Everything Rome 2 has that Rome 1 didn't

[stackero]

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.

Good post. 2 thumbs up. But you're being kind to CA with the phrase: It's really sad, lazy, and dumbfounding.
Owe you a Rep

[Musteline]

Rome 1, because i played 100 hours just before Rome 2 launched,but my time on rome 2 is only 60 hours.
in total i played 1000 hours of rome 1 X 60 of rome 2

[Dunadd]

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).

Unlike a lot of things in Rome 2 that's really pretty historically accurate. Roman marching camps were made out of stakes and dismantled when the army left them.

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.

In reality there wouldn't have been only one settlement in each region - there would have been dozens to hundreds of walled towns and smaller cities and thousands of villages. So again, this isn't really inaccurate. In Xenophon's Hellenica he talks about Athenian triremes going to collect money - which they basically extorted from the towns they sailed to. And actual raiding of rivals' territory took place too - e.g Demetrius' raids into Eumenes territory.

Showing some smaller settlements in each region that provide income and can be raided would help the atmosphere though.

[Petroniu]

I do not believe that you can really compare 2 games that are 10 years apart. If you really want to, then you should strip away the technological advancements that the latter obviously has and then put on a list with features that the old and the new have or do not. Your list is kind of iffy, starting with the better graphics thing. I mean, Med2 had better graphics! Why? It came LATER.

[GussieFinkNottle]

I do not believe that you can really compare 2 games that are 10 years apart. If you really want to, then you should strip away the technological advancements that the latter obviously has and then put on a list with features that the old and the new have or do not. Your list is kind of iffy, starting with the better graphics thing. I mean, Med2 had better graphics! Why? It came LATER.

The lists compare the two games identically, as though released at the same time, so they can be assessed as the better game purely empirically, not as a game in the context of their time. I think Rome 1 still wins as an experience despite that

[Nesai]

Had to actually '' Every bug Rome 2 has that Rome 1 didn't''

[Pseudolivius]

Ok 31 people need to get smacked.

[Arkymedes]

If memory serves me right, you could designate part of your army to the AI, grouping it using CTRL+L

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Garensterz]

Everything Rome 2 has that Rome 1 didn't

Bugs...

[Saramania]

Bugs...

Apps with 0 bugs does not exist.

[Lord Baal]

Of course they do. Complex apps with 0 bugs are another history, however is not impossible to attain either.

[Saramania]

Of course they do. Complex apps with 0 bugs are another history, however is not impossible to attain either.

Not if your application has to run on lots of rigs, with very complex code. 0 bugs is attainable in theory. But in real life, it costs too much money and time to look for all the bugs.

But some of the bugs we currently have with rome 2 are too obvious, too big to not be corrected.

[BunnyPoopCereal]

Not only is Rome 1 cheaper but it has a substantial following and the mods are awesome!

[stackero]

40% more budget, at least.