after civil war, not just Empire

-Cultural and Economic victories, and victory conditions include allies, client states and satrapies

-Full-screen strategic overview map

-Multiple capture points in cities

-CoH-style victory countdown for capturing cities and victory points

-Limited armies intended to give bigger, more decisive battles (and I have found I am fighting larger battles, though some have not)

-Navigable rivers

-Sea regions, that can be neutral, hostile, contested, shared or controlled, each with different bonuses and penalties

-Seleucid, Ptolemaic, and Carthaginian Empires broken up into satrapies/client states

-More weather and lighting effects

-Historical storyline to follow with money rewards

-Map effects e.g. clouds

-Replenishment for fleets at sea in friendly regions

-Barbarian confederations

-Selection of generals' bodyguards and admirals to choose from, in Rome 1 there were at the most 2 different generals' bodyguards per faction and you could not choose between them

-Female Agents

-Naval mercenaries

-Better graphics

-1 v 1 animations and wounded animations

-New ammunition types: poisonous or exploding catapult ammo, flaming javelins etc.

-More historical figures

-Height, appearance and equipment differences between men within a unit

-Dirt on units and (with dlc) blood

-Deployables in battle e.g. caltrops, spike pits, barricades, stakes, burning bales (fireballs)

-Bigger map, including Upper Egypt (counter-intuitively further south) Arabia, Caledonia, Media, Parthia, Persia, Bactria, Indian Ocean and Aral Sea

-Warscape

-'Intelligent zoom' (N)

-Exempt provinces from tax

-Cavalry mount/dismount toggle

-Attrition in harsh climates, when starving or when besieging/under siege (only attrition under siege was in the original Rome)

-More graphical effects and shader options

-More cultures (e.g. Illyrians, African Tribes, Sarmatians, Arabs) with their own units and building varieties

-Diplomacy with every faction, not just the ones you have an agent nearby (Rome 1 diplomats)

-Agents can do more actions and have crossover roles

-Villages on battle maps not in a settlement

-Numerical breakdown of diplomatic relations

-Soldiers and horsemen leap over (and break) low walls, fences, hedges and market stalls-Better researched units and equipment

-Tech tree – 3 branches, and faction-specific

-No areas start out as rebels (no faction cap)

-Slow motion

-Unit replenishment instead of retrain, though units can be retrained to upgrade them

-New battle modes: coastal battles, port sieges, naval battles, more developed ambushes

-Diplomatic options: join war against, non-aggression pact, defensive alliance, war target, satrapies or client states instead of protectorates

-Prestige (now called Imperium and resulting in agent, edict and army cap boosts)

-Remove HUD option for screenshots

-Torches to burn down gates (debatable benefit)

-Bars as well as numbers to show health of units

-Indicators on flags of morale, active effects and fatigue

-Dilemmas and subjects

-Ability to give control of some units to the AI

-Wildlife (other than birds)

-More group formations and grouped-units options

-More abilities and generals’ bonuses are dependent on their attributes

-Food supply in campaign

-Ability to move units while hidden

-DX11''

Excellent post my friend, and your list makes perfect sense. It makes me wonder what they were thinking at the CA when they were making ROME2, how can they "forget" all these cool and
indispensable features and incorporate stupid ones such as capture points and such. So demoralizing from the CA!!

[Szlachta]

Meh, who cares what Rome I had. Rome II has more content and diversity than any other TW ever made.

[Praetorian_BGX]

Meh, who cares what Rome I had.

79% here

[Szlachta]

79% here

Then they can go play Rome I, or take off their nostalgia goggles. But again, who cares what Rome I had, the majority of people that bought Rome II don't even come to forums, so it's not like your made up 79% is a majority of anything that matters.

[SD_Man]

Then they can go play Rome I, or take off their nostalgia goggles. But again, who cares what Rome I had, the majority of people that bought Rome II don't even come to forums, so it's not like your made up 79% is a majority of anything that matters.

2013, the minorities ARE the majority
Plus you dont need nostalgia goggles to see that Rome I is the better game, all you need to see are Metacritic scores. Bah-boom

[Praetorian_BGX]

But again, who cares what Rome I had, the majority of people that bought Rome II don't even come to forums, so it's not like your made up 79% is a majority of anything that matters.

I guess that you and your opinion is only thing that matters then?

[PeonKing]

I guess that you and your opinion is only thing that matters then?

That's actually the exact opposite of what he said. He said that most of the people don't care what anyone on the forum posts, since most of the people that play the game don't come here. That's not an opinion, that's just a fact that most people who play Rome II don't come here to see why everyone here hates Rome II, since they don't come to this forum at all. He's literally saying his opinion, and yours, and mine, and anyone else's here, don't matter to the majority of the playerbase.

