Rome 2 Less Diverse than Shogun 2

[ptoss1]

All the factions within their cultural group are pretty much carbon copies of one another with one or two units that are slightly different.

What this means is that they all have the same playstyle. What bothers me is not so much that they have the same units, but that some aren't even available to others, which feels restrictive in comparison to Shogun 2, where every faction had access to the same basic units. I know this sounds terrible because we've all been pining for "diversity" and whatnot, but this is how I genuinely feel. The stat differences for most units are so insignificant they might as well not even exist. I do like how the units look differently, but by the time you get out of your starting zone and fighting different types of units, you are already powerful enough to overwhelm any of your opponents. All I do is sort of look from above while my horde of units smash everything to itty bitty pieces. This has gotten much better since I installed DeI and factions started expanding more aggressively, but the fact still stands that the variety seems fake to me, or perhaps a more apt word would be, redundant. In comparison, Shogun 2 and its expansions felt tight and polished. Each unit mattered. I could recruit all the units that other factions had and use any technique they had. In Rome 2 the units become obsolete as I tech up to better units, which is kind of disappointing as I just ignore the older units that are still available to me.

I hope in the future CA dispenses with this kind of "variety" that only serves to further SEGA's DLC agenda.

What I'd like to see now is more focus on storytelling to differentiate factions. It really hurt me when I realized Rome 2 had none of the "atmosphere" that existed in Shogun 2. Small things like agent videos that I never expected to miss were sorely lacking. It was only when they were taken away from me that I wanted them back. Family trees are the same as well.

All in all, I can safely say that I will not miss the type of game CA has created with Rome 2, and will not mourn its demise if they never made another one again. Call me disillusioned, but the "scope" which CA's games seem to go for just stretch the game too much.

Rome 2 is serviceable, but I think we can agree that it lacks something essential that CA got right with Shogun 2, despite being a bigger game in every aspect.

With what I've learned from my time playing Rome 2 I now understand that having a more confined map and scope doesn't mean getting less for my money.
Something like the American Civil War or Three Kingdoms era would be perfectly fine imo. The setting doesn't matter all that much anymore.

Just flesh it out, CA.

Rome 2 feels like a cardboard box that I have to fill my dreams with.

EDIT 1: Some mistakes and grammar.

[GussieFinkNottle]

This is ridiculous.

the variety seems fake to me

There is no way you can argue that Shogun 2, at base, with one culture and identikit factions, as well as only 30 units, was more diverse than Rome 2, with 4 distinct cultures (Roman, Barbarian, Greek, Eastern) as well as lots of minor variations on those cultures, particularly unit-wise, such as in Thrace, Illyria, Ethiopia, Arabia, the Steppes etc.

some aren't available to others

That is kind of the point of making more than one faction appealing. Ever heard of replayability? I don't want to fight the same kind of game with the Parthians and the Iceni, furthermore if similar units were available it would be an insane departure from anything resembling history. Different factions will be good at different things, it requires the player to think creatively when their units are not very well suited to fighting certain enemies, e.g. the Romans don't have much to combat eastern horse archers. Not only does this make the game interesting, it also is historically accurate e.g. Roman-Parthian wars.

or perhaps a more apt word would be, redundant

I hope in the future CA dispenses with this kind of "variety"

If you are complaining about the variety and asking for focused Rock-Paper-Scissors, then you shouldn't buy Rome 2. Because if they cut down on variety, which you seem to be objecting to here, it would be a terrible game, and utterly unrepresentative of the exceptionally diverse time the game is set in. You object to the 'redundant' variety and want to remove this part of the game because some of the stats feel samey? Cutting the diversity would be a disaster, the visuals of difference are every bit as, in fact more, important than stat variety.

[ptoss1]

This is ridiculous. There is no way you can argue that Shogun 2, at base, with one culture and identikit factions, as well as only 30 units, was more diverse than Rome 2, with 4 distinct cultures (Roman, Barbarian, Greek, Eastern) as well as lots of minor variations on those cultures, particularly unit-wise, such as in Thrace, Illyria, Ethiopia, Arabia, the Steppes etc. That is kind of the point of making more than one faction appealing. Ever heard of replayability? I don't want to fight the same kind of game with the Parthians and the Iceni, furthermore if similar units were available it would be an insane departure from anything resembling history.

Rome 2 definitely has more variety in unit types than Shogun 2. No argument there. What I've found though is that these different units are spread out over such a large map, it dilutes the pleasure I have in seeing a Companion Cavalry unit vs. a Parthian Cataphract. This is because by the point where I get to see such a battle I'm already much stronger than the other factions which have access to the different units. You get what I'm saying? Also, despite the fact that there's really only "one" faction in Shogun 2, it's a much more fleshed out, well thought out faction than any of the ones in Rome 2. This is one of the main reasons why I'm somewhat disappointed. I expected every faction in Rome 2 to have a set of units like the Japanese.

