Everything Rome 1 had that Rome 2 doesn't

[stackero]

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.

Great post. 2 thumbs up.

[alQamar]

I wonder if some people get paid for their postings...
As soon you praise a substantial posting to the topic you get trolled why we are discussing a matter anyway and don't revert to a 9 years old game.

[Szlachta]

Considering we barely lost anything, I'd say no, there's way more diversity and depth to that diversity. I also find it funny that most of the things in OP's list are either so insignificant that they don't matter, or are subjective features/changes. In the end, after several listed features that previous (or Rome I) had that Rome II doesn't (usually family trees and agent videos), people end up grasping at straws. Meanwhile, we have way more of everything I just listed, including others that escape me off the top of my head - though I'm sure with a little thought I could list them all. And we sacrifice? Family trees. A mechanics that was for role playing. Roleplaying, a genre that has more of its features in Rome II than in any other TW. So even in that department Rome II ends up superior. Really, it's about nostalgia. It's the only reason most of these people are complaining about the "streamlining" or what not. Guess they never played Shogun II.

[Szlachta]

Math has already proven you wrong, get over it. To go through it again, Rome II has more: 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.

[Dago Red]

... I could keep going.

Really, you don't need to.

The OP has already made 2 extremely thorough threads (there is another counterpoint to this one), and though I disagree with him on many points they are both exhaustive lists. You seem to think by reading this that the OP is biased because you claim many on this list are "insignificant" or, and this is hilarious, "subjective."

Being subjective much?

Rome II might have a few extra tally points in terms of raw numbers, but most of those are relatively meaningless. And its not too subjective to say that "more units" is a bit of a joke. There are more, and they are much more historically accurate but most of the units are just minor re-skins of each other. Celtic slingers, Germanic slingers, Eastern slingers, Greek slingers, Iberian slingers, and then specific ones for major factions, ad nasuem. You can shop that 700 units down to about -- I think someone had it at something like 211? (thread is in main forum here).

Furthermore, many points on the Rome II list are extremely weak when you look into it more. Yes there are new features in stances: raiding, fortify, etc. But those are just lame abstractions of REAL actions you once could take in TW games. Remember building actual forts? We've had that since Rome I and they just lost the feature. Remember actually raiding minor settlements or pillaging roadways, or causing devastation in farmlands? Well now you can just abstract all that and "raid" some area of abandoned desert in the middle of nowhere. Yeah... great new feature.

Rome I + previous TW games before this utter failure wins.

[daelin4]

Math has already proven you wrong, get over it. To go through it again, Rome II has more: 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.

And like I said, the truth is the numbers don't mean much, at least not until they work well.

We've a lot more factions. Great. Except the experience is hardly any different than if they were just a small handful, seeing as they operate in precisely the same way. Thanks to things like cultural aversion.

We've a lot more units now. How nice. Except most of them are copies of the same type so in reality it doesn't matter if you were fighting Celtic Light Horse or Gallic Light Horse.

The map is a lot bigger. Wonderful. Except it is also too small, thanks to how they implemented the province system But I suppose that's good reason to sacrifice places like Syracuse, Jerusalem and Rhodes from having walls, because only capitals can have walls now, and other cities don' even exist.

Agents are NOT more. Fall of the samurai had four, five if you counted counterparts. Shogun2 had six. Rome2 has three, and they have overlapping abilities: every agent in the listed games ha exclusive abilities and areas of specialties: you can't subvert an army with a Metsuke, instead they can bribe.

Diplomacy Options? Sure we now have Confederations (assimilate) but only if you are barbarians, and instead of Clients eastern factions get Satrapies. Non-Aggression and Defensive Allies are new, I'll give you that. But therein still lies that unanswered question: do they work well?

Battle types? You mean like the insanely buggy and flawed concept of combined land/sea battles where you HAD to have flag points just because of the navy, and wall-less sieges because CA hates the idea that the AI dealing with walls too many times exposes the problems of the game? Even if you can argue that these are even good ideas, you still have to face the fact that they still don't work.

And really, traits and retainers? You can't even GET more than three traits per character; hell you can't get ONE retainer. Just go play RTW and MTW2 to give yourself a clue: the only limit to those was how long your characters had before they died. Which wasn't 30 turns because they didn't have a whole year spanning the end turn phase.

As you can plainly see, having more means absolutely nothing if the ideas behind them are flawed like the beta this game is.

[stackero]

And like I said, the truth is the numbers don't mean much, at least not until they work well.

We've a lot more factions. Great. Except the experience is hardly any different than if they were just a small handful, seeing as they operate in precisely the same way. Thanks to things like cultural aversion.

