Everything Rome 2 has that Rome 1 didn't

[stackero]

At the end of the day the best feature a game has, is how many more players prefer it over another.

[Arbitrary Crusader]

I really cannot believe some of the responses on this forum. First I made a thread about what was lost from the original Rome and all the features R2 didn't have, and I was savaged by some members as biased and unable to consider balance. So I make the opposite thread, with all the new features I can think of, providing balance and a reasoned comparison, and again I am savaged for defending the game everyone hates. Seriously, some people need to get the chip off their shoulder, I am not in any way trying to get across an agenda, just trying to be thorough (posts immediately above this, and reasonable - the majority - of posts on both threads not included in this rant)

Yea, the "You are not with us, you are against us" mentality gets old.

At the end of the day the best feature a game has, is how many more players prefer it over another.

Yeah, COD is awesome.

[GussieFinkNottle]

I really cannot believe some of the responses on this forum. First I made a thread about what was lost from the original Rome and all the features R2 didn't have, and I was savaged by some members as biased and unable to consider balance. So I make the opposite thread, with all the new features I can think of, providing balance and a reasoned comparison, and again I am savaged for defending the game everyone hates. Seriously, some people need to get the chip off their shoulder, I am not in any way trying to get across an agenda, just trying to be thorough (posts immediately above this, and reasonable - the majority - of posts on both threads not included in this rant)

[raest]

I really cannot believe some of the responses on this forum. First I made a thread about what was lost from the original Rome and all the features R2 didn't have, and I was savaged by some members as biased and unable to consider balance. So I make the opposite thread, with all the new features I can think of, providing balance and a reasoned comparison, and again I am savaged for defending the game everyone hates. Seriously, some people need to get the chip off their shoulder, I am not in any way trying to get across an agenda, just trying to be thorough (posts immediately above this, and reasonable - the majority - of posts on both threads not included in this rant)

it's not that you're "thorough", it's your list that sucks. as has been already mentioned, it's full of redundant and stupid crap. you made it as if there was a contest to list everything that was different (i hoped you would've understood why your list is really bad from my examples, but clearly not), that's why people think you're biased

[Lord Baal]

Technically, Rome 2 is bigger and prettier. Yet why is so hated? It lacked key features everyone was expecting, and half of those new are bugged or not up to the challenge.

[Dunadd]

raest wrote

it's not that you're "thorough", it's your list that sucks. as has been already mentioned, it's full of redundant and stupid crap. you made it as if there was a contest to list everything that was different (i hoped you would've understood why your list is really bad from my examples, but clearly not), that's why people think you're biased

I think a lot of the minor features in Rome II are trivial too and think the game is half-done, lacking in any atmosphere and dull as ditch-water, but you're being unnecessarily rude and confrontational - Gussie posted an entire thread on all the features Rome 1 has that Rome 2 doesn't - and in both threads asked people to add in any he had missed - and does add them in as people bring them up. There's no reason to think he's being biased.

[craziii]

just did a quick scan and already notice an error.

rome 1 had the ability to let the ai handle group or groups of unit under player control on the battle map.

Op also repeat points. line of sight and the stealth movement for units are the same thing. unless he is talking about 100% stealth units.

Technically, Rome 2 is bigger and prettier. Yet why is so hated? It lacked key features everyone was expecting, and half of those new are bugged or not up to the challenge.

that is extremely subjective. what you feel isn't what everyone else feels. as CA fixes the tech side of rome 2, most complains will die down.


edit: to answer the poll, why not a 3rd option? buy both! rome 1 is old but the huge number of high quality mods increases it value at least 10 fold. rome 2 got land and sea combined battles :o enough said.

[GussieFinkNottle]

to answer the poll, why not a 3rd option? buy both!

because that would destroy the point of the poll: to see which game people thought was ultimately the best

[Lord Baal]

Well, only time will tell which one of us is right. In the present the game is still very bugged, specially the siege AI and the implementation of certain features, even thought looking good on paper left a lot to desire.

[craziii]

Well, only time will tell which one of us is right. In the present the game is still very bugged, specially the siege AI and the implementation of certain features, even thought looking good on paper left a lot to desire.

time wouldn't tell in this case. even if all bugs are fixed in the future, a feature or new change in rome 2 that you don't like right now, you will suddenly change your mind? once most bugs are gone, it just becomes a matter of opinion when it comes to features and/or changes(imo, it is like this already, but everything becomes a tangled mess with real bugs in the game right now)

[Lord Baal]

time wouldn't tell in this case. even if all bugs are fixed in the future, a feature or new change in rome 2 that you don't like right now, you will suddenly change your mind? once most bugs are gone, it just becomes a matter of opinion when it comes to features and/or changes(imo, it is like this already, but everything becomes a tangled mess with real bugs in the game right now)

I disagree with your opinion. Things like army stances for example. If a forced army is attacked, not ambushed, a battle with them being tired/low moral would be more than enough, however we have this idiotic ambush dumb that simply doesn't work. If they solve that army stances will be actually useful.

The transformer navies are idiotic too, they are way out of control. The idea is not wrong, the halfassed implementation is.

The AI being capable of doing good sieges...


And so on... I have say it from the start, this game has a great deal of potential, they just need to focus on fixing those things instead of making "free" (for one week only to push people to buy the game) DLC's of new pretty units and start making patches or DLC's about core elements of the game.