[GussieFinkNottle]

Then they can go play Rome I, or take off their nostalgia goggles. But again, who cares what Rome I had, the majority of people that bought Rome II don't even come to forums, so it's not like your made up 79% is a majority of anything that matters.

So what are you doing on the forum if you don't care what anyone here has to say?

[PeonKing]

So what are you doing on the forum if you don't care what anyone here has to say?

Considering the forums aren't just about bashing Rome II, there's a lot of reasons why he could be here. I'm here personally to learn about good mods, and looking into stuff people have found in the game that I might have missed. I only comment in these threads because I feel the amount of flak Rome II gets is overblown. I'm not saying it's the perfect game, I don't even think they came close to what they were touting beforehand, but I still find it enjoyable even with all it's faults.

I never played Rome I, I came into this thread to see if there was any monumental things missing, I'm pretty sure I'm never going to play Rome I since I haven't had a lot of fun going retro in gaming series before, I just have a bad time readjusting to old limitations.

[GussieFinkNottle]

Meh, who cares what Rome I had. Rome II has more content and diversity than any other TW ever made.

Do these 2 comparative lists not prove conclusively that Rome 2 does not have the most features? Either this statement is madly ill-informed or trolling.
If you were to go through every feature, the game with the most content was actually M2TW... ironically the one TW game not made by CA Horsham! (It was made by CA Australia)

[stackero]

Meh, who cares what Rome I had. Rome II has more content and diversity than any other TW ever made.

Nothing wrong with people liking Rome2 better than Rome 1 or any other TW game ever made.

But its very telling when people make these statements. Because any one who says Rome 2 has more content and diversity than any TW game before it, shows they've never played many, if any of TW games fully and or just likes stirring the the pot.

That's not to say people can't enjoy and prefer 'streamlined' games even when the game is only half finished with the other half not working properly. A game nearing breaking a record for the most patches of most any game, just to try making the content and diversity it does have, work properly, and not all that successfully I might add.

Good gaming.

[Szlachta]

A whole lot of fail.

Actually, it's a mathematical fact that Rome II has more content. More maps, units, factions, diplomacy options, agents and agent actions, techs, buildings, abilities, battle types, resources, overall campaign map diversity, aesthetic detail, traits/retainers and perks, random events, battle deployables, I could keep going.

So yeah, learn more about TW before attempting to reply. What's telling is when newbs go for the "No true Scotsman" fallacy like you just did. Hilarious that some wannabe elitist didn't even know enough about Rome II, to know it has the most content and diversity of any TW ever made. And there's no argument to be made here, it's just a simple, mathematical fact that's backed up by the files.

[stackero]

Originally Posted by stackero
A whole lot of fail.

This is not any part of my posting, but I'm sure its just a mistake on your part. HERE is that post in its entirety;

Stackero
Nothing wrong with people liking Rome2 better than Rome 1 or any other TW game ever made.

But its very telling when people make these statements. Because any one who says Rome 2 has more content and diversity than any TW game before it, shows they've never played many, if any of TW games fully and or just likes stirring the the pot.

That's not to say people can't enjoy and prefer 'streamlined' games even when the game is only half finished with the other half not working properly. A game nearing breaking a record for the most patches of most any game, just to try making the content and diversity it does have, work properly, and not all that successfully I might add.

Good gaming.

Actually, it's a mathematical fact that Rome II has more content. More maps, units, factions, diplomacy options, agents and agent actions, techs, buildings, abilities, battle types, resources, overall campaign map diversity, aesthetic detail, traits/retainers and perks, random events, battle deployables, I could keep going.

So yeah, learn more about TW before attempting to reply. What's telling is when newbs go for the "No true Scotsman" fallacy like you just did. Hilarious that some wannabe elitist didn't even know enough about Rome II, to know it has the most content and diversity of any TW ever made. And there's no argument to be made here, it's just a simple, mathematical fact that's backed up by the files.

Backed up by files? Mathematical fact? Man, you need to go run and hide now. And you sure like throwing that word 'newbs' around alot. I think he does complain a bit much, does he not. And all those words; fallacy, hilarious, wannabe elitist. Sounds like you're going off the deep end.

[daelin4]

Meh, who cares what Rome I had. Rome II has more content and diversity than any other TW ever made.

While I respect your opinion and think the principle has merit, I also think that's like saying an outhouse full of leavings is more content then a bucket of gold, so therefore the former is a much better choice to take home: I mean more stuff right?