We've a lot more units now. How nice. Except most of them are copies of the same type so in reality it doesn't matter if you were fighting Celtic Light Horse or Gallic Light Horse.

The map is a lot bigger. Wonderful. Except it is also too small, thanks to how they implemented the province system But I suppose that's good reason to sacrifice places like Syracuse, Jerusalem and Rhodes from having walls, because only capitals can have walls now, and other cities don' even exist.

Agents are NOT more. Fall of the samurai had four, five if you counted counterparts. Shogun2 had six. Rome2 has three, and they have overlapping abilities: every agent in the listed games ha exclusive abilities and areas of specialties: you can't subvert an army with a Metsuke, instead they can bribe.

Diplomacy Options? Sure we now have Confederations (assimilate) but only if you are barbarians, and instead of Clients eastern factions get Satrapies. Non-Aggression and Defensive Allies are new, I'll give you that. But therein still lies that unanswered question: do they work well?

Battle types? You mean like the insanely buggy and flawed concept of combined land/sea battles where you HAD to have flag points just because of the navy, and wall-less sieges because CA hates the idea that the AI dealing with walls too many times exposes the problems of the game? Even if you can argue that these are even good ideas, you still have to face the fact that they still don't work.

And really, traits and retainers? You can't even GET more than three traits per character; hell you can't get ONE retainer. Just go play RTW and MTW2 to give yourself a clue: the only limit to those was how long your characters had before they died. Which wasn't 30 turns because they didn't have a whole year spanning the end turn phase.

As you can plainly see, having more means absolutely nothing if the ideas behind them are flawed like the beta this game is.

Dang it. You said that so much better than I could of or would've. Must rep.

[stackero]

Math has already proven you wrong, get over it. To go through it again, Rome II has more: 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.

Well lets put it this way; no matter the math, the numbers, the maps, factions, features, most of which don't work right, etc. etc. It all has to add up in the end, as a playable, fun, game and shouldn't need an army of numbered patches marching after it. 7, 8, 9, what will be the final number I wonder.

What does the final tally say. Between Rome 1 and 2.

Rome 1, even without mods, works and is still very playable.
Rome 2, still broke. For some, R2 mods is the only thing making the game bearable, thanks to tenacious and talented modders.
My hats off to all modders, no matter what game you work on.

Good gaming.

[GussieFinkNottle]

OK guys this thread is getting a little vicious in places. Let's keep it as productive debate, not attacks

[Taskeen]

I really miss family trees and after a long game opening up and seeing the full tree, and remembering all the great heroes and their family. The traits Generals gained from buildings, battle, or age were all amazing. I like that they show a history for specific unit formations in Rome 2, but the leaders of those units fade so quickly, dying off in a few turns or going who knows where to the void - I want to see the history of those leaders, their families, their wives, sons, and daughters, their exploits, etc.

I was hoping for something much improved along these lines and also the ability to let a female take over as General if her husband died (or by your choosing) to re-enact the great Queen Warriors and even pirates of that timeline, and then listen to the awesome Queen Warrior battle speeches. Hell there is even a friggin Queen Pirate on the Rome 2 art, wtf.

Also a big issue for me is not being able to GIVE REGION in diplomacy. How could such a basic thing be overlooked. I want to GIVE my AI allies regions, that I don't need so they can get the full benefit of a full province, so they can build buffers against our enemies.

[stackero]

I really miss family trees and after a long game opening up and seeing the full tree, and remembering all the great heroes and their family. The traits Generals gained from buildings, battle, or age were all amazing. I like that they show a history for specific unit formations in Rome 2, but the leaders of those units fade so quickly, dying off in a few turns or going who knows where to the void - I want to see the history of those leaders, their families, their wives, sons, and daughters, their exploits, etc.

I was hoping for something much improved along these lines and also the ability to let a female take over as General if her husband died (or by your choosing) to re-enact the great Queen Warriors and even pirates of that timeline, and then listen to the awesome Queen Warrior battle speeches. Hell there is even a friggin Queen Pirate on the Rome 2 art, wtf.

Also a big issue for me is not being able to GIVE REGION in diplomacy. How could such a basic thing be overlooked. I want to GIVE my AI allies regions, that I don't need so they can get the full benefit of a full province, so they can build buffers against our enemies.

Taskeen, if you're looking for a game with female warriors go to the forum in my signature and you'll find a Rome 1 mod game called
Amazon: Total War or click here.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Amazon: Total War is a mod and a tribute to the ancient matriarchal equestrian societies. The ancient horses are mostly 12 hands high (48" or 120cm), this facet gives women unfair advantages as cavalry soldiers due to their lighter body weight and more petite frame. The mod is about how small but mobile forces with stand-off capabilities can defeat large conventional field armies even on the battlefields of antiquity. Mod is based on anthropological theses and latest archaeological data about the Amazons with numerous features quite unlike other me-too Greco-Roman mods.