If you are complaining about the variety and asking for focused Rock-Paper-Scissors, then you shouldn't buy Rome 2. Because if they cut down on variety, which you seem to be objecting to here, it would be a terrible game, and utterly unrepresentative of the exceptionally diverse time the game is set in. You object to the 'redundant' variety and want to remove this part of the game because some of the stats feel samey? Cutting the diversity would be a disaster, the visuals of difference are every bit as, in fact more, important than stat variety.

I have bought Rome 2 and I do enjoy it, just not particularly for its much vaunted "variety". I have more fun with each faction's geographic location than I do with their units tbh.

Instead of viewing it as a complaint, think of it this way: I would not be "against" another game like Shogun 2 but set in a different area, where CA could enhance the details of one culture, and then another in an expansion pack.

The benefit of having a more focused game is that you get a much more zoomed in version of the culture and combat, whereas in Rome 2 it's a much broader, generic design.

It's obvious to me that CA did not put too much effort into differentiating the cultures from one another as the face portraits, UI, and buildings all seem generic and bland.

[GussieFinkNottle]

fair enough, I see your point

[Ritterlichvon86]

This is ridiculous.

There is no way you can argue that Shogun 2, at base, with one culture and identikit factions, as well as only 30 units, was more diverse than Rome 2, with 4 distinct cultures (Roman, Barbarian, Greek, Eastern) as well as lots of minor variations on those cultures, particularly unit-wise, such as in Thrace, Illyria, Ethiopia, Arabia, the Steppes etc.

That is kind of the point of making more than one faction appealing. Ever heard of replayability? I don't want to fight the same kind of game with the Parthians and the Iceni, furthermore if similar units were available it would be an insane departure from anything resembling history.

If you are complaining about the variety and asking for focused Rock-Paper-Scissors, then you shouldn't buy Rome 2. Because if they cut down on variety, which you seem to be objecting to here, it would be a terrible game, and utterly unrepresentative of the exceptionally diverse time the game is set in. You object to the 'redundant' variety and want to remove this part of the game because some of the stats feel samey? Cutting the diversity would be a disaster, the visuals of difference are every bit as, in fact more, important than stat variety.

I agree with this guy. The OP is being ridiculous. That medicine is bad mkay?

Noone can argue that S2 had more variety, without creating the impression of being downright insane, seriously. That's just crazy talk, the facts are so obvious against that. Sounds to me like a sheepish continuation of a sheepstorm we've (rightfully) had on R2's premature (beta) release.

[Tullaris]

I agree with this guy. The OP is being ridiculous. That medicine is bad mkay?

Noone can argue that S2 had more variety, without creating the impression of being downright insane, seriously. That's just crazy talk, the facts are so obvious against that. Sounds to me like a sheepish continuation of a sheepstorm we've (rightfully) had on R2's premature (beta) release.

You see unit variety as variety in skins and stats. I see unit variety as different tactical purposes per unit.

If the variety in units is tactical, replaying Rome II gets a lot more interesting. If it is merely a reskinned version of units you have already fought with, well then that adds nothing.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

You see unit variety as skins. I see unit variety as units with different tactical purposes.

Still more than in Shogun 2.


There are Elephants, Chariots, Bow cavalry, some of which is heavy enough to be medium cavalry as well, Skirmishing light cavalry with AP javelins, light and heavy melee cavalry which are further divided as to whether they have spears or swords, shock cavalry with long lances, heavy infantry and light infantry, light infantry with AP weapons designed to take on heavy infantry, engines of war that are specifically for use in open field battles, and engines of war that are for use against city walls, pikes, archers, javelin men, slingers, camel units that are specifically made to fight cavalry, war dogs, etc.

There is a lot of variety in Rome 2. It's just, most of it is so completely optional, because an army full of heavy infantry destroys basically anything, anywhere. Unless it's an army full of pikes, which will destroy an army full of heavy infantry.

Shogun 2 has a variety of tactics. You can form an army of horse archers, or an army of heavy Samurai, or a combined arms force with pikes, muskets, artillery, and cavalry, or a force of ambushing archers and shinobi. As long as you had the skill to use them correctly, each of these armies was capable of being just as effective as any other.

But Rome 2 has the bigger variety in units. This is a fact, and there is no arguing with it. The problem is, they just really aren't very useful aside from a couple of them.

[nameless]

Still more than in Shogun 2.