[Dago Red]

And so on... I have say it from the start, this game has a great deal of potential, they just need to focus on fixing those things instead of making "free" (for one week only to push people to buy the game) DLC's of new pretty units and start making patches or DLC's about core elements of the game.

100% So much potential, ruined not only by horrible bugs and total lack of beta testing, but also several key "features" that are just bone-headed in the first place and need to be corrected. Not least of which are transformer armies and the civil war.

My thoughts on the stances are in this previous post #27 here (which should NOT get credit for being new to Rome II when all they are, are simplifications to more complex options we had before).

I have gotten a little used to the ambush mechanic for forced march now, but its essentially broken. What's the point of the ambush stance then in terms of varying the gameplay? So many battles become ambush battles now. And actually a lot of times it puts the attacker at a disadvantage (except for the morale loss of the enemy) when you have siege weapons and a missile heavy group, when the enemy has a lot of cavalry. You can't set up to engage in a way that makes use of your range to the utmost, and instead the enemy cavalry can close with you right away.

When you are attacked multiple times in this stance, it just shows how badly thought out this is. I've had 3 enemy stacks by the same faction, attack in a row all in one turn. Each battle was an ambush that I could not retreat from. After the first attack, you need an option to drop out of forced march, or be forced out of it by a realistic game mechanic. Obviously if you engage in a major battle in the morning, you're not still forced marching in the afternoon.

[craziii]

I disagree with your opinion. Things like army stances for example. If a forced army is attacked, not ambushed, a battle with them being tired/low moral would be more than enough, however we have this idiotic ambush dumb that simply doesn't work. If they solve that army stances will be actually useful.

The transformer navies are idiotic too, they are way out of control. The idea is not wrong, the halfassed implementation is.

The AI being capable of doing good sieges...


And so on... I have say it from the start, this game has a great deal of potential, they just need to focus on fixing those things instead of making "free" (for one week only to push people to buy the game) DLC's of new pretty units and start making patches or DLC's about core elements of the game.

force march stance is very, very, powerful. CA wants the correct risk to reward ratio. with some factions, if you have the correct buildings, the units you build will have 130 to 150 morale! even if you take 50% off it will still be the same as an average unit. add the bonuses from army traits, it will be right back up to elite status. that is a 50% penalty. as long as CAI uses the stances correctly, I like this change. I have played the newest patch as the germans and the CAI seems be pretty smart about it, that is based 40 turns experience, 4 hours play time.

what is transformer navies? I am not familiar with the description

ai sieges should be easy really. hard code siege ai to use ladders and towers, force it to use them 100%. burning gates should be the last resort(this should also be hardcoded) target towers and walls with siege weapons if the ai has it. make it so it will defend against player made breaks in the wall, or player controlled siege ladders or towers. if darth can script the AI in rome 1 to attack from 2 or 3 different directions, so can ca right? free form AI obviously got some problems, maybe some hardcoded scripted AI parts will help in the weak areas we, the players have found.

CA can always set the new changes to the AI to VH or legendary only so only advance players will get to experience it and the newbies still do ok with the old easy ai

[Ironhorse]

Apologies if anyone already mentioned these:

1. Zone of command for armies and cities as well as assist in these zones
2. Not losing your movement points when discovering hidden units and/or units being stopped by the zone of command when discovering hidden units

[Sean951]

Rome 1 was an amazing game, and I doubt I have put even half the time in to the following Total War games as I dumped in to Vanilla Rome back in the day. Rome 2, for me at least, is the better game. Parthia isn't doomed by the Egyptian death stacks, the diplomacy is actually functional (Demands: Please do not attack. Offers: Accept or we will attack!) the naval battles are fun and freaking pirates can't come along and kill my 4 trireme navy with army crossing to Syracuse/Athens/Carthage. Are there flaws? Sure, it's a Total War game. But it's improving and thus far, I enjoy it more.

Oh, another feature for Rome 2, the battle map will never have me deploying and fighting from a hill with a grade of around 60%.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Auto-resolve options. You can now see percentage depending on whether you choose aggresive, defensive or normal.

The bonus is that it's easily modified.

[karasis]

Rome 1.Cheaper and better

[stackero]

Rome 1.Cheaper and better

Rome 1.Cheaper and better and easily modable , epic. alive, and immersive.

[Lord Baal]

Well you are right, before we already had forced march trough some ancillaries (or was it traits, can't remember), however if I recall right there wasn't penalties for it and it was something permanent as it was on all the time.

But yeah, we had ambushes in a natural way (deploying armies on the forests) and where able to make forts to defend some place important. Stances do seem like a too much forced or coerced form of the old mechanics when you mention it.

[Dago Red]

Yes, the stances (aside from forced march) are just abstractions of actual gameplay tactics and features that existed before. That is the worst part about them.

Instead of actually building a real fort and being able to upgrade it over the years into castles (and even being able to gain income or units from it in some mods), you just push a button and make a temporary fort that isn't real and does nothing on the campaign map (unless you are actually attacked in it).

Instead of actually blockading real roads or sacking or occupying real outlying towns and villages, now you just move your army anywhere and hit the magic "raiding" button. Even on a mountaintop or a desolate stretch of desert where there is nothing of value.

They are abstractions of real actions and tactics that played a HUGE part of the TW experience. It's really sad, lazy, and dumbfounding. If CA continues in this direction, there will just a button you can push that moves your armies for you too. One must begin to wonder what the point of the campaign is.