I haven't played it, so I can't vouch for it, but it does have some dedicated fans.

[Shaio]

I don't spos theres a mod that rips out the leveling system for generals and replaces it all with gained/randomnly given traits?

Its just not rome2 when my emperor is sane, sober, not off whoring, and not screaming about wanting to bathe in there blood.

[Col.KanKrusha]

Hi, excellent post dvk901

How much of this stuff and other new content can be added by modders?

I haven't bought the game (the 20 GB put me off given my limited broadband and anticipation of very large patch file size) and I am wondering if I ever will.

(I only bought Napoleon when there were a number of great mods and I have just bought M2TW with sole intention of playing TATW)

[GussieFinkNottle]

Hi, excellent post dvk901

How much of this stuff and other new content can be added by modders?

I haven't bought the game (the 20 GB put me off given my limited broadband and anticipation of very large patch file size) and I am wondering if I ever will.

(I only bought Napoleon when there were a number of great mods and I have just bought M2TW with sole intention of playing TATW)

I would really recommend trying a few vanilla campaigns before TATW, the base game is very good, and the mod corrupts the main game files, so you can only play TATW while it is installed, vanilla is off limits

[crzyrndm]

I would really recommend trying a few vanilla campaigns before TATW, the base game is very good, and the mod corrupts the main game files, so you can only play TATW while it is installed, vanilla is off limits

Or atleast minimally modded. I would recommend retrofit for the vanilla but better experience (2H units that can actually hold their own for example...).

[General Maximus]

Or atleast minimally modded. I would recommend retrofit for the vanilla but better experience (2H units that can actually hold their own for example...).

That's the best mod around if anyone wants a fixed vanilla Medieval II experience.

[Praetorian_BGX]

I would recommend retrofit for the vanilla but better experience (2H units that can actually hold their own for example...).

Great mod, merged vanilla + kingdoms

[crzyrndm]

That's the best mod around if anyone wants a fixed vanilla Medieval II experience.

Great mod, merged vanilla + kingdoms

Too right. The only way to play "vanilla".

Not to mention the awesome kingdoms units (mangonels, greek fire throwers, etc.)

[LucretiusTC]

To me, one of the biggest disappointments in Rome 2 has been a campaign map. The settlements look like there are too big for a map, and a very common type of a battle happens in a town without walls. I think in RTW1 there were much more field battles and campaign map usually told you better what kind of a battle can be expected.

Also the structure of the game and a campaign map doesn't give a feeling that you are building an ancient empire. Besides I think a technology tree is a little bit unnecessary because in the ancient times people usually used the same methods in agriculture and other activities for hundreds of years. There wasn't a big technological gap between grandfather and grandson. Upgrading the buildings for longer time do the same thing without a technological tree.

As a comparison, I am most familiar to Extended Greek Mod (XGM) that is based on RTW1. http://www.wmwiki.com/hosted/xgm/xgm...e-playing.html

It uses a remade Mundus Magnus map, covering all of the British Isles, all of the Seleucid Empire, all of the Arabian peninsular and the north-west of India. It also includes new Factions like Backtria and Saba, and several provincial campaings: http://www.wmwiki.com/hosted/xgm/xgm...campaigns.html

Surely diplomacy is more complicated and you can rely your allies in Rome 2. For instance when I played a Pontic campaign Bithynia and Trapezus were very loyal allies to me, but I had to capture their regions in later game to run my Empire more efficiently. I don't much like the idea of combing 3 or 4 different regions as a bigger province. I prefer the old micromanagement system for every single settlement lke taxation from low to very hard.

[Akhenaton]

To me, one of the biggest disappointments in Rome 2 has been a campaign map. The settlements look like there are too big for a map, and a very common type of a battle happens in a town without walls. I think in RTW1 there were much more field battles and campaign map usually told you better what kind of a battle can be expected.

The Campaign Map in Rome II is an actual represantation of the battlefield map. On paper it sounds pretty much lik Rome I, however since the campaign map is mostly flat , battlemaps tend to be rather flat aswell. It is very frustrating, because it
contradicts the line of sight system, which provides fun surprises.
I agree, the settlements are to big, with nothing else around them. Even Rome and Med II had terrain that would change to the level of agriculture that you developed. Here it is nothing. IMHO they should have kept the style of FOTS. It´s settlements looked natural in the landscape, coastlines looked much better and terrain features were better defined.
CA needs to change it´s approach to the campaign map. Instead of trying to make the graphics prettier, they need to go into more detail. More terrain features, which would give a better understanding of where to choose the battlefield.