There are Elephants, Chariots, Bow cavalry, some of which is heavy enough to be medium cavalry as well, Skirmishing light cavalry with AP javelins, light and heavy melee cavalry which are further divided as to whether they have spears or swords, shock cavalry with long lances, heavy infantry and light infantry, light infantry with AP weapons designed to take on heavy infantry, engines of war that are specifically for use in open field battles, and engines of war that are for use against city walls, pikes, archers, javelin men, slingers, camel units that are specifically made to fight cavalry, war dogs, etc.

There is a lot of variety in Rome 2. It's just, most of it is so completely optional, because an army full of heavy infantry destroys basically anything, anywhere. Unless it's an army full of pikes, which will destroy an army full of heavy infantry.

Shogun 2 has a variety of tactics. You can form an army of horse archers, or an army of heavy Samurai, or a combined arms force with pikes, muskets, artillery, and cavalry, or a force of ambushing archers and shinobi. As long as you had the skill to use them correctly, each of these armies was capable of being just as effective as any other.

But Rome 2 has the bigger variety in units. This is a fact, and there is no arguing with it. The problem is, they just really aren't very useful aside from a couple of them.

Seems to me the OP is arguing based on use but the fact is that Shogun 2 follows a rock-paper-scissors routine. This forces the player to ensure that he has a diverse composition otherwise he'll find himself overwhelmened or suffer heavy casualties.

In Rome 2 it's a little different because the rock-paper-scissors routine isn't followed too deep in this case.

Whether or not that's a good thing is up to the player but a lot of people complained about the rock-paper-scissors but that's the only way to ensure a diverse composition.

[kujirakira]

90% of R2's units are carbon copies of each other.
A spear unit is a spear unit.
A hoplite is a hoplite.
A phalanx is a phalanx.
In fact I hesitate to even separate spears and hoplites; the hoplites have almost identical stats to the spears - they just have the added function of forming a hoplite (at least until they actually enter combat)
There's not a whole lot of actual variety there; just a few tweaked numbers; basically saying "This faction's hoplites are slightly more proficient than another faction's".

Yari Ashi, Yari Samurai, Naginata, Katana, No-Dachi, etc. were all distinct units that had specific advantages and disadvantages. Right there, from the onset, are 5 very different infantry melee units. Yes, everyone has them - but there is already a stronger base of variety. Same with Cav and ranged.
The monk units brought additional tactical decisions into the mix as well. Add in the Ikko Ikki pack and there's a whole slew of variety added with Loan Swords and Ronin.
As Sparta I can recruit hoplites, phalanxes, slingers, bows, spear cav, and javelin cav. That's it. It's pretty lame compared to S2 or R1. As Seleucids in R1, the Levy Pikes and Phalanx Pikes and Silver Shields were all major upgrades -- for most of the game my core was Levies interspersed with Phalanx and Thracian or Barnastae mercenaries on the ends. Companion Cav and Cataphracts were similar but used entirely different. There was also Greek Cav, Scythed Chariots, Militia Cav (javelins), and the Elephant chain. In the endgame there were also Silver Legions. That variety is a lot more both in quantity and quality than is present in R2. The army composition reflected each player's playstyle. There's not a lot of choice currently... of course it doesn't really matter since the actual battles are just a moshpit anyway, but... damn.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Yeah, I am not sure what the complaint here is.

Are you saying it's bad that Parthia does not have infantry on par with Rome?

[Tullaris]

The unit variety in Shogun 2 is indeed better. In Shogun 2, every unit has a different tactical role and application. There is a significant different in the way you would use No-Dachi or Katana Samurai. You can not only go for Katana Samurai, you need a Yari or Naginata core and in every army always has an ashigaru component, or else the costs get too high.

In Rome II you could just build an army of only praetorians and win every battle with ease. Also the cost would not matter terrible.

[Sir_Pee_Alot]

Patch 9 notes.
Tweaks to some Hellenic unit looks to make them more distinct.

[TheLastRonin]

The OP is completely 100% right. Maybe some people should stop drinking the kool-aid long enough to go back and play some Shogun 2. Shogun 2 had epic variety. Navy battles, siege battles, open-field battles all felt supremely different to each other. You had viable melee units, ranged units and artillery units all working in tandem...

Everyone in RTW2 feels the same... Smash everything together in a blob... Achieve victory... No tactics... No skill... No excitement.

[daelin4]

I'd say the relationship between unit variety is bland compared to the relationship between the varieties found in Shougn2.

What I mean is the difference between samurai and ashigaru in Shogun2 were pretty big differences. One is clearly better, sometimes by a large degree, while the other is cheaper and more easily accessible. Obviously you can made do by having more of the latter to compensate, but one-on-one, samurai will overpower the ashigaru variant, if not for better stats but for having a few abilities as well.
In Rome2 however there are tons of units but the differences between them seem very negligible and hard to appreciate. Besides small things like hoplite phalanx (now renamed as hoplite wall after the latest patches), there is really no difference between hoplite units and very other spear infantry unit in the game. Even the ability doesn't really set them apart. Whenever I play against hoplite units, the feel I get in battle mode isn't "this is not the same as fighting those barbarian spearmen, so think fast", but rather "there IS no difference between fighting hoplites and barbarian spearmen, so doe the same thing as before".