In other words, I do think Rome2 had more content and diversity: but the content and diversity is not a lot more and not much better, often exchanging a lot of what RTW had. At the very best, the difference is cancelled out.

Actually, it's a mathematical fact that Rome II has more content. More maps, units, factions, diplomacy options, agents and agent actions, techs, buildings, abilities, battle types, resources, overall campaign map diversity, aesthetic detail, traits/retainers and perks, random events, battle deployables, I could keep going.

So yeah, learn more about TW before attempting to reply. What's telling is when newbs go for the "No true Scotsman" fallacy like you just did. Hilarious that some wannabe elitist didn't even know enough about Rome II, to know it has the most content and diversity of any TW ever made. And there's no argument to be made here, it's just a simple, mathematical fact that's backed up by the files.

Ah yes the usual "it's got more stuff" argument. If the content when put together are equal in quality then yes, it is true, Rome2 on virtue of having more content is a better game.

But it's not, because as far as many posters here seem to be concerned, the more content Rome2 has either fails to make up the difference in what it fails to improve on from RTW and other TW games, but also prove to be a hindrance.

Let's take the vast amount of units: seven hundred is the oft-used number. How many of them will you face at a time? Actually hundreds, because in reality most of them are clones of eachother: sure Spartan pikemen are different from other pikemen if you factor in the minute details like stats, but in the end they are no different than if you used other pikemen. Then we got Celtic Slingers, Celtic Spearmen, and numerous redundant legionaries. The details are so minute and the reason is because CA went for the numbers.
Factions themselves are the same thing. OK so we have a dozen Celtic factions now; what does that result in? The infamous End Turn Phase. Now granted that problem has since been improved somewhat depending on who you ask, but there still remains the fact that culture that provides the broad categories of these factions ultimately override the point of these numerous factions: Carthage can't really just deal with the Maesyli or the Turdetani while stroking the egos of the Gaeti and Nasamones, because the other African or Celtic tribes hate Carthage as well, due to cultural aversion, and cultural aversion is a very boardly applied penalty: it is not like a faction you are allies with has any less or more cultural aversion than if another faction you are at war with. No one even remembers the various African factions that pummel Carthage early on, and why should they? They all do the same thing every campaign, they might as well have been one faction. This raises the issue of whether having so many factions meant anything if they weren't designed to interact properly: it's not so much an experience of everyone gunning for eachother, but the same old everyone gunning for YOU dressed up in smaller, diverse sets of colours. This in reality is aggravated by the larger number of factions.

Frankly the issue of more Gallic tribes could only be raised if the current number of factions actually worked well. It worked right enough in RTW partially because there is no such thing as cultural aversion...which is generally universal anyways, it's not like the Scythian have a particular hatred of outsiders yet love Rome so huggy-muggy much: they hate everyone else, all the same. If anything cultural aversion is simply a buff done via the dynasty you chose and the difficulty setting you are playing. It literally plays no other role, and is not something you can use in diplomacy to your own advantage. It is just a scaled penalty setting. It is constant: your allies will have the same cultural penalty as your enemies; the only difference is you were lucky enough to get in good with some other things like beating on their enemies....so in that case you are only lucky and playing in reaction to the game conditions, not manipulating them.

Even how CA presents their game reeks of their love for numbers: it's not OVER TWENTY E2013 awards, man! It's got like 700 units bro! Epic battles with THOUSANDS of guys at once dude! This is a cool game because it has so much stuff!

Which is contradictory: Napoleon and Shogun2 proved to be very good games despite the deliberate decision to tone down the scale. As much as I wanted a large-scale game too, I'd prefer a smaller scope if it meant CA could make the game work better. I mean look at Empire, and now Rome2.

[dvk901]

Ah, once again the theory that if you have issues with the game, you don't matter....because the 'rest of the world is happy'. What a truncated view. Has it occurred to you that 'the majority of people that bought Rome II don't even come to forums' because they don't know where to go anyway? And that, if they did go to the official TotalWar site and complain, they would get warnings, posts deleted, or banned?

After 7 patches this game is still broken....and in my case, I now own 'Rome2 Totally Broken'....because the 7th patch did something and now the game CTD's before I can even get into it. So I'd say that one thing Rome1 has that Rome2 doesn't right now is that it actually works. Rome2 is broken.

[Dago Red]

After 7 patches this game is still broken....and in my case, I now own 'Rome2 Totally Broken'....because the 7th patch did something and now the game CTD's before I can even get into it. So I'd say that one thing Rome1 has that Rome2 doesn't right now is that it actually works. Rome2 is broken.

Same here. Perhaps we can compare notes in the tech thread here.