Legionaries and Thorax Swordsmen, Hastati, etc. are all similar in function as well. Yes RTW had the same thing, but it there were far less legionary-based units, not to mention the Romans were the only units in that game that could throw Pilae, notwithstanding the Armenian, Numidian and Seleucid clones, so even then the variety was not as bland.

So I'd say the blandness is the same, only that in Shogun2, the blandness comes from having too few units, whereas in Rome2 it's from having too many. Having played a bit more of Rome2 my experience with going through Rome's unit roster didn't feel very diverse: the only reason why I would choose the better version of legionaries is that their stats are improved, not because they are such a different unit that your game progress will change in a pivotal manner. At least in Shogun2, Yari Samurai boasted better overall stats AND the Rapid Advance ability, something Yari Ashigaru can never have; as small as it was, the former still commanded a niche.

[DeliCiousTZM]

I'd say the relationship between unit variety is bland compared to the relationship between the varieties found in Shougn2.

What I mean is the difference between samurai and ashigaru in Shogun2 were pretty big differences. One is clearly better, sometimes by a large degree, while the other is cheaper and more easily accessible. Obviously you can made do by having more of the latter to compensate, but one-on-one, samurai will overpower the ashigaru variant, if not for better stats but for having a few abilities as well.
In Rome2 however there are tons of units but the differences between them seem very negligible and hard to appreciate. Besides small things like hoplite phalanx (now renamed as hoplite wall after the latest patches), there is really no difference between hoplite units and very other spear infantry unit in the game. Even the ability doesn't really set them apart. Legionaries and Thorax Swordsmen, Hastati, etc. are all similar in function as well. Yes RTW had the same thing, but it there were far less legionary-based units, not to mention the Romans were the only units in that game that could throw Pilae, notwithstanding the Armenian, Numidian and Seleucid clones, so even then the variety was not as bland.

So I'd say the blandness is the same, only that in Shogun2, the blandness comes from having too few units, whereas in Rome2 it's from having too many. Having played a bit more of Rome2 my experience with going through Rome's unit roster didn't feel very diverse: the only reason why I would choose the better version of legionaries is that their stats are improved, not because they are such a different unit that your game progress will change in a pivotal manner. At least in Shogun2, Yari Samurai boasted better overall stats AND the Rapid Advance ability, something Yari Ashigaru can never have; as small as it was, the former still commanded a niche.

Rome's unit rooster is very diverse, you just need to use auxiliaries.

On the subject of Yari ashigaru. You used them because they were so cheap. One of Shogun2 great designs where that having a big army was expensive(On Legendary) and Yari/Bow ashigaru gave you the most out of your buck.

[veverčák]

The problem is most of ancient warfare was based upon heavy infantry vs heavy infantry at least during Rome 2 time frame and region around Mediterranean. Hoplites were beaten by phalanx which was designed to hold hoplite battle line in distance by using longer pikes. Same trick was then used in successor kingdoms (Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleukid Empire mostly) to get your phalanx advantage of length by making even longer pikes. Phalanx formation was outdated by Roman legionnaires, which was mixture of Gallic/Hispanic/Greek influence upon forming Romans military at their beginning. The most revolutionary on them was concept of formation of heavy infantry which can also maneuver. Oh, and they changed spears/pikes for swords as main weapon. And that is. Most of your army would be made by heavy infantry composed from professional soldiers fighting almost same force except maybe their first weapon. It is sad but accurate.

[PointOfViewGun]

Is it not a contradiction to talk about variety in Shogun II and then point out how every faction had access to same units?

The variety in Rome II and Shogun II can't even be compared. Rome II trumps in every sense.

[DeliCiousTZM]

Is it not a contradiction to talk about variety in Shogun II and then point out how every faction had access to same units?

The variety in Rome II and Shogun II can't even be compared. Rome II trumps in every sense.

Well put. How you feel about the game is subjective, i for one feel that there is great diversity and that there is a difference in roster,technologies cultures etc.

Out of all criticism of Rome II this is one the hater list of the worst and least valid criticism of Rome II.

[karamazovmm]

Is it not a contradiction to talk about variety in Shogun II and then point out how every faction had access to same units?

The variety in Rome II and Shogun II can't even be compared. Rome II trumps in every sense.

He wants rock, paper and scissor.

That's it.

This isnt a thread about unit variety.

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Deleted post.